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

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 22, 2019, 02:13:54 AM

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.

I know he has no point.
I called him out on it from beginning.
He likes to ask for proof or explanation.
I know He doesnt care.

Ya i fogured as much that was his issue.

Weight force depends on the predictable fall rate.
Weight under water is countered by bouyancy.
Weight at poles.
Weight on moon.
Etc

But i want to him admit hes just trolling.
He onviously has nothing.
He just keeps shtting out "think about it" and "how much is a jug" over amd over.
Hes a fking robot stuck in a loop.

  "How much is a jug?
  How muc is a rock?
  But...how much.... is a jug?"

Haha

Come on scepti!
Its so simple and basic as you like to say.

What was your point?

Come on scepti!
Its so simple and basic as you like to say.

What was your point?

I'm waiting for you to manage to measure mass as a weight measurement.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 22, 2019, 03:11:22 AM

Come on scepti!
Its so simple and basic as you like to say.

What was your point?

I'm waiting for you to manage to measure mass as a weight measurement.

I'm waiting for you to tell me how you measure mass?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 22, 2019, 03:11:22 AM

Come on scepti!
Its so simple and basic as you like to say.

What was your point?

I'm waiting for you to manage to measure mass as a weight measurement.

What is your definition of weight?

What is your definition of mass?

I'm waiting for you to manage to measure mass as a weight measurement.

And we are waiting for you to:
Tell us why this matters in the first place (I have already provided a means to measure mass and weight, remember, they are 2 different things).
Tell us why things fall.
Tell us why the atmosphere stacks in the first place.

Do you have a response to any of those issues?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 22, 2019, 12:05:06 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 22, 2019, 03:11:22 AM

Come on scepti!
Its so simple and basic as you like to say.

What was your point?

I'm waiting for you to manage to measure mass as a weight measurement.

I'm waiting for you to tell me how you measure mass?

Atmospheric displacement via a compressible measuring scale. Pretty simple when you look at it.

What is your definition of weight?

Any mass displacing atmosphere, measured on a compressible scale plate.

What is your definition of mass?

The structure of any object.

Atmospheric displacement via a compressible measuring scale. Pretty simple when you look at it.

It might seem pretty simple when you don't think about it. But then when you do you realise it makes no sense at all.
Why does displacing an atmosphere measure weight/mass?

Quote from: inquisitive on January 22, 2019, 12:54:10 PM

What is your definition of weight?

Any mass displacing atmosphere, measured on a compressible scale plate.

Quote from: inquisitive

What is your definition of mass?

The structure of any object.

Like I said, if you don't want to use the agreed upon definitions of words, make up your own language.
Here you are conversing in English. In English weight and mass already have definitions.

Now care to explain why things fall, or why your atmosphere stacks?

Why does displacing an atmosphere measure weight/mass?

A barometer will tell you much better.

Like I said, if you don't want to use the agreed upon definitions of words, make up your own language.
Here you are conversing in English. In English weight and mass already have definitions.

Yes they do have definitions. The trouble is it's not correct in how they're portrayed with each other.
Don't make me say the dreaded word.

Now care to explain why things fall, or why your atmosphere stacks?

I have explained. If you think I haven't then keep that thought and accept it because I'm not going to keep explaining it to you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 21, 2019, 01:48:07 AM

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?

Hi Sceptimatic,

Did you get around to figuring out why in your model the atmosphere stacks in a specific direction in a pressurized non symmetric container?   This one is definitely not clear using logic and common sense, so maybe it is just particular to your model?

Quote from: sobchak on January 21, 2019, 03:35:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 21, 2019, 01:48:07 AM

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?

Hi Sceptimatic,

Did you get around to figuring out why in your model the atmosphere stacks in a specific direction in a pressurized non symmetric container?   This one is definitely not clear using logic and common sense, so maybe it is just particular to your model?

I thought I did tell you with the pyramid.

A barometer will tell you much better.

No, that tells me pressure, not weight or mass.

Yes they do have definitions. The trouble is it's not correct in how they're portrayed with each other.

There is no issue with how they are portrayed with each other.
Like I said, if you don't like the definitions used in English, make your own language, or at the very least your own words.
Stop taking words with an existing meaning and lying about their meaning.

I have explained. If you think I haven't then keep that thought and accept it because I'm not going to keep explaining it to you.

No, you have been unable to explain anything.
Until you provide an explanation or stop spouting your BS, I will keep asking for one.

Why is the atmosphere stacked? Why isn't it uniform?

I thought I did tell you with the pyramid.

So your "stacking" is purely a case of there is more area and thus more molecules sitting there?
So if I have that pyramid and hold it upside down (so the "base" is at the top) it will stack the opposite way around and any object inside will be pushed up?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 22, 2019, 01:58:30 PM

A barometer will tell you much better.

No, that tells me pressure, not weight or mass.

Yep, it tells you pressure. It tells you that the atmosphere is pushing down onto a resistance to that push. In this case, mercury which is a dense mass.

Now all you have to do is change readings to weight by using a compressible plate to measure a mass and set your readings for what would be weight.
Pretty simple and in need of nothing other than the ability to displace atmosphere with any mass.


All the barometer does is allow a dense liquid up a tube that has been allowed to expand its molecules inside the tube so they can easily be compressed back into it to give a reading by allowing the atmosphere to compress the mercury.

The only difference with the compressible scale plate is, it's on a spring, for instance.
There's really no difference, except for changed readings.

Once people see that they will understand how they've been duped.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 22, 2019, 01:58:30 PM

Yes they do have definitions. The trouble is it's not correct in how they're portrayed with each other.

There is no issue with how they are portrayed with each other.
Like I said, if you don't like the definitions used in English, make your own language, or at the very least your own words.
Stop taking words with an existing meaning and lying about their meaning.

I'm not lying. I believe what I'm saying. Maybe look at your history.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 22, 2019, 02:19:02 PM

I thought I did tell you with the pyramid.

So your "stacking" is purely a case of there is more area and thus more molecules sitting there?
So if I have that pyramid and hold it upside down (so the "base" is at the top) it will stack the opposite way around and any object inside will be pushed up?

It's still a stack no matter which way you have it.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 22, 2019, 12:54:10 PM

What is your definition of weight?

Any mass displacing atmosphere, measured on a compressible scale plate.

Quote from: inquisitive

What is your definition of mass?

The structure of any object.

mass, in physics, the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume or of any forces acting on it. The term should not be confused with weight, which is the measure of the force of gravity (see gravitation) acting on a body.

mass, in physics, the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume or of any forces acting on it. The term should not be confused with weight, which is the measure of the force of gravity (see gravitation) acting on a body.

Take that nonsense out and you have reality.

Yep, it tells you pressure. It tells you that the atmosphere is pushing down onto a resistance to that push. In this case, mercury which is a dense mass.

No it tells me that the atmosphere is pushing, not just pushing down.
Again, a mercury barometer is only one type. There are other types (some of which don't even rely upon the atmosphere pushing), and some can work in any orientation.

Now all you have to do is change readings to weight by using a compressible plate to measure a mass and set your readings for what would be weight.

Which then operates in a fundamentally different way.

Pretty simple and in need of nothing other than the ability to displace atmosphere with any mass.

No, it is in need of a lot more, as we have already discussed in plenty of other threads. There is no indication nor any logical reason why displacing atmosphere causes weight.

All the barometer does is allow a dense liquid up a tube

I have repetaedly shown that is not the case.
If it was, the orientation of the tube would be irrelevant.
You could have the tube vertical, horizontal, even upside down or as a coil and you should get the same effect, but you don't.
This shows it is not simply the atmosphere pushing the liquid into the tube.

The only difference with the compressible scale plate is, it's on a spring, for instance.
There's really no difference, except for changed readings.

Again, if you actually understood how it worked you would realise they are vastly different.
A mercury filled barometer relies upon a pressure gradient in the mercury, generated due to the height of the column of mercury balancing out the external pressure.
This is fundamentally different to how a spring works based upon a force due to the stretching or compression of the spring.

Once people see that they will understand how they've been duped.

So once people become blind and reject reality they will understand how you have duped them?

I'm not lying. I believe what I'm saying. Maybe look at your history.

You are lying. You are saying something is weight when it clearly is not. You are outright rejecting the definitions of words to pretend you aren't lying. But guess what, you rejecting definitions while using the words doesn't magically mean you aren't lying.
Whenever you use the word weight or mass or the like, without intending its actual meaning and instead meaning something completely different, you are are lying.

It's still a stack no matter which way you have it.

So I can even get it to stack sideways?
Now, how does this stacking contribute to it falling?
Notice how you completely ignored that part?
If the stack is upside down, do objects fall upwards? If it is sideways, should objects fall sideways?

And then inside a nice prismatic container, there is no stack because it is uniform?

Or does it still magically stack upwards, and if so, WHY?

Again, you are yet to provide any justification for the atmosphere stacks rather than just being uniform. You are yet to provide any justification for why things fall or have weight.
So far all you have done for the former is a baseless assertion that they do stack, and for the latter provided numerous contradictory explanations which are easily contradicted by reality.

Take that nonsense out and you have reality.

No, take that reality out and you have nonsense.
You aren't asking us to take out nonsense, you are asking us to just blindly accept it, and insulting people or lying about them when they don't.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 22, 2019, 02:25:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 22, 2019, 01:58:30 PM

A barometer will tell you much better.

No, that tells me pressure, not weight or mass.

Yep, it tells you pressure. It tells you that the atmosphere is pushing down onto a resistance to that push. In this case, mercury which is a dense mass.

Now all you have to do is change readings to weight by using a compressible plate to measure a mass and set your readings for what would be weight.
Pretty simple and in need of nothing other than the ability to displace atmosphere with any mass.


All the barometer does is allow a dense liquid up a tube that has been allowed to expand its molecules inside the tube so they can easily be compressed back into it to give a reading by allowing the atmosphere to compress the mercury.

The only difference with the compressible scale plate is, it's on a spring, for instance.
There's really no difference, except for changed readings.

Once people see that they will understand how they've been duped.

aaaaaaah no...

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/barometers.html

barometers have two sides
open to atmopshere.
closed side.
fluid in the middle separating creating a seal and having a visible measurable line.
the closed side is defaulted to some scaled air pressure, let's say for simplicity level at 1atm.
when the outside air pressure is greater than 1atm, say 1.1atm, it will press on the mercury compressing the 1atm to 1.1atm until both sides are equal.
since the fluid is fixed, it will cause the lines to move.
remember PV=NRT.
for the same fixed amount of air moelcules, if pressure goes up, volume goes down
this is a very measurable predictable formula.

so in a sense you could call a barometer a BALANCE SCALE!

so still.
i don't see what you issue is with weights?
a rock displaces X amount of air, that air pushes down by X amount.
6jugs of water displaces X amount of air, that air pushes down by X amount.
X = X.
what's the problem?

in physics, mass = stuff
in scpetiland physics, porosity-density = displaced air

regardless of definition, this rock i found balances to 6jugs of water.
so what?
i still see no point you've made.
you keep asking a question of how.
it's a teeter totter.
fkout and get to your point.

if your point was what i already mentioned about lbf vs lb.
inquis has restated it (minus the gravity).
was that your point?
you could've just got to that a long time ago.
that is a very uninteresting point.
we know you don't believe in gravity.

forget gravity.
its value is an inherently and unnecessary to the formula.
weight = weight.
done.
that took you 13pg of unnecessary dancing around like a total shthead?

Quote from: JackBlack on January 22, 2019, 02:25:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 22, 2019, 01:58:30 PM

A barometer will tell you much better.

No, that tells me pressure, not weight or mass.

Yep, it tells you pressure. It tells you that the atmosphere is pushing down onto a resistance to that push. In this case, mercury which is a dense mass.

Now all you have to do is change readings to weight by using a compressible plate to measure a mass and set your readings for what would be weight.
Pretty simple and in need of nothing other than the ability to displace atmosphere with any mass.


All the barometer does is allow a dense liquid up a tube that has been allowed to expand its molecules inside the tube so they can easily be compressed back into it to give a reading by allowing the atmosphere to compress the mercury.

The only difference with the compressible scale plate is, it's on a spring, for instance.
There's really no difference, except for changed readings.

Once people see that they will understand how they've been duped.

Quote from: JackBlack

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 22, 2019, 01:58:30 PM

Yes they do have definitions. The trouble is it's not correct in how they're portrayed with each other.

There is no issue with how they are portrayed with each other.
Like I said, if you don't like the definitions used in English, make your own language, or at the very least your own words.
Stop taking words with an existing meaning and lying about their meaning.

I'm not lying. I believe what I'm saying. Maybe look at your history.

Quote from: JackBlack

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 22, 2019, 02:19:02 PM

I thought I did tell you with the pyramid.

So your "stacking" is purely a case of there is more area and thus more molecules sitting there?
So if I have that pyramid and hold it upside down (so the "base" is at the top) it will stack the opposite way around and any object inside will be pushed up?

It's still a stack no matter which way you have it.

Please explain how digital barometers work. 

https://www.weather-station-products.co.uk/weather-featured-collections/digital-barometers

Quote from: sobchak on January 22, 2019, 02:10:45 PM

Quote from: sobchak on January 21, 2019, 03:35:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 21, 2019, 01:48:07 AM

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?

Hi Sceptimatic,

Did you get around to figuring out why in your model the atmosphere stacks in a specific direction in a pressurized non symmetric container?   This one is definitely not clear using logic and common sense, so maybe it is just particular to your model?

I thought I did tell you with the pyramid.

No. You didn’t. You just said it did.  Not why. It’s okay if you don’t have an answer though.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 22, 2019, 02:37:41 PM

Yep, it tells you pressure. It tells you that the atmosphere is pushing down onto a resistance to that push. In this case, mercury which is a dense mass.

No it tells me that the atmosphere is pushing, not just pushing down.
Again, a mercury barometer is only one type. There are other types (some of which don't even rely upon the atmosphere pushing), and some can work in any orientation.

The atmosphere is always pushing down in a natural way.
Any mass placed in it will be pushed upon. It's all about the resistance to that push by any mass.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 22, 2019, 02:37:41 PM

Now all you have to do is change readings to weight by using a compressible plate to measure a mass and set your readings for what would be weight.

Which then operates in a fundamentally different way.

Yep it does operate in a different way but the issue is still the same in how it's mass displacing the atmospheric push whether it's a liquid or a solid.
That's all there is to it, plus different measuring names and numbers.
It all equates to the very same when dissected into a rational view.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 22, 2019, 02:37:41 PM

Pretty simple and in need of nothing other than the ability to displace atmosphere with any mass.

No, it is in need of a lot more, as we have already discussed in plenty of other threads. There is no indication nor any logical reason why displacing atmosphere causes weight.

It doesn't cause weight. Weight is a man made measurement. It's merely using a compressible material with a measuring mechanism that can show mass displacement of atmosphere, by whatever object placed on that compressible scale plate (for instance).

No. You didn’t. You just said it did.  Not why. It’s okay if you don’t have an answer though.

Shall we go back to the start?
You see, this is why I keep saying; grasp the basics but you went on with " ohhh it's all super basic to me" sort of taking some high ground as if you're far too intellectual to sit at the basics and grasp them before moving on.
This is why you end up going over and over and over again with the same questions.


Let's start at the very basics and ask questions based on those until you can reel it all back to me to show  you grasp it.

Ok, I told you that atmosphere stacks from the bottom up.
We can all accept that bottom means down and above bottom is up.
Are we clear on this?

This is called natural stacking.
More compressed matter/molecules on the bottom and less compressed all the way up to the top.

Bearing that in  mind you can appreciate that the more molecules on top of any mass placed into them, they will be compressed or pushed up  but you also know that every section of the stack from bottom to top is naturally resisting the next.

If you were a brick and had a stack of bricks upon you, you would be resisting the pressure of the mass of those bricks. You would be displacing that amount of bricks but you would be doing so by being compressed but using a foundation to resist that compressing, with whatever that foundation is, resisting you.


Are we clear up to now before I move on?

The atmosphere is always pushing down in a natural way.

Yes, and up and sideways, and northwest, and up at an angle of 45 degrees, and down at an angle of 30, and so on. It pushes in all directions.

Any mass placed in it will be pushed upon.

Yes, pushed inwards, as if the atmosphere is trying to crush it.

Yep it does operate in a different way but the issue is still the same in how it's mass displacing the atmospheric push whether it's a liquid or a solid.

No, it isn't.

It all equates to the very same when dissected into a rational view.

No, it only seems to equate to the same when dissected in a completely irrational view which does not match reality at all.

Weight is a man made measurement.

No, weight is a real physical thing. Us measuring it doesn't magically mean it is just a measurement.

Now again, how about you address the massive issues in your model?
Considering you want to rely so much upon your magic stacking to try and explain why things fall, how about you try explaining why things stack?

Ok, I told you that atmosphere stacks from the bottom up.

Yes, and that is the issue. You simply told that. You provided no justification as to why it does this.

So no, until you provide a justification we aren't clear.
Especially as you seem to indicate it doesn't always stack like this such as in pressure vessels, except when it does.

So why does it stack like this?

Bearing that in  mind you can appreciate that the more molecules on top of any mass placed into them, they will be compressed or pushed up  but you also know that every section of the stack from bottom to top is naturally resisting the next.

No, until we know why they stack we can't make any conclusions about resisting.

If you were a brick and had a stack of bricks upon you

This analogy is complete garbage. The air doesn't act like a brick at all. It also relies upon bricks wanting to go down which then relates back to why things fall.
So which is the more basic part of your model, why things fall or why the atmosphere stacks?

Quote from: sobchak on January 22, 2019, 09:38:32 PM

No. You didn’t. You just said it did.  Not why. It’s okay if you don’t have an answer though.

Shall we go back to the start?

Sure, why not. I think my question is quite clear and simply based on what you have told me, and I am only asking for clarification on an attribute of your model, but if we need to go back to the start to bring you back to this point, Im okay with that.  Thanks. 

Let's start at the very basics and ask questions based on those until you can reel it all back to me to show  you grasp it
Ok, I told you that atmosphere stacks from the bottom up.

Atmosphere stacks directionally from bottom up. 

We can all accept that bottom means down and above bottom is up.

One direction in this stacking the bottom and this is 'down', opposite of this is 'up'. 

This is called natural stacking.

Natural stacking. 

More compressed matter/molecules on the bottom and less compressed all the way up to the top.

Compressed at bottom, less compressed above. 

Bearing that in  mind you can appreciate that the more molecules on top of any mass placed into them, they will be compressed or pushed up  but you also know that every section of the stack from bottom to top is naturally resisting the next.

Added molecules on top of a mass will compress upwards, and there is resistance between the stacks from bottom to top.

Is this okay, do you need to add anything else to get to the point of why there is a specific orientation of this stacking in a 'nonsymmetric' pressurized container, while all stacking is eliminated in a 'symmetric' pressurized container?   

Quote from: sobchak on January 22, 2019, 09:38:32 PM

No. You didn’t. You just said it did.  Not why. It’s okay if you don’t have an answer though.

Shall we go back to the start?
You see, this is why I keep saying; grasp the basics but you went on with " ohhh it's all super basic to me" sort of taking some high ground as if you're far too intellectual to sit at the basics and grasp them before moving on.
This is why you end up going over and over and over again with the same questions.


Let's start at the very basics and ask questions based on those until you can reel it all back to me to show  you grasp it.

Ok, I told you that atmosphere stacks from the bottom up.
We can all accept that bottom means down and above bottom is up.
Are we clear on this?

This is called natural stacking.
More compressed matter/molecules on the bottom and less compressed all the way up to the top.

Bearing that in  mind you can appreciate that the more molecules on top of any mass placed into them, they will be compressed or pushed up  but you also know that every section of the stack from bottom to top is naturally resisting the next.

If you were a brick and had a stack of bricks upon you, you would be resisting the pressure of the mass of those bricks. You would be displacing that amount of bricks but you would be doing so by being compressed but using a foundation to resist that compressing, with whatever that foundation is, resisting you.


Are we clear up to now before I move on?

At 113 pages it seems no one has been able to grasp the basics. Says a lot about the teacher's ability to convey rather than that of the students' ability to understand. Maybe less words, analogies and some demonstration instead, maybe, god forbid, some math. But ok, let's go super basic. Natural stacking. "Ok, I told you that atmosphere stacks from the bottom up." You told us that. But why does that happen? What is it evidenced by? 'Stacking' is the act of making a stack of something. Would it be more accurate to call the atmosphere a "Natural Stack"? Or is it actually perpetually 'stacking'?

At 113 pages it seems no one has been able to grasp the basics. Says a lot about the teacher's ability to convey rather than that of the students' ability to understand. Maybe less words, analogies and some demonstration instead, maybe, god forbid, some math.

Hi Stash,

I would tend to agree here.  No one can seem to grasp his model to his satisfaction, and perhaps it is because we are all close minded, indoctrinated idiots.  I dont think so though, as far as I can see, quite a few people here can seem to be able to follow a logical train of thought enough to at least understand any given conceptual model, even if they disagree with it.   If he wants to be better at communicating his ideas, I would agree with your recommendations here, fewer analogies and more concrete descriptions.  Math would also be incredibly helpful, he is trying to build a conceptual framework using some form of logic, and mathematics is a wonderful means of unambiguously describing logical relations between objects in the physical world. 

As you also ask about, his 'stacking' is a great example of this. It is absolutely critical to his framework, and he uses lot of analogies, but shies away from a direct explanation of what it is, why it happens, and how it affects the way a fluid works.   We have wonderful descriptions of the behaviors of gases and liquid, and the introduction of the directional, internal, non dissipating pressure gradients and resultant forces in a fluid that his model proposes would fundamentally change the way these materials should behave.  Logically describing such a radical change to our understanding of materials and their behavior is certainly not an easy task, and I understand why it is difficult and probably impossible for him to do so. But if he cares at all about developing his model (and he does seem passionate about it), describing this critical 'stacking' phenomena clearly and cleanly such that others can both understand the model and explore its implications is vital.

But I dont know, maybe he is uninterested in building a useful conceptual model that he can share with others, but only to scrap together a reason to disbelieve in gravity and then defend it against criticism.  He seems passionate and quite willing to engage, but if this is about convincing others or convincing himself, Im not sure yet. 

Agreed, the default position seems to be that if we can't understand it's b/c we are clouded by indoctrination. And I get that when a lot is a response to the hypothesis that "It doesn't work like that." So be it. But if one is to propose an entirely new system of physics, the responses are to be expected. And then one convicted to presenting this new set has to back them up.

The issue here I have is there is no 'backing up'. Just thought experiments, cool in their own right. But at the end of the day, resulting in, "Because I said so." No demonstration, no math, no nothing other than "it just works this way". Which I don't think holds up to any basic litmus test of science. It's a 'belief' system. Which is fine. How can one argue about that. But it's not science, it's belief.

So that is pretty much that. IMO, denpressure is a belief system, nothing more, nothing less. Until there is demonstration, math or some other seemingly agnostic scientific representation of the hypothesis, I don't see how 'denpressure' is any more suited to explaining why things fall down than someone saying, "because they do."

Scepti:

"Ok, I told you that atmosphere stacks from the bottom up.
[ ]
Are we clear on this?"


No...hence their question.
Lets cut to the chase here.
You babble on and on about a whole bunch of crap.
We got it.
Stacking.
You fail to realize or purposefuly troll to avoid the actual question asked.



Its a stupid repeated sketch but pretty much sums it up.

Much like the 13pg to get to a stupid nonpoint about weighing things, We re at 113pg to dance around "why up".

King of the trolls here.
Danang will never attain such a following.

Agreed, the default position seems to be that if we can't understand it's b/c we are clouded by indoctrination. And I get that when a lot is a response to the hypothesis that "It doesn't work like that." So be it. But if one is to propose an entirely new system of physics, the responses are to be expected. And then one convicted to presenting this new set has to back them up.

The issue here I have is there is no 'backing up'. Just thought experiments, cool in their own right. But at the end of the day, resulting in, "Because I said so." No demonstration, no math, no nothing other than "it just works this way". Which I don't think holds up to any basic litmus test of science. It's a 'belief' system. Which is fine. How can one argue about that. But it's not science, it's belief.

So that is pretty much that. IMO, denpressure is a belief system, nothing more, nothing less. Until there is demonstration, math or some other seemingly agnostic scientific representation of the hypothesis, I don't see how 'denpressure' is any more suited to explaining why things fall down than someone saying, "because they do."

Hi Stash,

I agree with a lot you say, but I'm wondering if we also can come up against some of these problems in 'accepted' scientific views?  Take gravity for example, in a simple form one can describe it as an attractive force between masses that is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.  But as far as I know (admitting I am not up on much of the latest theoretical physics research), we still don't know why this occurs, and the current answer as to why two masses attract also boils down to "because they do". (someone please correct me if I am wrong here)

Is it worth asking and trying to understand why we can accept this type of rationale in one conceptual model of reality, and not in another?  Can one make a scientific model using arbitrary axioms, and what's our criteria for differentiating between a belief system and a scientific model, when both try to explain conceptually some observed phenomena?