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

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?

Measurements to show please.

Important you show evidence.  And please explain stacking, an unknown term.

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.

I imagine I "understand why an evacuation chamber and pump works" quite well thank you and probably far better than you do.

Sure, there is "here is pressure left inside the chamber" but "how much" is the crucial point and in the case that I mentioned:
                      In free air: Typical pressure = 101,325 Pa = 1 Atmosphere, typical air density = 1.225 kg/m³.
In the vacuum chamber: Typical pressure = 0.06 Pa = 1/1750000 of one Atmosphere, typical air density =  0.7 mg/m³ - or about 1/1750000 that outside.
And those figures are for a rather mediacre "vacuum"

Matter is still fully connected inside the chamber,

No! "Matter is" NOT "still fully connected inside the chamber" - it never was.

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?

Sure, I "get what you are saying" but where do you have any physical evidence that the air molecules left expand to fill the space.
You demand physical evidence of everything we claim, so either your give physical evidence or admit that it is nothing more than the way you imagine it would happen.

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

If there is "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 << Gobbledegook struck out. >>" why don't objects weigh much LESS in a "vacuum chamber" when in fact they weigh a little more?

Your whole "theory" is based on gas molecules expanding to fill all the available space but you have never presented any evidence that this is what really happens.
Until you post solid physical evidence of that your whole denpressure idea is totally without any foundation.

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

But you just admitted there way.

Because there would be no foundation to it that's why.

That would be the solid Earth.
It would be a globe instead of flat, but it would be just as much of a foundation.

The globe is nonsense

You sure love asserting it is nonsense, but you are yet to explain why.

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

Alternatively, stacked atmosphere creating a spherical shell creates denpressure which is why everything works as it does.

There is no need for a flat surface as the foundation.

But you are yet to justify any of it working even for a flat surface.

This is why I have repeatedly asked you to explain the basics, like why the atmosphere stacks in the first place.
Just what is it about this magical stacking that requires a flat Earth instead of a spherical one?

You cannot get rid of that pressure unless you crush the chamber flat.

So crush it flat and pull it back out. Done.

it's just less push on push

Which should mean less fall, or no fall at all.

Do you get what we are getting at?
If objects fall due to the atmosphere then more atmosphere should mean greater rate of fall and less atmosphere should mean reduced rate of fall.
Instead for lots of things there is no noticeable change. For others such as feathers we notice that the more atmosphere the slower the fall and a chaotic fall with it going all over the place instead of just down. For other objects, such as rigid helium filled balloons we also notice the opposite but to a greater extreme. In a very low pressure it falls like other objects. With decent pressure its rate of fall is reduced. At low enough pressures it falls "upwards".

It sure seems like the air prevents things from falling and even tries to push them up, not down.

I imagine I "understand why an evacuation chamber and pump works" quite well thank you and probably far better than you do.

Clearly you don't and giving this answer is not giving an answer that shows you do.
Even when I ask people to explain what happens they all side step the issue and generally say anything but.
How about you buck the trend and explain what is happening.
Let's see what you've got without using anything to copy and paste.

Oh and don't do it from my point of view, do it from the point of view of mainstream so called science on it...but explain it in simple terms from your own head.

Sure, there is "there is pressure left inside the chamber" but "how much" is the crucial point and in the case that I mentioned:
                      In free air: Typical pressure = 101,325 Pa = 1 Atmosphere, typical air density = 1.225 kg/m³.
In the vacuum chamber: Typical pressure = 0.06 Pa = 1/1750000 of one Atmosphere, typical air density =  0.7 mg/m³ - or about 1/1750000 that outside.
And those figures are for a rather mediacre "vacuum"

Never mind using figures.
Just tell me what you think's happening.

Quote from: sceptimatic

Matter is still fully connected inside the chamber,

No! "Matter is" NOT "still fully connected inside the chamber" - it never was.

If matter wasn't connected throughout this Earth nothing would exist in it. Nothing.
How you people can even think there's space between matter is beyond me.

Quote from: sceptimatic

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?

Sure, I "get what you are saying" but where do you have any physical evidence that the air molecules left expand to fill the space.
You demand physical evidence of everything we claim, so either your give physical evidence or admit that it is nothing more than the way you imagine it would happen.

Where does anyone have physical evidence for any of this stuff. It's all based on trying to use the best thought process to marry something up.
The science world use words to describe the stuff they see on a micro basis and words for stuff they don't see and they marry up what works for them without actually knowing why.

So don't be asking me for physical evidence on something that you know fine well I cannot physically see.
Just looking on a larger basis is enough to tell me what's going on on a molecular basis.
Am I bang on?....Probably not but it's a best guess scenario considering I don't have access to life at molecular level.
There's tools to see matter within matter but seeing that by looking through atmosphere tells you how difficult it is to know exactly what it is we see through to see certain matter, if you get my meaning.

Quote from: sceptimatic

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

If there is "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 << Gobbledegook struck out. >>" why don't objects weigh much LESS in a "vacuum chamber" when in fact they weigh a little more?

An evacuation chamber is nothing until you evacuate against atmosphere.
Because the scales are under lessening atmospheric pressure just the same, so any change is counteracted apart from a little bit of skewed reading due to the unnatural environment.
Not and easy thing to prove.

Your whole "theory" is based on gas molecules expanding to fill all the available space but you have never presented any evidence that this is what really happens.
Until you post solid physical evidence of that your whole denpressure idea is totally without any foundation.

It's how they expand which is the key.
I've tried to use sponge ball analogies and then the gobstopper analogies and even the washing up water (which is an excellent analogy) but this simple look at it is brushed aside in favour of what people are told about excited molecules just dancing about in free space. So basically I know I'm peeing against the wind with those people. You included to be fair.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2019, 07:02:41 AM

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

Alternatively, stacked atmosphere creating a spherical shell creates denpressure which is why everything works as it does.

Impossible. You need a foundation to stack up from and external spherical does not allow for a foundation to stack from.

There is no need for a flat surface as the foundation.

It doesn't have to be level flat but it has to be a solid to keep a stack build onto it.

But you are yet to justify any of it working even for a flat surface.

I've more than explained it. As for whether it's justified? That's for others to decide, not just you and a few of your like minded peers.

This is why I have repeatedly asked you to explain the basics, like why the atmosphere stacks in the first place.
Just what is it about this magical stacking that requires a flat Earth instead of a spherical one?

Foundation and a central energy to allow for the build into the stack.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2019, 07:09:53 AM

You cannot get rid of that pressure unless you crush the chamber flat.

So crush it flat and pull it back out. Done.

If you crush it flat then you have no chamber. It's just a flat object. What's the point in that?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2019, 07:09:53 AM

it's just less push on push

Which should mean less fall, or no fall at all.

Do you get what we are getting at?
If objects fall due to the atmosphere then more atmosphere should mean greater rate of fall and less atmosphere should mean reduced rate of fall.

Yep, less push against greater resistance would indeed mean less of a fall.

Instead for lots of things there is no noticeable change. For others such as feathers we notice that the more atmosphere the slower the fall and a chaotic fall with it going all over the place instead of just down.

Of course, because of the dense mass and the energy it takes to raise it against the atmosphere above it.

 For other objects, such as rigid helium filled balloons we also notice the opposite but to a greater extreme. In a very low pressure it falls like other objects. With decent pressure its rate of fall is reduced. At low enough pressures it falls "upwards".

It sure seems like the air prevents things from falling and even tries to push them up, not down.

Helium is a more broken down molecule. More expansion and means easier for atmospheric crush but the issue is it cannot be crushed on its own because on its own the crush just pushed the molecules UP until those molecules hit the part of the stack where they can't be crushed up, so they sit on the stack below and yet no more crush above them onto them or them having to use the molecules below to resists.
End product?
A ice dome.

Helium is a more broken down molecule. More expansion and means easier for atmospheric crush but the issue is it cannot be crushed on its own because on its own the crush just pushed the molecules UP until those molecules hit the part of the stack where they can't be crushed up, so they sit on the stack below and yet no more crush above them onto them or them having to use the molecules below to resists.
End product?
A ice dome.

Counterbalanced with your previous requests elsewhere:

I don't want you telling me you saw a certain launch just because you were told it was this rocket but you have no way to physically verify it.

You're under no obligation to do this but you're stating something as a fact, so prove it. Let me examine the footage.

You're under no obligation to do this but you're stating something as a fact, so prove it. Let us examine the footage of your ice dome.

Even when I ask people to explain what happens they all side step the issue and generally say anything but.

Or they just see it as a distraction.
I provided an explanation and you just dismiss it.
What's the point?

Never mind using figures.

Figures are important for analysing and understanding reality.

If matter wasn't connected throughout this Earth nothing would exist in it. Nothing.

Pure nonsense.
Why does all matter need to be magically connected for things to exist?
If anything, while you could have something exist, you wouldn't have life, as that requires the connections to break.

How you people can even think there's space between matter is beyond me.

It is based upon rational thought and understanding. You should try it some time.

Where does anyone have physical evidence for any of this stuff. It's all based on trying to use the best thought process to marry something up.

You ignoring the physical evidence doesn't mean no one has any.

So don't be asking me for physical evidence on something that you know fine well I cannot physically see.

You are aware you can obtain physical evidence without being able to see it?
If you don't want to back up your claims with evidence, stop making them.

Just looking on a larger basis is enough to tell me what's going on on a molecular basis.

No it isn't. Not in the slightest.
looking at the large scale in no way tells you everything is connected. That is just a baseless assertion of yours.

Because the scales are under lessening atmospheric pressure just the same, so any change is counteracted apart from a little bit of skewed reading due to the unnatural environment.
Not and easy thing to prove.

No it isn't.
There is absolutely no justification for the vast majority of scales to be effected by the atmosphere.
If you really think it is easy to prove, then prove it.

I've tried to use sponge ball analogies

Yes, you have repeatedly tried to use horribly flawed analogies, and failed every time. Don't you think it is time to stop with the analogies and start trying to explain it?

even the washing up water (which is an excellent analogy)

I wouldn't call it excellent, but it sure is good enough to show your model is wrong.

but this simple look at it is brushed aside in favour of what people are told

No it is brushed aside due to it not making any sense and contradicting observations of reality.

You need a foundation to stack up from and external spherical does not allow for a foundation to stack from.

Why can't a sphere act as a foundation.
It sure does with gobstoppers.

It doesn't have to be level flat but it has to be a solid to keep a stack build onto it.

Glad you accept that it can be a solid spherical object.

I've more than explained it.

WHERE?
Where have you provided any explanation for WHY the atmosphere stacks?
So far all you have done is asserted it stacks.

Foundation and a central energy to allow for the build into the stack.

How?
How does the foundation and central energy make the atmosphere stack?

If you crush it flat then you have no chamber. It's just a flat object. What's the point in that?

That was already explained quite clearly. You flatten it to get the air out. Then once all the air is out and it is sealed, you can bring it back to not being flat.

Yep, less push against greater resistance would indeed mean less of a fall.

So you claim a low pressure means more resistance?
If not, that isn't what I was suggesting at all.

Of course, because of the dense mass and the energy it takes to raise it against the atmosphere above it.

If the pressure is lowered, it should be a slower fall if the atmosphere is causing the fall.
How you lift it is irrelevant.

Helium is a more broken down molecule.

Helium isn't a molecule. If the atmosphere is pushing things down, it should push helium filled balloons down as well.
There is no justification for why it should be magically pushed up by something which pushes things down. Especially as this helium is surrounded by a balloon which should be getting pushed down.

Quit with the "excellent" analogies.
They clearly dont explain shtall.

A diagram would.

Redraw the house showing how the force/ push lines of a stacked atmosphee transmit through the roof through the 2nd floor to keep a brick on the floor.
Given that you already admit that the floor is solid - so dont just draw a straight arrow all the way through.

Or quit crying and post your experimetn to youtube.

No need for any more stupid analogies.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2019, 11:33:07 PM

Helium is a more broken down molecule. More expansion and means easier for atmospheric crush but the issue is it cannot be crushed on its own because on its own the crush just pushed the molecules UP until those molecules hit the part of the stack where they can't be crushed up, so they sit on the stack below and yet no more crush above them onto them or them having to use the molecules below to resists.
End product?
A ice dome.

Counterbalanced with your previous requests elsewhere:

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2019, 10:43:27 PM

I don't want you telling me you saw a certain launch just because you were told it was this rocket but you have no way to physically verify it.

You're under no obligation to do this but you're stating something as a fact, so prove it. Let me examine the footage.

You're under no obligation to do this but you're stating something as a fact, so prove it. Let us examine the footage of your ice dome.

Look up at the sky and you get the footage live.

Helium isn't a molecule. If the atmosphere is pushing things down, it should push helium filled balloons down as well.

You can call helium anything you want. I'm calling it a less dense molecule. I'm asking you to accept it. I'm telling you that this is my version. You do whatever you want with it.

There is no justification for why it should be magically pushed up by something which pushes things down. Especially as this helium is surrounded by a balloon which should be getting pushed down.

It's not magically pushed/squeezed up. You can observe less dense matter being squeezed/pushed up to give you an idea of why it works. I'm sure you know this.

Quit with the "excellent" analogies.
They clearly dont explain shtall.

A diagram would.

Redraw the house showing how the force/ push lines of a stacked atmosphee transmit through the roof through the 2nd floor to keep a brick on the floor.
Given that you already admit that the floor is solid - so dont just draw a straight arrow all the way through.

You had your chance and you blew it. You don't get another.
Change your name and come back and restart, then maybe I might simply treat you as normal.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 30, 2019, 12:53:08 AM

Quit with the "excellent" analogies.
They clearly dont explain shtall.

A diagram would.

Redraw the house showing how the force/ push lines of a stacked atmosphee transmit through the roof through the 2nd floor to keep a brick on the floor.
Given that you already admit that the floor is solid - so dont just draw a straight arrow all the way through.

You had your chance and you blew it. You don't get another.
Change your name and come back and restart, then maybe I might simply treat you as normal.

Swishswish dodgddodge.



So denp is denp and is correct because it is correct.
Its so logical and basic and simple.
Everyone get on board.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 27, 2019, 01:19:23 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 26, 2019, 12:31:52 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 26, 2019, 03:08:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 26, 2019, 03:04:37 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 26, 2019, 02:52:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 26, 2019, 02:36:38 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 26, 2019, 02:24:04 AM

Ask him to finish the house diagram

Finish it as in what?

You need an object on each floor of the house and house external atmosphere goes through the home structure.

Pay attention to the drawing. Are you incapable of understanding the drawing?
The house is full of atmosphere behind the bricks and roof tiles which I've omitted to show you.
So what is your issue?

The issue?
Dont omit them.
Show it.
As per request.



Speti:
Heres a diagram of my theory.

Everyone:
Youre not showing the backbone of the theory..

Scpeit:
I know.
Whats the problem?

Everyone:
...

Why omit the key principle to your theory?
Does that make sense to do that?

here's your object inside. A brick.
The structure displacing atmosphere inside is clear. The atmosphere seen through the brick would be what is within the brick, trapped inside  but shown to you for clarity.
This is part of the external atmosphere make up in between the internal structure and would not be a part of the brick structure displacing atmosphere.

As opposed to this same block of lead below having little porosity and able to displace a massive amount more atmosphere for it's equal size.
Look closely at the trapped atmosphere and porosity.



For me to carry on explaining people need to start taking notice.

Ugh...
Yes we all understood what you meant with porositydensity.

Show down force lines how the outside atmosphere pushes down on the bricks on various floors.

Just as a reminder to everyone and any new comers.

120pg.
3yrs.
A shtty drawing of a house that shows nothing.
This guy is going places.

Fyi
This is how people build houses and bridges.
Maybe you can rethink your shtass drawing to make it describe what youre on about.

https://goo.gl/images/w9ZRts

Unless houses and bridges are part of your fake news.

Still yet to explain how brownian motion fits with denspressure stacked molecules with no space between them.

If there is no space between molecules and they are all squeezed in an enclosed space then nothing could move (or would be damped to zero velocity rapidly).

Still hasn’t explained gas-liquid-solid transitions and how temperature and pressure affect them.

Total roadblocks to denspressure working.

Quote from: Stash on January 29, 2019, 11:46:39 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2019, 11:33:07 PM

Helium is a more broken down molecule. More expansion and means easier for atmospheric crush but the issue is it cannot be crushed on its own because on its own the crush just pushed the molecules UP until those molecules hit the part of the stack where they can't be crushed up, so they sit on the stack below and yet no more crush above them onto them or them having to use the molecules below to resists.
End product?
A ice dome.

Counterbalanced with your previous requests elsewhere:

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 28, 2019, 10:43:27 PM

I don't want you telling me you saw a certain launch just because you were told it was this rocket but you have no way to physically verify it.

You're under no obligation to do this but you're stating something as a fact, so prove it. Let me examine the footage.

You're under no obligation to do this but you're stating something as a fact, so prove it. Let us examine the footage of your ice dome.

Look up at the sky and you get the footage live.

I just did. I didn't see the dome.

You stated, "I don't want you telling me you saw a certain launch just because you were told it was this rocket but you have no way to physically verify it."

How might one "physically verify" a dome to exist? According to you, just telling someone you saw something is not good enough. How does your own requirement not apply to you? Why are you exempt?

Quote from: JackBlack on January 29, 2019, 11:52:28 PM

Helium isn't a molecule. If the atmosphere is pushing things down, it should push helium filled balloons down as well.

You can call helium anything you want. I'm calling it a less dense molecule. I'm asking you to accept it. I'm telling you that this is my version. You do whatever you want with it.

Quote from: JackBlack

There is no justification for why it should be magically pushed up by something which pushes things down. Especially as this helium is surrounded by a balloon which should be getting pushed down.

It's not magically pushed/squeezed up. You can observe less dense matter being squeezed/pushed up to give you an idea of why it works. I'm sure you know this.

How do you know about Helium, how can you be sure it exists?

Still yet to explain how brownian motion fits with denspressure stacked molecules with no space between them.

If there is no space between molecules and they are all squeezed in an enclosed space then nothing could move (or would be damped to zero velocity rapidly).

Still hasn’t explained gas-liquid-solid transitions and how temperature and pressure affect them.

Total roadblocks to denspressure working.

Brownian motion is merely expanding matter hitting condensed matter of different masses, creating collisions.
If you were to look at a road in the heat you would see a very similar thing with atmospheric molecules.

Quote from: Mainframes on January 30, 2019, 09:37:10 AM

Still yet to explain how brownian motion fits with denspressure stacked molecules with no space between them.

If there is no space between molecules and they are all squeezed in an enclosed space then nothing could move (or would be damped to zero velocity rapidly).

Still hasn’t explained gas-liquid-solid transitions and how temperature and pressure affect them.

Total roadblocks to denspressure working.

Brownian motion is merely expanding matter hitting condensed matter of different masses, creating collisions.
If you were to look at a road in the heat you would see a very similar thing with atmospheric molecules.

How can you create collisions if matter is already in contact and there are no gaps.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2019, 02:14:49 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 30, 2019, 09:37:10 AM

Still yet to explain how brownian motion fits with denspressure stacked molecules with no space between them.

If there is no space between molecules and they are all squeezed in an enclosed space then nothing could move (or would be damped to zero velocity rapidly).

Still hasn’t explained gas-liquid-solid transitions and how temperature and pressure affect them.

Total roadblocks to denspressure working.

Brownian motion is merely expanding matter hitting condensed matter of different masses, creating collisions.
If you were to look at a road in the heat you would see a very similar thing with atmospheric molecules.

How can you create collisions if matter is already in contact and there are no gaps.

scepti works in simple and basic analogies...

think of it simplly and basically like this.
obviously if there is no space in between the molecules, they have expanded in gobbstopper size.
if you have a small room and it's packed full of people, all stacked on top of each other.
one person can't run into another because there would be no room to get speed.
the best a person could do is push back on the push and crush of the gripping friction.
but you need space and distance between molecules but since obviously space doesn't exist in the denP world, this can't happen.
so either this doesn't happen, or denP is wrong.

so simple...
hahah

where's your youtube, scepti?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2019, 02:14:49 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 30, 2019, 09:37:10 AM

Still yet to explain how brownian motion fits with denspressure stacked molecules with no space between them.

If there is no space between molecules and they are all squeezed in an enclosed space then nothing could move (or would be damped to zero velocity rapidly).

Still hasn’t explained gas-liquid-solid transitions and how temperature and pressure affect them.

Total roadblocks to denspressure working.

Brownian motion is merely expanding matter hitting condensed matter of different masses, creating collisions.
If you were to look at a road in the heat you would see a very similar thing with atmospheric molecules.

How can you create collisions if matter is already in contact and there are no gaps.

The real question should be, how can you create collisions when there are gaps of nothing?
You need resistance by expansion and contraction into each other to create push against push, meaning push into using push off off.
It depends on how much energy is applied to create the massive expansion and how the energy is dissipated in any specific area.
You've drove down a road and saw what the energy of the reflected sun does to the road and the atmosphere close to the road. It creates expansions of different energy from the road to above because of the agitation of that expansion crashing against and being crushed up and away by more condensed molecules that aren't under the same inttial energy of that reflected sun on that road.

It creates a mish mash of expanding matter in different forms of expansion against crushing matter pushing them up until they are part of a similar expanded stack.
This happens with everything from the most solid looking minerals to gases.
This is why you see your Brownian motion.

It's not so difficult to understand when looked at from a point of view of understanding that all matter is connected whether it's a solid or a gas from bottom to top. No gaps, so it cannot have anything to do with free space with matter just crashing into matter in that literal nothingness, because nothingness is exactly what it portrays........Nothing.
And nothing means we and everything would not exist as part of anything in the first place.

scepti works in simple and basic analogies...

think of it simplly and basically like this.
obviously if there is no space in between the molecules, they have expanded in gobbstopper size.
if you have a small room and it's packed full of people, all stacked on top of each other.
one person can't run into another because there would be no room to get speed.
the best a person could do is push back on the push and crush of the gripping friction.
but you need space and distance between molecules but since obviously space doesn't exist in the denP world, this can't happen.
so either this doesn't happen, or denP is wrong.

so simple...
hahah

where's your youtube, scepti?

You know what's sad?
You're so close to actually knowing what's what and yet your silliness and inability to actually look at it through whatever reasoning, stops you dead in your tracks. Unless it's deliberate. I'm split on that bit.


You spend far too much time looking for pats on the back for attempted ridicule of my theories rather than looking to piece them together but it clear you are trying, yet you let yourself down because, no way are you going to be labelled in with the nutter scepti. You saw what happened to Jane just for trying to understand it and you are terrified to do just that.

So you're either being clever and holding back by teasing me into offering you more tit bits or you are simply too scared to actually take the opportunity your mind offers you.

It's a shame, A real shame but I have little time for you so carry on with your arrogance and attempted ridicule. I'll reply when I feel there's a need to.

You managed to get this one so you're not totally overlooked.

Look up at the sky and you get the footage live.

And that footage in no way shows a dome.

It's not magically pushed/squeezed up. You can observe less dense matter being squeezed/pushed up to give you an idea of why it works. I'm sure you know this.

The question is why?
You have no explanation other than your physics seeming to be pure magic and knowing when to push things down and when to push them up.

Even with your latest explanation of why things fall, you have your atmosphere pushing down from above, and in from the sides, but not from below and that causing things to fall. But instead of that, helium balloons go up.

Now, can you please pick the most basic part of your model and explain it?
If you have the atmosphere stacking, then explain why it stacks and why it is denser at the bottom of the stack.

The real question should be, how can you create collisions when there are gaps of nothing?

That is a very simple question.
The molecules move changing the distance between them. Their path leads them to collide.

As you like analogies so much, consider a pool table (or billiards table).
We have small balls, representing our molecules, and they go moving around the table, with emptiness (for the analogy, air is nothing) between them. But their paths result in them colliding.

For the more technical details, this collision is based primarily upon electrostatic interactions, with electron clouds interacting to prevent the atoms from occupying the same space.

If the matter is already connected, then you don't have collisions. You can try it with the balls still in the rack. No collisions resulting in them bouncing around. They just move as a group.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 31, 2019, 10:46:11 AM

scepti works in simple and basic analogies...

think of it simplly and basically like this.
obviously if there is no space in between the molecules, they have expanded in gobbstopper size.
if you have a small room and it's packed full of people, all stacked on top of each other.
one person can't run into another because there would be no room to get speed.
the best a person could do is push back on the push and crush of the gripping friction.
but you need space and distance between molecules but since obviously space doesn't exist in the denP world, this can't happen.
so either this doesn't happen, or denP is wrong.

so simple...
hahah

where's your youtube, scepti?

You know what's sad?
You're so close to actually knowing what's what and yet your silliness and inability to actually look at it through whatever reasoning, stops you dead in your tracks. Unless it's deliberate. I'm split on that bit.


You spend far too much time looking for pats on the back for attempted ridicule of my theories rather than looking to piece them together but it clear you are trying, yet you let yourself down because, no way are you going to be labelled in with the nutter scepti. You saw what happened to Jane just for trying to understand it and you are terrified to do just that.

So you're either being clever and holding back by teasing me into offering you more tit bits or you are simply too scared to actually take the opportunity your mind offers you.

It's a shame, A real shame but I have little time for you so carry on with your arrogance and attempted ridicule. I'll reply when I feel there's a need to.

You managed to get this one so you're not totally overlooked.

Answer me this.

You keep maintaining your denpressure ideas are correct, and you keep saying you only believe what you observe.....How then do you explain the millions upon millions of heat engines that have been designed according to laws that are totally at odds with your ideas. You must see examples of these heat engines around you all the time. Have you never stopped and wondered about how they work? You no doubt drive a car with one and plug your electrical kit into sockets that depend on them for the electricity they produce. Has it not struck you as odd that the world works despite what you say.

Pickup any text book on Thermodynamics on which all our heat engines are based and the contents of all these books will not agree with you, and the world works despite what you say.

How do you explain the workings of all these mechanical systems that operate successfully according to laws that conflict with everything you say. Do these facts not make you stop and think?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2019, 05:47:40 AM

Look up at the sky and you get the footage live.

And that footage in no way shows a dome.

That's fine. It's how you look at it and determine it. Of course you will acknowledge nothing like that when your Earth is a spinning globe in your minds eye.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2019, 05:52:15 AM

It's not magically pushed/squeezed up. You can observe less dense matter being squeezed/pushed up to give you an idea of why it works. I'm sure you know this.

The question is why?
You have no explanation other than your physics seeming to be pure magic and knowing when to push things down and when to push them up.

Density of the mass against less density of a mass. Or to be more clear, expansion from contraction creating a push/squeeze up.

Even with your latest explanation of why things fall, you have your atmosphere pushing down from above, and in from the sides, but not from below and that causing things to fall. But instead of that, helium balloons go up.

Helium balloons hold molecules that are a much less gobstopper individual molecule than other molecules. This means they are crushed but resist the crush of the more dense gobstopper like molecules below, which creates what we see as a floating balloon.
Pay attention and you'll learn a more potential reality than the one you've had battered into your mind.

Now, can you please pick the most basic part of your model and explain it?
If you have the atmosphere stacking, then explain why it stacks and why it is denser at the bottom of the stack.

It stacks because more dense matter pushed up from below expands to sit on top of the below because the gobstopper effect allows layers to peel and interact. Some come off a little and some come off whole depending on where in the stack they end up.
Each layer is a stack so each miniscule rise up is a stack due to this expansion from a dense mass below meaning less above and less above and less above and so on and so on until you eventually have your dome which is all created by the internal energy of the sun which we don't need to go into as it's just going to skew it all.

The real question should be, how can you create collisions when there are gaps of nothing?

That is a very simple question.
The molecules move changing the distance between them. Their path leads them to collide.

As you like analogies so much, consider a pool table (or billiards table).
We have small balls, representing our molecules, and they go moving around the table, with emptiness (for the analogy, air is nothing) between them. But their paths result in them colliding.
[/quote]You should be smart enough to know that having nothing between the balls means there's no possible way they can move in the first place. There has to be compression and expansion to creating the resistance to/for motion.
Your pool ball analogy does not address this but if you think this is what you have in real life then it addresses it for you. Not for me.

For the more technical details, this collision is based primarily upon electrostatic interactions, with electron clouds interacting to prevent the atoms from occupying the same space.

If the matter is already connected, then you don't have collisions. You can try it with the balls still in the rack. No collisions resulting in them bouncing around. They just move as a group.

No they don't move as a a group. You forget what's in between the balls. In those gaps.
This is the key. It's not just about one sized set of balls.

Answer me this.

You keep maintaining your denpressure ideas are correct, and you keep saying you only believe what you observe.....How then do you explain the millions upon millions of heat engines that have been designed according to laws that are totally at odds with your ideas. You must see examples of these heat engines around you all the time. Have you never stopped and wondered about how they work? You no doubt drive a car with one and plug your electrical kit into sockets that depend on them for the electricity they produce. Has it not struck you as odd that the world works despite what you say.

Pickup any text book on Thermodynamics on which all our heat engines are based and the contents of all these books will not agree with you, and the world works despite what you say.

How do you explain the workings of all these mechanical systems that operate successfully according to laws that conflict with everything you say. Do these facts not make you stop and think?

Simple expansion of molecules against more denser molecules which squeeze them under different frictions/vibrations at frequencies.
That's how you get your heat and electricity and everything else.

Absolutely everything is just heat. The absence of it, totally means a solidity without movement, because there would be no vibrational frequency, at all. The closest we can come to that is what's known as absolute zero, which is only the best guess scenario.

However, regardless of arguing that, just think in basic terms of vibrational frequencies due to energy creating expansion of matter against matter.
The frequencies and vibrations would be too numerous to even contemplate but we know a small amount of them just as part of what we know in life. Including your heat engines and such like.

That's fine. It's how you look at it and determine it. Of course you will acknowledge nothing like that when your Earth is a spinning globe in your minds eye.

As has been said repeatedly, the shape of Earth has nothing to do with it.
All Earth being a sphere would do is change it into a spherical shell instead of a dome.

I don't see a dome because there is absolutely no indication of a dome.

creating a push/squeeze up.

And that is the problem, you have repeatedly said there is no push up and relied upon that to explain why things fall.
Hence, your physics magically change having most things pushed down, but then some things pushed up.

It stacks because more dense matter pushed up from below expands

Why? Why is it pushed up?
Why does it expand when it does so?

You should be smart enough to know that having nothing between the balls means there's no possible way they can move in the first place.

Nope. Once again, the exact opposite, with nothing between the balls there is nothing to stop them.
If everything was touching, then in order for it to move it would first need to push whatever is in front of it out of the way.

There has to be compression and expansion to creating the resistance to/for motion.

Yes, you must at some point have contact to put energy in and get them into motion, but once they are in motion they can continue that motion through nothing. Resistance would try to stop it.

No they don't move as a a group. You forget what's in between the balls. In those gaps.

In the case of the analogy, nothing is. You have a bunch of balls touching, there is no collision.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 31, 2019, 10:46:11 AM

scepti works in simple and basic analogies...

think of it simplly and basically like this.
obviously if there is no space in between the molecules, they have expanded in gobbstopper size.
if you have a small room and it's packed full of people, all stacked on top of each other.
one person can't run into another because there would be no room to get speed.
the best a person could do is push back on the push and crush of the gripping friction.
but you need space and distance between molecules but since obviously space doesn't exist in the denP world, this can't happen.
so either this doesn't happen, or denP is wrong.

so simple...
hahah

where's your youtube, scepti?

You know what's sad?
You're so close to actually knowing what's what and yet your silliness and inability to actually look at it through whatever reasoning, stops you dead in your tracks. Unless it's deliberate. I'm split on that bit.


You spend far too much time looking for pats on the back for attempted ridicule of my theories rather than looking to piece them together but it clear you are trying, yet you let yourself down because, no way are you going to be labelled in with the nutter scepti. You saw what happened to Jane just for trying to understand it and you are terrified to do just that.

So you're either being clever and holding back by teasing me into offering you more tit bits or you are simply too scared to actually take the opportunity your mind offers you.

It's a shame, A real shame but I have little time for you so carry on with your arrogance and attempted ridicule. I'll reply when I feel there's a need to.

You managed to get this one so you're not totally overlooked.

Its hillarious that i posted a ridicule and predictively almost matched what you said.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 01, 2019, 02:35:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2019, 05:47:40 AM

Look up at the sky and you get the footage live.

And that footage in no way shows a dome.

That's fine. It's how you look at it and determine it. Of course you will acknowledge nothing like that when your Earth is a spinning globe in your minds eye.

Quote from: JackBlack

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2019, 05:52:15 AM

It's not magically pushed/squeezed up. You can observe less dense matter being squeezed/pushed up to give you an idea of why it works. I'm sure you know this.

The question is why?
You have no explanation other than your physics seeming to be pure magic and knowing when to push things down and when to push them up.

Density of the mass against less density of a mass. Or to be more clear, expansion from contraction creating a push/squeeze up.

Quote from: JackBlack

Even with your latest explanation of why things fall, you have your atmosphere pushing down from above, and in from the sides, but not from below and that causing things to fall. But instead of that, helium balloons go up.

Helium balloons hold molecules that are a much less gobstopper individual molecule than other molecules. This means they are crushed but resist the crush of the more dense gobstopper like molecules below, which creates what we see as a floating balloon.
Pay attention and you'll learn a more potential reality than the one you've had battered into your mind.

Quote from: JackBlack

Now, can you please pick the most basic part of your model and explain it?
If you have the atmosphere stacking, then explain why it stacks and why it is denser at the bottom of the stack.

It stacks because more dense matter pushed up from below expands to sit on top of the below because the gobstopper effect allows layers to peel and interact. Some come off a little and some come off whole depending on where in the stack they end up.
Each layer is a stack so each miniscule rise up is a stack due to this expansion from a dense mass below meaning less above and less above and less above and so on and so on until you eventually have your dome which is all created by the internal energy of the sun which we don't need to go into as it's just going to skew it all.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 02:21:14 AM

The real question should be, how can you create collisions when there are gaps of nothing?

That is a very simple question.
The molecules move changing the distance between them. Their path leads them to collide.

As you like analogies so much, consider a pool table (or billiards table).
We have small balls, representing our molecules, and they go moving around the table, with emptiness (for the analogy, air is nothing) between them. But their paths result in them colliding.

You should be smart enough to know that having nothing between the balls means there's no possible way they can move in the first place. There has to be compression and expansion to creating the resistance to/for motion.
Your pool ball analogy does not address this but if you think this is what you have in real life then it addresses it for you. Not for me.

For the more technical details, this collision is based primarily upon electrostatic interactions, with electron clouds interacting to prevent the atoms from occupying the same space.

If the matter is already connected, then you don't have collisions. You can try it with the balls still in the rack. No collisions resulting in them bouncing around. They just move as a group.

No they don't move as a a group. You forget what's in between the balls. In those gaps.
This is the key. It's not just about one sized set of balls.
[/quote]

Very interesting.
Could you possibly put it in a diagram for all us not-so-smart people?