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

  • 3153 Replies
  • 54294 Views
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3090 on: January 11, 2019, 08:38:59 PM »
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?
This was already "answered":
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 Editor
  • 21515
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3091 on: January 11, 2019, 11:21:20 PM »

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?
Are you meaning something like, if you had a block of lead and you flattened it out?
If that's what you mean then nothing changes other than the shape/surface area.
All it means is the lead block will become longer and wider but less thicker with its area spread out.

It's still dispacing the exact same amount of atmosphere.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3092 on: January 12, 2019, 01:34:14 AM »
It's still dispacing the exact same amount of atmosphere.
And why should the amount of atmosphere it displaces have anything to do with weight other than due to the buoyant force which is negligible for lead?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 21515
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3093 on: January 12, 2019, 02:08:00 AM »
It's still dispacing the exact same amount of atmosphere.
And why should the amount of atmosphere it displaces have anything to do with weight other than due to the buoyant force which is negligible for lead?
You've been told this, but let's get down to the absolute basics first.

First of all you need to know what weight is.
Let me explain.
If you pick up something that feels heavy to you you can't say it weighs anything. You can say it feels heavy. You can say it has mass or volume and all the other stuff but you can't use weight.
Why not?

Something has to be made so those objects can be measured as what we come to know as a weight.
A compressible foundation has to be placed on a solid foundation in order to measure the resistance of any object placed upon it by that objects resistance to atmospheric pressure is displaces to the resistance of the moveable foundation of the scale plate which will reveal a weight on a measuring meter/dial, etc.

If this looks like I'm trying to play kids stuff with you, I'm not. I'm simply answering something for you which you appear to have a refusal to grasp and continue to keep asking me questions on how. So there you go.


If you want to ask again then simply refer to this answer.


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3094 on: January 12, 2019, 02:56:15 AM »
You've been told this
And that is the issue, you just keep "telling" but are yet to provide an actual explanation.

First of all you need to know what weight is.
I would say first we need to know why things go down (and thus have weight) in the first place and deal with exactly what weight means later.

If you pick up something that feels heavy to you you can't say it weighs anything. You can say it feels heavy. You can say it has mass or volume and all the other stuff but you can't use weight.
Nope.
I can use weight just as much as I can use mass or volume.
It has a weight. While I might not know the exact number, I can make an estimate based upon what it feels like. Just like I can make an estimate of its mass based upon its weight or based upon its resistance to motion and its volume based upon what it looks like.

Also, do you know what heavy means? That its weight is large. As opposed to light, where the weight is small.
So by saying it is heavy, I would be saying it weighs a lot.

Something has to be made so those objects can be measured as what we come to know as a weight.
Just like something would have to be made for those objects to be measured for mass or volume.

If this looks like I'm trying to play kids stuff with you
No, it looks more like you continuing to avoid the issue.
Instead of explaining why things have weight/why they fall you instead choose to play with semantics and pretend weight only exists when it is measured.

you appear to have a refusal to grasp and continue to keep asking me questions on how.
No, I grasp what you are saying quite well.
I just realise you don't have an explanation.

Now, rather than distracting with semantics of what exactly weight means, can you explain why displacing the atmosphere results in things being pushed down?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 21515
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3095 on: January 12, 2019, 03:31:21 AM »
First of all you need to know what weight is.
I would say first we need to know why things go down (and thus have weight) in the first place and deal with exactly what weight means later.

The whole issue of denpressure is in proving why dense mass can be measured on a man made scale, so we really need to understand why weight measurement works to understand why denpressure is the cause and effect of it.


Quote from: JackBlack
If you pick up something that feels heavy to you you can't say it weighs anything. You can say it feels heavy. You can say it has mass or volume and all the other stuff but you can't use weight.
Nope.
I can use weight just as much as I can use mass or volume.
It has a weight. While I might not know the exact number, I can make an estimate based upon what it feels like. Just like I can make an estimate of its mass based upon its weight or based upon its resistance to motion and its volume based upon what it looks like.
If weight has no number than you can't make any estimate.
What are you estimating on?

Quote from: JackBlack
Also, do you know what heavy means? That its weight is large.
 As opposed to light, where the weight is small.
So by saying it is heavy, I would be saying it weighs a lot.
Heavy is a word that is used to the feel of the effort to lift a mass. Light is simply the knowing that the mass is lighter than heavier previous lifted mass...or vice versa.
It requires no number, nor scale until you use a scale to measure what those objects are by displacement of atmosphere which you can transfer to a scale weight as I mentioned earlier.

Quote from: JackBlack
Something has to be made so those objects can be measured as what we come to know as a weight.
Just like something would have to be made for those objects to be measured for mass or volume.

How do you tell the mass or volume of something?
Quote from: JackBlack
If this looks like I'm trying to play kids stuff with you
No, it looks more like you continuing to avoid the issue.
Instead of explaining why things have weight/why they fall you instead choose to play with semantics and pretend weight only exists when it is measured.
Weight cannot exist without measurement of mass. It simply can't.
Weight is a moveable scale plate foundation or hanging hook from a scale spring affixed to a foundation to record atmospheric displacement of that mass.

Quote from: JackBlack
you appear to have a refusal to grasp and continue to keep asking me questions on how.
No, I grasp what you are saying quite well.
I just realise you don't have an explanation.
For me to have an explanation for you to accept would mean your original indoctrination would be rendered useless and in now way shape or form will you ever concede that, no matter what.

I'm under no illusions about that.
However, my explanations are there for anyone to muse over whether they accept them or not.




Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3096 on: January 12, 2019, 03:49:12 AM »
The whole issue of denpressure is in proving why dense mass can be measured on a man made scale
No, the measurement is a sub-issue.
The most basic one is why things go down in the first place, why there is some force pushing it down.
You need to know that before approaching why a scale can measure this.

If weight has no number than you can't make any estimate.
What are you estimating on?
I didn't say it has no number. I said I don't know the exact number.
I am estimating based upon what it feels like, based upon past experience of lifting various objects of known weight.
Just like I can use this feeling or feeling how it resists motion to estimate its mass and how I can use my eyes and past experience of what distances look like to estimate volume without measuring them.

Heavy is a word that is used to the feel of the effort to lift a mass
i.e. weight.

Heavy and light are like large and small.
Heavy and light refer to weight. Large and small refer to volume (or length or area).

It requires no number
Because it is a qualitative measurement, not a quantitative one.
It being a qualitative measurement doesn't mean it isn't weight.

How do you tell the mass or volume of something?
I can estimate as explained above, or use various tools to measure it.
To measure mass, the simplest is based upon weight, but that is effected by buoyancy (which causes issues with calibrations for things like the kg). A better method is its inertia, aka resistance to motion. One implementation of that would be using a known spring (and rest of setup, which has been calibrated), attaching the object to it and having it oscillate back and forth horizontally. It oscillates in a predictable manner based upon its mass.
Another means of generating the force can be used instead of the spring.

As for volume, I can get a ruler or calipers or the like and measure each dimension and calculate the volume, or I can have it displace a fluid.

So just like weight, you can get a rough estimate based upon your senses or you can measure it with a variety of tools.

Weight cannot exist without measurement of mass. It simply can't.
Again, you are trying to play semantics.
Weight is a downwards force acting on an object. It doesn't need to be measured to exist.
If you want to try and have it be something else, then pick a new word.

For me to have an explanation for you to accept would mean your original indoctrination would be rendered useless and in now way shape or form will you ever concede that, no matter what.
Firstly, I haven't been indoctrinated. I have been educated and actually understand it and have done experiments to support it.
But more importantly, you having an explanation that works doesn't render the existing explanations useless.
It means there is an alternative.
Some things can have multiple explanations.

A good example is oxygen vs phlostogen.
With oxygen, a combustible material would burn by consuming oxygen and reacting.
With phlostogen, a combustible material has phlostogen contained within it which is released/consumed when it burns.
These were initially both explanations which could explain observations.
The 2 explanations existing didn't make the other useless.
What made phlostogen useless was its inability to explain things.


So no, you having an explanation that works doesn't make gravity useless.

In order for you to have an explanation that I accept you need an explanation that works and makes sense.
Saying it displaces the air and thus is pushed down makes no sense at all as you have no justification for why displacing the air should push it down.

So again: Why do things fall?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 21515
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3097 on: January 12, 2019, 04:38:30 AM »
Quote from: JackBlack
If weight has no number then you can't make any estimate.
What are you estimating on?
I didn't say it has no number. I said I don't know the exact number.
I am estimating based upon what it feels like, based upon past experience of lifting various objects of known weight.
Past experience would not be a thing if there was never any measurement of mass on a scale.

Quote from: JackBlack
Just like I can use this feeling or feeling how it resists motion to estimate its mass and how I can use my eyes and past experience of what distances look like to estimate volume without measuring them.
What are you estimating without measurement?


Quote from: JackBlack
How do you tell the mass or volume of something?
I can estimate as explained above, or use various tools to measure it.
To measure mass, the simplest is based upon weight, but that is effected by buoyancy (which causes issues with calibrations for things like the kg). A better method is its inertia, aka resistance to motion. One implementation of that would be using a known spring (and rest of setup, which has been calibrated), attaching the object to it and having it oscillate back and forth horizontally. It oscillates in a predictable manner based upon its mass.
Another means of generating the force can be used instead of the spring.
Everything you want to measure requires something of a scale to measure with to become something like weight as an instance.

Quote from: JackBlack
As for volume, I can get a ruler or calipers or the like and measure each dimension and calculate the volume, or I can have it displace a fluid.
Displacing fluid shows what if you can't measure the displaced fluid?

Quote from: JackBlack
So just like weight, you can get a rough estimate based upon your senses or you can measure it with a variety of tools.
Not just like weight at all. Weight is a measurement of mass and its density by displacement of atmosphere.
You have a measurement.
Senses do nothing other than make best guesses.

A dense block of lead and a similar coloured hollow lead box will look the same by eye. Only picking each one up will show them to be different in their mass but will still not give any indication as to what they measure unless you can place them upon a movable foundation that can resist their own resistance of atmosphere they push against/displace. And then show a scale reading of weight.

Quote from: JackBlack
Weight cannot exist without measurement of mass. It simply can't.
Again, you are trying to play semantics.
Weight is a downwards force acting on an object. It doesn't need to be measured to exist.
Take away measurement and you take away weight.


Quote from: JackBlack
If you want to try and have it be something else, then pick a new word.
It's fine as it is it's just needs to be understood and not hidden behind fictional forces.

Quote from: JackBlack
For me to have an explanation for you to accept would mean your original indoctrination would be rendered useless and in now way shape or form will you ever concede that, no matter what.
Firstly, I haven't been indoctrinated. I have been educated and actually understand it and have done experiments to support it.
What experiments support what you believe?

Quote from: JackBlack
But more importantly, you having an explanation that works doesn't render the existing explanations useless.
It means there is an alternative.
Some things can have multiple explanations.
My explanation is mine. It only renders the global nonsense as useless in terms of what I'm arguing. In my opinion of course.

Quote from: JackBlack
A good example is oxygen vs phlostogen.
With oxygen, a combustible material would burn by consuming oxygen and reacting.
With phlostogen, a combustible material has phlostogen contained within it which is released/consumed when it burns.
These were initially both explanations which could explain observations.
The 2 explanations existing didn't make the other useless.
What made phlostogen useless was its inability to explain things.
I have no clue what phlostogen is. What is it?


Quote from: JackBlack
So no, you having an explanation that works doesn't make gravity useless.
How about telling me what gravity is.
Can you explain what it is?

Quote from: JackBlack
In order for you to have an explanation that I accept you need an explanation that works and makes sense.
Saying it displaces the air and thus is pushed down makes no sense at all as you have no justification for why displacing the air should push it down.

It makes perfect sense but it will only make sense to those who bother to look at it without their gravity glasses on.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3098 on: January 12, 2019, 06:59:58 AM »

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?
Are you meaning something like, if you had a block of lead and you flattened it out?
If that's what you mean then nothing changes other than the shape/surface area.
All it means is the lead block will become longer and wider but less thicker with its area spread out.

It's still dispacing the exact same amount of atmosphere.

Well im assuming mouse's line of questioning is leading to this.

If the block of lead's shape has nothing to do with its weight, how do you exlain how a block of lead, formed into the shape of a boat, can be "crushed" up in water?

Its what we mainstreamers/ indoctrined call bouyancy.
Fluid pressure (be liquid or gas), in a general sense, acts in all directions all around.
It is not uni directional.
When paired up against gravity it causes things to float or sink.

Under the denP model
Atmosphere has been displaced.
Stacking the air molecules above it to compress like a spring and push back to show weight.
But
Water is 1000x more desne than air.
By that theiry a block under water would be stacking water molecules along with air molecules and should weigh 1000x more underwater.
But they dont.
They are lighter.
If we follow logic then the hypothesis is incorrect as it did not predict the measured result.

Simply and basic.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3099 on: January 12, 2019, 07:48:10 AM »
Hello Sceptimatic,

Can you confirm whether my understanding of your model is correct?   Is this the reason why a suspended object has a net force downward in your model and will fall if let go?  Previously you said 'Yes' to this but then later you seemed to suggest otherwise.  Clarity would be useful if you have some to provide here. -

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 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.

Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome
Should I examine the all shits?

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3101 on: January 12, 2019, 01:02:41 PM »
Past experience would not be a thing if there was never any measurement of mass on a scale.
No, it still would be, just without numbers.
Again, the same applies to mass, weight and volume (and other properties as well).

What are you estimating without measurement?
I have already explained that.
Everything you want to measure requires something of a scale to measure with to become something like weight as an instance.
Not just like weight at all.
No, it requires something to measure with to know the measurement accurately. But that was the point. You said I can use them, but not weight. But it is just like weight.
You can estimate them based upon your senses or use instruments to measure them accurately.

A dense block of lead and a similar coloured hollow lead box will look the same by eye. Only picking each one up will show them to be different in their mass
And in weight.

Take away measurement and you take away weight.
No more than you take away mass or volume or any other property.
Not measuring it accurately doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What experiments support what you believe?
I have already explained them to you and you have chosen to ignore them.
This is a thread to discuss your model, not mainstream science.
Now stop with the distractions.

It makes perfect sense but it will only make sense to those who bother to look at it without their gravity glasses on.
If it made sense you would be able to explain why things fall in a clear and logical manner.
You cannot.

Displacing the atmosphere provides no reason for things to fall.
If it is based upon pressure, then it is pushed from all directions by the air and thus it would not cause it to fall. The only directionality from that comes from the small difference in pressure where it decreases as you go higher. But that would result in an upwards force, not the downwards force (and thus movement) observed for most objects.
It is also clearly not a result of moving the object up, as moving the object sideways in a similar manner doesn't cause it to "fall" back to where it was.

So you have no explanation of why things fall.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 21515
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3102 on: January 13, 2019, 02:50:53 AM »
If the block of lead's shape has nothing to do with its weight, how do you explain how a block of lead, formed into the shape of a boat, can be "crushed" up in water?
How do you weigh a block of lead that's formed into the shape of a boat and it being crushed up in water?
Let me prompt you.
Atmosphere pushes down on that block that's turned into a boat. It pushes that boat down but the denser water crushes it back.
Weighing it will require, what?
Quote from: Themightykabool
Its what we mainstreamers/ indoctrined call bouyancy.
And buoyancy is what?
Saying it is fine but knowing what buoyancy actually is and does is another matter.

Quote from: Themightykabool
Fluid pressure (be liquid or gas), in a general sense, acts in all directions all around.
It is not uni directional.
When paired up against gravity it causes things to float or sink.
It does act in all directions alla round but not equally. This is due to density of stacking and the object's dense mass, not gravity.


Quote from: Themightykabool
Under the denP model
Atmosphere has been displaced.
Stacking the air molecules above it to compress like a spring and push back to show weight.
But
Water is 1000x more desne than air.
By that theiry a block under water would be stacking water molecules along with air molecules and should weigh 1000x more underwater.
But they dont.
They are lighter.
If we follow logic then the hypothesis is incorrect as it did not predict the measured result.

Simply and basic.
A thousand times more?
How deep are we talking?
Also how do you weight something underwater to determine water pressure upon that actual object?
You would require a direct scale.
You can't just say it displaces water into the atmosphere and you measure the water it displaces from depth.

You can theoretically measure it by using the 33 feet depth for every 1 atmosphere and gauge it by that.
Other than that you have to rig up water scales to measure the water crush of an object directly on those scales under water.

If you care to do deeper into this (pardon the pun) we can.

Just remember what I said about the crush of a mass (structure) to release atmosphere at depth and you might start to get an idea of buoyant force and actual water force which is all tied into overall atmosphere force above water.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 21515
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3103 on: January 13, 2019, 03:32:33 AM »
Hello Sceptimatic,

Can you confirm whether my understanding of your model is correct?   Is this the reason why a suspended object has a net force downward in your model and will fall if let go?  Previously you said 'Yes' to this but then later you seemed to suggest otherwise.  Clarity would be useful if you have some to provide here. -

The atmosphere 'stacks' molecularly from the ground or ocean to the dome.
Correct.
Quote from: sobchak

  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 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.
Due to the stacking from ground up and understanding that push and resistance to push from below means the below molecules will have to push against the above molecules.
Here's a crude drawing.



Treat this as the utter basics and also treat it as the atmosphere directly above you and not as a whole Earth dome.
Just concentrate on the stacking and the compression and expansion as it moves up...and how the atmosphere becomes less.

We can go from here if you get a grip on what I'm trying to convey.


Edit to add:
Don't take the drawing as simply bubbles.
Think of the gobstopper layers in between those bubbles.
I'm just showing you the bare basics to understand what I'm saying about push into resistance to push and how each push creates more compression for the molecules below the next molecules, all the way up and also how the less a molecule has to resist, the more expanded it becomes and the less amount of molecules  taking up area.

Don't go too far into this yet. We need to get a grip on denpressure first and how dense mass displacing atmosphere works for a weight measurement.

Deal with me and no Jackblack who will come straight in to ridicule.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2019, 03:39:22 AM by sceptimatic »

*

Lonegranger

  • 3044
  • what puts the no into flatino?
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3104 on: January 13, 2019, 03:40:50 AM »
Hello Sceptimatic,

Can you confirm whether my understanding of your model is correct?   Is this the reason why a suspended object has a net force downward in your model and will fall if let go?  Previously you said 'Yes' to this but then later you seemed to suggest otherwise.  Clarity would be useful if you have some to provide here. -

The atmosphere 'stacks' molecularly from the ground or ocean to the dome.
Correct.
Quote from: sobchak

  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 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.
Due to the stacking from ground up and understanding that push and resistance to push from below means the below molecules will have to push against the above molecules.
Here's a crude drawing.



Treat this as the utter basics and also treat it as the atmosphere directly above you and not as a whole Earth dome.
Just concentrate on the stacking and the compression and expansion as it moves up...and how the atmosphere becomes less.

We can go from here if you get a grip on what I'm trying to convey.


Now you have gone to far! When did you ever see a molecule? If you did what equipment did you use?


I thought you said you only believe things you have seen with your own eyes, though thatís not strictly true either. You were shown the rope around the world calculation which you could have checked for its mathematical validity, which many did and found to be correct! Yet you chose to disbelieve it for your own reasons......


......and now you include a diagram showing an arrangement of molecules that you have never or could never ever have seen! Now thatís  what I call really double talk outright fakery.


FAKE!


« Last Edit: January 13, 2019, 06:15:32 AM by Lonegranger »
Merry dickmass to all flattards.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3105 on: January 13, 2019, 08:06:56 AM »
Interesting air molecule.
How do you breathe?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3106 on: January 13, 2019, 08:10:00 AM »
If the block of lead's shape has nothing to do with its weight, how do you explain how a block of lead, formed into the shape of a boat, can be "crushed" up in water?
How do you weigh a block of lead that's formed into the shape of a boat and it being crushed up in water?
Let me prompt you.
Atmosphere pushes down on that block that's turned into a boat. It pushes that boat down but the denser water crushes it back.
Weighing it will require, what?
Quote from: Themightykabool
Its what we mainstreamers/ indoctrined call bouyancy.
And buoyancy is what?
Saying it is fine but knowing what buoyancy actually is and does is another matter.

Quote from: Themightykabool
Fluid pressure (be liquid or gas), in a general sense, acts in all directions all around.
It is not uni directional.
When paired up against gravity it causes things to float or sink.
It does act in all directions alla round but not equally. This is due to density of stacking and the object's dense mass, not gravity.


Quote from: Themightykabool
Under the denP model
Atmosphere has been displaced.
Stacking the air molecules above it to compress like a spring and push back to show weight.
But
Water is 1000x more desne than air.
By that theiry a block under water would be stacking water molecules along with air molecules and should weigh 1000x more underwater.
But they dont.
They are lighter.
If we follow logic then the hypothesis is incorrect as it did not predict the measured result.

Simply and basic.
A thousand times more?
How deep are we talking?
Also how do you weight something underwater to determine water pressure upon that actual object?
You would require a direct scale.
You can't just say it displaces water into the atmosphere and you measure the water it displaces from depth.

You can theoretically measure it by using the 33 feet depth for every 1 atmosphere and gauge it by that.
Other than that you have to rig up water scales to measure the water crush of an object directly on those scales under water.

If you care to do deeper into this (pardon the pun) we can.

Just remember what I said about the crush of a mass (structure) to release atmosphere at depth and you might start to get an idea of buoyant force and actual water force which is all tied into overall atmosphere force above water.

I shouldnhave disclaimed i was using the traditional definitions...
Wow so confusing eh?

So if a block in the water is pushed down why isnt it 1000x heavier?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 21515
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3107 on: January 13, 2019, 01:39:39 PM »
If the block of lead's shape has nothing to do with its weight, how do you explain how a block of lead, formed into the shape of a boat, can be "crushed" up in water?
How do you weigh a block of lead that's formed into the shape of a boat and it being crushed up in water?
Let me prompt you.
Atmosphere pushes down on that block that's turned into a boat. It pushes that boat down but the denser water crushes it back.
Weighing it will require, what?
Quote from: Themightykabool
Its what we mainstreamers/ indoctrined call bouyancy.
And buoyancy is what?
Saying it is fine but knowing what buoyancy actually is and does is another matter.

Quote from: Themightykabool
Fluid pressure (be liquid or gas), in a general sense, acts in all directions all around.
It is not uni directional.
When paired up against gravity it causes things to float or sink.
It does act in all directions alla round but not equally. This is due to density of stacking and the object's dense mass, not gravity.


Quote from: Themightykabool
Under the denP model
Atmosphere has been displaced.
Stacking the air molecules above it to compress like a spring and push back to show weight.
But
Water is 1000x more desne than air.
By that theiry a block under water would be stacking water molecules along with air molecules and should weigh 1000x more underwater.
But they dont.
They are lighter.
If we follow logic then the hypothesis is incorrect as it did not predict the measured result.

Simply and basic.
A thousand times more?
How deep are we talking?
Also how do you weight something underwater to determine water pressure upon that actual object?
You would require a direct scale.
You can't just say it displaces water into the atmosphere and you measure the water it displaces from depth.

You can theoretically measure it by using the 33 feet depth for every 1 atmosphere and gauge it by that.
Other than that you have to rig up water scales to measure the water crush of an object directly on those scales under water.

If you care to do deeper into this (pardon the pun) we can.

Just remember what I said about the crush of a mass (structure) to release atmosphere at depth and you might start to get an idea of buoyant force and actual water force which is all tied into overall atmosphere force above water.

I shouldnhave disclaimed i was using the traditional definitions...
Wow so confusing eh?

So if a block in the water is pushed down why isnt it 1000x heavier?
How are you going to find that out?

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3108 on: January 13, 2019, 02:24:21 PM »
How do you weigh a block of lead that's formed into the shape of a boat and it being crushed up in water?
You weigh it outside the water.
The issue is that it weighs the same outside the water, but when you put it in the water, the block sinks while the boat floats.

Atmosphere pushes down on that block that's turned into a boat. It pushes that boat down but the denser water crushes it back.
So why doesn't the denser water crush the block back to the surface?
Again, your model makes no sense.


And buoyancy is what?
That has already been explained to you and you have chosen to ignore it.
Buoyancy is an upwards force created by a pressure gradient in a fluid which exists due to the fluids weight (or whatever nonsense you want to use instead of weight. It can be extended to other areas such as pressure gradients caused in a centrifuge).

It does act in all directions alla round but not equally.
Yes, there is a slight inequality which results in an upwards force, not down as you require.

This is due to density of stacking and the object's dense mass, not gravity.
Except you have no explanation for why it should stack in the first place while gravity actually provides an explanation.

A thousand times more?
How deep are we talking?
Just near the surface. The density of air is roughly 1.2 g/m^3.
The density of water is roughly 997 g/m^3.

Also how do you weight something underwater to determine water pressure upon that actual object?
Again, this has already been explained to you.
You can use a scale that is underwater, which uses a known force to measure it, such as a spring loaded scale.
You could also suspend it on a string which goes outside the water and use that to measure the weight on a spring scale outside the water.

You can theoretically measure it by using the 33 feet depth for every 1 atmosphere and gauge it by that.
That doesn't tell you the weight. That just tells you the pressure.

Just remember what I said about the crush of a mass (structure) to release atmosphere at depth and you might start to get an idea of buoyant force and actual water force which is all tied into overall atmosphere force above water.
So remember pure BS to start to get an idea of more pure BS? No thanks.
I will remember how you made a false claim and were unable to back it up.

Your model is fundamentally incompatible with the buoyant force.

Here's a crude drawing.
Which goes directly against what you have said.
Here you have an approximation of reality, where the air is denser and higher pressure the lower you are. But you claimed the exact opposite, that it is denser and more pressurised the higher you are.

Deal with me and no Jackblack who will come straight in to ridicule.
Says the one trying to ridicule and insult others, and who just ridicules accepted physics with absolutely nothing to refute it.
I don't come straight in to ridicule. I come to explain why your model is garbage and continually ask you to explain something very simple which your inability to do so shows your model is garbage.
That isn't ridicule.
That is showing your model doesn't work. If you can't handle that, you shouldn't be here presenting your model and claiming it works.

Now, can you explain why things fall?

Remember, the atmosphere, being a fluid, has the pressure act almost equally in all directions. This would result in an object in the air being pushed inwards (i.e. crushed), not moving down.
However, yes there is a slight non-uniformity. The lower you are, the greater the pressure (which for your model is just an observation from reality, with no basis at all). This means the pressure below the object is larger than the pressure above the object, which will result in an upwards force.
This means in your model, everything should fall up, not down. In reality, this upwards force is the buoyant force. You need something to counteract this buoyant force, and it clearly doesn't come from the atmosphere as that only seems to be able to crush objects and push them up, not down.

So can you explain why things go down instead of getting pushed up by the atmosphere?

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 3356
  • Heiwa Challenge Winner
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3109 on: January 13, 2019, 03:22:33 PM »
Scepti,

If weight is made up, how is mass determined and measured?
Doughnut Hole Earth Theorist

Proud Pezevenk and Twerp

Turdinary: A Wise to English Dictionary

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 21515
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3110 on: January 13, 2019, 11:02:39 PM »
Scepti,

If weight is made up, how is mass determined and measured?
Everything is made up. It's just a case of what purpose it serves.
Weight cannot exist without a measuring device to call something, weight.

Scales or a pressure tube device (barometer) for instance that can measure the object or the pressure, is used. It's a man made measurement of dense mass whether it's of an object pushed down by atmosphere or the atmosphere itself.

I'll tell you how it isn't measured. It isn't measured using a fictional force they named, gravity.


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3111 on: January 13, 2019, 11:34:37 PM »
Everything is made up.
So reality is made up?
You are made up?

Weight cannot exist without a measuring device to call something, weight.
This is just going into philosophy.
If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? (Note: don't answer that).

It isn't measured using a fictional force they named, gravity.
Do you know why?
Because that very real thing (gravity) produces a very real force known as weight.
You can't use weight to measure weight.

Now, how about you explain why things fall?

We have already concluded it isn't simply the pressure from the atmosphere crushing it; that would cause it to be crushed, not go down.
We have already concluded it isn't the slight pressure gradient in the atmosphere, as the greater pressure at the bottom means it will be pushed up, not down.
This sure seems to indicate it isn't the atmosphere.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3112 on: January 14, 2019, 12:59:05 AM »
Scepti,

If weight is made up, how is mass determined and measured?
Everything is made up. It's just a case of what purpose it serves.
Weight cannot exist without a measuring device to call something, weight.

Scales or a pressure tube device (barometer) for instance that can measure the object or the pressure, is used. It's a man made measurement of dense mass whether it's of an object pushed down by atmosphere or the atmosphere itself.

I'll tell you how it isn't measured. It isn't measured using a fictional force they named, gravity.
Why do you use the word 'dense'?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3113 on: January 14, 2019, 01:28:23 AM »
Hello Sceptimatic,



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 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.[\quote]

Quote from: sceptimatic

Correct.

Due to the stacking from ground up and understanding that push and resistance to push from below means the below molecules will have to push against the above molecules.

Okay, thanks for following up and clarifying that my understanding of your model is correct. 

Im trying to follow you further here in the evolution of your model, and am happy to just keep it at the basics, but it is not completely clear what you are saying in the above sentence.  Are you saying the higher pressure, more compressed, denser atmosphere above a suspended object arises due to the motion up through the atmosphere?  Or is it simply that a suspended object will always have this density distribution around it simply because it is suspended in this stacked atmosphere? 

Do you understand the question I am asking?  If not, it is okay, just please let me know either way.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3114 on: January 14, 2019, 05:23:42 AM »
You keep saying scales are made up.
You understand the concept of a scale?
You have a teetertotter
You put an object on one side and continue adding counter weight to the other until the scale is balanced.
Then you count up the counterweights and that is how much it "weighs".
How is that made up?

Ever go to the doctor and they move those weights on sliders?

Modern scales are typically digital.
But calibtrated to scale the same.

Are scales out there to dupe fatpeople?
Add fat people to sceptis list of fake news.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 21515
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3115 on: January 14, 2019, 12:26:16 PM »
Everything is made up.
So reality is made up?
You are made up?
Everything is made up.

Quote from: JackBlack
Weight cannot exist without a measuring device to call something, weight.
This is just going into philosophy.
If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? (Note: don't answer that).

Quote from: JackBlack
It isn't measured using a fictional force they named, gravity.
Do you know why?
Because that very real thing (gravity) produces a very real force known as weight.
Tell me what gravity is, as a force and what it actually does to produce weight?

Answer both in that order.

Quote from: JackBlack
You can't use weight to measure weight.
I tried to tell you this.

Quote from: JackBlack
Now, how about you explain why things fall?

I have but you choose to go the opposite way.
Fair enough if that's the case but it does nothing to dent what I've explained.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 21515
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3116 on: January 14, 2019, 12:27:02 PM »
Scepti,

If weight is made up, how is mass determined and measured?
Everything is made up. It's just a case of what purpose it serves.
Weight cannot exist without a measuring device to call something, weight.

Scales or a pressure tube device (barometer) for instance that can measure the object or the pressure, is used. It's a man made measurement of dense mass whether it's of an object pushed down by atmosphere or the atmosphere itself.

I'll tell you how it isn't measured. It isn't measured using a fictional force they named, gravity.
Why do you use the word 'dense'?
Don't you like it?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 21515
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3117 on: January 14, 2019, 12:35:18 PM »
Hello Sceptimatic,



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 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.[\quote]

Quote from: sceptimatic

Correct.

Due to the stacking from ground up and understanding that push and resistance to push from below means the below molecules will have to push against the above molecules.

Okay, thanks for following up and clarifying that my understanding of your model is correct. 

Im trying to follow you further here in the evolution of your model, and am happy to just keep it at the basics, but it is not completely clear what you are saying in the above sentence.  Are you saying the higher pressure, more compressed, denser atmosphere above a suspended object arises due to the motion up through the atmosphere?  Or is it simply that a suspended object will always have this density distribution around it simply because it is suspended in this stacked atmosphere? 

Do you understand the question I am asking?  If not, it is okay, just please let me know either way.
The suspended object will always displace its own dense mass (structure) of atmosphere.
The atmosphere above will always be compressed up and around the object by the objects dense mass displacing it.

Underneath the object is the mass of atmosphere that simply follows it up and what the object sits on but does not displace like it does above and around it, because it's using an alternate foundation.


Let me know if you understand this and if not I'll try another route.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 21515
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3118 on: January 14, 2019, 12:38:22 PM »
You keep saying scales are made up.
You understand the concept of a scale?
You have a teetertotter
You put an object on one side and continue adding counter weight to the other until the scale is balanced.
Then you count up the counterweights and that is how much it "weighs".
How is that made up?

Ever go to the doctor and they move those weights on sliders?

Modern scales are typically digital.
But calibtrated to scale the same.

Are scales out there to dupe fatpeople?
Add fat people to sceptis list of fake news.
How was a balance 1kg or whatever mass measured to become that 1kg weight?

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3119 on: January 14, 2019, 12:48:01 PM »
Tell me what gravity is, as a force and what it actually does to produce weight?
NO!
This is a thread to discuss your model.
Quite with the pathetic distractions.
If you want to discuss gravity, make a new thread.


I have but you choose to go the opposite way.
No you haven't
You have never been able to explain why things fall.
Instead you repeatedly make massive jumps in logic, contradict reality and contradict yourself.

You started by just trying to claim it displacing the atmosphere magically crushes it back down. But that crush would act from all directions and just crush the object.
You have appealed to a pressure gradient in the atmosphere, but the existing pressure gradient is the opposite of what you need and the opposite of what exists.
You have claimed that bringing it up causes it to fall, but have provided no basis for this directionality and why moving it up is special such that moving it sideways doesn't create the same effect.

As such you are yet to explain it.
All you have are multiple failed attempts.

Now, can you provide an actual explanation?