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

So again...for the 114pg time, if we add atmosphere to said container does the thing get heavier and vice versa removed?
Answer?
Is No

Yes it would if you placed the scales outside of the container with the mass inside of it plus the added atmosphere or the evacuation of it.

It wouldn't be much but it would be measurable.
Try it out.

Hi Sceptimatic,

You don't understand Psychomech's implication of air movement within your model?  Surprising, but okay. 

How about you explain what I'm missing then?

I asked you a clear question stemming from your model description previously, but you did not seem interested or able to talk about them.  Thats fine of course, your model doesn't have to have answers for situations, no matter how simple, but Im now not sure it is worth clarifying questions that just get ignored, so I will let Psychomech follow up on this if he is interested.   

What have I avoided?

Also, explain sychomech's issue if you think I've misunderstood it.
Make it clear so even a dummy like me can understand it enough to answer it in the way I'm supposed to.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 24, 2019, 12:21:53 AM

Surprised you didnt recommend seeking professional mental health.

Ouch, way too harsh?

I like his passion a lot, and I even like his conceptual model.  I also admire his desire to think outside of common conventions. 

That said, a greater awareness of mental health is not a bad thing to strive for.  Goes for all of us.

Well said.

Quote from: sobchak on January 24, 2019, 12:39:12 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 24, 2019, 12:21:53 AM

Surprised you didnt recommend seeking professional mental health.

Ouch, way too harsh?

I like his passion a lot, and I even like his conceptual model.  I also admire his desire to think outside of common conventions. 

That said, a greater awareness of mental health is not a bad thing to strive for.  Goes for all of us.

Yes a bit harsh.
But i never tell someone to go kill themselves.
That is not good.

Youre very polite in your responses.
I was surpised you ket loose a "ffs".
Haha.
I tried to work with scepti a bit like you did but his use of patronising language annoyed me.

Considering what I'm up against and what's fired at me I'd say I'm so mild I'm almost pleasant in my responses.

Don't accuse others of what you channel from yourself.

Quote from: sobchak on January 23, 2019, 02:55:59 PM

Quote from: Psychomech on January 23, 2019, 08:40:43 AM

p.s. What happens when the wind blows above an object?

Seconded!

Wind is pressure change. Simple as that.
High and low pressure.
It will change the measurement of an object within it if a scale is present.

Unless you're asking something else.
Make it clear what you're asking.

Surely wind is air (atmosphere) movement? The molecules moving from one place to another?

If that is the case, then the whole stack will be displaced and cease it's downwards pressure on the object.

If you are suggesting that the molecules remain in place, but simply expand and contract, then you would expect this to show a reduction in the downwards force and the object would weigh less.

I am trying to understand your model, but I can't help spotting what I believe to be gaping holes in it at the moment.

What have I avoided?

This -

why is there a specific orientation of molecular stacking in a 'nonsymmetric' pressurized container, and all stacking is eliminated in a 'symmetric' pressurized container?

Surely wind is air (atmosphere) movement? The molecules moving from one place to another?

If that is the case, then the whole stack will be displaced and cease it's downwards pressure on the object.

he best way I can answer this in its simplicity as an analogy, is to imagine you have a stack of block and you swipe one block from under the rest.
What happens?
The blocks above immediately take the place of the block you swiped away, right?
Or lets put it into compressible context.

You have a stack of sponges miles high. You can appreciate that the sponges near the bottom are going to be a lot more compressed than the sponges above, right?

Ok, now you whack out a sponge. What happens?
The sponge below expand as the sponge above expands and crash into each other, kind of thing.
Where has the other sponge gone that you knocked out?
It's horizontally crashed into the next and that has crashed into the next and so on. Compressing and expanding depending on how much change in pressure there is.

If you run away from air, it will chase you but the air you run into will also slow you down as your mass pressurises it.
You will always leave a low pressure behind you because your mass creates a higher one in front.
The pressure you create by compression at the front is pushed around your body by compressing the air around it and crashing in to that lower pressure you leave behind you, which crashes into the back of you to create the action and equal reaction process.

This creates wind in much the same way as anything else creates it with changing pressures.
But we cannot overlook the push down from above that actually creates it all as the fill in to this compression and expansion.

If you are suggesting that the molecules remain in place, but simply expand and contract, then you would expect this to show a reduction in the downwards force and the object would weigh less.

You can do a lot with molecules depending on the pressure.
You can push them out of the way and allow the drop of above to fill the immediate area leaving no spaces, ever.
Or you can use lots of pressure and create a bonding, A push into molecules to create a more dense molecule and a denser structure of it.
You can do the opposite with matter and expand it to release the gobstopper layers, like I explained.,

It's not as simple as just explaining stuff. It's about people understanding all the different stuff as to how it does all work and why.

I am trying to understand your model, but I can't help spotting what I believe to be gaping holes in it at the moment.

No problem spotting holes. Work with me and yourself to fill them but don't fall into the trap of going into denial of my theory which is what  lot do and end up back at square one and no further forward...or confused...or bitter.

If you're serious then simple slow steps and by all means ask any question you feel is relevant. Just don;t expect me to answer perfectly. I'm up against a posse of people all on different wavelengths and frequencies.
I also do not think like any of you want me to so you have to understand the theory from my side, even if it irritates.

It's not easy from my side, either. I'm up against numerous and you have the luxury of just being you, asking from your point of view.

Quote from: sceptimatic

What have I avoided?

This -

Quote from: sobchak

why is there a specific orientation of molecular stacking in a 'nonsymmetric' pressurized container, and all stacking is eliminated in a 'symmetric' pressurized container?

First of all I said the stacking under pressurisation is not a natural stack. It's still a stack but not like we have walking about.

If I'm not being clear it's because I'm getting hit from all angles and it's difficult to keep on track when things get derailed.

Ok, so let me try and explain.
There will always be a stack, unless there is one thing that changes that, which would theoretically be an unnaturally pressurised container of exact equal symmetrical proportions, such as a perfect sphere as an instance.

Anything other than that would be a pressurised unnatural stacking in anything that is not perfectly symmetrical.

Why is this?

Because like I mentioned with the gobstopper effect. The inner layers is like a multitude of bubbles, for want of a better explanation.
It's a bubble compressed inside a bubble compressed inside a bubble and so on and so on.

Underground you would have your full gobstopper molecule, The dense molecule or matter whichever way you want to think.

On top of the ground you have the fluid (atmosphere) from that stack and the layers within that which go from nitrogen ,oxygen, hydrogen/helium...etc....etc...etc.

All these are in their layers as many and as less to even less as layers expand and stack from below.

I'm trying my best so really grasp it even if you have a million questions.

Ok, so pushing that into a container of unequal size will simply create a denser stacking and push molecules inside molecules but will still leave a less dense molecule stack as it's pushed in to the container.

If I'm missing something them by all means put something to me to verify what you are after because that's the only way you'll maybe get clarification even if it takes time.
Patience is the key and willingness to understand it...nothing more. Nobody expects you to accept it as a truth.
Although I will warn you that if you start to understand it, you will be attacked. Just as Jane.

If they were truth's we would not be arguing like we all do in debates, etc.

We have been over this before, something being the truth and backed up facts and proofs wont stop delusional people from rejecting them to pretend they are better than everyone else.

That's it ever will be unless people start to think and do the simple experiments that wake them up to the potentials.

We have also been over this. You don't want people thinking about your model. You don't want people doing experiments. You want them to blindly accept it.
If people actually take the time to think about your model or to do experiments based upon it, they realise it is nothing more than a massive pile of self-contradictory nonsense.

That is what happens every time you try to bring it up. People think about it and realise it doesn't work.
The experiments all prove your model wrong.

and yet that can happen to me for no other reason than people cannot see my god and my god is not their god.

Again, stop lying.
It is because you are spouting pure nonsense, without any justification at all, and with plenty of justification against it.

he best way I can answer this in its simplicity as an analogy, is to imagine you have a stack of block and you swipe one block from under the rest.

So the atmosphere stacks because things fall?
In that case the stacking can't be the justification for why things fall.

You have a stack of sponges miles high. You can appreciate that the sponges near the bottom are going to be a lot more compressed

Only because there is something pushing them down.
So again, that then means that it can't be the reason things get pushed down.

don't fall into the trap of going into denial of my theory which is what  lot do and end up back at square one and no further forward

And do you know why that happens? Because you are unable to explain your model.
If you actually could so many people wouldn't be in denial and could progress.

No again, pick which you think is the most basic and explain it:
Why does atmosphere stack in a particular direction and why does it stack at all?
Why do things fall?

Yep. You know all about the sun and stars and planets and cosmic dust, plus black holes and galaxies, plus a whole host of theoretical? Hypothetical? Fictional?....stuff.
They are so complex as to be knowable but equally unknowable with equations to match.
All you need now is a quiz master to test out how much you can commit to memory to gain you a higher standing that the other average bear.

Your knowledge is the markings of your quiz sheet. Your memory filing cabinet and the ability of you to be able to neatly store your info in order to relay back what was handed to you to put away.

But what do you know?
What's your truth?
What direct physical proof do you or any amount of people that's committed that same stuff to memory, have?

Transfer all of that to every other tutored/schooled theory or hypothesis and ask yourself if the tutor is merely following a protocol/curriculum and able to do so based on that tutors ability to commit to memory whatever was placed into it.

Parroting without a knowing reality.

 
If we were in some scientific dark age, technology and knowledge remaining stagnant over the generations, I could seriously consider this, that people were just parroting what was taught without knowing reality, and then passing it on to the next person to come along. 

But this is not what we have today.  We have an exponential growth in knowledge and technological power.  In most fields, If you use a textbook from 10 years ago you are already hopelessly out of date.  Who is writing these new textbooks?  Where are all these new conceptual frameworks and increased understandings coming from if people are just parroting through the generations what they have been told?  The project I am currently working on would have been considered total science fiction just a couple of decades ago, its working, and we are figuring out the protocols to make it happen, there is no textbook or source that tells us what to do, we just have information about what is.  How do things like this occur, how do we grab hold of basic building blocks of reality and bend them to our will in new and amazing ways, if we have no fundamental knowledge of what we are doing? 

Every year we know more and more, and can do more and more.  This might be leaving you behind as you sit and argue about whether your model fits simple phenomena, but please dont confuse your lack of knowledge with a lack of knowledge.   

So the atmosphere stacks because things fall?
In that case the stacking can't be the justification for why things fall.

You type this and then below you type what you do.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 24, 2019, 02:42:09 AM

You have a stack of sponges miles high. You can appreciate that the sponges near the bottom are going to be a lot more compressed

Only because there is something pushing them down.
So again, that then means that it can't be the reason things get pushed down.

Do you understand what you're saying?

No again, pick which you think is the most basic and explain it:
Why does atmosphere stack in a particular direction and why does it stack at all?
Why do things fall?

The above should be more than enough.

Let me ask you a question.
Why do you think things are pushed down?

This is the real crux, isn't it, because you will not let go of gravity and know that if you are faced with reality your gravity is dead and with that goes everything you've been told about Earth and the nonsense space stuff.

Quote from: sobchak on January 24, 2019, 02:17:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic

What have I avoided?

This -

Quote from: sobchak

why is there a specific orientation of molecular stacking in a 'nonsymmetric' pressurized container, and all stacking is eliminated in a 'symmetric' pressurized container?

First of all I said the stacking under pressurisation is not a natural stack. It's still a stack but not like we have walking about.

If I'm not being clear it's because I'm getting hit from all angles and it's difficult to keep on track when things get derailed.

Fully understand this, you are being bombarded with questions and attacks left and right.  I will try not to take non answers as unwillingness to answer in the future.  Im not the only one you are talking to, its okay to drop a few things in the deluge.   

Ok, so let me try and explain.
There will always be a stack, unless there is one thing that changes that, which would theoretically be an unnaturally pressurised container of exact equal symmetrical proportions, such as a perfect sphere as an instance.

I can't understand why here.  Why does a spherical pressurized container eliminate all stacking? 

Anything other than that would be a pressurised unnatural stacking in anything that is not perfectly symmetrical.

Why is this?

Because like I mentioned with the gobstopper effect. The inner layers is like a multitude of bubbles, for want of a better explanation.
It's a bubble compressed inside a bubble compressed inside a bubble and so on and so on.

Underground you would have your full gobstopper molecule, The dense molecule or matter whichever way you want to think.

On top of the ground you have the fluid (atmosphere) from that stack and the layers within that which go from nitrogen ,oxygen, hydrogen/helium...etc....etc...etc.

All these are in their layers as many and as less to even less as layers expand and stack from below.

I'm trying my best so really grasp it even if you have a million questions.

Okay, Im just trying to stay focused here and understand your model.

Ok, so pushing that into a container of unequal size will simply create a denser stacking and push molecules inside molecules but will still leave a less dense molecule stack as it's pushed in to the container.

I have read and reread and reread this sentence, but I am completely unable to parse it.  It seems like you are saying pushing in molecules will simply increase the density of the existing stacking, but then you talk about leaving a less dense stack as its pushed into the container.  Im sorry, but I cant really follow this explanation, are you referring to the external environment when you say it 'leaves' a less dense molecular stack?

And Im still struggling to understand how shape comes into play here, as well as the connection between the unnatural stacking in the container and the natural stacking outside.  Do they always have the same orientation.  If so, why? 

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 24, 2019, 12:18:56 AM

So again...for the 114pg time, if we add atmosphere to said container does the thing get heavier and vice versa removed?
Answer?
Is No

Yes it would if you placed the scales outside of the container with the mass inside of it plus the added atmosphere or the evacuation of it.

It wouldn't be much but it would be measurable.
Try it out.

Pff you know what i meant.
Correction to my point then.
A scale INside the vessel as repeatedly told you.

Quote from: sobchak on January 24, 2019, 12:25:00 AM

Hi Sceptimatic,

You don't understand Psychomech's implication of air movement within your model?  Surprising, but okay. 

How about you explain what I'm missing then?

Quote from: sobchak

I asked you a clear question stemming from your model description previously, but you did not seem interested or able to talk about them.  Thats fine of course, your model doesn't have to have answers for situations, no matter how simple, but Im now not sure it is worth clarifying questions that just get ignored, so I will let Psychomech follow up on this if he is interested.   

What have I avoided?

Also, explain sychomech's issue if you think I've misunderstood it.
Make it clear so even a dummy like me can understand it enough to answer it in the way I'm supposed to.

Pfff
Troll it up.

Quote from: sobchak on January 24, 2019, 12:14:19 AM

Fair enough, we thankfully live in a free world, and  you can believe whatever you want and pursue your passions how you see best.

I certainly do not believe for a moment we live in a free world.
The issue though is, what does a free world actually mean for each individual?
We are free if you compare us to a caged animal/bird, but only by the size of the cage we are allowed to move about in.

Anyway I could go on and on with this piece and it would need its own thread.
Basically we are not free.

Quote from: sobchak

  Good luck with it all.   I'm not sure why anyone though would change their mind based on the things you have said so far - you paint a strange, fanciful world that you have not demonstrated at all, posit alternative fundamental forces that seeming offer no differential predictive power over existing theories, and massively complicate entire fields of knowledge that presently work and provide everyday function and power to our world.

Nobody has to change their minds. That's the beauty of it all.
It's about a willingness to understand a different concept without attempting to hinder themselves by using another concept as a barrier to that understanding.

Quote from: sobchak

  Maybe we are just blindly stumbling on, controlled by higher powers who know what is going on and feed us lies to hide the truth.

All we can do is stumble on. We are not in  charge, we are merely given the idea that we are the owners of our own movement and ideas. We simply aren't when you stand back and view the bigger picture.

Quote from: sobchak

But if so, the fact is that the lies they feed us fit into an amazingly well spun tapestry that simply works at an incredible number of levels, and we use these lies daily to build the world around us.

Of course it's well spun.
You cannot control the masses unless you reward and punish in percentage measures, as well as create physical truth's and lies that are hidden behind a shroud that has the words, hidden truths on a need to know basis.

Quote from: sobchak

  FFS, do you even know the amount of theory derived from basic physics that is required to build all the technology that is presently allowing us to communicate instantly around across entire earth?

Yep. You know all about the sun and stars and planets and cosmic dust, plus black holes and galaxies, plus a whole host of theoretical? Hypothetical? Fictional?....stuff.
They are so complex as to be knowable but equally unknowable with equations to match.
All you need now is a quiz master to test out how much you can commit to memory to gain you a higher standing that the other average bear.

Your knowledge is the markings of your quiz sheet. Your memory filing cabinet and the ability of you to be able to neatly store your info in order to relay back what was handed to you to put away.

But what do you know?
What's your truth?
What direct physical proof do you or any amount of people that's committed that same stuff to memory, have?

Transfer all of that to every other tutored/schooled theory or hypothesis and ask yourself if the tutor is merely following a protocol/curriculum and able to do so based on that tutors ability to commit to memory whatever was placed into it.

Parroting without a knowing reality.

 

Quote from: sobchak

If you are right, you are up against something nearly godlike in its ability to spin a working web of consistent lies.  Its actually quite the opposite of what you think, and if you open your eyes to our modern understanding of the world, you find it is very, very, very deep, and very, very, very powerful.

Your early part of life can be defined by a few gods. Your parents.
You may end up following a path they took of which you adhere to as your belief out of nothing other than conditional love and inability to go against that indoctrination.
They are your official authority.
Go out into the wider world and you can choose your next gods, whether it's a church or a school, to college or university...or even some perceived smart person who takes you under their wing and teaches you their theories.
What are you actually learning if you don't actually discover a truth but instead rely on a theory you are told is the truth?

It's all about pushing your own boundaries that you have set for you and creating enough space within to actually think outside of the box you were happily (at first) trapped inside of.

Quote from: sobchak

If it is all a lie, we should be very scared about the controlling force behind it.

We are conditioned to be scared. That's how we are controlled.
What is there to be scared of that we don't already deal with?
The unknown...right?
Think about that, because in life your theories are about that, because they are not truth's, no matter what.
If they were truth's we would not be arguing like we all do in debates, etc.
To keep us in control in life we must be accountable for our actions should we stop out of line and be rewarded for being good and sticking to whatever rules were laid out.
The fear or the afterlife, or the embracement of what is in that afterlife, depending.

A truth?
A theory?
A hypothesis?
A musing?
A religion?

What is the truth?
Start with the basics and don't over complicate something that you have the ability to physically test and go from those points.

 

Quote from: sobchak

If you are right, this is what you are up against, and if your goal is truly to change minds, you might want to rethink your approach to this all.

My goal is to live my life until I die. In between doing that I will try to do something that interests me and enables me to find solutions to problems, among many other things.
As for changing minds.... I leave that up to each individual.
All I ask for is for every person to use their own brains outside of what was handed to them on a platter. To think outside of the box.
To actually sit back and think " hang on a minute, what makes theoretical scientists any more smart than I?"
Is it the ability to tell/sell a story from their own minds?
Is it the ability to tell/sell a story handed to them?

You see, physical scientists who theorise and find solutions to problems, are the smart one's. These are the people who help create what we have.

There's a massive difference between a physical scientific genius and a theoretical muser who merely postulates and turns that postulation into a long drawn out story that is impossible to ever be verified yet can be told in such detail as to even have its own equations and such.
It can look amazing and be incalculable in its intricacies and yet can be idolised by many who feel just to commit some of it to memory, stands them out as smarter than the average bear.

The smartest people are those that have the ability to take the intricate theories and break them down into the basic...or potential basic...or to simply break them down into the nothing that they represent.

Getting there is the hard part.
It's like trying to find the ingredient for a fictional recipe for a made up name that nobody will physically show.
This is what we are dealing with with a lot of so called science.

Quote from: sobchak

From what I can see here, most people on this thread see what you are proposing as just a belief system wrapped in a thin veneer of scientism.  Something like that is a hard thing to sell, Sceptimatic, really hard, especially compared to what you are up against.

That's it ever will be unless people start to think and do the simple experiments that wake them up to the potentials.
I'm serious.

Quote from: sobchak

     That is just my opinion, but many years and tens of thousands of posts without being able to reach anyone should also be telling you that.

No, not at all.
It tells me that people will stick to something which is all set out for them and who feel comfortable arguing from the side of mass peer pressuring, rather than being against that pressuring and cast off as some lunatic for having the audacity to have their own theories.


Like I said before, go to church and pray to god...any god of whatever church and you are a pillar of society. A revered person among peers of that same religion.
Go to bed and carry that on, praying to your god for a safe day the following day and to look after whoever for you.
Then to sit at the table and thank the god for the meal you're having, that the god provided.

Many people will say Amen.

If I decide to talk to a god. My god. A god that I took on as my companion...although invisible to people. If I talk to my god before bed and thank my god for my meals and such, but I do not provide anyone in authority the identity of my god...I'm cast off as a lunatic...unstable and possibly incarcerated...and yet that can happen to me for no other reason than people cannot see my god and my god is not their god.

If I decide to call those people lunatics for talking to their invisible god, I'd be set upon, en-masse or banished from the community. Cast out as a troublemaker....etc.

Quote from: sobchak

If not, if this is just a path of personal discovery and you are enjoying the interactions you are having with the people here, then great, simply carry on.

If I didn't enjoy interaction then I certainly would not be here.

Quote from: sobchak

Im sure many others are here simply for personal reasons (myself included), and in my opinion people would be disappointed if you stopped.

Whatever reasons they are, they are your reasons, like you say.

The major issue on forums is in the inability for most of us to TRUST in one another.
It's either take a side in dodgeball but the side you take against the enemy, make sure that you avoid the ball and also ensure you are the last one standing on your own team.
It takes away the purpose of "team" and becomes a personal crusade, yet still cast off as being part of a group of people all with a similar badge.

Suchh a big post.

Physcists are thought scientsits until someone comes along and biild a massive CERN or sees somehing in a HUBBLE.
You have no math and no model and no diagram and have already been shown incorrect in experiemt.

Quote from: Psychomech on January 24, 2019, 02:07:33 AM

Surely wind is air (atmosphere) movement? The molecules moving from one place to another?

If that is the case, then the whole stack will be displaced and cease it's downwards pressure on the object.

he best way I can answer this in its simplicity as an analogy, is to imagine you have a stack of block and you swipe one block from under the rest.
What happens?
The blocks above immediately take the place of the block you swiped away, right?
Or lets put it into compressible context.

You have a stack of sponges miles high. You can appreciate that the sponges near the bottom are going to be a lot more compressed than the sponges above, right?

Ok, now you whack out a sponge. What happens?
The sponge below expand as the sponge above expands and crash into each other, kind of thing.
Where has the other sponge gone that you knocked out?
It's horizontally crashed into the next and that has crashed into the next and so on. Compressing and expanding depending on how much change in pressure there is.

If you run away from air, it will chase you but the air you run into will also slow you down as your mass pressurises it.
You will always leave a low pressure behind you because your mass creates a higher one in front.
The pressure you create by compression at the front is pushed around your body by compressing the air around it and crashing in to that lower pressure you leave behind you, which crashes into the back of you to create the action and equal reaction process.

This creates wind in much the same way as anything else creates it with changing pressures.
But we cannot overlook the push down from above that actually creates it all as the fill in to this compression and expansion.

Quote from: Psychomech

If you are suggesting that the molecules remain in place, but simply expand and contract, then you would expect this to show a reduction in the downwards force and the object would weigh less.

You can do a lot with molecules depending on the pressure.
You can push them out of the way and allow the drop of above to fill the immediate area leaving no spaces, ever.
Or you can use lots of pressure and create a bonding, A push into molecules to create a more dense molecule and a denser structure of it.
You can do the opposite with matter and expand it to release the gobstopper layers, like I explained.,

It's not as simple as just explaining stuff. It's about people understanding all the different stuff as to how it does all work and why.

Quote from: Psychomech

I am trying to understand your model, but I can't help spotting what I believe to be gaping holes in it at the moment.

No problem spotting holes. Work with me and yourself to fill them but don't fall into the trap of going into denial of my theory which is what  lot do and end up back at square one and no further forward...or confused...or bitter.

If you're serious then simple slow steps and by all means ask any question you feel is relevant. Just don;t expect me to answer perfectly. I'm up against a posse of people all on different wavelengths and frequencies.
I also do not think like any of you want me to so you have to understand the theory from my side, even if it irritates.

It's not easy from my side, either. I'm up against numerous and you have the luxury of just being you, asking from your point of view.

Look at the language change.

"Trying my best", "im being attacked", "help me".

Vs previous

Its so simple, youre gullible, its obvious i dont understand why you could believe otherwise....

If we were in some scientific dark age, technology and knowledge remaining stagnant over the generations, I could seriously consider this, that people were just parroting what was taught without knowing reality, and then passing it on to the next person to come along. 

But this is not what we have today.

It's all about what you accept as being allowed to happen and what isn't.
We can go through stories of Tesla or other inventors and argue whether some of their stuff was used correctly or not used at all.

It all depends what is passed on from the fact section or the fiction section.
Only physical knowledge of something can prove a reality.
We could easily be duped on the molecular level of much stuff but swayed with an alternate view of it by nothing more than shoehorned equations to fit.

  We have an exponential growth in knowledge and technological power.  In most fields, If you use a textbook from 10 years ago you are already hopelessly out of date.

Of course. Things speed up. Things change.
It's just a case of what you think you're learning when you equate it all to life experience.
I say very little, other than theoreticals as opposed to yesteryear when you actually did learn life skills.

  Who is writing these new textbooks?

It depends on the writer and which shelf it belongs on, Fact or fiction or a mixture of both.

Where are all these new conceptual frameworks and increased understandings coming from if people are just parroting through the generations what they have been told?

Understanding of what?
That's the key issue.
What is it that we're understanding today that makes us smarter than yesteryear?

  The project I am currently working on would have been considered total science fiction just a couple of decades ago, its working, and we are figuring out the protocols to make it happen, there is no textbook or source that tells us what to do, we just have information about what is.  How do things like this occur, how do we grab hold of basic building blocks of reality and bend them to our will in new and amazing ways, if we have no fundamental knowledge of what we are doing? 

A record to a cd was unheard of.
A flat screen TV from a tube.
It just depends on what can be classed as sci-fi in that time to this time.
I mean look at the moon landings. In the early 1900's it was sci-fi and yet here we go to 1969 and all of a sudden its real sci-fi?.
And today with all that extra technology we still can't seem to go.
It makes you wonder what we are really learning and how far technology is taking us, doesn't it?

Fact shelf or the fiction shelf of knowledge?
You see, I don't class fictional stories as any more knowledge than knowing what the fictional characters did in it. It's maybe good for a later quiz to see how good our memories are, in theory.
Where are the physical facts of how smart we've become?

Most people have lost the art of writing in favour of text....u no wot i mean..... and so on.

Every year we know more and more, and can do more and more.  This might be leaving you behind as you sit and argue about whether your model fits simple phenomena, but please dont confuse your lack of knowledge with a lack of knowledge.

Every year we do know more and more. But what exactly is it that we, as the general public know more of? Is it history?
How much more do we know that is a truth?
Most likely the history we didn't know about but our parents did and we will know the history of today, tomorrow and our kids will know our overall history because we can tell them the physical truths of our time but they still have to rely on us telling them that truth.

.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 24, 2019, 03:00:54 AM

Quote from: sobchak on January 24, 2019, 02:17:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic

What have I avoided?

This -

Quote from: sobchak

why is there a specific orientation of molecular stacking in a 'nonsymmetric' pressurized container, and all stacking is eliminated in a 'symmetric' pressurized container?

First of all I said the stacking under pressurisation is not a natural stack. It's still a stack but not like we have walking about.

If I'm not being clear it's because I'm getting hit from all angles and it's difficult to keep on track when things get derailed.

Fully understand this, you are being bombarded with questions and attacks left and right.  I will try not to take non answers as unwillingness to answer in the future.  Im not the only one you are talking to, its okay to drop a few things in the deluge.   

Quote from: sceptimatic

Ok, so let me try and explain.
There will always be a stack, unless there is one thing that changes that, which would theoretically be an unnaturally pressurised container of exact equal symmetrical proportions, such as a perfect sphere as an instance.

I can't understand why here.  Why does a spherical pressurized container eliminate all stacking? 

Quote from: sceptimatic

Anything other than that would be a pressurised unnatural stacking in anything that is not perfectly symmetrical.

Why is this?

Because like I mentioned with the gobstopper effect. The inner layers is like a multitude of bubbles, for want of a better explanation.
It's a bubble compressed inside a bubble compressed inside a bubble and so on and so on.

Underground you would have your full gobstopper molecule, The dense molecule or matter whichever way you want to think.

On top of the ground you have the fluid (atmosphere) from that stack and the layers within that which go from nitrogen ,oxygen, hydrogen/helium...etc....etc...etc.

All these are in their layers as many and as less to even less as layers expand and stack from below.

I'm trying my best so really grasp it even if you have a million questions.

Okay, Im just trying to stay focused here and understand your model.

Quote from: sceptimatic

Ok, so pushing that into a container of unequal size will simply create a denser stacking and push molecules inside molecules but will still leave a less dense molecule stack as it's pushed in to the container.

I have read and reread and reread this sentence, but I am completely unable to parse it.  It seems like you are saying pushing in molecules will simply increase the density of the existing stacking, but then you talk about leaving a less dense stack as its pushed into the container.  Im sorry, but I cant really follow this explanation, are you referring to the external environment when you say it 'leaves' a less dense molecular stack?

And Im still struggling to understand how shape comes into play here, as well as the connection between the unnatural stacking in the container and the natural stacking outside.  Do they always have the same orientation.  If so, why?

I'm trying to figure out a way to explain it to you without setting you back by me not doing a clear enough job to make it understandable.

Give me a little bit of time to get a decent analogy together to give you an idea.
I could simply go on and on trying to explain little bits but it's going to end up being counter productive for you...and for me.
A bit of patience for a day or two, ok?

No more analogies.

Drawings and models

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 24, 2019, 01:54:33 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 24, 2019, 12:18:56 AM

So again...for the 114pg time, if we add atmosphere to said container does the thing get heavier and vice versa removed?
Answer?
Is No

Yes it would if you placed the scales outside of the container with the mass inside of it plus the added atmosphere or the evacuation of it.

It wouldn't be much but it would be measurable.
Try it out.

Pff you know what i meant.
Correction to my point then.
A scale INside the vessel as repeatedly told you.

A scale INside the vessel as repeatedly told you.

Answer a question first.
Under denpressure what does the object inside a container do before evacuation?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 24, 2019, 05:29:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 24, 2019, 01:54:33 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 24, 2019, 12:18:56 AM

So again...for the 114pg time, if we add atmosphere to said container does the thing get heavier and vice versa removed?
Answer?
Is No

Yes it would if you placed the scales outside of the container with the mass inside of it plus the added atmosphere or the evacuation of it.

It wouldn't be much but it would be measurable.
Try it out.

Pff you know what i meant.
Correction to my point then.
A scale INside the vessel as repeatedly told you.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 24, 2019, 05:29:22 AM

A scale INside the vessel as repeatedly told you.

Answer a question first.
Under denpressure what does the object inside a container do before evacuation?

Please explain some methods of measuring atmospheric pressure at a particular point to validate your theiries.

Suchh a big post.

Physcists are thought scientsits until someone comes along and biild a massive CERN or sees somehing in a HUBBLE.
You have no math and no model and no diagram and have already been shown incorrect in experiemt.

Don't pretend you know they exist. You accept what you're told.
This is exactly what I'm saying when people think they're smarter today than yesteryear.

Pfff
Troll and distract some more scepti.

Provide a model diagram showing you in a house on grpund floor, 2nd floor and roof and how the stack pushes you down in each.

Its Your theory
Lets see it

No more analogies.

Drawings and models

Yeah, drawings would be good. When I get around to it. And it won't be for your benefit, directly.

Please explain some methods of measuring atmospheric pressure at a particular point to validate your theiries.

Stand on a measuring scale and measure how much atmosphere your mass pushes up against the resistance to that push using that scale plate as the foundation.
Read the weight.
Stuff like that.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 24, 2019, 05:44:00 AM

Suchh a big post.

Physcists are thought scientsits until someone comes along and biild a massive CERN or sees somehing in a HUBBLE.
You have no math and no model and no diagram and have already been shown incorrect in experiemt.

Don't pretend you know they exist. You accept what you're told.
This is exactly what I'm saying when people think they're smarter today than yesteryear.

And you with no experiemt diagram photo math or coroborating winesses have even less.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 24, 2019, 07:07:12 AM

Please explain some methods of measuring atmospheric pressure at a particular point to validate your theories.

Stand on a measuring scale and measure how much atmosphere your mass pushes up against the resistance to that push using that scale plate as the foundation.
Read the weight.
Stuff like that.

As in 50kg of air? Atmospheric pressure is measured in Pascals. It is defined as one newton per square metre.

Surely your mass pushes down against the scale plate?

Quote from: inquisitive on January 24, 2019, 07:07:12 AM

Please explain some methods of measuring atmospheric pressure at a particular point to validate your theiries.

Stand on a measuring scale and measure how much atmosphere your mass pushes up against the resistance to that push using that scale plate as the foundation.
Read the weight.
Stuff like that.

Ok so if I stand in a room that has a higher pressure, I should weigh more?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 24, 2019, 07:17:55 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 24, 2019, 05:44:00 AM

Suchh a big post.

Physcists are thought scientsits until someone comes along and biild a massive CERN or sees somehing in a HUBBLE.
You have no math and no model and no diagram and have already been shown incorrect in experiemt.

Don't pretend you know they exist. You accept what you're told.
This is exactly what I'm saying when people think they're smarter today than yesteryear.

And you with no experiemt diagram photo math or coroborating winesses have even less.

Of course. I'm not generally armed with off the shelf stuff to answer my questions. And my theories are generally my own with little back up,
I have to rely on fine tuning my theories with as much thought process coupled with snippets of experiments that tell me the stories of how it can work overall.
I'm far from there but I believe on the right track.

You are only on your right track because you are the passenger on the train of mainstream thought, with little scope of detour.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 24, 2019, 07:21:12 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 24, 2019, 07:07:12 AM

Please explain some methods of measuring atmospheric pressure at a particular point to validate your theories.

Stand on a measuring scale and measure how much atmosphere your mass pushes up against the resistance to that push using that scale plate as the foundation.
Read the weight.
Stuff like that.

As in 50kg of air? Atmospheric pressure is measured in Pascals. It is defined as one newton per square metre.

Surely your mass pushes down against the scale plate?

My mass is pushing up against the atmosphere while I use the compressible scale plate as my resistant foundation.
That's how I have measurement of my dense mass (structure) called, weight