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

The point is, resistance varies over area and also against different masses but the key issue is "it varies".
Do you know what that means? It means that your gravity nonsense of 9.8m/s is nothing of the sort as a constant.

What is this "nonsense of 9.8m/s"? No-one, except a few ignorant ones, claim a "gravity . . . . of 9.8m/s".
In case you missed physics 001, 9.8m/s is a fixed velocity but gravity causes an acceleration  of 9.8m/s².

And everyone, except a few ignorant ones, knows that air resistance will limit the velocity of the object to its terminal velocity.

By the way you ridicule mathematics so how would your "theory" allow the calculation of air pressure vs altitude.
If you think that's of no practical value ask any pilot how their altimeter works.
You might read this and see if it fits your denpressure ideas: The International Standard Atmosphere (ISA), Mustafa Cavcar.

Quote from: sobchak on January 27, 2019, 02:31:13 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 26, 2019, 01:15:24 PM

Quote from: sobchak on January 26, 2019, 05:45:08 AM

How did he explain it all?

He didn't actually provide an explanation.
Instead he just claims that the current model is wrong, as you need air to provide the centrifugal force, and clearly different things happened in the vacuum so the air must be responsible.

So he had a failed experiment that he still claims debunked fundamental physical laws? 

I was hoping for more, but I guess at the least I understand why he doesn’t want to describe it.

At least you finally came out. I was wondering how long it would take for your guard to drop.
What a joke you people are.

I’m sorry you feel this way, I imagine it could be hard to be continually surrounded by the type of people you think everyone here is.  Internet discussions don't tend to bring out the best side of people,  but from what I seen here in my short stay is that there is obviously a lot of intellectual strength here that could help you, but only if you decided you were willing to accept input in good faith.   

I’m also sorry if this is all a burden to you, it must be terribly frustrating to think you have discovered such a great fundamental truth about the world we live in, and yet be completely and utterly impotent to effectively share it with others.  I hope the internal feelings of pride and uniqueness counteract the isolation and loneliness it must bring. 

Take care.

Ouch
I would call THAT harsh.
Haha


Come on scepti.
Lets see a youtube of your experiemtn and an updated drawing of tge house.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2019, 05:36:21 AM

The point is, resistance varies over area and also against different masses but the key issue is "it varies".
Do you know what that means? It means that your gravity nonsense of 9.8m/s is nothing of the sort as a constant.

What is this "nonsense of 9.8m/s"? No-one, except a few ignorant ones, claim a "gravity . . . . of 9.8m/s".
In case you missed physics 001, 9.8m/s is a fixed velocity but gravity causes an acceleration  of 9.8m/s².

And everyone, except a few ignorant ones, knows that air resistance will limit the velocity of the object to its terminal velocity.

By the way you ridicule mathematics so how would your "theory" allow the calculation of air pressure vs altitude.
If you think that's of no practical value ask any pilot how their altimeter works.
You might read this and see if it fits your denpressure ideas: The International Standard Atmosphere (ISA), Mustafa Cavcar.

I don't ridicule mathematics.
I simply tell you that they are not needed to explain what I'm explaining.
And also the mathematics I do ridicule, is the mathematics used for pseudoscience and blatant bull..

I’m sorry you feel this way, I imagine it could be hard to be continually surrounded by the type of people you think everyone here is.  Internet discussions don't tend to bring out the best side of people,  but from what I seen here in my short stay is that there is obviously a lot of intellectual strength here that could help you, but only if you decided you were willing to accept input in good faith.   

I’m also sorry if this is all a burden to you, it must be terribly frustrating to think you have discovered such a great fundamental truth about the world we live in, and yet be completely and utterly impotent to effectively share it with others.  I hope the internal feelings of pride and uniqueness counteract the isolation and loneliness it must bring. 

Take care.

No need to be sorry for me. I'll be fine doing it my way.
You tried your best to play the game your way....and failed. Good try but no cigar.

Ouch
I would call THAT harsh.
Haha


Come on scepti.
Lets see a youtube of your experiemtn and an updated drawing of tge house.

Accept what I give you and be thankful for it. It doesn't help you but it does help others and that's what counts. You're no more than a channel.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 28, 2019, 06:48:27 AM

Ouch
I would call THAT harsh.
Haha


Come on scepti.
Lets see a youtube of your experiemtn and an updated drawing of tge house.

Accept what I give you and be thankful for it. It doesn't help you but it does help others and that's what counts. You're no more than a channel.

That's exactly what someone who wants to indoctrinate someone would say.

I simply tell you that they are not needed to explain what I'm explaining.

If you want to be able to have your nonsense be useful, it is needed.
But you are somewhat right. The math isn't actually needed to realise what you say is nonsense. Even qualitative analysis can do that.

Now, like I have been asking, pick the most basic part of your model and explain it.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 28, 2019, 06:48:27 AM

Ouch
I would call THAT harsh.
Haha


Come on scepti.
Lets see a youtube of your experiemtn and an updated drawing of tge house.

Accept what I give you and be thankful for it. It doesn't help you but it does help others and that's what counts. You're no more than a channel.

Anyone else make sense of it?

DenP is right because denP is right.

Great.
So logcial and simple.
Scepti cant prove it so Just accept it.
120pg to get to this point.
Good stuff.
Thats amazingly simple.

We re all duped gullible fools for believing in repeatable results based on phsycal experimentation and predictable math, and need to convert to denP.

Hes solved it everyone!
Spread the word.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2019, 11:44:10 AM

I simply tell you that they are not needed to explain what I'm explaining.

If you want to be able to have your nonsense be useful, it is needed.
But you are somewhat right. The math isn't actually needed to realise what you say is nonsense. Even qualitative analysis can do that.

Now, like I have been asking, pick the most basic part of your model and explain it.

I've explained the basics.
I'm under no illusions about anything I say being accepted by you.
I could tell you  anything and if it goes against your global ideals you will not accept it.
Don't bother telling me you will if this or that matches.
I'm not interested what you do. You just carry on with your adherence to nonsense and I'll carry on with my musings on what I believe Earth to be...and why.

Hes solved it everyone!
Spread the word.

It's all it takes to understand that gravity is made up nonsense and atmospheric pressure upon any dense mass is the whole reason why everything happens.

Pretty simple stuff in some respects. The basics.
It's just a case of how far people want to go down that thought process to see how it works.

You carry on with your global gravity and I'll stick to mine because you will never change my thoughts.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 28, 2019, 12:42:25 PM

Hes solved it everyone!
Spread the word.

It's all it takes to understand that gravity is made up nonsense and atmospheric pressure upon any dense mass is the whole reason why everything happens.

Pretty simple stuff in some respects. The basics.
It's just a case of how far people want to go down that thought process to see how it works.

You carry on with your global gravity and I'll stick to mine because you will never change my thoughts.

Yet you have not proved that 2 identical objects, one with a sheet of wood above it, will fall at different rates due to the atmosphere above them.  Or that 2 objects, same material and weight but different shapes will fall at different rates.

2 objects, same material and weight but different shapes will fall at different rates.

Isn't it obvious?

More nonanswers.
Sceptis been put in a corner and has got nothing to say in defense of his sht.

Quit wasting time fighting about icbm and post your experiment to youtube

Quote from: inquisitive on January 28, 2019, 12:54:10 PM

2 objects, same material and weight but different shapes will fall at different rates.

Isn't it obvious?

Measurements to show please.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 28, 2019, 12:54:10 PM

2 objects, same material and weight but different shapes will fall at different rates.

Isn't it obvious?

No, even objects of vastly different mass, shape and density fall at the same rate - in a near vacuum:
   

Or even in the open air they still fall at very close to the same rate so long as their air resistance is far less than their weight:
    and a bit of humour    

I've explained the basics.

No you haven't. You have repeatedly asserted it, and the "explanations" you have provided have repeatedly failed.

You have no explanation for your stacking, instead the atmosphere just magically stacks.
All your attempts to try and explain it used analogies which required things to fall. Thus if the stacked atmosphere is the reason why things fall it can't be used to explain why the atmosphere stacks.
Your attempts to explain why things fall have repeatedly failed and resulted in you repeatedly contradicting yourself.

You appeal to displacing atmosphere, but that alone provides no reason for an object to fall, you need the atmosphere to push it.
You rely upon the pressure of the atmosphere to push the object, but that is roughly equal in all directions and doesn't result in significant forces for most objects.
You rely upon the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, but the gradient which can be shown to exist acts opposite what you need and results in objects being pushed up, not down.
So you then resort to pure magic where the air pressure above can push down but the air pressure below magically doesn't push up, except in the cases where it clearly does.


You have no explanation for any of your nonsense. Even the most basic thing of displacing more air results in things being pushed down more is pure fiction as shown by air tight vessels with and without air in them.

This is why I will continue to ask, because you have no explanation.

All it would take to stop me is to provide explanations with consistent physics, which matches observations.
e.g. the atmosphere always pushes or never pushes up, rather than magically some times pushing up and other times not pushing up.

I could tell you  anything and if it goes against your global ideals you will not accept it.
Don't bother telling me you will if this or that matches.

I will bother telling you, even though you probably don't care.
The sole reason I reject your nonsense is because it is nonsense.
You have no justification for anything in your model and repeatedly contradict yourself and/or rely upon magically different physics to produce effects which are observed.
It literally has nothing to do with any other beliefs I have.
And as I have said repeatedly, the basis nonsense of your model works just as well for a globe.
Instead of the atmosphere magically stacking from the bottom up it stacks from the inside out using the solid Earth as a foundation and then pushes things "down" towards Earth.

You just carry on with your adherence to nonsense and I'll carry on with my musings on what I believe Earth to be...and why.

You seem to have just described yourself there, not me.
You are the one blindly adhering to nonsense.
I don't just blindly adhere to nonsense which is why I reject your nonsense.

It's all it takes to understand

No, blindly accepting garbage because you say so doesn't give any understanding at all.
That is likely what happened to you during your schooling where you just blindly accepted things without any understanding, causing you to now reject it as nonsense even though you can't provide any rational argument against it.

Now, pick the most basic part, and explain.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2019, 01:09:32 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 28, 2019, 12:54:10 PM

2 objects, same material and weight but different shapes will fall at different rates.

Isn't it obvious?

No, even objects of vastly different mass, shape and density fall at the same rate - in a near vacuum:
   

Or even in the open air they still fall at very close to the same rate so long as their air resistance is far less than their weight:
    and a bit of humour    

It's pretty simple to understand when you stand back and look at the bigger picture.

Any object placed into the atmosphere will be acted upon by the  pressure of that atmosphere pushing that object against the resistance of the stack directly below.

The more resistance to an object the slower rate it will fall.
The resistance to any object will be determined by how compact that object is in terms of dense mass.
Make that dense mass more porous, for example, turn a block of wood into a sheet of wood of exactly the same mass but larger surface area, then you have a lot more atmospheric resistance to its push down.

So placing a feather and a coin into a low pressure chamber will naturally create much less resistance to both but the feather falling dart like down will naturally hold a better chance of negotiating the atmospheric resistance below, as low as that resistance is, as opposed to allowing it to fall horizontally. That's when you would notice a difference.

However, over a short distance it's hard to tell for a lot of stuff falling, but it's still plain to see that resistance to fall would change for every object of different mass against the resistance of atmospheric stack below, regardless of how low the pressure is. It'll never be a true vacuum and for that reason will always hold a resistance to the push of the mass above it.

And as I have said repeatedly, the basis nonsense of your model works just as well for a globe.
Instead of the atmosphere magically stacking from the bottom up it stacks from the inside out using the solid Earth as a foundation and then pushes things "down" towards Earth.

Do you realise what you are saying?

You are telling me that my atmosphere is magically stacking from the bottom up and then arguing your atmosphere as stacking from the bottom up and using the Earth as a foundation against what's pushed up which is now pushed back onto it.
Exactly like my Earth works.
Or am I getting you wrong here?

It's pretty simple to understand when you stand back and look at the bigger picture.

Yes it is, and that reveals that your model makes no sense.

Any object placed into the atmosphere will be acted upon by the  pressure of that atmosphere pushing that object against the resistance of the stack directly below.

You have repeatedly claimed this, but are yet to justify it.
Again, why does the air above magically push down, but the air below magically doesn't, except when it magically does?

Is this you trying to say that things falling is the most basic, or are you still having the air stacking as more basic, because it sure seems like you are appealing to stacking here.
Like I said, pick the most basic aspect of your model and explain it.

You are telling me that my atmosphere is magically stacking from the bottom up and then arguing your atmosphere as stacking from the bottom up and using the Earth as a foundation against what's pushed up which is now pushed back onto it.
Exactly like my Earth works.
Or am I getting you wrong here?

You are getting close to what I was indicating there.
Yes, it is exactly like your Earth, the only difference being that this hypothetical is round.
It is to show that denpressure does nothing to refute the globe as it works equally well for a round Earth as it does for a flat Earth.
So stop saying that people accepting it will magically destroy the globe or that people reject it because they cling to the globe.

I'm not saying that the atmosphere in reality is doing this, just that it is a hypothetical possibility.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 28, 2019, 03:43:29 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2019, 01:09:32 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 28, 2019, 12:54:10 PM

2 objects, same material and weight but different shapes will fall at different rates.

Isn't it obvious?

No, even objects of vastly different mass, shape and density fall at the same rate - in a near vacuum:
   

Or even in the open air they still fall at very close to the same rate so long as their air resistance is far less than their weight:
    and a bit of humour    

It's pretty simple to understand when you stand back and look at the bigger picture.

Any object placed into the atmosphere will be acted upon by the  pressure of that atmosphere pushing that object against the resistance of the stack directly below.

The more resistance to an object the slower rate it will fall.
The resistance to any object will be determined by how compact that object is in terms of dense mass.
Make that dense mass more porous, for example, turn a block of wood into a sheet of wood of exactly the same mass but larger surface area, then you have a lot more atmospheric resistance to its push down.

So placing a feather and a coin into a low pressure chamber will naturally create much less resistance to both but the feather falling dart like down will naturally hold a better chance of negotiating the atmospheric resistance below, as low as that resistance is, as opposed to allowing it to fall horizontally. That's when you would notice a difference.

However, over a short distance it's hard to tell for a lot of stuff falling, but it's still plain to see that resistance to fall would change for every object of different mass against the resistance of atmospheric stack below, regardless of how low the pressure is. It'll never be a true vacuum and for that reason will always hold a resistance to the push of the mass above it.

The is virtually no measurable air or anything in the vacuum chamber to push anything down.
That big vacuum chamber has less than 0.7 mg/m³ of air compared to 1.225 kg/m³ normal air pressure.
So why does anything fall in a vacuum chamber?

Quote from: JackBlack on January 28, 2019, 05:34:07 PM

And as I have said repeatedly, the basis nonsense of your model works just as well for a globe.
Instead of the atmosphere magically stacking from the bottom up it stacks from the inside out using the solid Earth as a foundation and then pushes things "down" towards Earth.

Do you realise what you are saying?

You are telling me that my atmosphere is magically stacking from the bottom up and then arguing your atmosphere as stacking from the bottom up and using the Earth as a foundation against what's pushed up which is now pushed back onto it.
Exactly like my Earth works.
Or am I getting you wrong here?

Correct - You are wrong.

The atmosphere sitting on the ground is not the cause for objects being pushed down.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2019, 10:25:16 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 28, 2019, 03:43:29 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2019, 01:09:32 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 28, 2019, 12:54:10 PM

2 objects, same material and weight but different shapes will fall at different rates.

Isn't it obvious?

No, even objects of vastly different mass, shape and density fall at the same rate - in a near vacuum:
   

Or even in the open air they still fall at very close to the same rate so long as their air resistance is far less than their weight:
    and a bit of humour    

It's pretty simple to understand when you stand back and look at the bigger picture.

Any object placed into the atmosphere will be acted upon by the  pressure of that atmosphere pushing that object against the resistance of the stack directly below.

The more resistance to an object the slower rate it will fall.
The resistance to any object will be determined by how compact that object is in terms of dense mass.
Make that dense mass more porous, for example, turn a block of wood into a sheet of wood of exactly the same mass but larger surface area, then you have a lot more atmospheric resistance to its push down.

So placing a feather and a coin into a low pressure chamber will naturally create much less resistance to both but the feather falling dart like down will naturally hold a better chance of negotiating the atmospheric resistance below, as low as that resistance is, as opposed to allowing it to fall horizontally. That's when you would notice a difference.

However, over a short distance it's hard to tell for a lot of stuff falling, but it's still plain to see that resistance to fall would change for every object of different mass against the resistance of atmospheric stack below, regardless of how low the pressure is. It'll never be a true vacuum and for that reason will always hold a resistance to the push of the mass above it.

The is virtually no measurable air or anything in the vacuum chamber to push anything down.
That big vacuum chamber has less than 0.7 mg/m³ of air compared to 1.225 kg/m³ normal air pressure.
So why does anything fall in a vacuum chamber?

He was already shown the 37m chamber.
He claimed it fakenews.

He has yrt to reasonwhy the feather doesnt flutter.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2019, 10:25:16 PM

It's pretty simple to understand when you stand back and look at the bigger picture.

Yes it is, and that reveals that your model makes no sense.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2019, 10:25:16 PM

Any object placed into the atmosphere will be acted upon by the  pressure of that atmosphere pushing that object against the resistance of the stack directly below.

You have repeatedly claimed this, but are yet to justify it.
Again, why does the air above magically push down, but the air below magically doesn't, except when it magically does?

Is this you trying to say that things falling is the most basic, or are you still having the air stacking as more basic, because it sure seems like you are appealing to stacking here.
Like I said, pick the most basic aspect of your model and explain it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2019, 10:31:26 PM

You are telling me that my atmosphere is magically stacking from the bottom up and then arguing your atmosphere as stacking from the bottom up and using the Earth as a foundation against what's pushed up which is now pushed back onto it.
Exactly like my Earth works.
Or am I getting you wrong here?

You are getting close to what I was indicating there.
Yes, it is exactly like your Earth, the only difference being that this hypothetical is round.
It is to show that denpressure does nothing to refute the globe as it works equally well for a round Earth as it does for a flat Earth.
So stop saying that people accepting it will magically destroy the globe or that people reject it because they cling to the globe.

I'm not saying that the atmosphere in reality is doing this, just that it is a hypothetical possibility.

But it isn't any possibility, at all for your globe to do what I say.

Why?
Because there would be no foundation to it that's why.
The globe is nonsense in terms of living on it under an atmosphere. It's impossible.
That's why there's a dome with a foundation to it.

Stacked atmosphere creating a dome, creates denpressure, which is why everything works as it does.

The is virtually no measurable air or anything in the vacuum chamber to push anything down.
That big vacuum chamber has less than 0.7 mg/m³ of air compared to 1.225 kg/m³ normal air pressure.
So why does anything fall in a vacuum chamber?

Understand why an evacuation chamber and pump works and you'll understand that there is pressure left inside the chamber. You cannot get rid of that pressure unless you crush the chamber flat.

Matter is still fully connected inside the chamber, it's just less push on push of molecules inside due to expansion created by allowing out molecules by decompression from each other due to the pump pushing back on the enteral compressed air and adding to that compression with the decompressing molecules by compressing them into it.
Do you get what I'm saying?

It still leaves a pressure inside the chamber, it's just not a near to the pressure we are all used to.

Correct - You are wrong.

The atmosphere sitting on the ground is not the cause for objects being pushed down.

The ground is a foundation. Try again.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 27, 2019, 06:45:39 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2019, 05:36:21 AM

The point is, resistance varies over area and also against different masses but the key issue is "it varies".
Do you know what that means? It means that your gravity nonsense of 9.8m/s is nothing of the sort as a constant.

What is this "nonsense of 9.8m/s"? No-one, except a few ignorant ones, claim a "gravity . . . . of 9.8m/s".
In case you missed physics 001, 9.8m/s is a fixed velocity but gravity causes an acceleration  of 9.8m/s².

And everyone, except a few ignorant ones, knows that air resistance will limit the velocity of the object to its terminal velocity.

By the way you ridicule mathematics so how would your "theory" allow the calculation of air pressure vs altitude.
If you think that's of no practical value ask any pilot how their altimeter works.
You might read this and see if it fits your denpressure ideas: The International Standard Atmosphere (ISA), Mustafa Cavcar.

I don't ridicule mathematics.
I simply tell you that they are not needed to explain what I'm explaining.
And also the mathematics I do ridicule, is the mathematics used for pseudoscience and blatant bull..

Actually, mathematics are most certainly needed to explain what you're trying to if you ever want to get past analogies that just don't get your point across.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 29, 2019, 12:55:13 AM

The is virtually no measurable air or anything in the vacuum chamber to push anything down.
That big vacuum chamber has less than 0.7 mg/m³ of air compared to 1.225 kg/m³ normal air pressure.
So why does anything fall in a vacuum chamber?

Understand why an evacuation chamber and pump works and you'll understand that there is pressure left inside the chamber. You cannot get rid of that pressure unless you crush the chamber flat.

Matter is still fully connected inside the chamber, it's just less push on push of molecules inside due to expansion created by allowing out molecules by decompression from each other due to the pump pushing back on the enteral compressed air and adding to that compression with the decompressing molecules by compressing them into it.
Do you get what I'm saying?

No
Can you provide a drawing?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 29, 2019, 06:07:30 AM

Correct - You are wrong.

The atmosphere sitting on the ground is not the cause for objects being pushed down.

The ground is a foundation. Try again.

The ground is the ground.
So insightful.

Q:  Why are things pushed into the ground?
A:  Denpressure.
Q:  Show how denP pushes through a pressure vessel or even a house.
A:  *draws a house and Labels it denP.

You really are stupid.