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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 95174 Views
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3180 on: January 17, 2019, 03:54:05 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
We are focusing first on objects in the air, not those floating on water.
Remember, basics first.
However, if you will try to make an effort:

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.
Crusthed up makes no sense.
It is being pushed up from below.
The water pressure is pushing it up.

The buoyant force isn't a push from below.
You rejecting reality doesn't magically change it.
Again, we can observe pressure gradients existing in reality.
These exist with a greater pressure the lower an object is.
This greater pressure below will result in an upwards force on the object.
So no, it is a push from below.

Also, arguing about what buoyancy is just another distraction.
The fact is we know the pressure gradient is opposite that required to produce a downwards force.
If you want to claim this doesn't cause the buoyant force that doesn't get you any closer to explaining why things fall.

It is a resistance to push/crush/compression from above and around.
No it isn't.
Resistance to push would mean no motion.
Resistance to crush/compression would be not being crushed.

Move the object anywhere you want to, it still displaces the atmosphere it is in b y it's own mass.
And that doesn't magically make it move back.

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?
I explained that, in that quote, which you have ignored.

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?
Place an object, like a sheet of paper on the roof.
Now the roof is acting as the foundation against which the atmosphere presses. This should result in the object being pushed up, but instead it falls.
Go lie against a wall, or press yourself against a wall or get a smooth block placed against a nice smooth wall. Now the wall is the foundation, so the object should be pressed into the wall, yet it isn't. You can easily remove it.

If you wish to claim we magically just get pushed down, you need to explain WHY.

For the very reasons I gave. Simply put, denpressure.
You have failed to provide any actual reason.
Every "reason" you have given has been refuted.

The water is below, not atmosphere, so we know atmosphere is not pushing you up because your feet are touching water.
No, instead the water is pushing you up.
How about you stop with the distractions and just deal with air, i.e. an object in mid air.

For simplicity, take a ball, hold it in between your fingers such that your fingers are on the side, extend your arm out, and then release.
Why does the ball go down?

Mathematics work fine if you simply use them for denpressure instead of gravity and such.
No they don't.
You have been completely unable to provide any math for your model.

The math we have currently is centred around gravity, not denpressure.

The problem though, is, if we stick to denpressure it kills space and the spinning globe
Not in the slightest.
Nothing you have said would work any less on a globe.
The only difference is instead of a stack going from a plane upwards, it goes from the surface of the globe outwards.


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?
That literally makes no sense.
How can you ask about a place that is 2 places?

Yes, weight varies around Earth, and how you move around Earth.
One such example is the Eotvos effect.
But if you want, you can go get your own scales and try it yourself.
Just note that they would need to be fairly accurate as the variation is typically less than 1 %.
But even if it didn't, that would just be further evidence against your model.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 03:56:20 AM by JackBlack »

*

rabinoz

  • 21643
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3181 on: January 17, 2019, 04:05:01 AM »

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?
Try weighing something in an aeroplane where the air pressure is typically only 75.3 kPa compared to 101 kPa at sea-level.
You will find that the weight depends slightly on the latitude and the direction the plane is travelling but not significantly on altitude.

Flat Earth vs Globe - The Eötvös effect observed in aircraft - how does it affect Gravity?
And yes. he did use the same very accurate scales.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3182 on: January 17, 2019, 04:16:24 AM »

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?
According to you it should as weight depends on the amount of atmosphere displaced.  Higher pressure, more atmosphere.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3183 on: January 17, 2019, 04:26:20 AM »
Hello Sceptimatic,

Quote from: sceptimatic
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.


This is why is seems a bit ad hoc.  As you state in your hypotheticals above, we can observe that the atmosphere below does not appear to be pushing up a suspended object, so you want your model to contain this observation.  The modification of your model such that displacement of atmosphere by dense mass only happens laterally and upwards achieves this goal, but does not follow logically from the base concept of your model, that objects exhibit forces simply from net pressure brought about by displacement of atmosphere by dense mass. 

I can not see any logic that would lead us in your model in the direction you have chosen, only pragmatism.  I’m happy to take this simply axiomatically though, or happy to hear more about the logic that brings you this way. 

The case that might be of interest to consider is the following:  a balloon is suspended on a hose, and hanging in a box sealed against the outside atmosphere. Water is pumped into the balloon through the hose, and it grows radially, expanding and displacing atmosphere as it does, and compressing the atmosphere around it.  Logically, one would think the growing balloon would expand into the atmosphere beneath it, but using your model, the displacement of atmosphere by dense mass can not happen downward, so the growing balloon does something to the atmosphere below that is not displacement.  Have a hard time seeing this logically. 

Quote from: sceptimatic

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.a
As simply as I think I can ask it - in a compressible fluid, how is it possible to have a stable local region of higher pressure and density in a static, open system? This is in contrast to everything we think we know about how fluids behave.  It's okay if we need to rewrite the rules of fluids for your model to work, we should just be cognizant of that fact. 

Quote from: sceptimatic

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

Great, that's really good to hear.  So let's take a metal cylinder with radius 5 cm and suspend it vertically along its axis from a spring with known spring constant.  We measure the spring displacement and calculate that the cylinder is exerting a net downward for of 10 N on the spring.  In your model, as its upper area is .0019 m^2, we can say that the upper surface has to have an increase of 5.3 kPa = 0.05 atm over the pressure below the object.  Is the right? I think I did the math correctly but could be off. 

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3184 on: January 17, 2019, 04:46:32 AM »
The case that might be of interest to consider is the following:  a balloon is suspended on a hose, and hanging in a box sealed against the outside atmosphere. Water is pumped into the balloon through the hose, and it grows radially, expanding and displacing atmosphere as it does, and compressing the atmosphere around it.  Logically, one would think the growing balloon would expand into the atmosphere beneath it, but using your model, the displacement of atmosphere by dense mass can not happen downward, so the growing balloon does something to the atmosphere below that is not displacement.  Have a hard time seeing this logically. 
It would displace the atmosphere below it. It's pushing that atmosphere aside as it expands the balloon. Basically it's compressing the air inside with denser fluid.



Quote from: sobchak
Quote from: sceptimatic

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.a
As simply as I think I can ask it - in a compressible fluid, how is it possible to have a stable local region of higher pressure and density in a static, open system? This is in contrast to everything we think we know about how fluids behave.  It's okay if we need to rewrite the rules of fluids for your model to work, we should just be cognizant of that fact.
What do you mean by, open system?


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3185 on: January 17, 2019, 05:07:13 AM »
Hello there -

Quote from: sobchak
the displacement of the atmosphere by the dense mass of an object only occurs upward and laterally, and never downwards.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Correct

Quote from: sceptimatic
It would displace the atmosphere below it.

So due to molecular stacking, the dense mass of an object never displaces the atmosphere beneath it...

except when it does.
??? ??? ???

Excuse the confusion here, I am trying to follow you, but you are not communicating in a very consistent or clear manner.  Can you please clarify? 



Quote from: sobchak
Quote from: sceptimatic

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.a
As simply as I think I can ask it - in a compressible fluid, how is it possible to have a stable local region of higher pressure and density in a static, open system? This is in contrast to everything we think we know about how fluids behave.  It's okay if we need to rewrite the rules of fluids for your model to work, we should just be cognizant of that fact.
What do you mean by, open system?

By open, I mean there is no impediment to the pressure / density gradient driving flow.   

Also, can you verify -

So let's take a metal cylinder with radius 5 cm and suspend it vertically along its axis from a spring with known spring constant.  We measure the spring displacement and calculate that the cylinder is exerting a net downward for of 10 N on the spring.  In your model, as its upper area is .0019 m^2, we can say that the upper surface has to have an increase of 5.3 kPa = 0.05 atm over the pressure below the object.  Is the right? I think I did the math correctly but could be off.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3186 on: January 17, 2019, 05:09:47 AM »



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?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3187 on: January 17, 2019, 07:26:20 AM »
Hello there -

Quote from: sobchak
the displacement of the atmosphere by the dense mass of an object only occurs upward and laterally, and never downwards.

Quote from: sceptimatic
Correct

Quote from: sceptimatic
It would displace the atmosphere below it.

So due to molecular stacking, the dense mass of an object never displaces the atmosphere beneath it...

except when it does.
??? ??? ???
If an object is suspended it cannot displace the stacked atmosphere under it, just above and around it.
The only time an object can displace the atmosphere beneath it is when the object is allowed to do so by it's own released mass.


Quote from: sobchak
Excuse the confusion here, I am trying to follow you, but you are not communicating in a very consistent or clear manner.  Can you please clarify? 
I'm communicating just fine but you are changing the goal posts and confusing yourself.
You seem smart so get a grip on what I'm saying and don't go further until you do, which is why I said to stick to the basics and understand them before you move on.

Quote from: sobchak
Quote from: sobchak
Quote from: sceptimatic

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.a
As simply as I think I can ask it - in a compressible fluid, how is it possible to have a stable local region of higher pressure and density in a static, open system? This is in contrast to everything we think we know about how fluids behave.  It's okay if we need to rewrite the rules of fluids for your model to work, we should just be cognizant of that fact.
What do you mean by, open system?

By open, I mean there is no impediment to the pressure / density gradient driving flow.

Give me an example of what you deem as open and closed and give me a scenario.

I just want to ensure we are on the same page.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3188 on: January 17, 2019, 07:27:47 AM »



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?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3189 on: January 17, 2019, 07:56:56 AM »
I'm communicating just fine

I'd agree with you but then we would both be wrong.     ;D

Just joking.  Communication can be hard, I assume you are doing your best and I hope you are assuming the same about me.  Anyway, lets drop the directional displacement for now, okay? I will just take this as a part of your conceptual framework.  It seems somewhat arbitrary, but Im not that concerned and I will think about it a bit more. 

But back to the stable regions of higher pressure/density in your model.  I guess you do not really understand my concern.  Let me try it another way -

You take a sealable container split in two with a removable wall that is initially it is at equilibrium at 1 atm.  You insert the wall and pump one half of the container with additional air to a gauge pressure of 1 atm (double the pressure in one side). 

In your model, what happens when you remove the wall? 


Also, still trying to get the basics down, if you could answer this it would really help  -

So let's take a metal cylinder with radius 5 cm and suspend it vertically along its axis from a spring with known spring constant.  We measure the spring displacement and calculate that the cylinder is exerting a net downward for of 10 N on the spring.  In your model, as its upper area is .0019 m^2, we can say that the upper surface has to have an increase of 5.3 kPa = 0.05 atm over the pressure below the object.  Is the right? I think I did the math correctly but could be off.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3190 on: January 17, 2019, 08:25:10 AM »
I'm communicating just fine

I'd agree with you but then we would both be wrong.     ;D

Just joking.  Communication can be hard, I assume you are doing your best and I hope you are assuming the same about me.  Anyway, lets drop the directional displacement for now, okay? I will just take this as a part of your conceptual framework.  It seems somewhat arbitrary, but Im not that concerned and I will think about it a bit more. 

But back to the stable regions of higher pressure/density in your model.  I guess you do not really understand my concern.  Let me try it another way -

You take a sealable container split in two with a removable wall that is initially it is at equilibrium at 1 atm.  You insert the wall and pump one half of the container with additional air to a gauge pressure of 1 atm (double the pressure in one side). 

In your model, what happens when you remove the wall?
The higher pressure would expand into the lower pressure and creating an equilibrium throughout the entire container.
 


Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3191 on: January 17, 2019, 08:51:03 AM »
What does 6jugs of water have to do with anything?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3192 on: January 17, 2019, 08:59:48 AM »
What does 6jugs of water have to do with anything?
I don't know, you made that up.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3193 on: January 17, 2019, 09:13:14 AM »
What does 6jugs of water have to do with anything?
I don't know, you made that up.

You aksed us to be on an island to weigh rocks.
You said it was going somewhere.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3194 on: January 17, 2019, 09:14:24 AM »

You take a sealable container split in two with a removable wall that is initially it is at equilibrium at 1 atm.  You insert the wall and pump one half of the container with additional air to a gauge pressure of 1 atm (double the pressure in one side). 

In your model, what happens when you remove the wall?
The higher pressure would expand into the lower pressure and creating an equilibrium throughout the entire container.

Why? 

and would mind telling me why you dont want to answer the question about the basic calculation?  It would really help if you would, but I would understand if you don't want to for some reason. 

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3195 on: January 17, 2019, 09:17:03 AM »
What does 6jugs of water have to do with anything?
I don't know, you made that up.

You aksed us to be on an island to weigh rocks.
You said it was going somewhere.
I didn't ask you to be anywhere, You jumped in.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3196 on: January 17, 2019, 09:19:13 AM »

You take a sealable container split in two with a removable wall that is initially it is at equilibrium at 1 atm.  You insert the wall and pump one half of the container with additional air to a gauge pressure of 1 atm (double the pressure in one side). 

In your model, what happens when you remove the wall?
The higher pressure would expand into the lower pressure and creating an equilibrium throughout the entire container.

Why? 

Isn't it obvious as to why?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3197 on: January 17, 2019, 09:23:49 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.

Heres your question.
You said there was a method to your questioing.

I gave you a hypotehtical rock weighing 6jugs.
So wahts your point?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3198 on: January 17, 2019, 09:31:44 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic
Isn't it obvious as to why?

Why the higher pressure would expand into the lower pressure, creating an equilibrium throughout the entire container? 

Or why you dont want to talk about the calculation?   :) :) :)

Both would be good to have your perspectives on. 


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3199 on: January 17, 2019, 09:34:49 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.

Heres your question.
You said there was a method to your questioing.

I gave you a hypotehtical rock weighing 6jugs.
So wahts your point?
Look back and see what I've been asking.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3200 on: January 17, 2019, 09:35:42 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic
Isn't it obvious as to why?

Why the higher pressure would expand into the lower pressure, creating an equilibrium throughout the entire container? 


Try this and forget the other.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3201 on: January 17, 2019, 09:42:47 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic
Isn't it obvious as to why?

Why the higher pressure would expand into the lower pressure, creating an equilibrium throughout the entire container? 


Try this and forget the other.

Okay. Go ahead and tell me why. 

We can come back to the calculation later if you figure out things enough.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3202 on: January 17, 2019, 09:46:29 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.

Heres your question.
You said there was a method to your questioing.

I gave you a hypotehtical rock weighing 6jugs.
So wahts your point?
Look back and see what I've been asking.

You didnt say anything.
You questioned what a newton was or why jugs.
Looks like a red herring.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3203 on: January 17, 2019, 10:30:42 AM »
Quote from: sceptimatic
Isn't it obvious as to why?

Why the higher pressure would expand into the lower pressure, creating an equilibrium throughout the entire container? 


Try this and forget the other.

Okay. Go ahead and tell me why. 


The atmosphere is more compressed in the 2 atmosphere side against the one.
If you open the middle then you allow the more compressed molecules in the two atmosphere area to decompress by compressing the 1 atmosphere side to equilibrium.

If you don't get it then tell me why.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3204 on: January 17, 2019, 10:36:37 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.

Heres your question.
You said there was a method to your questioing.

I gave you a hypotehtical rock weighing 6jugs.
So wahts your point?
Look back and see what I've been asking.

You didnt say anything.
You questioned what a newton was or why jugs.
Looks like a red herring.

What was the point?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3205 on: January 17, 2019, 12:07:00 PM »

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.

Heres your question.
You said there was a method to your questioing.

I gave you a hypotehtical rock weighing 6jugs.
So wahts your point?
Look back and see what I've been asking.

You didnt say anything.
You questioned what a newton was or why jugs.
Looks like a red herring.

What was the point?
Weight measurement on land.
Any idea?

Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3206 on: January 17, 2019, 12:28:09 PM »
It would displace the atmosphere below it. It's pushing that atmosphere aside as it expands the balloon. Basically it's compressing the air inside with denser fluid.
So why doesn't the atmosphere below push back? Why is it only the atmosphere above and to the sides?

If an object is suspended it cannot displace the stacked atmosphere under it, just above and around it.
Why?
What magically prevents it displacing the atmosphere below, but magically allows it to displace the atmosphere around and above?

I'm communicating just fine but you are changing the goal posts and confusing yourself.
You are the only one who seems to think that.
You have repeatedly contradicted yourself.

which is why I said to stick to the basics and understand them before you move on.
And then you proceeded to ditch the basics and try to go to more complex things to avoid the issues with the basics.

Give me an example of what you deem as open and closed and give me a scenario.
Open system - The region of air immediately surrounding an object, which is open to the atmosphere.
This would mean that if there is a higher pressure above the object, the air would be free to flow around the object and equalise the pressure above and below (although due to the nature of how fluids work, the pressure below will remain slightly higher).
Closed system - An airtight box with a membrane in the middle. Now the air is unable to flow between the 2 sides of the membrane, as such a high pressure above will push the membrane down to equalise the pressure.

Why the higher pressure would expand into the lower pressure, creating an equilibrium throughout the entire container? 
Try this and forget the other.
Well in order for your claim about high pressure pushing above an object pushing it down to work, it can't. This high pressure has to magically remain above the object.
If the higher pressure expands into the lower pressure and creates an equilibrium then we are back to the pressure being equal all around the object and thus no downwards push. Meaning you are once again back to having no explanation for why things fall.

So again, why do things fall?
We know it isn't merely being in the atmosphere as the air would push from all regions roughly equally which would just try to crush the object, not push it down.
We know it isn't from a local pressure gradient as that would equalise through the atmosphere.
We know it isn't from a larger static pressure gradient a that exists opposite to what you need and thus would push up.
We know it isn't based upon past motion of the object as that would allow it to be pushed in any direction, not just down.
We know it isn't due to more atmosphere above the object, as that would push you into walls/cliffs and push objects near a roof into them.

It sure seems like the atmosphere has nothing to do with it.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3207 on: January 17, 2019, 01:54:02 PM »
Quote from: sceptimatic
Isn't it obvious as to why?

Why the higher pressure would expand into the lower pressure, creating an equilibrium throughout the entire container? 


Try this and forget the other.

Okay. Go ahead and tell me why. 


The atmosphere is more compressed in the 2 atmosphere side against the one.
If you open the middle then you allow the more compressed molecules in the two atmosphere area to decompress by compressing the 1 atmosphere side to equilibrium.

If you don't get it then tell me why.

Why can’t the one side just stay compressed and the other less compressed?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3208 on: January 17, 2019, 02:09:05 PM »

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.

Heres your question.
You said there was a method to your questioing.

I gave you a hypotehtical rock weighing 6jugs.
So wahts your point?
Look back and see what I've been asking.

You didnt say anything.
You questioned what a newton was or why jugs.
Looks like a red herring.

What was the point?
Weight measurement on land.
Any idea?

Any idea, what?
You havent made a point.
You said you had a method.
Im curious where your thought process goes with this.
The hypo rock weighs hypo 6jugs.
Then what do we do with info?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22466
Re: Den Pressure - A massive pile of self contradictory nonsense.
« Reply #3209 on: January 17, 2019, 10:12:58 PM »
It would displace the atmosphere below it. It's pushing that atmosphere aside as it expands the balloon. Basically it's compressing the air inside with denser fluid.
So why doesn't the atmosphere below push back? Why is it only the atmosphere above and to the sides?
It does push back if its pushed into.
However a mass on a rope statically above the understack will not push down onto it and so, will not compress into it for it to push back.
The balloon scenario does expand into it.
This is where people really need to take notice.


Quote from: JackBlack

If an object is suspended it cannot displace the stacked atmosphere under it, just above and around it.
Why?
What magically prevents it displacing the atmosphere below, but magically allows it to displace the atmosphere around and above?
It's raised up on a rope and displaces atmosphere above it. All that atmosphere above is pushing down against the mass compressing into it,as well as the entire mass of the person/object displacing its own mass of atmosphere.
All the below atmosphere is, is a resistance to the above atmosphere in the stack but not to the person/object hanging, because there's no push down by the person or object.