# Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)

• 3822 Replies
• 293728 Views
?

#### inquisitive

• 5107
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3030 on: January 09, 2019, 12:58:31 AM »

In this video the more dense  object sinks

The cans are the same size, both fully submersed, displacing the same amount of water...  How does this work with den pressure ?
It's about the volume inside each can.
It's fine filling the cans with 12 fluid oz but it's the porosity of each liquid which determines whether it is squeezed down or squeezed up.
Whichever can resists that crushing force, it will float due to its liquid porosity being much harder to compress through the can wall.. Whichever can has the most porosity in the liquid, that can is able to be compressed much easier and crushed down.

Quote from: JCM
Also, you ignored the experiments of weighing items in a near vacuum.

That video displays interesting characteristics of mass and density and weight in a near vacuum.  Why would the packing peanuts increase in weight inside a vacuum?
The scale calibration goes off.
Never mind what units.
Porosity is the amount of atmosphere a structure absorbs into its mass.
Units are important to explain things.

See http://www.npl.co.uk/si-units/redefining-the-si-units/

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28338
##### Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3031 on: January 09, 2019, 04:18:22 AM »
Weight measurement is pressure upon dense mass by displacement of atmosphere.
Again, pure BS. All the evidence shows the only way pressure comes into weight is through the buoant force.

Displacing a fluid makes things weigh less, not more.

Isn't this the crux of the denpressure biscuit right here (see bolded). I think this is what everyone has been repeatedly asking: Why is the displaced atmosphere only pressuring 'down'?
Because the object always has a foundation when it shows weight.

#### Slemon

• Flat Earth Researcher
• 11690
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3032 on: January 09, 2019, 04:29:56 AM »
Never mind what units.
Porosity is the amount of atmosphere a structure absorbs into its mass.
Units are important to explain things.

See http://www.npl.co.uk/si-units/redefining-the-si-units/
Porosity is also dimensionless, so no units. It's a ratio of volumes. If you are going to try and get in the way of a discussion with your usual inane questions, at least try to know the basics.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28338
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3033 on: January 09, 2019, 04:30:44 AM »
Quote
The object has to be raised to allow it to be hung by a string. It takes energy to raise it. It still displaces its own dense mass of atmosphere. It's still compressing that atmosphere by it's own dense mass.

The string is not on a sky hook, it has to be attached to something that can hold the string and that object holding that string must have a foundation.

Hi Sceptimatic,

I can follow that the object had to get on this string somehow, this makes sense.   I can follow that energy went into the system to get it there.  I also can follow that in your concept, it is still compressing the atmosphere by its own dense mass after it is hanging there, and this should generate a pressure on the object.  I can follow that this string is attached to a foundation somewhere.

However, I cant seem to figure out how the above statements logically lead to a downward force on the string.  Why does the pressure on the object from displaced fluid result in a net directional force in your conceptual model?
The force would be all around the object's dense mass. But the atmosphere above is much stronger than the atmosphere below.

Did you not read what I said to Jackblack about the water in the sink?

Quote from: sobchak
I dont have to belabor the point and continue to repeat the question if you don't have a clear step by step explanation, so if you would prefer I will just back out of the discussion.  Its your conceptual model and you are of course welcome to it in whatever form it is in.  I'm just trying to understand your idea as well as I can with the information provided.
I don't mind repeating anything or giving different analogies or whatever if I believe a person to be genuinely trying to understand it.

If you're genuine then put some real effort in and stop piggy backing the usual suspects.

?

#### sobchak

• 449
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3034 on: January 09, 2019, 05:10:14 AM »
Quote
The force would be all around the object's dense mass. But the atmosphere above is much stronger than the atmosphere below.

So the atmosphere is more dense above a suspended object than below it, and the compression of this denser atmosphere above it gives a greater pressure on the object than the less dense atmosphere below it, and there is a net force downward?

Quote
I don't mind repeating anything or giving different analogies or whatever if I believe a person to be genuinely trying to understand it.

If you're genuine then put some real effort in and stop piggy backing the usual suspects.

If you don't think I am actively trying to understand you but am instead just piggy backing off others in an annoying way, feel free to ignore me -  it is really no problem for me and I can see you have a number of people clamoring for your online attention.

?

#### Teslaite

• 46
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3035 on: January 09, 2019, 05:26:22 AM »
May I suggest a correction; 'an object will displace is own volume of atmosphere, or water.'
Nope. An object will not displace it's own volume of atmosphere or water.
The volume would be classed as porosity on top of the actual porosity in the actual structure itself, no matter how tiny.
The fact that there is volume is exactly why every object can be measured against atmospheric resistance by its own dense mass (structure) and read differently in weight for something of (by eye) equal looking size.

I have on the bench in front of me a steel block. It measures 59x30x30mm and has a mass of 417g.  If I put it into a jug full of water will it displace 53.1ml (53.1g) or 417g (471ml) of water?

How can I determine the 'dense mass' of the block?

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28338
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3036 on: January 09, 2019, 05:44:40 AM »
Quote
The force would be all around the object's dense mass. But the atmosphere above is much stronger than the atmosphere below.

So the atmosphere is more dense above a suspended object than below it, and the compression of this denser atmosphere above it gives a greater pressure on the object than the less dense atmosphere below it, and there is a net force downward?

Yes due to atmospheric molecular stacking from ground and ocean to the top of the dome.
Place any object into that and you hit resistance to that object immediately.
You push up a mass that is dense enough to displace the atmosphere you pushed it into and that displacement of atmosphere pushes and crushes right back. Action and equal and opposite reaction.

If you have a sealed dome of air on a flat table but you could push a lead block through the table via an air tight seal, then you can understand how that lead block adds to the compression of the air inside that dome, right?

That lead block has displaced the air where it sits on that table and that table is its foundation.
It's now added it's own dense mass of pressure onto itself, including the already stacked air above, with only a foundation to resist that crush/compression/push, which it does easily.

You could never apply the word " weight" to that lead block because there's no way to measure the push against it and the resistance of the lead block against that push, unless you make another foundation that can also be compressed to create some kind of reading that can also use the ground as it's foundation.
Enter the compressible scale plate.
Now we can measure weight.

What if we use water as our foundation against the atmosphere and lead block displacement of that atmosphere?
The atmosphere compresses against the block and the block resists... but to resist it has to have a solid foundation. It does not and so it is pushed and compressed against weaker resistance of foundation.
How do you scale measure this?

You measure the overspill of water into a container. Tare the container and measure the compression of that water on  a solid foundation using the scale plate for that solid foundation. You now know the atmospheric compression on that water, pushed out by the lead block. And there's your weight measurement.

There's other ways to do it and there's other means to accurately measure, like barometers and what not, not to mention the use of centrifugal/petal (depending on how people want to look at it) force to  actually de-gas fluids and such.

It's just a case of understanding that it's all to do with denpressure and nothing to do with a massive dupe called gravity.

« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 05:50:46 AM by sceptimatic »

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28338
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3037 on: January 09, 2019, 05:45:53 AM »
May I suggest a correction; 'an object will displace is own volume of atmosphere, or water.'
Nope. An object will not displace it's own volume of atmosphere or water.
The volume would be classed as porosity on top of the actual porosity in the actual structure itself, no matter how tiny.
The fact that there is volume is exactly why every object can be measured against atmospheric resistance by its own dense mass (structure) and read differently in weight for something of (by eye) equal looking size.

I have on the bench in front of me a steel block. It measures 59x30x30mm and has a mass of 417g.  If I put it into a jug full of water will it displace 53.1ml (53.1g) or 417g (471ml) of water?

How can I determine the 'dense mass' of the block?
You can't. Not accurately.

?

#### Teslaite

• 46
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3038 on: January 09, 2019, 06:15:36 AM »
So 53.1ml or 417g of water displaced?

?

#### sobchak

• 449
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3039 on: January 09, 2019, 06:21:57 AM »

Quote
Yes due to atmospheric molecular stacking from ground and ocean to the top of the dome.
Place any object into that and you hit resistance to that object immediately.
You push up a mass that is dense enough to displace the atmosphere you pushed it into and that displacement of atmosphere pushes and crushes right back. Action and equal and opposite reaction.

Hi Sceptimatic,

Okay, Im trying to get there.  I can see how a pressure differential between the top and the bottom of the suspended object would cause a net downward force, and I can see how having a more dense compressed atmosphere above it than below it would achieve this.  Im still struggling though to understand logically how: 1) this density distribution is created around an object, I am not clear if this it an innate feature of objects in your concept, or is it created by vertical movement?  and 2) Why the force only acts vertically?   If it is caused by molecular stacking from a curved dome, wouldn't it be more radially distributed? (as in, if you were directly beneath the top of the dome  the stacking would be vertical, but as you move towards the side it gradually angles until it would eventually be horizontal).

« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 06:45:15 AM by sobchak »

#### sokarul

• 18824
• Extra Racist
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3040 on: January 09, 2019, 08:32:14 AM »
May I suggest a correction; 'an object will displace is own volume of atmosphere, or water.'
Nope. An object will not displace it's own volume of atmosphere or water.
The volume would be classed as porosity on top of the actual porosity in the actual structure itself, no matter how tiny.
The fact that there is volume is exactly why every object can be measured against atmospheric resistance by its own dense mass (structure) and read differently in weight for something of (by eye) equal looking size.

I have on the bench in front of me a steel block. It measures 59x30x30mm and has a mass of 417g.  If I put it into a jug full of water will it displace 53.1ml (53.1g) or 417g (471ml) of water?

How can I determine the 'dense mass' of the block?
You can't. Not accurately.
So denpressure is worthless?

Guess I will stick to reality.

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28338
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3041 on: January 09, 2019, 09:07:04 AM »

Quote
Yes due to atmospheric molecular stacking from ground and ocean to the top of the dome.
Place any object into that and you hit resistance to that object immediately.
You push up a mass that is dense enough to displace the atmosphere you pushed it into and that displacement of atmosphere pushes and crushes right back. Action and equal and opposite reaction.

Hi Sceptimatic,

Okay, Im trying to get there.  I can see how a pressure differential between the top and the bottom of the suspended object would cause a net downward force, and I can see how having a more dense compressed atmosphere above it than below it would achieve this.  Im still struggling though to understand logically how: 1) this density distribution is created around an object, I am not clear if this it an innate feature of objects in your concept, or is it created by vertical movement?  and 2) Why the force only acts vertically?   If it is caused by molecular stacking from a curved dome, wouldn't it be more radially distributed? (as in, if you were directly beneath the top of the dome  the stacking would be vertical, but as you move towards the side it gradually angles until it would eventually be horizontal).
You can't be directly beneath the top of the dome and we don;t need to go down that route yet. That's way beyond what we're talking about in terms of getting the basics to be understood.

By all means keep fishing for answers and applying all kinds of thought. I'll answer the relevant stuff.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28338
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3042 on: January 09, 2019, 09:08:19 AM »
May I suggest a correction; 'an object will displace is own volume of atmosphere, or water.'
Nope. An object will not displace it's own volume of atmosphere or water.
The volume would be classed as porosity on top of the actual porosity in the actual structure itself, no matter how tiny.
The fact that there is volume is exactly why every object can be measured against atmospheric resistance by its own dense mass (structure) and read differently in weight for something of (by eye) equal looking size.

I have on the bench in front of me a steel block. It measures 59x30x30mm and has a mass of 417g.  If I put it into a jug full of water will it displace 53.1ml (53.1g) or 417g (471ml) of water?

How can I determine the 'dense mass' of the block?
You can't. Not accurately.
So denpressure is worthless?

Guess I will stick to reality.
You don't know what reality is, except what you were schooled to think it is.

#### Stash

• 8613
• I am car!
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3043 on: January 09, 2019, 12:30:02 PM »

Quote
Yes due to atmospheric molecular stacking from ground and ocean to the top of the dome.
Place any object into that and you hit resistance to that object immediately.
You push up a mass that is dense enough to displace the atmosphere you pushed it into and that displacement of atmosphere pushes and crushes right back. Action and equal and opposite reaction.

Hi Sceptimatic,

Okay, Im trying to get there.  I can see how a pressure differential between the top and the bottom of the suspended object would cause a net downward force, and I can see how having a more dense compressed atmosphere above it than below it would achieve this.  Im still struggling though to understand logically how: 1) this density distribution is created around an object, I am not clear if this it an innate feature of objects in your concept, or is it created by vertical movement?  and 2) Why the force only acts vertically?   If it is caused by molecular stacking from a curved dome, wouldn't it be more radially distributed? (as in, if you were directly beneath the top of the dome  the stacking would be vertical, but as you move towards the side it gradually angles until it would eventually be horizontal).
You can't be directly beneath the top of the dome and we don;t need to go down that route yet. That's way beyond what we're talking about in terms of getting the basics to be understood.

By all means keep fishing for answers and applying all kinds of thought. I'll answer the relevant stuff.

I don't think it's a question you can side-step. The dome is a crucial component as to how denpressure works. sobchak didn't mention being directly beneath the top of the dome, as in close proximity to it. If you're anywhere beneath it, to his #2 question, the vector of the force would change based upon your movement from well below the center as you move outward closer to the sides of the dome. Example, at the North Pole the vector of force would be straight up vertical. But say in Santiago, the force would be less vertical and more horizontal.
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

?

#### JackBlack

• 16415
##### Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3044 on: January 09, 2019, 12:45:47 PM »
Because the object always has a foundation when it shows weight.
That doesn't address the question at all. The question is why the air still manages to push down.

But lets go with that.
That means if you are in a blimp or a plane, and thus are not on a foundation, the object won't show weight and instead will float or go up?
But that never happens in reality.

The force would be all around the object's dense mass. But the atmosphere above is much stronger than the atmosphere below.
How is the atmosphere above much stronger?
What are you basing this on?
If this was the case the pressure would increase as you increased altitude, not decrease as it is observed to do.

Did you not read what I said to Jackblack about the water in the sink?
Did you not read how I explained how that doesn't work at all?

I don't mind repeating anything or giving different analogies or whatever if I believe a person to be genuinely trying to understand it.
Well there is your issue. Continuing with repeating the same nonsense or just trying to rely upon analogies which simply don't work.
Try an actual explanation.

So the atmosphere is more dense above a suspended object than below it, and the compression of this denser atmosphere above it gives a greater pressure on the object than the less dense atmosphere below it, and there is a net force downward?
Yes due to atmospheric molecular stacking from ground and ocean to the top of the dome.
No. Completely wrong.
The higher you are, the less dense the atmosphere is, the less pressure it has.
It is quite well known that if you have a mixture of different densities and they separate, the denser substance is on the bottom and the less dense is on the top.

So if we correct this massive error of yours, we instead get an upwards force from the atmosphere. We can also do the math to figure out what this upwards force will be and find out it is just the buoyant force.

If we instead just use your error, we find a mostly insignificant force which always pushes down meaning no object would ever float in the air.

You push up a mass that is dense enough to displace the atmosphere you pushed it into and that displacement of atmosphere pushes and crushes right back. Action and equal and opposite reaction.
No it isn't.
Again, you are standing against a wall and push an object out, the atmosphere doesn't push back.

If you have a sealed dome of air on a flat table but you could push a lead block through the table via an air tight seal, then you can understand how that lead block adds to the compression of the air inside that dome, right?
We can see how moving it around will just move the atmosphere around, not magically compress it more.

You could never apply the word " weight" to that lead block because there's no way to measure
Sure we can. Just because you can't measure its weight doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The atmosphere compresses against the block and the block resists... but to resist it has to have a solid foundation. It does not and so it is pushed and compressed against weaker resistance of foundation.
But it isn't really resisting. Instead it would be the foundation that resists. And water will resist. Water doesn't like getting pushed out of the way, far more so than air, so it will resist movement through it and try to crush objects.
Water clearly can resist quite well, with objects floating on it which would otherwise fall to the ground.
Either all objects should float as water can resist the push of the atmosphere, or none should as the water can't resist the push of the atmosphere, or there should be no movement at all as there is pressure acting all around.

In order to explain only some objects sinking or floating you need to introduce a new force which has nothing to do with the atmosphere.

It's just a case of understanding that it's all to do with denpressure and nothing to do with a massive dupe called gravity.
Except you have been completely unable to explain how it works with denspressure.
Until you can show it is, we aren't going to be accepting that it's all to do with denpressure.

You don't know what reality is, except what you were schooled to think it is.
Not everyone is as ignorant as you.
Plenty of people have done experiments to understand reality, which shows your nonsense to be nonsense.

Now, why do things fall?

Porosity is also dimensionless, so no units. It's a ratio of volumes. If you are going to try and get in the way of a discussion with your usual inane questions, at least try to know the basics.
Porosity can be measured in many ways, depending upon what field you are in.
Yes, one of the simplest is a ratio of volumes, but you can also do surface area to volume, surface area to mass or volume to mass.

But these aren't technically dimensionless. They are quantities of dimension 1, and would have a unit of 1, but in the case of porosity, dimensions of V/V, e.g. l/l would be better.
They are often expressed without a unit being specified, but can still be given a symbol such as ppm, %, B, and so on.
Importantly, you need some statement of what it is in order to determine what you are measuring.
As an example, a quantity of 5% could mean a variety of things, depending upon what the base units were.

This is especially important with his insane rejection of reality where porosity could be mass per mass, or mass per volume based upon how much air gets into it.

So asking him what units sure seems perfectly reasonable.

If you want to try getting in the way of discussion with your usual pedantic BS, try not to make a fool of yourself.

?

#### sobchak

• 449
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3045 on: January 09, 2019, 01:49:54 PM »
Quote
You can't be directly beneath the top of the dome and we don;t need to go down that route yet. That's way beyond what we're talking about in terms of getting the basics to be understood.

Okay, if you don't want to get into that, I understand.  It's okay if you haven't thought everything though yet as well, its a large conceptual framework you are trying to piece together, so take whatever time you need.  Ive just noted it as a place where I can not use logic to get to.

Where I am then is that using your model, a suspended object has a high density, compressed region of atmosphere above it, and a lower pressure, less compressed region below it, right?  This is what causes the downward force if I am following your argument correctly.  If I have this correct, what about the first part of my last question, in whether this density distribution is an innate property of suspended objects, or if it is created by movement?

#### sokarul

• 18824
• Extra Racist
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3046 on: January 09, 2019, 02:22:57 PM »
May I suggest a correction; 'an object will displace is own volume of atmosphere, or water.'
Nope. An object will not displace it's own volume of atmosphere or water.
The volume would be classed as porosity on top of the actual porosity in the actual structure itself, no matter how tiny.
The fact that there is volume is exactly why every object can be measured against atmospheric resistance by its own dense mass (structure) and read differently in weight for something of (by eye) equal looking size.

I have on the bench in front of me a steel block. It measures 59x30x30mm and has a mass of 417g.  If I put it into a jug full of water will it displace 53.1ml (53.1g) or 417g (471ml) of water?

How can I determine the 'dense mass' of the block?
You can't. Not accurately.
So denpressure is worthless?

Guess I will stick to reality.
You don't know what reality is, except what you were schooled to think it is.
Well you can't answer his simple question. Seems to me you have the problems.

Did you need any more info about vacuum pumps? You ran away when I told you how they worked.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

#### inquisitive

• 5107
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3047 on: January 09, 2019, 03:03:08 PM »
Never mind what units.
Porosity is the amount of atmosphere a structure absorbs into its mass.
Units are important to explain things.

See http://www.npl.co.uk/si-units/redefining-the-si-units/
Porosity is also dimensionless, so no units. It's a ratio of volumes. If you are going to try and get in the way of a discussion with your usual inane questions, at least try to know the basics.
OK, a ratio. Typical values please

?

#### MouseWalker

• 853
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3048 on: January 09, 2019, 05:30:27 PM »
OK, we use a balance scale, like the scale of justice.
We have a cubic centimeter of gold.
We have a cubic centimeter of steel.
The cubes displace the same amount of atmosphere. Yes, no?
No.

we disagree here.

Quote
Quote from: MouseWalker
Placing the gold on the right side.
Placing the steel on the left side.
What will happen?
The scale will tilt to the right side.
Yep.

Quote from: MouseWalker
test the cube your have a beaker filled to the brim, carefully place, the cube in water and measure its displacement.
Do this for both cubes and you will see the water displaced is the same.
Initially yes.
Structure of both cubes is the key and how they compress to actually be squeezed of their trapped atmosphere.

The depth at which both blocks would descend to would be the key to having their structures compressed enough to release their trapped atmosphere.

Quote from: MouseWalker
They displace the same amount of water, why is the wight different?
Only in shallow water do they displace what is believed to be the same amount.
In actual reality the gold would displace more but it would be almost undetectable in a shallow container.
The structure that makes up gold is far denser due to less trapped atmosphere, than the steel block which has much more trapped atmosphere inside much larger structural make up.

To give you an idea and as an analogy on a large scale. Imagine those blocks as buildings and we are merely micro bedbug size.
Looking at the gold and steel block from that vantage point you would see the gold as having tiny openings, let's say head height and body width.
In the steel one it would be like walking into a church. Much larger than height openings and much wider.

At this moment in time it's the best analogy I can think of.
That does not work for me.

When the cubes are placed in water, there are no air bubbles released from them.
Their is no trapped atmosphere in the cubes.
So  the depth of water doesn't have anything to do with it.
Another question comes to mind,
If it is the denpressure above an object, what gives it forced down,
and I were to increase the surface area on top, will it have more force down due to the larger surface area?
If not why not?
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

#### Slemon

• Flat Earth Researcher
• 11690
##### Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3049 on: January 09, 2019, 06:44:38 PM »
Porosity is also dimensionless, so no units. It's a ratio of volumes. If you are going to try and get in the way of a discussion with your usual inane questions, at least try to know the basics.
Porosity can be measured in many ways, depending upon what field you are in.
Yes, one of the simplest is a ratio of volumes, but you can also do surface area to volume, surface area to mass or volume to mass.

But these aren't technically dimensionless. They are quantities of dimension 1, and would have a unit of 1, but in the case of porosity, dimensions of V/V, e.g. l/l would be better.
They are often expressed without a unit being specified, but can still be given a symbol such as ppm, %, B, and so on.
Importantly, you need some statement of what it is in order to determine what you are measuring.
As an example, a quantity of 5% could mean a variety of things, depending upon what the base units were.

This is especially important with his insane rejection of reality where porosity could be mass per mass, or mass per volume based upon how much air gets into it.

So asking him what units sure seems perfectly reasonable.

If you want to try getting in the way of discussion with your usual pedantic BS, try not to make a fool of yourself.
You're calling me pedantic after that? Wow.
Use standard units for volume, which is what any sane person would do, and the ratio will always be the same for equally porous objects. This isn't complicated. If you're taking surface area to volume, you're not taking porosity; Scepti's been pretty clear about what definitions he's working with, porosity measure the amount of stuff in an object, highly porous means lots of gaps etc. Volumes.
And yes, it is dimensionless, that's what the word means. Look up basic dimensional analysis; yes, you end up with '1' that's because no dimension is left over.

Seriously. Stop arguing with nothing. It's not a good look for anyone, and you least of all with how much of a rant you direct at it.

#### sokarul

• 18824
• Extra Racist
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3050 on: January 09, 2019, 07:46:28 PM »
Edit: question removed because I don't care.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 07:52:50 PM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28338
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3051 on: January 09, 2019, 11:06:14 PM »

Quote
Yes due to atmospheric molecular stacking from ground and ocean to the top of the dome.
Place any object into that and you hit resistance to that object immediately.
You push up a mass that is dense enough to displace the atmosphere you pushed it into and that displacement of atmosphere pushes and crushes right back. Action and equal and opposite reaction.

Hi Sceptimatic,

Okay, Im trying to get there.  I can see how a pressure differential between the top and the bottom of the suspended object would cause a net downward force, and I can see how having a more dense compressed atmosphere above it than below it would achieve this.  Im still struggling though to understand logically how: 1) this density distribution is created around an object, I am not clear if this it an innate feature of objects in your concept, or is it created by vertical movement?  and 2) Why the force only acts vertically?   If it is caused by molecular stacking from a curved dome, wouldn't it be more radially distributed? (as in, if you were directly beneath the top of the dome  the stacking would be vertical, but as you move towards the side it gradually angles until it would eventually be horizontal).
You can't be directly beneath the top of the dome and we don;t need to go down that route yet. That's way beyond what we're talking about in terms of getting the basics to be understood.

By all means keep fishing for answers and applying all kinds of thought. I'll answer the relevant stuff.

I don't think it's a question you can side-step. The dome is a crucial component as to how denpressure works. sobchak didn't mention being directly beneath the top of the dome, as in close proximity to it. If you're anywhere beneath it, to his #2 question, the vector of the force would change based upon your movement from well below the center as you move outward closer to the sides of the dome. Example, at the North Pole the vector of force would be straight up vertical. But say in Santiago, the force would be less vertical and more horizontal.
You're looking at Earth as you picture it. As a ball or even looking at it as flat but having a central north pole as if it's just a pile of ice floating on water, kind of thing.

My Earth is nothing like that.
My centre of Earth holds the very thing that keeps us all alive.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 11:16:12 PM by sceptimatic »

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28338
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3052 on: January 09, 2019, 11:15:56 PM »
Quote
You can't be directly beneath the top of the dome and we don;t need to go down that route yet. That's way beyond what we're talking about in terms of getting the basics to be understood.

Okay, if you don't want to get into that, I understand.  It's okay if you haven't thought everything though yet as well, its a large conceptual framework you are trying to piece together, so take whatever time you need.  Ive just noted it as a place where I can not use logic to get to.

Where I am then is that using your model, a suspended object has a high density, compressed region of atmosphere above it, and a lower pressure, less compressed region below it, right?  This is what causes the downward force if I am following your argument correctly.  If I have this correct, what about the first part of my last question, in whether this density distribution is an innate property of suspended objects, or if it is created by movement?
Not sure what you mean about density distribution.
Explain what you actually mean.

#### NotSoSkeptical

• 7116
• Flatness as in the shape of a water droplet.
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3053 on: January 09, 2019, 11:16:06 PM »

Quote
Yes due to atmospheric molecular stacking from ground and ocean to the top of the dome.
Place any object into that and you hit resistance to that object immediately.
You push up a mass that is dense enough to displace the atmosphere you pushed it into and that displacement of atmosphere pushes and crushes right back. Action and equal and opposite reaction.

Hi Sceptimatic,

Okay, Im trying to get there.  I can see how a pressure differential between the top and the bottom of the suspended object would cause a net downward force, and I can see how having a more dense compressed atmosphere above it than below it would achieve this.  Im still struggling though to understand logically how: 1) this density distribution is created around an object, I am not clear if this it an innate feature of objects in your concept, or is it created by vertical movement?  and 2) Why the force only acts vertically?   If it is caused by molecular stacking from a curved dome, wouldn't it be more radially distributed? (as in, if you were directly beneath the top of the dome  the stacking would be vertical, but as you move towards the side it gradually angles until it would eventually be horizontal).
You can't be directly beneath the top of the dome and we don;t need to go down that route yet. That's way beyond what we're talking about in terms of getting the basics to be understood.

By all means keep fishing for answers and applying all kinds of thought. I'll answer the relevant stuff.

I don't think it's a question you can side-step. The dome is a crucial component as to how denpressure works. sobchak didn't mention being directly beneath the top of the dome, as in close proximity to it. If you're anywhere beneath it, to his #2 question, the vector of the force would change based upon your movement from well below the center as you move outward closer to the sides of the dome. Example, at the North Pole the vector of force would be straight up vertical. But say in Santiago, the force would be less vertical and more horizontal.
Yoiu're looking at Earth as you picture it. As a ball or even looking at it as flat but having a central north pole as if it's just a pile of ice floating on water, kind of thing.

My Earth is nothing like that.
My centre of Earth holds the very thing that keeps us all alive.

Who is this "us"?  Because the only one I know that lives in your world is you.  Unless you are talking about Jane.
Rabinoz RIP

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28338
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3054 on: January 09, 2019, 11:18:38 PM »

Well you can't answer his simple question. Seems to me you have the problems.

Did you need any more info about vacuum pumps? You ran away when I told you how they worked.
I'm still waiting for you to explain exactly what is happening with a simple bell jar and simple pump used for evacuation.
I want you to explain how the atmosphere is released from the bell jar and how the pump manages to do it.

It seems you're struggling.

#### Stash

• 8613
• I am car!
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3055 on: January 09, 2019, 11:20:36 PM »

Quote
Yes due to atmospheric molecular stacking from ground and ocean to the top of the dome.
Place any object into that and you hit resistance to that object immediately.
You push up a mass that is dense enough to displace the atmosphere you pushed it into and that displacement of atmosphere pushes and crushes right back. Action and equal and opposite reaction.

Hi Sceptimatic,

Okay, Im trying to get there.  I can see how a pressure differential between the top and the bottom of the suspended object would cause a net downward force, and I can see how having a more dense compressed atmosphere above it than below it would achieve this.  Im still struggling though to understand logically how: 1) this density distribution is created around an object, I am not clear if this it an innate feature of objects in your concept, or is it created by vertical movement?  and 2) Why the force only acts vertically?   If it is caused by molecular stacking from a curved dome, wouldn't it be more radially distributed? (as in, if you were directly beneath the top of the dome  the stacking would be vertical, but as you move towards the side it gradually angles until it would eventually be horizontal).
You can't be directly beneath the top of the dome and we don;t need to go down that route yet. That's way beyond what we're talking about in terms of getting the basics to be understood.

By all means keep fishing for answers and applying all kinds of thought. I'll answer the relevant stuff.

I don't think it's a question you can side-step. The dome is a crucial component as to how denpressure works. sobchak didn't mention being directly beneath the top of the dome, as in close proximity to it. If you're anywhere beneath it, to his #2 question, the vector of the force would change based upon your movement from well below the center as you move outward closer to the sides of the dome. Example, at the North Pole the vector of force would be straight up vertical. But say in Santiago, the force would be less vertical and more horizontal.
Yoiu're looking at Earth as you picture it. As a ball or even looking at it as flat but having a central north pole as if it's just a pile of ice floating on water, kind of thing.

My Earth is nothing like that.
My centre of Earth holds the very thing that keeps us all alive.

Correct, I'm picturing your earth much like the AE North Pole centered flat earth. Total assumption on my part.
What does your earth look like? The dome is absolutely critical to denpressure so if we had some idea of what your world w/ dome looked like, it may answer the vexing question as to why things fall vertically, everywhere.
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

?

#### sobchak

• 449
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3056 on: January 09, 2019, 11:30:13 PM »
Quote
Not sure what you mean about density distribution.
Explain what you actually mean.

As I understand your model, a suspended object has a higher density, higher pressure, compressed region of atmosphere above it, and a lower density, lower pressure, less compressed region below it, right?  This is what causes the net downward force if I am following your argument correctly.  The spatial distribution of density around that object (high above, low below) is what I am referring to.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2019, 02:49:27 AM by sobchak »

#### Stash

• 8613
• I am car!
##### Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3057 on: January 09, 2019, 11:37:10 PM »

Well you can't answer his simple question. Seems to me you have the problems.

Did you need any more info about vacuum pumps? You ran away when I told you how they worked.
I'm still waiting for you to explain exactly what is happening with a simple bell jar and simple pump used for evacuation.
I want you to explain how the atmosphere is released from the bell jar and how the pump manages to do it.

It seems you're struggling.

Like this. It's 1987, you're at a Dead show 'pre-gaming' in the parking lot. You're tripping-his-face-off buddy hands you a balloon filled with nitrous. You inhale it. Evacuating the nitrous from the balloon into your lungs and the balloon is completely deflated. (Post haste, other things occur neurologically, but I digress)

The only difference is that the pump, not my lungs/inhalation, is motorized in the bell jar example. Essentially the bell jar is doing a whip-it.
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

?

#### JackBlack

• 16415
##### Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3058 on: January 10, 2019, 01:58:43 AM »
You're calling me pedantic after that? Wow.
Yes, notice how I only brought it up after you were being pedantic.
Like I said, if you want to try distracting from the argument with pathetic pedantic BS, make sure you get it right.

Use standard units for volume, which is what any sane person would do
We aren't talking about what sane people would do. We are talking about what Scepti would do.
Sane people wouldn't try linking porosity to mass like Scepti does.

and the ratio
He hasn't even indicated it is a ratio.
Instead he links it more directly to volume and mass. For example:
"Porosity is the amount of atmosphere a structure absorbs into its mass."
That indicates it shouldn't even be a ratio.

This isn't complicated.
It is when one decides to reject reality and accepted definitions and conventions and replace them with nonsense.

If you're taking surface area to volume, you're not taking porosity
You are if you are dealing with things like gas absorption into porous substances like MOF and zeolites. It can even very depending upon the gas.

Look up basic dimensional analysis;
Seriously. Stop arguing with nothing. It's not a good look for anyone, and you least of all with how much of a rant you direct at it.
If you don't want me to argue against you there is a very simple solution, stop saying garbage.

?

#### JackBlack

• 16415
##### Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3059 on: January 10, 2019, 02:08:53 AM »
You're looking at Earth as you picture it.
No, they aren't.
They are looking at it as you describe it.
What they are saying doesn't match the RE model at all.

However, it is just another point which does show even your denspressure idea would work better on a globe.

Not sure what you mean about density distribution.
Explain what you actually mean.
It is quite simple:
"a high density, compressed region of atmosphere above it, and a lower pressure, less compressed region below it, right?"
You have a high density above the object and a low density below it.
i.e. the air is more dense above the object than below the object.

"whether this density distribution is an innate property of suspended objects, or if it is created by movement?"
This seems to be asking if it is natural and always there, or if the density gradient is created by the movement.

I'm still waiting for you to explain exactly what is happening with a simple bell jar and simple pump used for evacuation.
i.e. you are still relying upon pathetic distractions rather than actually addressing the issues with your model.
How a pump works has been explained to you. You didn't give a damn.

Now, how about trying to explain why things fall and addressing the multitude of problems you have created for yourself?
You claim the air is denser and at a greater pressure above the object.
This means the object (regardless of what it is) would experience a downwards force.
This means things like helium filled balloons would also fall.

But the real big problem for you is that this directly contradicts what is observed.
Instead of denser and higher pressure air existing higher than less dense and less pressurised air, it exists lower.
Correcting for this mistake just gives us the buoyant force, a force which pushes an object up based upon the pressure gradient in the fluid it is in.
This means all objects should go up, not down.