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

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.

My contention is that to understand the downward force on an object all you need is a rope slung over support.

To quantitate the downward force on an object, all you would need is a chosen fixed length, the ability to make a container based on this length, and a fluid, like water. 

I know you disagree, and that's fine, we are both obviously entitled to our own thoughts.  And as you said, we are getting off topic here so I'll drop this now, I'm not here to bicker and I will get back to trying to understand your model.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 15, 2019, 06:45:03 AM

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.

No, we have to agree what you are talking about, what are the units, kg or kg/cu m?

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.

[ignoring the rest and instead taking this simple answer. If you contradicted it below, I don't care]
Which would then apply equally in other directions. If you pushed an object sideways, it would create a pressure gradient pushing it back, causing it to fall back sideways. If you pushed an object down it would create a pressure gradient pushing it back causing it to fall back upwards.
But none of that is observed.
So that explanation clearly doesn't work.

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

I've altered number two.

But that directly contradicts your prior claim.
You said yes to it depending upon how it got there. Now you are taking it as always being there.

Is it really surprising no one accepts your model and so many people don't take it seriously when you repeatedly contradict yourself?

But focusing on this claim: Why is this never observed?
How come static pressure gradients in the atmosphere and any other fluid are always observed to be in the opposite direction, with a higher pressure below which would force the object upwards?

]
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.

Which links directly back to his dome idea of you also getting a push sideways if you are off centre.
This means your model will only work in 2 situations:
1 -  an infinite FE.
2 - A round Earth.
A finite FE, with a dome which touches the ground will not work at all.

But regardless of what one you choose, things will still get in the way.
Stand near a cliff at the edge of an ocean, now you have a cliff (which can be used as a foundation) with very little atmosphere between it and you, and the massive amount of atmosphere in the other direction. This means you should be pushed into the cliff. But you aren't.
The same applies when standing near a wall.
We can even go further and place an object near (or even touching) the roof of a room, or a sealed vessel. Now more atmosphere below than above so it should be pushed up. But again, THIS NEVER HAPPENS!

So more atmosphere to one side clearly doesn't explain the directionality.
Moving the object doesn't explain the directionality.
The existing pressure gradient in the atmosphere causes the opposite directionality.

But even ignoring all those problems, the directionality you claim this provides, would be the same for all objects. That means every object would be moved down regardless of what fluid it is in. Again, this is contradicted by simple observation.

The only way to solve this issue is to accept the pressure gradient that exists in a fluid as causing an upwards force due to buoyancy and having a force which is not dependent upon the atmosphere pushing objects down.

So is this question really surprising?
WHY DO THINGS FALL?

Again, we have clearly established that it isn't the atmosphere.

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?

I'll ask for a spring with a known value of the spring constant.
I will then suspend the rock from it (asking for whatever is requires) and use the elongation of the spring to determine the weight.
For added fun, to remove the effects of buoyancy I will ask for it to all be inside a pressure vessel with absolutely no atmosphere inside.
That will then show the weight, based upon the elongation of the spring, without any atmosphere involved.

If I can't get one with a known spring constant then I will either make up my own units, or get everything needed to determine the existing units (and that is a completely different topic).

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.

If theres a method and youre not trolling then we can have at it.

You have a liter jug.
You have a teeteetotter.
One side is a tank.
Other is a platform to hold rhe rock.
Perfectly level.
Fill tank with water until rock is level.
Same as previously described balanxe scale works.
Saltwater will have a +5% error.

Where you going with this.

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

"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.

You are simply at the top of that initial stack.

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 (edit)below(edit) but the string stops that happening.

Based on the above, would it be fair to summarize what you are saying above as? -

Due to the oriented molecular stacking, the displacement of the atmosphere by the dense mass of an object only occurs upward and laterally, and never downwards.

 

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: sceptimatic

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.

I'm not sure I am following you here.  So the atmosphere is flowing as a result of the higher pressure, higher density, more compressed region above a suspended object?   Not completely clear here.

You're stepping into territory that goes a bit too far beyond the basics.

Personally, this still seems terribly basic to me.  If you build an entire model out of the idea that air pressure and its displacement drive observed forces through the creation of local pressure gradients, a conceptual framework of how these gradients behave seems fundamental. 

It's okay though if you haven't thought it all through completely, or need more time, or simply don't know these things yet.  All models are incomplete, all models are wrong, some models are useful.  This is just the nature of using a conceptual model to describe reality.  So I'm not terribly bothered if you don't have a consistent framework yet to answer all the questions being asked of your model, but am interested in the answers you do have. 

I'll ask for a spring with a known value of the spring constant.
I will then suspend the rock from it (asking for whatever is requires) and use the elongation of the spring to determine the weight.

But you have no way of knowing the value of the spring.

For added fun, to remove the effects of buoyancy I will ask for it to all be inside a pressure vessel with absolutely no atmosphere inside.
That will then show the weight, based upon the elongation of the spring, without any atmosphere involved.

You still have no way of knowing the value of the spring.

If I can't get one with a known spring constant then I will either make up my own units, or get everything needed to determine the existing units (and that is a completely different topic).

Bingo...in bold.

Congratulations you are on your way to creating a measurement for mass that you can call, weight.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2019, 10:47:50 AM

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.

If theres a method and youre not trolling then we can have at it.

You have a liter jug.
You have a teeteetotter.
One side is a tank.
Other is a platform to hold rhe rock.
Perfectly level.
Fill tank with water until rock is level.
Same as previously described balanxe scale works.
Saltwater will have a +5% error.

Where you going with this.

How do you know you have a litre jug?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 15, 2019, 12:50:59 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2019, 10:47:50 AM

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.

If theres a method and youre not trolling then we can have at it.

You have a liter jug.
You have a teeteetotter.
One side is a tank.
Other is a platform to hold rhe rock.
Perfectly level.
Fill tank with water until rock is level.
Same as previously described balanxe scale works.
Saltwater will have a +5% error.

Where you going with this.

How do you know you have a litre jug?

One litre is specifically defined as 1000cm³.
Equivalent to a cube of sides 10cm.
Simple.

Quote from: sceptimatic

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

"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.

You are simply at the top of that initial stack.

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 (edit)below(edit) but the string stops that happening.

Based on the above, would it be fair to summarize what you are saying above as? -

Due to the oriented molecular stacking, the displacement of the atmosphere by the dense mass of an object only occurs upward and laterally, and never downwards.

Correct.
Feel free to grill me on this. I'm sure you want further explanation.

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.

I'm not sure I am following you here.  So the atmosphere is flowing as a result of the higher pressure, higher density, more compressed region above a suspended object?   Not completely clear here.

No. The object is suspended and displacing the atmosphere like I said. It's compressing it above  and around but not below, as I said.
However high and low pressures are always being created around this and all over the entire Earth.
Everything is still moving through high and low pressures, creating what we know as wind pressures.
The suspended object will still expand and contract due to pressure differentials around it and below it.
This requires much more explanation but I'll wait until you go down that route.
 

Quote from: sceptimatic

You're stepping into territory that goes a bit too far beyond the basics.

Personally, this still seems terribly basic to me.  If you build an entire model out of the idea that air pressure and its displacement drive observed forces through the creation of local pressure gradients, a conceptual framework of how these gradients behave seems fundamental. 

It's okay though if you haven't thought it all through completely, or need more time, or simply don't know these things yet.  All models are incomplete, all models are wrong, some models are useful.  This is just the nature of using a conceptual model to describe reality.  So I'm not terribly bothered if you don't have a consistent framework yet to answer all the questions being asked of your model, but am interested in the answers you do have.

Fair enough, just go the way you feel and I'll answer unless I feel it runs too far ahead.
What you have to understand is, I'm trying to keep it at the raw basic and moving on slowly so anyone looking in can also try and grasp it.

You may be thinking on whatever level you think on but others have different takes on what's said and different levels of acceptance of what's being conveyed to them.

One litre is specifically defined as 1000cm³.
Equivalent to a cube of sides 10cm.
Simple.

Not on your desert island without any means of measurement it isn't.
Have you been paying attention?

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.

[ignoring the rest and instead taking this simple answer. If you contradicted it below, I don't care]
Which would then apply equally in other directions. If you pushed an object sideways, it would create a pressure gradient pushing it back, causing it to fall back sideways. If you pushed an object down it would create a pressure gradient pushing it back causing it to fall back upwards.
But none of that is observed.
So that explanation clearly doesn't work.

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

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

I've altered number two.

But that directly contradicts your prior claim.
You said yes to it depending upon how it got there. Now you are taking it as always being there.

Is it really surprising no one accepts your model and so many people don't take it seriously when you repeatedly contradict yourself?

But focusing on this claim: Why is this never observed?
How come static pressure gradients in the atmosphere and any other fluid are always observed to be in the opposite direction, with a higher pressure below which would force the object upwards?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2019, 08:27:06 AM

]
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.

Which links directly back to his dome idea of you also getting a push sideways if you are off centre.
This means your model will only work in 2 situations:
1 -  an infinite FE.
2 - A round Earth.
A finite FE, with a dome which touches the ground will not work at all.

But regardless of what one you choose, things will still get in the way.
Stand near a cliff at the edge of an ocean, now you have a cliff (which can be used as a foundation) with very little atmosphere between it and you, and the massive amount of atmosphere in the other direction. This means you should be pushed into the cliff. But you aren't.
The same applies when standing near a wall.
We can even go further and place an object near (or even touching) the roof of a room, or a sealed vessel. Now more atmosphere below than above so it should be pushed up. But again, THIS NEVER HAPPENS!

So more atmosphere to one side clearly doesn't explain the directionality.
Moving the object doesn't explain the directionality.
The existing pressure gradient in the atmosphere causes the opposite directionality.

Ha
I was just thinking about that myself

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 15, 2019, 12:50:59 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2019, 10:47:50 AM

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.

If theres a method and youre not trolling then we can have at it.

You have a liter jug.
You have a teeteetotter.
One side is a tank.
Other is a platform to hold rhe rock.
Perfectly level.
Fill tank with water until rock is level.
Same as previously described balanxe scale works.
Saltwater will have a +5% error.

Where you going with this.

How do you know you have a litre jug?

Where you going with this.
Quit trolling and get to the point.
We're in our way to 200pg.

How do you define a mile?
How do you define 1dollar?
Arbitrarily equated it to something that everyone else agreed/ forced to agree to.

Ok looks like i missed that "litre doesnt exist" instruction.

I have a jug of some hand held volume.
The rock will weigh equal to XXX amount of jugs of water.
There.
Tht make you feel better?
Whats now is the point?

Ok looks like i missed that "litre doesnt exist" instruction.

I have a jug of some hand held volume.
The rock will weigh equal to XXX amount of jugs of water.
There.
Tht make you feel better?
Whats now is the point?

You need to find the weight.
How do you do it?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 16, 2019, 12:47:57 PM

Ok looks like i missed that "litre doesnt exist" instruction.

I have a jug of some hand held volume.
The rock will weigh equal to XXX amount of jugs of water.
There.
Tht make you feel better?
Whats now is the point?

You need to find the weight.
How do you do it?

Maybe algebras not good for you...
Lets say the rock weighs 6jugs of water to balance out.
It now weighs 6J.
J for my new unit jugs.
Or we can go back to LN (king tuts left nut) in that case 624LN.

But you have no way of knowing the value of the spring.

Then like I said, I will either make up my own units or get that required to determine the existing ones.

Congratulations you are on your way to creating a measurement for mass that you can call, weight.

No, mass and weight are too different things.
You can create independent measures of mass and weight.
For mass, I will have the object oscillate horizontally, for weight I will suspend it vertically.
They produce 2 fundamentally different measurements.

But none of that measurement is required for mass and weight to exist. Measuring something doesn't magically make it exist.

It's compressing it above  and around but not below, as I said.

Why is it not magically compressing below?
You are aware that air is a fluid right? If it isn't compressing the air below it will then just cause the air to flow around and go to the bottom.

However high and low pressures are always being created around this and all over the entire Earth.

Yes, and they typically push things upwards or just blow them around as wind. They don't seem to push down very often.

I'm trying to keep it at the raw basic and moving on slowly so anyone looking in can also try and grasp it.

Yet you repeatedly ignore the basics and can't even explain something as basic as why do things fall.

Again, WE KNOW IT ISN'T ANYTHING YOU HAVE TRIED CLAIMING IT IS!
We know it isn't simply existing in the fluid as that has roughly the same pressure pushing from all sides which would just crush the object, not push it down.
We know it isn't a constant pressure gradient pushing the object down, that is because the static pressure gradient in the atmosphere (and in fact all fluids) is in the opposite direction and acts to push things up, not down. That is the buoyant force.
We know it isn't due to moving the object as that should allow it to act in any direction and moving an object to the left should result in the atmosphere pushing it back to the right.
We know it isn't the amount of atmosphere above and below as that should result in us being pushed into walls and objects being pushed into a roof from below.

So again:
WHY DO THINGS FALL?
This is a very simple question that you feel a need to repeatedly avoid.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2019, 12:51:18 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 16, 2019, 12:47:57 PM

Ok looks like i missed that "litre doesnt exist" instruction.

I have a jug of some hand held volume.
The rock will weigh equal to XXX amount of jugs of water.
There.
Tht make you feel better?
Whats now is the point?

You need to find the weight.
How do you do it?

Maybe algebras not good for you...
Lets say the rock weighs 6jugs of water to balance out.
It now weighs 6J.
J for my new unit jugs.
Or we can go back to LN (king tuts left nut) in that case 624LN.

Ok you're getting there.
You've managed to displace water with your rock to fill a jug you made, 6 times.
How do you manage to transfer that to measuring the rock's mass without water?

Quote from: JackBlack on January 15, 2019, 12:50:18 PM

I'll ask for a spring with a known value of the spring constant.
I will then suspend the rock from it (asking for whatever is requires) and use the elongation of the spring to determine the weight.

But you have no way of knowing the value of the spring.

Quote from: JackBlack

For added fun, to remove the effects of buoyancy I will ask for it to all be inside a pressure vessel with absolutely no atmosphere inside.
That will then show the weight, based upon the elongation of the spring, without any atmosphere involved.

You still have no way of knowing the value of the spring.

Quote from: JackBlack

If I can't get one with a known spring constant then I will either make up my own units, or get everything needed to determine the existing units (and that is a completely different topic).

Bingo...in bold.

Congratulations you are on your way to creating a measurement for mass that you can call, weight.

We have a definition for mass, universally accepted.

So patronizing...

Anywho

Mass  and weight under whose definition?
Doesnt matter.

Whats your point

Ok you're getting there.

And you still aren't and instead are still going down rabbit holes of distractions.
Weight exists independent of measurement. If it didn't everything would float.

Now, care to explain why things fall?
Again:
We know it isn't simply existing in the fluid as that has roughly the same pressure pushing from all sides which would just crush the object, not push it down.
We know it isn't a constant pressure gradient pushing the object down, that is because the static pressure gradient in the atmosphere (and in fact all fluids) is in the opposite direction and acts to push things up, not down. That is the buoyant force.
We know it isn't due to moving the object as that should allow it to act in any direction and moving an object to the left should result in the atmosphere pushing it back to the right.
We know it isn't the amount of atmosphere above and below as that should result in us being pushed into walls and objects being pushed into a roof from below.

So again:
WHY DO THINGS FALL?

If you cared about having a model which matched reality you would easily be able to explain this or admit you can't.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2019, 02:46:19 PM

Ok you're getting there.

And you still aren't and instead are still going down rabbit holes of distractions.
Weight exists independent of measurement. If it didn't everything would float.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So again:
WHY DO THINGS FALL?

If you cared about having a model which matched reality you would easily be able to explain this or admit you can't.

Can no-one understand that sceptimatic converses in a completely different language that is untranslatable to or from English.
The words are English words but it might be as in this paraphrase: :

“When I use a word,” Sceptimatic said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Sceptimatic, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
                      Apologies to LEWIS CARROLL (Charles L. Dodgson), and Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.

In other words, "Don't argue with an . . . . . and he only enjoys it".

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2019, 02:46:19 PM

Ok you're getting there.

And you still aren't and instead are still going down rabbit holes of distractions.
Weight exists independent of measurement. If it didn't everything would float.

Now, care to explain why things fall?
Again:
We know it isn't simply existing in the fluid as that has roughly the same pressure pushing from all sides which would just crush the object, not push it down.
We know it isn't a constant pressure gradient pushing the object down, that is because the static pressure gradient in the atmosphere (and in fact all fluids) is in the opposite direction and acts to push things up, not down. That is the buoyant force.
We know it isn't due to moving the object as that should allow it to act in any direction and moving an object to the left should result in the atmosphere pushing it back to the right.
We know it isn't the amount of atmosphere above and below as that should result in us being pushed into walls and objects being pushed into a roof from below.

So again:
WHY DO THINGS FALL?

If you cared about having a model which matched reality you would easily be able to explain this or admit you can't.

My model does match reality as far as I'm concerned. What does match reality is the model you adhere to.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 16, 2019, 04:04:47 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2019, 02:46:19 PM

Ok you're getting there.

And you still aren't and instead are still going down rabbit holes of distractions.
Weight exists independent of measurement. If it didn't everything would float.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So again:
WHY DO THINGS FALL?

If you cared about having a model which matched reality you would easily be able to explain this or admit you can't.

Can no-one understand that sceptimatic converses in a completely different language that is untranslatable to or from English.
The words are English words but it might be as in this paraphrase: :

Quote

“When I use a word,” Sceptimatic said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Sceptimatic, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
                      Apologies to LEWIS CARROLL (Charles L. Dodgson), and Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.

In other words, "Don't argue with an . . . . . and he only enjoys it".

When you can't break someone down mob handed it frustrates you. I understand that. It's time to resort to other tactics.
What you would be better off doing is trying to question your indoctrination and look for alternatives to it.

There's plenty provided on this forum and on the internet.

Try it instead of wasting your time trying to ridicule and getting nowhere.

What you would be better off doing is trying to question your indoctrination and look for alternatives to it.

And what you would be better off doing is to stop attacking others and calling them indoctrinated or the like and explain why things fall.

Again:
We know it isn't simply existing in the fluid as that has roughly the same pressure pushing from all sides which would just crush the object, not push it down.
We know it isn't a constant pressure gradient pushing the object down, that is because the static pressure gradient in the atmosphere (and in fact all fluids) is in the opposite direction and acts to push things up, not down. That is the buoyant force.
We know it isn't due to moving the object as that should allow it to act in any direction and moving an object to the left should result in the atmosphere pushing it back to the right.
We know it isn't the amount of atmosphere above and below as that should result in us being pushed into walls and objects being pushed into a roof from below.

So why do things fall?

Hello Sceptimatic,

If you want to explain a little further why dense mass can only displace atmosphere upwards and laterally, and never downwards, I would be interested in hearing it.  I will accept it as axiomatic in your model, so that's fine, but it seems more ad hoc than logical to be honest.  Thats just my opinion of course, and I may just not be understanding it correctly.

Really though, I'm still most interested in the region of high pressure, high density atmosphere above a suspended object.  I am still struggling to understand how uniform rules of pressure and flow can both allow pressure/density gradients in a fluid to dissipate as we expect (for example, sound), and to allow for a stable, standing pressure/density gradient in an open fluid.  We could get the latter by considering the atmosphere a compressible elastic material, but then you can not move through it.  You can have viscoelastic materials, which can have standing pressure/density gradients in an open system while simultaneously having flow, but the gradients are not stable and degrade.  Im really struggling to understand how the atmosphere can simultaneously have these fluid and elastic properties.  Can you explain a little more clearly? 

One more question, does mathematics work in your model?  Im specifically wondering whether if we measure the downward force on a suspended object, can we use the upper surface area of the object to calculate the force that your model depicts?

We know it isn't simply existing in the fluid as that has roughly the same pressure pushing from all sides which would just crush the object, not push it down.

Answer this question as simply and as briefly as you can.

If a ship is floating on water, is it being pushed up from below or is it being crushed up from the water all around it and merely sitting on resistant water below.
Have a think about that one before you dive in.(pardon the pun).

We know it isn't a constant pressure gradient pushing the object down, that is because the static pressure gradient in the atmosphere (and in fact all fluids) is in the opposite direction and acts to push things up, not down. That is the buoyant force.

The buoyant force isn't a push from below. It is a resistance to push/crush/compression from above and around.
Below is merely a foundation.

We know it isn't due to moving the object as that should allow it to act in any direction and moving an object to the left should result in the atmosphere pushing it back to the right.

Move the object anywhere you want to, it still displaces the atmosphere it is in b y it's own mass.

We know it isn't the amount of atmosphere above and below as that should result in us being pushed into walls and objects being pushed into a roof from below.

Why?
We are being pushed down against a resistant foundation. Why should be be pushed up if our dense mass displaces atmosphere above and around whilst using a foundation to stop us being crushed down?

So why do things fall?

For the very reasons I gave. Simply put, denpressure.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 17, 2019, 12:31:27 AM

We know it isn't simply existing in the fluid as that has roughly the same pressure pushing from all sides which would just crush the object, not push it down.

Answer this question as simply and as briefly as you can.

If a ship is floating on water, is it being pushed up from below or is it being crushed up from the water all around it and merely sitting on resistant water below.
Have a think about that one before you dive in.(pardon the pun).

Quote from: JackBlack

We know it isn't a constant pressure gradient pushing the object down, that is because the static pressure gradient in the atmosphere (and in fact all fluids) is in the opposite direction and acts to push things up, not down. That is the buoyant force.

The buoyant force isn't a push from below. It is a resistance to push/crush/compression from above and around.
Below is merely a foundation.

Quote from: JackBlack

We know it isn't due to moving the object as that should allow it to act in any direction and moving an object to the left should result in the atmosphere pushing it back to the right.

Move the object anywhere you want to, it still displaces the atmosphere it is in b y it's own mass.

Quote from: JackBlack

We know it isn't the amount of atmosphere above and below as that should result in us being pushed into walls and objects being pushed into a roof from below.

Why?
We are being pushed down against a resistant foundation. Why should be be pushed up if our dense mass displaces atmosphere above and around whilst using a foundation to stop us being crushed down?

Quote from: JackBlack

So why do things fall?

For the very reasons I gave. Simply put, denpressure.

You have still not answered why an objects weight does not vary with changes in atmospheric pressure.

Hello Sceptimatic,

If you want to explain a little further why dense mass can only displace atmosphere upwards and laterally, and never downwards, I would be interested in hearing it.  I will accept it as axiomatic in your model, so that's fine, but it seems more ad hoc than logical to be honest.  Thats just my opinion of course, and I may just not be understanding it correctly.

If you observe my answer to Jackblack above, it may help.
However I'll use another explanation for you.

Imagine you are hanging from a tarzan rope from a tree over the water.
You are the mass that is displacing the atmosphere. Let's assume the water is simply a denser atmosphere in the stack below...which it in in theory.
Ok, your feet touch that water ever so slightly.
Now normally that water resistance would be your weak foundation to your mass against upper atmospheric pressure acting on it from above and around like I said.
The water is below, not atmosphere, so we know atmosphere is not pushing you up because your feet are touching water.
That water below you is merely stacked and doing nothing other than filling in the atmosphere.
Your foundation is the tree trunk in the ground.

You could then say " ok but what if I'm not touching the water"
I would then say that your feet are at the top of that small amount of stacked atmosphere below them.
It doesn't have to resist you because the rope and tree are doing that in the ground foundation.

Stacking means exactly what it says but the stacking is always done from below.

Really though, I'm still most interested in the region of high pressure, high density atmosphere above a suspended object.  I am still struggling to understand how uniform rules of pressure and flow can both allow pressure/density gradients in a fluid to dissipate as we expect (for example, sound), and to allow for a stable, standing pressure/density gradient in an open fluid.  We could get the latter by considering the atmosphere a compressible elastic material, but then you can not move through it.

Give me a simple example of something you'd like me to answer by my reasoning, just so I'm clear on what you're getting at, so we don't get lost in this.

  You can have viscoelastic materials, which can have standing pressure/density gradients in an open system while simultaneously having flow, but the gradients are not stable and degrade.  Im really struggling to understand how the atmosphere can simultaneously have these fluid and elastic properties.  Can you explain a little more clearly?

Give me a simple example of something so I can answer it from my side. This is the best way I can think of to be clearer.

 

One more question, does mathematics work in your model?  Im specifically wondering whether if we measure the downward force on a suspended object, can we use the upper surface area of the object to calculate the force that your model depicts?

Mathematics work fine if you simply use them for denpressure instead of gravity and such.
They work right now, so they obviously are fine.

I know you can say " well doesn't that prove you wrong."
No it doesn't. It shows how we are duped into accepting fictional forces instead of real forces and merely changing a few things will show that.
The problem though, is, if we stick to denpressure it kills space and the spinning globe and everything else we are duped into about this stuff.

It just requires a bit of thought.

You have still not answered why an objects weight does not vary with changes in atmospheric pressure.

Do you know of anywhere in the world where something has weighed a set amount in one place and weighed differently in another, using the same scales?

Hahah does denP use math?

Scepti:  blablahablahablahablaha.

Short answer - no.


Scales.
Yes thing can vary in weight due to the very calculatable F=gmM/r^2.
This does NOT vary throughout the day whereas the weather and air pressure would.
But lets ignore gravity.
Things do fall at a MEASURED ~9.8m/s^2.
If you dropped a heavy block of lead from a 10story building.
You will be able to predict its impact.
No gravity.
im not talking about it.
Lets call it "predictive falling".
And only applies to objects that have very little wind resistance.


Somehwere you forgot your point.
The rock i picked weighs 6jugs.
Whats your point?