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

It's in the stack above its own mass.It's displacing it.

In the container you are not stacking naturally. You are forcing a compression by trapping it inside the container. Therefore there is no natural stacking. It uniform, like you say.
With the Earth dome there is natural stacking and it isn't uniform.

Those who are willing to understand it will be able to piece it together much quicker than those who try to complicate the issue.

The atmosphere is still stacked inside the container

I didn't see you mention pressurising a container to suspend something on a spring. Did you mention that or would you like to amend your question?

I've never hung any spring from a container with a mass on it and pressurised the container.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 18, 2019, 03:57:10 AM

It's in the stack above its own mass.It's displacing it.

No more than it is in the stack below its own mass.

If you examine it you have a stack something like this (= is air, X is object)
==========
==========
==========
==========
==========
==========
====x=====
===xxx====
====x=====
==========
==========
==========

You have the stack above in red, which it it is only just touching.
You have the stack below in green, which it is only just touching.
You then have the small stack it is actually inside.
You have no justification for why it is pushing into the top, but not the bottom.
Any statement you make for the stack above can apply equally to the stack below.

Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 18, 2019, 02:46:22 PM

Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.

I personally enjoyed scepti saying that Pressure inside a sealed container equalizes.  A domed earth is a sealed container.  If it isn't then it can't be a domed earth.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 18, 2019, 04:44:37 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 18, 2019, 02:46:22 PM

Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.

I'm still waiting for you to create a weight measurement for mass.
You've managed a balance scale to balance masses but you have no clue about the measurement of those masses individually.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 18, 2019, 04:52:09 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 18, 2019, 04:44:37 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 18, 2019, 02:46:22 PM

Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.

I'm still waiting for you to create a weight measurement for mass.
You've managed a balance scale to balance masses but you have no clue about the measurement of those masses individually.

Yes, they are 6 jugs.

You need to understand the stacking and you clearly do not judging by the diagram.

There's nothing only just touching. It's all under pressure.

The stack is a push on push or push into resistance to push from the BOTTOM up.

So all mass is 6 jugs?

Quote from: Stash on January 19, 2019, 01:25:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 18, 2019, 04:52:09 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 18, 2019, 04:44:37 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 18, 2019, 02:46:22 PM

Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.

I'm still waiting for you to create a weight measurement for mass.
You've managed a balance scale to balance masses but you have no clue about the measurement of those masses individually.

Yes, they are 6 jugs.

So all mass is 6 jugs?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 19, 2019, 01:40:50 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 19, 2019, 01:25:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 18, 2019, 04:52:09 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 18, 2019, 04:44:37 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 18, 2019, 02:46:22 PM

Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.

I'm still waiting for you to create a weight measurement for mass.
You've managed a balance scale to balance masses but you have no clue about the measurement of those masses individually.

Yes, they are 6 jugs.

So all mass is 6 jugs?

If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.

Quote from: Stash on January 19, 2019, 02:10:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 19, 2019, 01:40:50 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 19, 2019, 01:25:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 18, 2019, 04:52:09 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 18, 2019, 04:44:37 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 18, 2019, 02:46:22 PM

Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.

I'm still waiting for you to create a weight measurement for mass.
You've managed a balance scale to balance masses but you have no clue about the measurement of those masses individually.

Yes, they are 6 jugs.

So all mass is 6 jugs?

If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.

So we now all agree that Sceptis theories are correct and he should publish a paper for the wider scientific community?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 18, 2019, 04:05:37 PM

You need to understand the stacking and you clearly do not judging by the diagram.

No, I clearly do and am pointing out the massive flaw in your reasoning.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 18, 2019, 04:05:37 PM

There's nothing only just touching. It's all under pressure.

Not according to you.
If it was all under pressure then the stack below the object would be pushing up into it.
So thanks for contradicting yourself, AGAIN.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 18, 2019, 04:05:37 PM

The stack is a push on push or push into resistance to push from the BOTTOM up.

So it pushes objects upwards, not down, completely contradicting reality, and all your prior claims regarding it being pushed down.

Again, you have provided no justification for why it only magically pushes into the stack above rather than the stack below as well.
All "justifications" you have work equally well for both, and thus don't work at all to explain why it is pushed down.

If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.

Quote from: Stash on January 19, 2019, 02:10:19 AM

If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.

So your measuring scale for any mass placed upon it is 6 jugs.
Ok great.
You carry on with that. My participation in this part is over.

You clearly don't.

The stack below doesn't have to push into it. The object is suspended.

The molecular stack below is still a push on push with itself and the very top of that stack is merely connected to the underside of the object with the top molecules of that particular stack merely touches but applies little to no resistance to the underside of the object due to that suspension.

I've provided plenty but you seem to grasp a little bit then go and destroy anything you did grasp by taking a step back.
That's your issue, not mine.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 19, 2019, 02:27:22 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 19, 2019, 02:10:19 AM

If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.

So your measuring scale for any mass placed upon it is 6 jugs.
Ok great.
You carry on with that. My participation in this part is over.

If you can redefine the meaning/measurement of weight, why can't others redefine the meaning/measurement of mass?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 18, 2019, 04:44:37 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 18, 2019, 02:46:22 PM

Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.

I'm still waiting for you to create a weight measurement for mass.
You've managed a balance scale to balance masses but you have no clue about the measurement of those masses individually.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 19, 2019, 01:40:50 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 19, 2019, 01:25:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 18, 2019, 04:52:09 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 18, 2019, 04:44:37 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 18, 2019, 02:46:22 PM

Still looking for your point about weighing things in an island.

I'm still waiting for you to create a weight measurement for mass.
You've managed a balance scale to balance masses but you have no clue about the measurement of those masses individually.

Yes, they are 6 jugs.

So all mass is 6 jugs?

If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.

Quote from: Stash on January 19, 2019, 02:10:19 AM

If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.

So your measuring scale for any mass placed upon it is 6 jugs.
Ok great.
You carry on with that. My participation in this part is over.

Quote from: Stash on January 19, 2019, 02:31:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 19, 2019, 02:27:22 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 19, 2019, 02:10:19 AM

If all "weight" is the amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure then yes, all mass is 6 jugs.

So your measuring scale for any mass placed upon it is 6 jugs.
Ok great.
You carry on with that. My participation in this part is over.

If you can redefine the meaning/measurement of weight, why can't others redefine the meaning/measurement of mass?

You can if you can measure it. The problem is, you need to add gravity into it and you simply can't do it.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 19, 2019, 02:09:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 18, 2019, 04:05:37 PM

You need to understand the stacking and you clearly do not judging by the diagram.

No, I clearly do and am pointing out the massive flaw in your reasoning.

You clearly don't.
And there's no massive flaw except the one you think there is by your inability to understand what I'm saying.

Quote from: JackBlack

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 18, 2019, 04:05:37 PM

There's nothing only just touching. It's all under pressure.

Not according to you.
If it was all under pressure then the stack below the object would be pushing up into it.
So thanks for contradicting yourself, AGAIN.

The stack below doesn't have to push into it. The object is suspended.
The molecular stack below is still a push on push with itself and the very top of that stack is merely connected to the underside of the object with the top molecules of that particular stack merely touches but applies little to no resistance to the underside of the object due to that suspension.

You simply have no clue.

Quote from: JackBlack

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 18, 2019, 04:05:37 PM

The stack is a push on push or push into resistance to push from the BOTTOM up.

So it pushes objects upwards, not down, completely contradicting reality, and all your prior claims regarding it being pushed down.

Nope.

Quote from: JackBlack

Again, you have provided no justification for why it only magically pushes into the stack above rather than the stack below as well.
All "justifications" you have work equally well for both, and thus don't work at all to explain why it is pushed down.

I've provided plenty but you seem to grasp a little bit then go and destroy anything you did grasp by taking a step back.
That's your issue, not mine.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on January 18, 2019, 11:02:44 PM

I personally enjoyed scepti saying that Pressure inside a sealed container equalizes.  A domed earth is a sealed container.  If it isn't then it can't be a domed earth.

It is sealed in a way but it's not sealed in the way you think, hence the natural stacking that creates it.

The difference between a man made pressure forced into a container and the natural dome is, the natural dome is not subject to a pressure trying to push the dome out. It is the end product of a stacking system where the push energy is from below and the resistance to push as the stack builds.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 19, 2019, 02:26:00 AM

The stack below doesn't have to push into it. The object is suspended.

It doesn't matter if it "has to" or not. If the air is pressurised and against the object, it will push into it.
The only way for it to not push into it is for the air to have 0 pressure, which requires a perfect vacuum.
We can also easily show this in various ways.
A simple one is a rigid box, with a membrane on the bottom instead of a solid face. With a low pressure inside, the atmosphere below pushes the membrane in.

The pressure inside a sealed container is equal.

A domed earth is a sealed container.

There is no, it is, but it's a natural sealed container, so it's different.

A sealed container is a sealed container.

Pressure inside one sealed container will function exactly the same as any other sealed container.  It doesn't magically change.

If it does, you need to explain why it does.  Baseless assertions don't prove anything.

i just thought of this.

jackB keeps insisting the air below will stack up.

Scepti says no it doesn't based on magic.

Sideways stacking (pretty girls too for bonus).
 

Upside down stacking.
 

looks like jack was right.
should we add suction cups to your list of fake news?

I noticed how you said a low pressure inside.

You don't know how it all works.

You're jumping from one issue to another

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 19, 2019, 09:42:31 AM

I noticed how you said a low pressure inside.

Yes, because that provides a very clear example, where it is pushed up by the atmosphere. It allows a very simple visual indication.
If the atmosphere didn't push it up, its pressure wouldn't matter and the membrane wouldn't curve up into the object.

The only way for the membrane to curve up into the container from the bottom is if the pressure below is pushing up, or if you instead ditch your prior claims and have the low pressure inside magically suck it up.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 19, 2019, 09:42:31 AM

You don't know how it all works.

That's right. I know it doesn't work.
Do you know one thing which really helps show that?
You repeatedly insulting me and claiming I don't understand rather than providing an actual answer to the issues raised.
Then there is you repeatedly just dismissing things as "other issues" without providing any justification for why it is.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 19, 2019, 10:24:10 AM

You're jumping from one issue to another

No, we aren't.
The issue is the atmosphere below an object pushing into it, which would push it up if there is force balancing it.
This was initially brought up in regards to objects falling, but the key issue, the atmosphere pushing up from below an object, still applies here.
In my example, the membrane is clearly being pushed up by the atmosphere. In the cup example the same applies, with the sheet (and by extension the water) being pushed up by the atmosphere below. Although in this case one could argue it is just not being pushed down, but the sheet is still exposed to a large region of the atmosphere above and thus should still be pushed down. We can also extend the test by removing the sheet and having the water pour out of the glass, showing that was clearly being pushed down as well (even though that makes no sense in your model).

Now how about you address the issues?
Why do things fall?
We know it isn't simply because they exist in the atmosphere. This is because the atmosphere pushes from all sides, including from below as shown in my membrane example.
As the pressure mostly equalises that will result in no significant force.
We know it isn't the static pressure gradient in the atmosphere as that has a higher pressure below the object and thus pushes it upwards.
We know it isn't based upon moving the object as that would push it back, now down.

So it sure seems like the air isn't what is causing things to fall.