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

Maybe we need to start with basics.
Lets take it back.
Why are we weighing rocks with jugs

I don't know. I don't know how rocks can be weighed with jugs. But you seem to think you can.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 21, 2019, 12:55:37 AM

Maybe we need to start with basics.
Lets take it back.
Why are we weighing rocks with jugs

I don't know. I don't know how rocks can be weighed with jugs. But you seem to think you can.

I told you how.
I dont know why you asked the question in the first place.
You said there was a reason.
lets have itm

Quote from: sobchak on January 20, 2019, 11:40:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 20, 2019, 03:23:31 AM

Quote from: sobchak on January 20, 2019, 02:24:43 AM

As I understand from your descriptions of your conceptual model, a pressurized container has no stacking.

Is there a downward force on an object suspended in a pressurized container in your conceptual model?

That depends on the container.

If you have a perfect sphere and pressurise it then you have no stacking. It's equal.

Anything perfectly symmetrical and pressurised would be the same.

Change anything at all inside that object that upsets that and you create an unequal force.

So in your model a symmetrical pressurized vessel has equal pressure everywhere.

But a non symmetrical one will not?

Can you explain how this happens using the basics of your model?

Let's take a pyramid shape and pressurise it.

Along the bottom you have more molecules than above with each stack, all the way to the very top where you would have very little amount of molecules.

Think of it like people making a pyramid.
Let's say we start off with 10 people along the ground.
Now we add people on top to stand between two people underneath, all along.
Then the same again on top of them and so on until there's 1 person at the very top.

Who's under the most pressure and what exactly are they doing to ensure they hold up the rest?
Who is under the least pressure?

Doesn't it depend on the direction of the forces acting on the 'stacked' molecules?  How is force on the stack generated in your model, and why is it directional in a closed, pressurized container?

I told you how.
I dont know why you asked the question in the first place.
You said there was a reason.
lets have itm

I'm waiting for you to invent your measuring device for any mass. A readable measuring device for mass that can determine weight.
Up to now you've filled some jugs with water. The size of the jugs are unknown, except for knowing they hold water.
You have not invented anything to even balance the jugs.
You're way behind, so how about getting on that.
Start creating your measuring scales for giving a weight measurement to a mass.

Doesn't it depend on the direction of the forces acting on the 'stacked' molecules?  How is force on the stack generated in your model, and why is it directional in a closed, pressurized container?

From below. A molecular expansion and push into molecular resistance to push.
The mass is built up by each layer of molecules. which increases the compression back onto each layer of molecules pushing the above molecules up.

I already told you time and time agains it's a push on push.

Yes, however you also told me it doesn't push from below.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND AND STOP CONTRADICTING YOURSELF!
Does the air from below an object push it up? Yes or no?

If no, you have no explanation for why the membrane is pushed up or why the card and water don't fall.
If yes, you have no explanation for why objects fall.

What you're not grasping

Stop acting like me not accepting your baseless contradictory nonsense is not grasping it.
I fully grasp what you are saying, I just realise it is entirely baseless and contradicted by experiment which require you to go and contradict yourself to try and explain them.

It's all about understanding how it all works to create what happens in it

No, it's all about understanding the basics of the model which can then be used to predict what should happen in various circumstances, rather than trying to continually manipulate the model to make it match resulting in you repeatedly contradicting yourself.

with no other magical ingredients.

Your contradictory physics is a magical ingredient.

But there is something below it.

Nothing that wouldn't be there without the cup above it.
So either it is there below and would push it up preventing it falling, or it wont prevent it falling.

There is no justification for why magically different physics should apply just because there is a cup and water there.

If anything I may not explain it in a way you like but you're as much to blame for that by intentionally trying to have me reply to all kinds of mix and match stuff, which I'm fairly sure is deliberate.

No, you are entirely to blame as it is your model which is incapable of explaining reality.
Yes, I bring in multiple things to point out where one of your explanations is contradicted by reality which then results in you contradicting yourself.
I would do the exact same with teachers.
This is in part due to me naturally thinking about how it would work in different situations and realise it doesn't work.
If your model was coherent, this wouldn't be a problem.
If you are only capable of dealing with one thing at a time because dealing with others results in a contradiction your model is broken.

There's a reason why I keep having to start at the beginning.

Because your model is repeatedly refuted to the point of no-return so you need to start all over again and pretend that refutation hasn't occurred.

I often think, " can they really start to get it and then lose it all in a matter of posts.

Then you would be wrong.
We don't lose it.
We start to get it and then quickly realise that it doesn't actually work.

I do believe understanding it and accepting its understood will start to scupper the mainstream created fantasies.

Again, not in the slightest. Even if you manage to produce a horribly complex self contradictory model which manages to explain reality, that won't magically refute mainstream science. Providing an alternative to gravity (even if your alternative works) doesn't make gravity wrong.
And as pointed out repeatedly, denpressure works equally well on a globe (and in fact better in some cases).

I'm waiting for you to invent your measuring device for any mass.

Make up your mind. Do you want mass or weight? They are 2 fundamentally different things.

The size of the jugs are unknown

No, they are known. They form the basis of his measuring system.
What you are doing now is like asking how long is 1 m or 1 s?
Instead of the kg, he is using jugs of water.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 21, 2019, 12:48:56 AM

I often think, " can they really start to get it and then lose it all in a matter of posts.

Then you would be wrong.
We don't lose it.
We start to get it and then quickly realise that it doesn't actually work.

No, you lose it because you decide to go down routes that set you back to square one because your minds go straight into denial mode for the global nonsense.
You only have yourselves to blame.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 21, 2019, 01:27:12 AM

I'm waiting for you to invent your measuring device for any mass.

Make up your mind. Do you want mass or weight? They are 2 fundamentally different things.

I know there's mass. I just need to measure it.
I'm waiting on the device to be invented to measure it so it can become a weight measurement.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 21, 2019, 01:27:12 AM

The size of the jugs are unknown

No, they are known. They form the basis of his measuring system.
What you are doing now is like asking how long is 1 m or 1 s?
Instead of the kg, he is using jugs of water.

Ok but I want half a kilogram measured.

No, you lose it because you decide to go down routes that set you back to square one because your minds go straight into denial mode for the global nonsense.
You only have yourselves to blame.

Nope, just like most things you say that is pure BS.
You are the one to blame for making a model which does not work.
I don't go straight to denial mode. Instead I go thinking about other situations, and apply what you are claiming to it. I realise it doesn't work, and then I bring it up.
If your model actually worked it wouldn't be a problem.

Every attempt you have made to explain why things fall, completely fails to match reality. This is partly because if you apply the same physics to a different situation than the one you are trying to describe you end up with a result which contradicts reality. This means you need magically different physics.

I know there's mass. I just need to measure it.
I'm waiting on the device to be invented to measure it so it can become a weight measurement.

Again, mass and weight are fundamentally different things.
Measuring mass doesn't magically make it become weight.
I have provided a method to measure each of these properties.

Ok but I want half a kilogram measured.

Well, if you had that half a kg the whole time, why all the BS with the jugs?
Conveniently, with what I remember, I can get fairly close to the current measurements without too much problem.

Ok but I want half a kilogram measured.

Whats a kilogram?

Quote from: sobchak on January 21, 2019, 01:26:13 AM

Doesn't it depend on the direction of the forces acting on the 'stacked' molecules?  How is force on the stack generated in your model, and why is it directional in a closed, pressurized container?

From below. A molecular expansion and push into molecular resistance to push.
The mass is built up by each layer of molecules. which increases the compression back onto each layer of molecules pushing the above molecules up.

Why below?  Isn't it isolated from the external atmosphere?  Why is there an up / down orientation at all in a pressurized vessel?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 21, 2019, 01:17:10 AM

I told you how.
I dont know why you asked the question in the first place.
You said there was a reason.
lets have itm

I'm waiting for you to invent your measuring device for any mass. A readable measuring device for mass that can determine weight.
Up to now you've filled some jugs with water. The size of the jugs are unknown, except for knowing they hold water.
You have not invented anything to even balance the jugs.
You're way behind, so how about getting on that.
Start creating your measuring scales for giving a weight measurement to a mass.

What is yur fking point man?
Its jugs of water!

Ok lets try this.
Possibly your fked up mind didny know this.
But scales that show kg and lb actually dropped acknowledging the 9.8 predictable fall and just use it as a bastardized unit of weight. 
Look up lb vs lbf.
Kg vs N.
Is that your issue?

Get to your point and we can dsicuss.
Or yu nver had a point and ill keep pointing out your nonpoint.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 21, 2019, 03:16:03 AM

Ok but I want half a kilogram measured.

Whats a kilogram?

In the icbm he mentioned mph.
Whats a mile?
Whats an hour?

In the icbm he mentioned mph.
Whats a mile?
Whats an hour?

I think we are all ignoring the more fundamental issue.
You said it weighs 6 jugs. WHAT IS 6?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 21, 2019, 11:04:35 AM

In the icbm he mentioned mph.
Whats a mile?
Whats an hour?

I think we are all ignoring the more fundamental issue.
You said it weighs 6 jugs. WHAT IS 6?

Haha.
Yes
What is six.
Well.
To a stretch of that point.
I mentioned the persians identified zero a long time ago.
But under sceptis universe zero doesnt exist (there is no nothing of space).

Good, now you're getting it.

Good, now you're getting it.

You mean that in your model nothing is real and nothing makes any sense?

Care to actually explain why things fall?

Quote from: sobchak on January 21, 2019, 03:33:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 21, 2019, 03:16:03 AM

Ok but I want half a kilogram measured.

Whats a kilogram?

In the icbm he mentioned mph.
Whats a mile?
Whats an hour?

All explained at http://www.npl.co.uk/si-units/ apart from a Jug.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 21, 2019, 01:30:49 PM

Good, now you're getting it.

You mean that in your model nothing is real and nothing makes any sense?

Care to actually explain why things fall?

Stacked atmosphere and displacement of it by dense mass. Denpressure to be precise.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 21, 2019, 01:39:59 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 21, 2019, 01:30:49 PM

Good, now you're getting it.

You mean that in your model nothing is real and nothing makes any sense?

Care to actually explain why things fall?

Stacked atmosphere and displacement of it by dense mass. Denpressure to be precise.

That is not an explanation, please use accepted terms and words.

Stacked means varying pressure that can be measured?

Great.
Good stuff.
Still doesnt answer why you thought there was a reason to invent a hypotehtical island wehre people are cursed to measure rocks wth jugs and springs.

.
That is not an explanation, please use accepted terms and words.

Stacked means varying pressure that can be measured?

You don't dictate my terms. I dictate my terms. Either follow them or stand by and let other try. You all have a choice.

If you want to understand it then try and do that.
If you want to continue to keep circling it then that's also fine but don't be perplexed when you find you're back to the start.

Great.
Good stuff.
Still doesnt answer why you thought there was a reason to invent a hypotehtical island wehre people are cursed to measure rocks wth jugs and springs.

You need to think.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 21, 2019, 01:49:10 PM

.
That is not an explanation, please use accepted terms and words.

Stacked means varying pressure that can be measured?

You don't dictate my terms. I dictate my terms. Either follow them or stand by and let other try. You all have a choice.

If you want to understand it then try and do that.
If you want to continue to keep circling it then that's also fine but don't be perplexed when you find you're back to the start.

It's like you either don't want people to understand or you can't explain in accepted words and have to invent terms like 'dense mass'.

What is your objective in posting here and not elsewhere in a science forum?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 21, 2019, 02:19:33 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 21, 2019, 01:49:10 PM

.
That is not an explanation, please use accepted terms and words.

Stacked means varying pressure that can be measured?

You don't dictate my terms. I dictate my terms. Either follow them or stand by and let other try. You all have a choice.

If you want to understand it then try and do that.
If you want to continue to keep circling it then that's also fine but don't be perplexed when you find you're back to the start.

It's like you either don't want people to understand or you can't explain in accepted words and have to invent terms like 'dense mass'.

What is your objective in posting here and not elsewhere in a science forum?

What are you worried about?

What is your objective in posting on a flat Earth forum?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 21, 2019, 01:50:11 PM

Great.
Good stuff.
Still doesnt answer why you thought there was a reason to invent a hypotehtical island wehre people are cursed to measure rocks wth jugs and springs.

You need to think.

that was it?
come up with a solution to create a measurement of weight?
that was a great point.
wow.
so insightful.
you're so full of sht.

Stacked atmosphere and displacement of it by dense mass.

We have already seen that that doesn't work.
You have been completely unable to explain why a stacked atmosphere should push an object down.

Again, we know it isn't the basic pressure of the atmosphere pushing against it as it does so in all direction, including up from below. That means no net force.
We know it isn't the slight gradient in pressure of the atmosphere (which you can call stacking if you like) as that has a greater pressure below and thus would push upwards.
We know it isn't due to motion of the object, as that provides no basis for directionality other than the direction the object moves, yet moving an object sideways doesn't result in it falling back in the opposite direction.

We know it sure doesn't seem to have anything to do with the position in the stack, because for any given object you can isolate the stack into three sections, the section it is in, the section below and the section above. There is no justification for having the stack above do anything which the stack below wouldn't (at least nothing which wouldn't lead to no stacking in the first place). We also know the amount is irrelevant as we can isolate the object and air surrounding an object from the bulk of the atmosphere and put it in a sealed chamber at any section, including right at the top of the stack or right at the bottom, and it still falls down.

But as you appeal to stacking so much, perhaps we need to go to an even more basic level and ask why does the atmosphere stack in the first place? This would be completely opposite to conventional physics which has why things fall as the more basic level explaining why the atmosphere "stacks".

So why does your atmosphere stack? Remember, it can't have anything to do with falling as you are trying to use the atmosphere to explain why things fall.

Denpressure to be precise.

That is not precise at all. That is extremely vague.
Precise is lots of details, not basically none.

You don't dictate my terms. I dictate my terms.

If you want to dictate your own terms, invent your own language.
If you wish to speak in English then use the agreed upon definitions of words.
We aren't the ones dictating the terms, the English language is.

If you want to continue to keep circling it then that's also fine but don't be perplexed when you find you're back to the start.

The only one who wants to keep circling is you.
We want a nice simple explanation of how the physics works in your model, which can then be applied to many different situations.
We don't want a unique set of physics to apply to each situation in isolation as that is just pure nonsense.
The one set of physics should apply to all situations.

No
I want to keep circling too.
What is your (scpeti) point for weighing rocks?

So why does your atmosphere stack?

Well, due to gravity.  Duh!

Scepti needs to focus.
Hes loke a kid who sees something shiny.

Everytime he starts back to weighing rocks he immediately forgets one post later to get to his point.

Everytime he starts back to weighing rocks he immediately forgets one post later to get to his point.

Maybe he has no point, and it is all a distraction?

As far as I can tell it is his attempt to try and claim weight is only a measurement and unless you are measuring the weight of an object, that weight doesn't exist.