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

Quote from: sobchak on January 14, 2019, 01:28:23 AM

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? 

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.

This is a very simple question which should be very simple to answer.
Is the object pushed down by a pressure gradient which always exists, or is it the motion of that object which creates the pressure gradient which pushes it down.

The appropriate answers (which are nice and simple without the extra BS) would be either:
1 - The pressure gradient always exists.
2 - Moving the object causes the pressure gradient to exist.

Why are you completely unable to properly answer such a simple question?

Quote from: Themightykabool 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.

How was a balance 1kg or whatever mass measured to become that 1kg weight?

Never mind that, when are you going to clear up how you managed to see your molecules?


Why are you reluctant to answer such a simple question?

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.

I think I am getting there but Im still not completely clear on whether your model states that: 1)  upwards movement through the stacked atmosphere causes this permanent region of higher pressure, more dense, and more compressed atmosphere above the suspended object.  or 2) the displacement of dense mass in the stacked atmosphere results in a permanent region of higher pressure, more dense, more compressed atmosphere above a suspended object?

I can try to ask another way in case the above is not clear.  In your model, are any aspects of the higher pressure, more dense, more compressed atmosphere above a suspended object dependent on how it got there, or not?

  In your model, are any aspects of the higher pressure, more dense, more compressed atmosphere above a suspended object dependent on how it got there, or not?

Yes.
The object creates that extra compression above and around the sides as it sits on the stack of where it is at any given suspension.
Normally it would be sat on the ground and that ground would be its solid stack/foundation.

Because the object displaces its own mass, that mass crushes back against it whilst the atmosphere under it is trying to resist that...but can't because of the higher pressure above and around the object's mass.

End result is a push/squeeze down.

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 01:45:50 AM

  In your model, are any aspects of the higher pressure, more dense, more compressed atmosphere above a suspended object dependent on how it got there, or not?

Yes.

I appreciate you are trying to address my queries into your model, but it seems that maybe you don't really understand my question?  I'm sorry if I am not being clear here, will see if I can add some clarity about what I am trying to ask. Im not trying to be confusing or difficult, but often it is difficult to transmit ideas through communication like this. 

I am asking if in your model, the permanent, higher pressure, more dense, and more compressed atmosphere above a suspended object at rest in the atmosphere is due to :

1.  The upwards movement the object took through the stacked atmosphere to get it to that point.   

OR

2.  Simply the displacement of dense mass in the stacked atmosphere at wherever it is. 

Can you clarify, 1) or 2), or something else that I am missing?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2019, 05:19:53 AM

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 01:45:50 AM

  In your model, are any aspects of the higher pressure, more dense, more compressed atmosphere above a suspended object dependent on how it got there, or not?

Yes.

I appreciate you are trying to address my queries into your model, but it seems that maybe you don't really understand my question?  I'm sorry if I am not being clear here, will see if I can add some clarity about what I am trying to ask. Im not trying to be confusing or difficult, but often it is difficult to transmit ideas through communication like this. 

I am asking if in your model, the permanent, higher pressure, more dense, and more compressed atmosphere above a suspended object at rest in the atmosphere is due to :

1.  The upwards movement the object took through the stacked atmosphere to get it to that point.   

OR

2.  Simply the displacement of the object's own dense mass of atmosphere, compressing that into the already stacked atmosphere at wherever it is. 

Can you clarify, 1) or 2), or something else that I am missing?

I've altered number two.

Quote from: Themightykabool 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.

How was a balance 1kg or whatever mass measured to become that 1kg weight?

1L of water.
Doesnt matter.
People agreed on a conventional weight scale.
Same as pounds.
People agreed this is the weight.
Stop trolling.
Thats a stupid question.
If it was King tuts left nut, and it was agreed baseline, then if you would weigh 170lbs, you would weigh ~1,670LN.

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 05:42:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2019, 05:19:53 AM

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 01:45:50 AM

  In your model, are any aspects of the higher pressure, more dense, more compressed atmosphere above a suspended object dependent on how it got there, or not?

Yes.

I appreciate you are trying to address my queries into your model, but it seems that maybe you don't really understand my question?  I'm sorry if I am not being clear here, will see if I can add some clarity about what I am trying to ask. Im not trying to be confusing or difficult, but often it is difficult to transmit ideas through communication like this. 

I am asking if in your model, the permanent, higher pressure, more dense, and more compressed atmosphere above a suspended object at rest in the atmosphere is due to :

1.  The upwards movement the object took through the stacked atmosphere to get it to that point.   

OR

2.  Simply the displacement of the object's own dense mass of atmosphere, compressing that into the already stacked atmosphere at wherever it is. 

Can you clarify, 1) or 2), or something else that I am missing?

I've altered number two.

What is dense mass?

If the downwards force is caused by the stacked air molecules above an object, what would happen if you simply moved it to one side? It obviously won't just float in mid air, so where does the force come from now?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2019, 12:38:22 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool 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.

How was a balance 1kg or whatever mass measured to become that 1kg weight?

1L of water.
Doesnt matter.
People agreed on a conventional weight scale.
Same as pounds.
People agreed this is the weight.
Stop trolling.
Thats a stupid question.
If it was King tuts left nut, and it was agreed baseline, then if you would weigh 170lbs, you would weigh ~1,670LN.

Oh, it matters alright.
No ability to measure atmospheric pressure upon the mass displacing it = no discernible weight. It's as simple as that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2019, 06:21:00 AM

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 05:42:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2019, 05:19:53 AM

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 01:45:50 AM

  In your model, are any aspects of the higher pressure, more dense, more compressed atmosphere above a suspended object dependent on how it got there, or not?

Yes.

I appreciate you are trying to address my queries into your model, but it seems that maybe you don't really understand my question?  I'm sorry if I am not being clear here, will see if I can add some clarity about what I am trying to ask. Im not trying to be confusing or difficult, but often it is difficult to transmit ideas through communication like this. 

I am asking if in your model, the permanent, higher pressure, more dense, and more compressed atmosphere above a suspended object at rest in the atmosphere is due to :

1.  The upwards movement the object took through the stacked atmosphere to get it to that point.   

OR

2.  Simply the displacement of the object's own dense mass of atmosphere, compressing that into the already stacked atmosphere at wherever it is. 

Can you clarify, 1) or 2), or something else that I am missing?

I've altered number two.

What is dense mass?

Structure. You can simply call it density or mass or dense mass. It's up to you.

If the downwards force is caused by the stacked air molecules above an object, what would happen if you simply moved it to one side? It obviously won't just float in mid air, so where does the force come from now?

Then you move the displaced atmosphere to that point and the normal atmosphere that was compressed, decompresses to refill that portion you left behind.

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 05:42:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2019, 05:19:53 AM

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 01:45:50 AM

  In your model, are any aspects of the higher pressure, more dense, more compressed atmosphere above a suspended object dependent on how it got there, or not?

Yes.

I appreciate you are trying to address my queries into your model, but it seems that maybe you don't really understand my question?  I'm sorry if I am not being clear here, will see if I can add some clarity about what I am trying to ask. Im not trying to be confusing or difficult, but often it is difficult to transmit ideas through communication like this. 

I am asking if in your model, the permanent, higher pressure, more dense, and more compressed atmosphere above a suspended object at rest in the atmosphere is due to :

1.  The upwards movement the object took through the stacked atmosphere to get it to that point.   

OR

2.  Simply the displacement of the object's own dense mass of atmosphere, compressing that into the already stacked atmosphere at wherever it is. 

Can you clarify, 1) or 2), or something else that I am missing?

I've altered number two.

Thanks for editing the sentence for clarity, it helps a lot. 

And thanks also for taking the time to address my questions.  Here is where I am now in using logic and your explanations to understand how downward forces act on objects ("why they fall?") in your denpressure model

1.  The atmosphere stacks molecularly from the ground or ocean to the dome.

2.  A suspended object's own dense mass displaces atmosphere into this stacked system. 

3.  This displacement of atmosphere into the already stacked system creates a region of higher pressure, higher density, and more compressed atmosphere 'above' the suspended object (in the orientation of the stacking and the direction of the dome).

4.  This higher pressure, more compressed atmosphere above the object creates a net downward force on the object, creating tension in the suspension system and causing the object to fall towards the foundation if released.

I hope this is largely correct, feel free to edit again if you would like for clarity.

If this is correct, there are a couple of logical questions about this model that naturally follow from the above, but before I go there, I would like to make sure I am not getting confused because of differing usages of common terms  (for example, "pressure").  We might be using the same word but have very different conceptual ideas about what these words mean, and I want to make sure I am using yours when I think about your model.

Can you describe what "pressure" is in you conceptual framework?  Is it even a scalar quantity? 

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 15, 2019, 06:44:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2019, 12:38:22 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool 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.

How was a balance 1kg or whatever mass measured to become that 1kg weight?

1L of water.
Doesnt matter.
People agreed on a conventional weight scale.
Same as pounds.
People agreed this is the weight.
Stop trolling.
Thats a stupid question.
If it was King tuts left nut, and it was agreed baseline, then if you would weigh 170lbs, you would weigh ~1,670LN.

Oh, it matters alright.
No ability to measure atmospheric pressure upon the mass displacing it = no discernible weight. It's as simple as that.

Its a balance scale...
So by that admission we can add teetertotters to yor list of fake news?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 15, 2019, 06:44:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 14, 2019, 12:38:22 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool 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.

How was a balance 1kg or whatever mass measured to become that 1kg weight?

1L of water.
Doesnt matter.
People agreed on a conventional weight scale.
Same as pounds.
People agreed this is the weight.
Stop trolling.
Thats a stupid question.
If it was King tuts left nut, and it was agreed baseline, then if you would weigh 170lbs, you would weigh ~1,670LN.

Oh, it matters alright.
No ability to measure atmospheric pressure upon the mass displacing it = no discernible weight. It's as simple as that.

And by that logic.
Your previous description of an air pump on a pressurevessel stated it pushed back against the atmosphere to allow inside molecukes to decompress.
So
If displacing atmosphere caused stacking then then pressure vessel should get heavier when the pump evacuates it.
No?

No ability to measure atmospheric pressure upon the mass displacing it = no discernible weight. It's as simple as that.

Sorry for interjecting, but I'm not sure this is true Sceptimatic, even in your framework. I think there are many things one could easily provide exact weights of without having to use a scale at all.  Can you not?

Thanks for editing the sentence for clarity, it helps a lot. 

And thanks also for taking the time to address my questions.  Here is where I am now in using logic and your explanations to understand how downward forces act on objects ("why they fall?") in your denpressure model

1.  The atmosphere stacks molecularly from the ground or ocean to the dome.

2.  A suspended object's own dense mass displaces atmosphere into this stacked system. 

3.  This displacement of atmosphere into the already stacked system creates a region of higher pressure, higher density, and more compressed atmosphere 'above' the suspended object (in the orientation of the stacking and the direction of the dome).

4.  This higher pressure, more compressed atmosphere above the object creates a net downward force on the object, creating tension in the suspension system and causing the object to fall towards the foundation if released.

I hope this is largely correct, feel free to edit again if you would like for clarity.

If this is correct, there are a couple of logical questions about this model that naturally follow from the above, but before I go there, I would like to make sure I am not getting confused because of differing usages of common terms  (for example, "pressure").  We might be using the same word but have very different conceptual ideas about what these words mean, and I want to make sure I am using yours when I think about your model.

Can you describe what "pressure" is in you conceptual framework?  Is it even a scalar quantity?

You're basically  getting it, it seems.
Let's see where you go with it.
The pressure can be looked upon as scalar if it helps you.

Don't just think of a stack being one downward pressure. The pressure is all around like I said.
I know I know.
Your next question will be. "so why down."

I can just feel it coming.

Understand that the object displaces the atmosphere all around. It pushes its own dense mass of atmosphere away from it.
That dense mass is crushing back,
To add to that you have to understand that there is a lot more atmosphere above than below the object, assuming it's using a foundation (ground or scale plate on the ground....or table or roof. You get the idea.) or suspended in the air by something with a foundation.

By all means keep at it but try not to go too far ahead until we are sure of what you have in your mind.
Hit me with your questions and we will deal with them.

Maybe I'm not fully getting you as much as you not fully getting me.

Its a balance scale...
So by that admission we can add teetertotters to yor list of fake news?

A balance scale does not give a scale measurement reading to find weight. It merely balanced mass.
You need to find the weight of that mass. How do you do it?

Your previous description of an air pump on a pressurevessel stated it pushed back against the atmosphere to allow inside molecukes to decompress.
So
If displacing atmosphere caused stacking then then pressure vessel should get heavier when the pump evacuates it.
No?

Not as simple as it appears.

It's sort of counteractive.
See if you can guess why.

Quote from: Sceptimatic

No ability to measure atmospheric pressure upon the mass displacing it = no discernible weight. It's as simple as that.

Sorry for interjecting, but I'm not sure this is true Sceptimatic, even in your framework. I think there are many things one could easily provide exact weights of without having to use a scale at all.  Can you not?

Ok, I'll put this to you.
Let's imagine we are on a desert island.
You have the ability to make whatever you want to make.

I ask you how heavy the big rock is on the beach.
Can you tell me how you would give me a weight reading of it?

You're basically  getting it, it seems.
Let's see where you go with it.
The pressure can be looked upon as scalar if it helps you.

Don't just think of a stack being one downward pressure. The pressure is all around like I said.
I know I know.
Your next question will be. "so why down."

I can just feel it coming.

Understand that the object displaces the atmosphere all around. It pushes its own dense mass of atmosphere away from it.
That dense mass is crushing back,
To add to that you have to understand that there is a lot more atmosphere above than below the object, assuming it's using a foundation (ground or scale plate on the ground....or table or roof. You get the idea.) or suspended in the air by something with a foundation.

Thanks Sceptimatic, especially on the clarity that we can speak about pressure as a normal scalar quantity in your model (in my mind I was starting to think of it as a tensor, which would require a lot more thought to get my head around). And actually, I have no problem with "why down?" in this scenario.  There is a higher pressure above the object than below, so there should be a net force down.  That seems simple. 

"Why up" is far more interesting in my opinion, why does the displacement via dense mass only create a higher pressure region above a suspended object?  I think this is a logical question that follows and I'm not sure that having more atmosphere above it than below is a logical answer, but if you want to expand (ha ha) on this some more I will certainly think about it. 

But actually, the real question I have is about the area of higher pressure and density above the object.  In a classical model of fluids, unbalanced spatial pressure and density differences would drive fluid flow (wind, flow through pipes, etc...).  But in your model, there can be static pressure differentials in a fluid that I can not see are balanced by some other force.  In your model, the pressure differential above the object does not create atmospheric flow and dissipate, but instead stays dense and compressed as long as the item is suspended.  Im trying to think how this could logically work while also maintaining how other pressure and density differentials (such as sound transmission) would work in this framework.

 

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 08:02:56 AM

Quote from: Sceptimatic

No ability to measure atmospheric pressure upon the mass displacing it = no discernible weight. It's as simple as that.

Sorry for interjecting, but I'm not sure this is true Sceptimatic, even in your framework. I think there are many things one could easily provide exact weights of without having to use a scale at all.  Can you not?

Ok, I'll put this to you.
Let's imagine we are on a desert island.
You have the ability to make whatever you want to make.

I ask you how heavy the big rock is on the beach.
Can you tell me how you would give me a weight reading of it?

With the knowledge that I have and being able to build anything I could give the downward force in Newtons (what I am would refer to as weight) to a reasonable degree (+/- 50% or better), but of course that utilizes knowing some specific relationships in units and what a Newton is.  If I did not have that knowledge I could not do it.

But this is not what I was getting at.  I was more thinking that I could tell you the weight of an object in Newtons by counting the atoms in it chemically without ever needing any type of scale or balance at al?

Thanks Sceptimatic, especially on the clarity that we can speak about pressure as a normal scalar quantity in your model (in my mind I was starting to think of it as a tensor, which would require a lot more thought to get my head around). And actually, I have no problem with "why down?" in this scenario.  There is a higher pressure above the object than below, so there should be a net force down.  That seems simple. 

"Why up" is far more interesting in my opinion, why does the displacement via dense mass only create a higher pressure region above a suspended object?  I think this is a logical question that follows and I'm not sure that having more atmosphere above it than below is a logical answer, but if you want to expand (ha ha) on this some more I will certainly think about it.

Because the suspended object rests on the stack directly beneath its under surface.
It's like balancing a block on top of water by rope but only touching the surface.
You are simply at the top of that initial stack.
I'm using water as a mere atmospheric analogy not as how water is. Think of it as the atmospheric portion the block touches.
Hopefully you get this.
So above and around the block, it is compressing that atmosphere by it's own dense mass and that compression is added to the atmosphere above and around that block to try and crush it down through the waiting resistance of the water (below atmosphere) but the string stops that happening.
Imagine that water being a scale plate on the ground with the same suspended block on a rope just say touching that scale plate.
The scale plate cannot resist the dense mass of the block and nor can the block push into the scale plate.

 

But actually, the real question I have is about the area of higher pressure and density above the object.  In a classical model of fluids, unbalanced spatial pressure and density differences would drive fluid flow (wind, flow through pipes, etc...).  But in your model, there can be static pressure differentials in a fluid that I can not see are balanced by some other force.  In your model, the pressure differential above the object does not create atmospheric flow and dissipate, but instead stays dense and compressed as long as the item is suspended.
  Im trying to think how this could logically work while also maintaining how other pressure and density differentials (such as sound transmission) would work in this framework.

The atmosphere still flows but the pressure always stays as long as the object is there to displace it.
It doesn't just keep the same molecular compression.

You're stepping into territory that goes a bit too far beyond the basics.
We can go into this as long as you understand what's happening at the basic level.

It's far too easy to lose track of this if we don't keep to a steady look into it.

I can definitely go into all this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2019, 08:41:26 AM

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 08:02:56 AM

Quote from: Sceptimatic

No ability to measure atmospheric pressure upon the mass displacing it = no discernible weight. It's as simple as that.

Sorry for interjecting, but I'm not sure this is true Sceptimatic, even in your framework. I think there are many things one could easily provide exact weights of without having to use a scale at all.  Can you not?

Ok, I'll put this to you.
Let's imagine we are on a desert island.
You have the ability to make whatever you want to make.

I ask you how heavy the big rock is on the beach.
Can you tell me how you would give me a weight reading of it?

With the knowledge that I have and being able to build anything I could give the downward force in Newtons (what I am would refer to as weight) to a reasonable degree (+/- 50% or better), but of course that utilizes knowing some specific relationships in units and what a Newton is.  If I did not have that knowledge I could not do it.

But this is not what I was getting at.  I was more thinking that I could tell you the weight of an object in Newtons by counting the atoms in it chemically without ever needing any type of scale or balance at al?

What is a Newton?

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 09:20:39 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2019, 08:41:26 AM

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 08:02:56 AM

Quote from: Sceptimatic

No ability to measure atmospheric pressure upon the mass displacing it = no discernible weight. It's as simple as that.

Sorry for interjecting, but I'm not sure this is true Sceptimatic, even in your framework. I think there are many things one could easily provide exact weights of without having to use a scale at all.  Can you not?

Ok, I'll put this to you.
Let's imagine we are on a desert island.
You have the ability to make whatever you want to make.

I ask you how heavy the big rock is on the beach.
Can you tell me how you would give me a weight reading of it?

With the knowledge that I have and being able to build anything I could give the downward force in Newtons (what I am would refer to as weight) to a reasonable degree (+/- 50% or better), but of course that utilizes knowing some specific relationships in units and what a Newton is.  If I did not have that knowledge I could not do it.

But this is not what I was getting at.  I was more thinking that I could tell you the weight of an object in Newtons by counting the atoms in it chemically without ever needing any type of scale or balance at al?

What is a Newton?

It's about 1/10 of the downward force that a liter of water would produce.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2019, 09:47:50 AM

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 09:20:39 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2019, 08:41:26 AM

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 08:02:56 AM

Quote from: Sceptimatic

No ability to measure atmospheric pressure upon the mass displacing it = no discernible weight. It's as simple as that.

Sorry for interjecting, but I'm not sure this is true Sceptimatic, even in your framework. I think there are many things one could easily provide exact weights of without having to use a scale at all.  Can you not?

Ok, I'll put this to you.
Let's imagine we are on a desert island.
You have the ability to make whatever you want to make.

I ask you how heavy the big rock is on the beach.
Can you tell me how you would give me a weight reading of it?

With the knowledge that I have and being able to build anything I could give the downward force in Newtons (what I am would refer to as weight) to a reasonable degree (+/- 50% or better), but of course that utilizes knowing some specific relationships in units and what a Newton is.  If I did not have that knowledge I could not do it.

But this is not what I was getting at.  I was more thinking that I could tell you the weight of an object in Newtons by counting the atoms in it chemically without ever needing any type of scale or balance at al?

What is a Newton?

It's about 1/10 of the downward force that a liter of water would produce.

What downward force would this be and how would you begin to measure a weight based on this on this island?

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 09:14:54 AM

Thanks Sceptimatic, especially on the clarity that we can speak about pressure as a normal scalar quantity in your model (in my mind I was starting to think of it as a tensor, which would require a lot more thought to get my head around). And actually, I have no problem with "why down?" in this scenario.  There is a higher pressure above the object than below, so there should be a net force down.  That seems simple. 

"Why up" is far more interesting in my opinion, why does the displacement via dense mass only create a higher pressure region above a suspended object?  I think this is a logical question that follows and I'm not sure that having more atmosphere above it than below is a logical answer, but if you want to expand (ha ha) on this some more I will certainly think about it.

Because the suspended object rests on the stack directly beneath its under surface.
It's like balancing a block on top of water by rope but only touching the surface.
You are simply at the top of that initial stack.
I'm using water as a mere atmospheric analogy not as how water is. Think of it as the atmospheric portion the block touches.
Hopefully you get this.
So above and around the block, it is compressing that atmosphere by it's own dense mass and that compression is added to the atmosphere above and around that block to try and crush it down through the waiting resistance of the water (below atmosphere) but the string stops that happening.
Imagine that water being a scale plate on the ground with the same suspended block on a rope just say touching that scale plate.
The scale plate cannot resist the dense mass of the block and nor can the block push into the scale plate.

 

Quote from: sobchak

But actually, the real question I have is about the area of higher pressure and density above the object.  In a classical model of fluids, unbalanced spatial pressure and density differences would drive fluid flow (wind, flow through pipes, etc...).  But in your model, there can be static pressure differentials in a fluid that I can not see are balanced by some other force.  In your model, the pressure differential above the object does not create atmospheric flow and dissipate, but instead stays dense and compressed as long as the item is suspended.
  Im trying to think how this could logically work while also maintaining how other pressure and density differentials (such as sound transmission) would work in this framework.

The atmosphere still flows but the pressure always stays as long as the object is there to displace it.
It doesn't just keep the same molecular compression.

You're stepping into territory that goes a bit too far beyond the basics.
We can go into this as long as you understand what's happening at the basic level.

It's far too easy to lose track of this if we don't keep to a steady look into it.

I can definitely go into all this.

Your model keeps getting simpler.

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 10:03:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2019, 09:47:50 AM

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 09:20:39 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2019, 08:41:26 AM

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 08:02:56 AM

Quote from: Sceptimatic

No ability to measure atmospheric pressure upon the mass displacing it = no discernible weight. It's as simple as that.

Sorry for interjecting, but I'm not sure this is true Sceptimatic, even in your framework. I think there are many things one could easily provide exact weights of without having to use a scale at all.  Can you not?

Ok, I'll put this to you.
Let's imagine we are on a desert island.
You have the ability to make whatever you want to make.

I ask you how heavy the big rock is on the beach.
Can you tell me how you would give me a weight reading of it?

With the knowledge that I have and being able to build anything I could give the downward force in Newtons (what I am would refer to as weight) to a reasonable degree (+/- 50% or better), but of course that utilizes knowing some specific relationships in units and what a Newton is.  If I did not have that knowledge I could not do it.

But this is not what I was getting at.  I was more thinking that I could tell you the weight of an object in Newtons by counting the atoms in it chemically without ever needing any type of scale or balance at al?

What is a Newton?

It's about 1/10 of the downward force that a liter of water would produce.

What downward force would this be and how would you begin to measure a weight based on this on this island?

The downward force that a liter of water produces when suspended on a rope. 

I know about what a liter of water is approximately - I would sling a rope over a support and tie one end to the boulder and keep adding approximate liters of water to the other side.  When the rock starts to rise I would know the downward force from the suspended boulder is equal to the downward force of the suspended water, and I report this approximation of the downward force of the boulder in Newtons.  It won't be incredibly accurate but I think it would be okay.  Cleverer people could obviously do better, could you using your model? 

The downward force that a liter of water produces when suspended on a rope.

What downward force is acting on the  water suspended on the rope?

 

I know about what a liter of water is approximately - I would sling a rope over a support and tie one end to the boulder and keep adding approximate liters of water to the other side.  When the rock starts to rise I would know the downward force from the suspended boulder is equal to the downward force of the suspended water, and I report this approximation of the downward force of the boulder in Newtons.  It won't be incredibly accurate but I think it would be okay.  Cleverer people could obviously do better, could you using your model?

You are on the island with nothing. You can invent anything you want to but you have to know what you are inventing to solve issues because the litre and everything else does not exist. Nothing exists otehr than the food and water the island provides, plus the necessary stuff to manufacture whatever you can aid you to move forward.

In this case we need to find out how much the rock weight on that beach.
What do you invent to start that off so we can understand weight?

I know we're going way off track here but there's a method in my asking, as you are aware.

Quote from: sobchak on January 15, 2019, 10:22:42 AM

The downward force that a liter of water produces when suspended on a rope.

What downward force is acting on the  water suspended on the rope?

 

Quote from: sobchak

I know about what a liter of water is approximately - I would sling a rope over a support and tie one end to the boulder and keep adding approximate liters of water to the other side.  When the rock starts to rise I would know the downward force from the suspended boulder is equal to the downward force of the suspended water, and I report this approximation of the downward force of the boulder in Newtons.  It won't be incredibly accurate but I think it would be okay.  Cleverer people could obviously do better, could you using your model?

You are on the island with nothing. You can invent anything you want to but you have to know what you are inventing to solve issues because the litre and everything else does not exist. Nothing exists otehr than the food and water the island provides, plus the necessary stuff to manufacture whatever you can aid you to move forward.

In this case we need to find out how much the rock weight on that beach.
What do you invent to start that off so we can understand weight?

I know we're going way off track here but there's a method in my asking, as you are aware.

We define units to measure things, see http://www.npl.co.uk/si-units/