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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 276968 Views
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3060 on: January 10, 2019, 03:23:17 AM »
You're calling me pedantic after that? Wow.
Yes, notice how I only brought it up after you were being pedantic.
I answered a direct question. If that's being pedantic take it up with Inquisitive.

Quote
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.
Uh, what? Yes it does. The mass in question is always a volume, and amount of atmosphere is a volume. Which is even more apparent if you bothered to pay the slightest bit of attention to what Scepti has said, or for that matter even read the first couple of posts in this thread where pretty much everything relevant to this about porosity was explained.

Seriously. I get it, you just want to argue at anything that dares disagree with you, whether or not that aspect actually has merit, because you don't understand the concept of 'rejected for other reasons.' But just grow up and stop. Nothing has every merited your ridiculous rants, especially when you are incapable of adding any substance and just flat-out get it wrong.

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3061 on: January 10, 2019, 05:18:04 AM »
I answered a direct question.
No, you insulted and attacked.
If you were just answering a direct question you wouldn't have said:
"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."

Uh, what? Yes it does.
No it doesn't.
If it did, it would have clearly indicated a ratio.
The way he is wording it there sure makes it seem like it isn't a ratio and instead is more akin to volume or mass.

In order to pretend that is meant to be a ratio of volume per volume, you would need to pretend that he meant per, even though he didn't say it, and that volume means mass.

Which is even more apparent if you bothered to pay the slightest bit of attention to what Scepti has said
You mean like I repeatedly do?
I know it can be hard to tell when you don't bother paying attention to what I say and instead just attack for the sake of it, but I do actually pay attention to other people. Not everyone here is like you.

even read the first couple of posts in this thread where pretty much everything relevant to this about porosity was explained.
The first mention of porosity in this thread would be here:
So basically porosity = weight?  So what we would expect to see is that anything impermeable must weigh more than anything porous?
Yes, basically.
So are you telling me weight has no units and is a ratio of volumes?

Perhaps instead of just sticking to this thread, we should pay more attention to others, such as where it has been defined by him elsewhere. For example (just the relevant ones):
"mass",.....The amount of material that makes up an object.
"volume",...The amount of porosity in any object.
This sure doesn't seem like he is defining porosity as a volume ratio, nor that he is defining mass as volume.

Like I said, if you want to be pedantic, make sure you get it right.
Don't bother trying to post things from reality in response to a question specifically about Scepti's ideas where reality and normal conventions don't apply.

If you think Scepti has clearly defined what exactly he means by porosity and what units it should have, feel free to link to it.

Seriously. I get it, you just want to argue
Are you capable of responding without insults?

Nothing has every merited your ridiculous rants, especially when you are incapable of adding any substance and just flat-out get it wrong.
Care to stop projecting so much?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3062 on: January 10, 2019, 07:41:54 AM »
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.
It has everything to do with it.
It's all about pressure.

Let me make this simple and apply it to any object you wish to, using pressure at depth.
If you had a balloon filled with air floating on water and you were, say, 100 feet under water holding a strong twine attached to that balloon, then started dragging that balloon slowly under the water, what's going to happen?

You can clearly answer that it will be crushed, right?
But it would still hold the air, only the air will be compressed and the pressure of water will ensure the compression will continue the deeper it goes.

Sooner or later that balloon will be breached. It will release it's compressed air.
Now think of a metal box with a volume of air inside.
Drag that under deeper water and eventually it will be crushed and breached, losing that initial volume of air inside, right?
But that's not all. It still has trapped atmosphere inside its structure and that will also be crushed out if it's dragged further down into more pressure.
You just have to apply thought to it all in a deeper thinking manner.



Quote from: MouseWalker
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?
Denpressure is all about what acts on the entire dense mass, in terms of atmosphere. It's what the dense mass displaces which is the key.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3063 on: January 10, 2019, 07:46:19 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.

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.
"That keeps us all alive" means everyone with my Earth theory.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3064 on: January 10, 2019, 07:47:52 AM »


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.
You're not picturing my Earth because you have no clue about my Earth.

*

Stash

  • 8247
  • I am car!
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3065 on: January 10, 2019, 10:13:45 AM »
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.
You're not picturing my Earth because you have no clue about my Earth.

That is correct. That's why I said mine was an assumption. And that's why I asked "What does your earth look like?". Instead of any sort of an answer you write that I have no clue about you earth. I'm aware of that. That's why I previously wrote, "What does your earth look like?". Get it?

Denpressure only works on a flat earth with a dome. Literally, that's the only way it works. Which means there's a physicality that must be present for it to work. So it would be helpful if you could describe that physicality which might help explain why things fall down.
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

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3066 on: January 10, 2019, 10:59:07 AM »
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.
You're not picturing my Earth because you have no clue about my Earth.

That is correct. That's why I said mine was an assumption. And that's why I asked "What does your earth look like?". Instead of any sort of an answer you write that I have no clue about you earth. I'm aware of that. That's why I previously wrote, "What does your earth look like?". Get it?

Denpressure only works on a flat earth with a dome. Literally, that's the only way it works. Which means there's a physicality that must be present for it to work. So it would be helpful if you could describe that physicality which might help explain why things fall down.
What exactly do you mean by a physicality that must be present for it to work. As in what are you thinking?

*

Stash

  • 8247
  • I am car!
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3067 on: January 10, 2019, 11:13:51 AM »
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.
You're not picturing my Earth because you have no clue about my Earth.

That is correct. That's why I said mine was an assumption. And that's why I asked "What does your earth look like?". Instead of any sort of an answer you write that I have no clue about you earth. I'm aware of that. That's why I previously wrote, "What does your earth look like?". Get it?

Denpressure only works on a flat earth with a dome. Literally, that's the only way it works. Which means there's a physicality that must be present for it to work. So it would be helpful if you could describe that physicality which might help explain why things fall down.
What exactly do you mean by a physicality that must be present for it to work. As in what are you thinking?

A dome, a model of the earth. What does your earth look like?
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

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3068 on: January 10, 2019, 12:42:16 PM »
Let me make this simple and apply it to any object you wish to, using pressure at depth.
If you had a balloon filled with air
Using a balloon filled with air, which will change volume depending upon the ambient pressure to try balance the pressure inside the balloon with that outside, doesn't make it apply to any object.

Also note that the balloon doesn't release the air like you claim the block does.

Sooner or later that balloon will be breached. It will release it's compressed air.
Something tells me you have never tried this and are now just carrying on with wild speculation.

No it won't.
Lowering the outside pressure (such as by going up) will cause the balloon to expand and burst. Increasing the pressure just causes it to collapse. The air remains inside.

Now think of a metal box with a volume of air inside.
But that isn't what we are doing.
That is nothing like the balloon, and nothing like you claim matter is.

Drag that under deeper water and eventually it will be crushed and breached, losing that initial volume of air inside, right?
That will depend upon the exact failure mechanism.
The reason this occurs is because the box is rigid and impermeable. The air can't get out, and water can't get in.
This is completely different to what you claim matter is like, where you claim it is porous and that the air can get into it.
This means the air remains at a constant pressure, while the pressure of the water increases, until that pressure differential becomes too much for the container to handle.
This will result in the container being crushed. This might crush in a way where the surface remains intact (i.e. joined together) and thus the air remains inside, or it may break the surface and allow at least some air to escape.

But again, this is nothing like what we are talking about.
Instead of a closed metal box, have a metal tube.
Now as you take it down, the air is displaced by the water, right at the start. There is no noticeable crush and no release of atmosphere.
We can even try it with a piece of metal with a bunch of holes.
Again, the air is displaced and there is no magical crushing.

But that's not all. It still has trapped atmosphere inside its structure and that will also be crushed out if it's dragged further down into more pressure.
You just have to apply thought to it all in a deeper thinking manner.

"That keeps us all alive" means everyone with my Earth theory.
Your fantasy has nothing to do with keeping me alive.

Now, can you explain why things fall, or address your massive problem where you rely upon a non-existent inverse pressure gradient to "explain" the downwards push, which if your massive mistake is corrected for just results in the well known buoyant force?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3069 on: January 10, 2019, 04:46:39 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?
It looks like got ran over, can  you answer my question.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

N30

  • 590
  • I can only show you the door.
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3070 on: January 10, 2019, 07:49:24 PM »
You're not helping yourself.
And you're not helping anyone. Instead you just keep trying to dodge.

Again, WHY DO THINGS FALL?

Not because of indemonstrable mass to mass gravitation, that's for sure!

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3071 on: January 10, 2019, 09:39:01 PM »
Not because of indemonstrable mass to mass gravitation, that's for sure!
As I have told Scepti, this is a thread to discuss denpressure and how things allegedly fall due to the atmosphere.
If you wish to discuss gravity, a very real phenomenon, which unlike denpressure is actually backed up by loads of evidence and makes sense, then do so elsewhere.

So can you try to explain why things fall due to being in the atmosphere?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3072 on: January 11, 2019, 08:05:56 AM »
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.
You're not picturing my Earth because you have no clue about my Earth.

That is correct. That's why I said mine was an assumption. And that's why I asked "What does your earth look like?". Instead of any sort of an answer you write that I have no clue about you earth. I'm aware of that. That's why I previously wrote, "What does your earth look like?". Get it?

Denpressure only works on a flat earth with a dome. Literally, that's the only way it works. Which means there's a physicality that must be present for it to work. So it would be helpful if you could describe that physicality which might help explain why things fall down.
What exactly do you mean by a physicality that must be present for it to work. As in what are you thinking?

A dome, a model of the earth. What does your earth look like?
I'll go into that in another topic. In this one you are trying to understand denpressure whilst trying to reject all explanations. A bit like Jackblack.

Don't sway off course of you'll end up back to square one.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3073 on: January 11, 2019, 08:22:09 AM »
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?
It looks like got ran over, can  you answer my question.
I thought I already answered all of your questions.
Which one don't you think I answered?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3074 on: January 11, 2019, 08:24:38 AM »
Not because of indemonstrable mass to mass gravitation, that's for sure!
As I have told Scepti, this is a thread to discuss denpressure and how things allegedly fall due to the atmosphere.
If you wish to discuss gravity, a very real phenomenon, which unlike denpressure is actually backed up by loads of evidence and makes sense, then do so elsewhere.

So can you try to explain why things fall due to being in the atmosphere?
It's been explained. You don't accept it. There's little else to do. It doesn't matter what is said, gravity wins your day regardless of you saying we are not talking about gravity.
The very fact you're asking why things fall is the very reason of using gravity to simply keep refusing to accept the answer for denpressure.

Feel free to do that but don't be surprised when I bypass your posts.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3075 on: January 11, 2019, 08:51:22 AM »
I have read this thread pretty much all the way through (all 103 pages of it) and I can honestly say that I cannot see a detailed explanation of why objects are pushed down.
Maybe a few simple diagrams would help to get your point across more clearly. As it stands, I can't see why objects are pushed to a foundation, rather than simply being crushed in all directions equally.
You have stated many times that people aren't getting the basics, so please try to explain these basics in a way that we can all understand.
“Once, every village had an idiot. It took the internet to bring them all together.”

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3076 on: January 11, 2019, 09:16:15 AM »
I have read this thread pretty much all the way through (all 103 pages of it) and I can honestly say that I cannot see a detailed explanation of why objects are pushed down.
Maybe a few simple diagrams would help to get your point across more clearly. As it stands, I can't see why objects are pushed to a foundation, rather than simply being crushed in all directions equally.
You have stated many times that people aren't getting the basics, so please try to explain these basics in a way that we can all understand.
I've more than explained it perfectly well.
If you can't grasp it then try and think of something that either scuppers it or gives you an idea of its validity.

I think the attempt to scupper it might suit you best.
Try it.
Try and stump denpressure where I cannot answer.





Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3077 on: January 11, 2019, 09:39:09 AM »
<snip>

Sooner or later that balloon will be breached. It will release it's compressed air.
<snip>
I understand the point you’re trying to make but this untrue.  Once underwater the pressure begins to decrease the size of the balloon.  If you stop at any given depth the balloon will stop decreasing in size.  IOW, the pressure across the wall of the balloon is always equal to the pressure at any given depth.  It should not break.

Mike
Since it costs 1.82˘ to produce a penny, putting in your 2˘ if really worth 3.64˘.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3078 on: January 11, 2019, 09:47:35 AM »
<snip>

Sooner or later that balloon will be breached. It will release it's compressed air.
<snip>
I understand the point you’re trying to make but this untrue.  Once underwater the pressure begins to decrease the size of the balloon.  If you stop at any given depth the balloon will stop decreasing in size.  IOW, the pressure across the wall of the balloon is always equal to the pressure at any given depth.  It should not break.

Mike
Sooner or later at depth it would be breached. It would break. It would break because the skin of that balloon would be crushed against the super compressed atmosphere trapped inside. It would basically friction shatter the skin.

However, how am I going to prove that?


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3079 on: January 11, 2019, 09:48:00 AM »
I have read this thread pretty much all the way through (all 103 pages of it) and I can honestly say that I cannot see a detailed explanation of why objects are pushed down.
Maybe a few simple diagrams would help to get your point across more clearly. As it stands, I can't see why objects are pushed to a foundation, rather than simply being crushed in all directions equally.
You have stated many times that people aren't getting the basics, so please try to explain these basics in a way that we can all understand.

Here is my understanding of why things fall down in his model.

His model contains a dome that covers the foundation of the world and that contains the atmosphere.  Due to pressure against from the dome, the atmosphere 'stacks' in a single direction, lets call that 'up'.  Im not sure why a hemispheric inward pressure would create stacking in a single unified direction, and Im not even sure what the direction up is in relation to the dome, (I'm thinking it is the normal direction to the plane tangent to the apex of the dome, but it could be anything I guess), but regardless, this is what is proposed.  The result of this directional stacking is that if an object is raised into the atmosphere creates a region of compressed, denser, higher pressure atmosphere above it ('up'), and a region of less compressed, less dense, lower pressure directly beneath it ('down', the opposite of up).  This density distribution, which is either simply a fundamental property of the spatial configuration of a dense mass in the atmosphere, or a result of upward movement into the stacked atmosphere (I'm not sure, he never answered this one), produces a net downward force on the object such that if it is released freely, it will be pushed down by the pressure gradient across it. 


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3080 on: January 11, 2019, 10:03:45 AM »
I have read this thread pretty much all the way through (all 103 pages of it) and I can honestly say that I cannot see a detailed explanation of why objects are pushed down.
Maybe a few simple diagrams would help to get your point across more clearly. As it stands, I can't see why objects are pushed to a foundation, rather than simply being crushed in all directions equally.
You have stated many times that people aren't getting the basics, so please try to explain these basics in a way that we can all understand.

Here is my understanding of why things fall down in his model.

His model contains a dome that covers the foundation of the world and that contains the atmosphere.  Due to pressure against from the dome, the atmosphere 'stacks' in a single direction, lets call that 'up'.  Im not sure why a hemispheric inward pressure would create stacking in a single unified direction, and Im not even sure what the direction up is in relation to the dome, (I'm thinking it is the normal direction to the plane tangent to the apex of the dome, but it could be anything I guess), but regardless, this is what is proposed.  The result of this directional stacking is that if an object is raised into the atmosphere creates a region of compressed, denser, higher pressure atmosphere above it ('up'), and a region of less compressed, less dense, lower pressure directly beneath it ('down', the opposite of up).  This density distribution, which is either simply a fundamental property of the spatial configuration of a dense mass in the atmosphere, or a result of upward movement into the stacked atmosphere (I'm not sure, he never answered this one), produces a net downward force on the object such that if it is released freely, it will be pushed down by the pressure gradient across it.
Wrong.


The dome is natural. It becomes a dome directly because of the atmospheric stack.
The atmosphere does not pressurise inside the dome as if the dome was always there.

Also the pressure is not higher above, it's less by count of molecules due to each stacking being more expanded than the molecules below which compress against it.

The reason why the dome is formed is because of the lesser pressure above each stack until there is no more ability for the higher molecules to create enough friction to resist from above. This is where they freeze. They (for the sake of it) helium freeze.
The dome is created from that stack. It becomes the Earth skin.

How do I know this?
I don't know it. I am confident it's something close to it. I'm confident because experiments we can do can closely show the potential of it.

I don't need to explain my Earth as of yet..especially in this topic.
To find it out people need to grab the absolute basics of how it works, starting with knowing how denpressure works.




Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3081 on: January 11, 2019, 10:17:24 AM »
Quote
Wrong.


Okay, trying again, just using what you have told me and logic, which you say should be sufficient to understand the basics.  Its your model, I don't know it, I'm just trying to piece it together as best as I can.  If you were not so confrontational, it might help.

Here is my understanding of why things fall 'down' in his model -

The atmosphere 'stacks' in a single direction, lets call that 'up'.  The result of this directional stacking is that if an object is raised into the atmosphere it creates a region of compressed, denser, higher pressure atmosphere above it ('up'), and a region of less compressed, less dense, lower pressure directly beneath it ('down', the opposite of up).  This density distribution, which is either simply a fundamental property of the spatial configuration of a dense mass in the atmosphere, or a result of upward movement into the stacked atmosphere (I'm not sure, he never answered this one), produces a net downward force on the object such that if it is released freely, it will be pushed down by the pressure gradient across it.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3082 on: January 11, 2019, 10:23:34 AM »
I have read this thread pretty much all the way through (all 103 pages of it) and I can honestly say that I cannot see a detailed explanation of why objects are pushed down.
Maybe a few simple diagrams would help to get your point across more clearly. As it stands, I can't see why objects are pushed to a foundation, rather than simply being crushed in all directions equally.
You have stated many times that people aren't getting the basics, so please try to explain these basics in a way that we can all understand.

Here is my understanding of why things fall down in his model.

His model contains a dome that covers the foundation of the world and that contains the atmosphere.  Due to pressure against from the dome, the atmosphere 'stacks' in a single direction, lets call that 'up'.  Im not sure why a hemispheric inward pressure would create stacking in a single unified direction, and Im not even sure what the direction up is in relation to the dome, (I'm thinking it is the normal direction to the plane tangent to the apex of the dome, but it could be anything I guess), but regardless, this is what is proposed.  The result of this directional stacking is that if an object is raised into the atmosphere creates a region of compressed, denser, higher pressure atmosphere above it ('up'), and a region of less compressed, less dense, lower pressure directly beneath it ('down', the opposite of up).  This density distribution, which is either simply a fundamental property of the spatial configuration of a dense mass in the atmosphere, or a result of upward movement into the stacked atmosphere (I'm not sure, he never answered this one), produces a net downward force on the object such that if it is released freely, it will be pushed down by the pressure gradient across it.
Wrong.


The dome is natural. It becomes a dome directly because of the atmospheric stack.
The atmosphere does not pressurise inside the dome as if the dome was always there.

Also the pressure is not higher above, it's less by count of molecules due to each stacking being more expanded than the molecules below which compress against it.

The reason why the dome is formed is because of the lesser pressure above each stack until there is no more ability for the higher molecules to create enough friction to resist from above. This is where they freeze. They (for the sake of it) helium freeze.
The dome is created from that stack. It becomes the Earth skin.

How do I know this?
I don't know it. I am confident it's something close to it. I'm confident because experiments we can do can closely show the potential of it.

I don't need to explain my Earth as of yet..especially in this topic.
To find it out people need to grab the absolute basics of how it works, starting with knowing how denpressure works.
I will ask again, does the mass of an object depend on the local atmospheric pressure?  If not, why not?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3083 on: January 11, 2019, 10:32:40 AM »
Quote
Wrong.


Okay, trying again, just using what you have told me and logic, which you say should be sufficient to understand the basics.  Its your model, I don't know it, I'm just trying to piece it together as best as I can.  If you were not so confrontational, it might help.

Here is my understanding of why things fall 'down' in his model -

The atmosphere 'stacks' in a single direction, lets call that 'up'.  The result of this directional stacking is that if an object is raised into the atmosphere it creates a region of compressed, denser, higher pressure atmosphere above it ('up'), and a region of less compressed, less dense, lower pressure directly beneath it ('down', the opposite of up).  This density distribution, which is either simply a fundamental property of the spatial configuration of a dense mass in the atmosphere, or a result of upward movement into the stacked atmosphere (I'm not sure, he never answered this one), produces a net downward force on the object such that if it is released freely, it will be pushed down by the pressure gradient across it.
What have you changed?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3084 on: January 11, 2019, 10:35:53 AM »

I will ask again, does the mass of an object depend on the local atmospheric pressure?  If not, why not?
The mass of the object depends on the structure of the object whether it's under the ground, under the water, on top of the ground, on top of a mountain or inside the highest flying balloon. It doesn't matter.


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3085 on: January 11, 2019, 10:36:15 AM »
Quote
Wrong.


Okay, trying again, just using what you have told me and logic, which you say should be sufficient to understand the basics.  Its your model, I don't know it, I'm just trying to piece it together as best as I can.  If you were not so confrontational, it might help.

Here is my understanding of why things fall 'down' in his model -

The atmosphere 'stacks' in a single direction, lets call that 'up'.  The result of this directional stacking is that if an object is raised into the atmosphere it creates a region of compressed, denser, higher pressure atmosphere above it ('up'), and a region of less compressed, less dense, lower pressure directly beneath it ('down', the opposite of up).  This density distribution, which is either simply a fundamental property of the spatial configuration of a dense mass in the atmosphere, or a result of upward movement into the stacked atmosphere (I'm not sure, he never answered this one), produces a net downward force on the object such that if it is released freely, it will be pushed down by the pressure gradient across it.
What have you changed?

I took away all the dome stuff and only have the things I think you have agreed with previously. 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3086 on: January 11, 2019, 10:44:17 AM »
Quote
Wrong.


Okay, trying again, just using what you have told me and logic, which you say should be sufficient to understand the basics.  Its your model, I don't know it, I'm just trying to piece it together as best as I can.  If you were not so confrontational, it might help.

Here is my understanding of why things fall 'down' in his model -

The atmosphere 'stacks' in a single direction, lets call that 'up'.  The result of this directional stacking is that if an object is raised into the atmosphere it creates a region of compressed, denser, higher pressure atmosphere above it ('up'), and a region of less compressed, less dense, lower pressure directly beneath it ('down', the opposite of up).  This density distribution, which is either simply a fundamental property of the spatial configuration of a dense mass in the atmosphere, or a result of upward movement into the stacked atmosphere (I'm not sure, he never answered this one), produces a net downward force on the object such that if it is released freely, it will be pushed down by the pressure gradient across it.
What have you changed?

I took away all the dome stuff and only have the things I think you have agreed with previously.
Here's your problem.
No you haven't. You're using the stacking as if the higher pressure is above and the lower pressure is below. That's wrong.
I've explained how the stack works.
Try again.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3087 on: January 11, 2019, 10:58:18 AM »

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.

Trying again, using the above exchange where you agreed with my understanding, if you mispoke that is not a big deal at all, and if so, my understanding will obviously be off, but I am only going on what you have said about your own model.   -


The Reason Why Things Fall

The atmosphere 'stacks' molecularly from the ground or ocean to the dome.  When an object is suspended in atmosphere it creates a region of compressed, denser, higher pressure atmosphere above it ('up'), and a region of less compressed, less dense, lower pressure directly beneath it ('down', the opposite of up).  This density distribution, which is either simply a fundamental property of the spatial configuration of a dense mass in the atmosphere, or a result of upward movement into the stacked atmosphere (still not sure, he never answered this one), produces a net downward force on the suspended object such that if it is released freely, it will be pushed down by the pressure gradient across it.

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3088 on: January 11, 2019, 01:33:34 PM »
trying to understand denpressure whilst trying to reject all explanations. A bit like Jackblack.
No. I'm not trying to reject all explanations.
I am merely pointing out that your explanations don't work at all.

It's been explained. You don't accept it. There's little else to do. It doesn't matter what is said, gravity wins your day
No it hasn't.
You have "attempted" to explain it, but your explanations simply don't work.
The closest you have come is outright rejecting reality and claiming pressure increases with increasing elevation and pushes things down.
But as I pointed out, that doesn't match reality or even basic common sense. Pressure decreases with increasing elevation and thus this pressure gradient results in an upwards force (commonly known as the buoyant force).

This has nothing at all to do with my acceptance of gravity.
It is simply you being completely unable to justify why things fall in your model.

There are 2 options for things left to do:
1 - Provide an explanation for why things fall that actually works and doesn't contradict reality.
2 - Admit your model is completely unable to explain why things fall.

Until you do one of these I will continue to ask why things fall as you are yet to explain it.

If you can't grasp it then try and think of something that either scuppers it or gives you an idea of its validity.
I have already provided that, and you just ignore it.
All your claims about lifting, especially off a foundation are easily refuted by moving the object sideways. The air doesn't magically push it back, so that doesn't explain it.
All your claims about the air crushing it doesn't work either as the air pressure pushes in all directions. This means it would crush it, i.e. try to make it smaller, not magically push it down. The only way to get any directional force from that is a variation in pressure, but the pressure gradient which exists in the atmosphere exists with a higher pressure the lower you are meaning this higher pressure will push the object, not down.

You have no explanation for why things fall. Every attempt at an explanation has been refuted.

I have stumped you, you just refuse to admit you have no answer and instead claim it has already been explained, even though every attempt at an explanation from you has failed.
I highly doubt it will be any different with anything else anyone provides.
You will just claim you have explained away the problem because you don't care about reality and/or the truth.

Sooner or later at depth it would be breached. It would break. It would break because the skin of that balloon would be crushed against the super compressed atmosphere trapped inside.
No it wouldn't.
The only reason the atmosphere inside the balloon is compressed is due to the water crushing it, i.e. pushing in and pressuring it.

In order to burst the balloon you would need to magically have the air inside pressurise itself, such that the balloon expands and the skin is stretched too thin and breaks due to too large a pressure gradient.

As for how to show this:
Go get a pressure vessel with either a window to view in, or one which is transparent.
Now put the balloon in and fill the vessel with water.
Then pressurise it. Watch what happens to the balloon.
You will never be able to get the balloon to burst from an increase in pressure.

I don't know it. I am confident it's something close to it. I'm confident because experiments we can do can closely show the potential of it.
Except you are unable to show any experiment to show the potential of it.
All you have are your baseless claims.

No you haven't. You're using the stacking as if the higher pressure is above and the lower pressure is below. That's wrong.
That's because it is what you said to explain why things fall.
If you ditch that and come back to reality, the higher pressure pushes things up, not down.

As you are now rejecting that:
Why do things fall?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3089 on: January 11, 2019, 08:36:44 PM »
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?
It looks like got ran over, can  you answer my question.
I thought I already answered all of your questions.
Which one don't you think I answered?
just this part will do
If it is the denpressure above an object, is 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.