Now I'm thoroughly confused. Is it pushing up, or pushing down? Or sideways, for that matter. How does 'stacking' know I'm wishing a specific directional force to be applied versus another? Is stacking sentient?
Isn't it obvious? The air is clearly magic and sentient. It knows what direction it needs to push and does so. It is even so magical that it can tell if an object is less dense than air and thus needs to be pushed up. It knows if an object should be stuck to the wall or not and pushes as required.
The atmosphere is not pushing up
If it was not pushing up then suction cups would be useless to hold objects to a roof or to lift objects, helium filled balloons would not rise and the paper in these simple experiments would fall.
It is quite clear that the atmosphere DOES push up.
If you wish to claim it doesn't you need to explain how all this works.
it's being a resistant foundation to theweak push on the water by the tiny amount of atmosphere trying to push against it inside that glass.
Yet if you take the paper away, all the water falls out, so clearly there is enough atmosphere inside the glass to push things down.
We also can't forget all the atmosphere outside the glass pushing down on the paper.
If the atmosphere below was only resisting, it would merely slow the movement of the paper.
It wouldn't magically hold it up.
In order to hold it up, it needs to push up.
Take some real time to actually think on this if you're interested enough to be honest with yourself.
Follow your own advice.
Honestly think about your claims and your model. IT MAKES NO SENSE!
You magically have the air pushing everything down, except in cases where it doesn't where it then behaves in fundamentally different ways. Sometimes just holding something in place, other times pushing objects up.
It is pure nonsense.
What I seem to be up against is immediate denial of anything I say with the old " provide evidence" carry on.
Don't forget the far more common one of you contradicting yourself.
As for the old "provide evidence" carry on, do you mean like you do, after which you just dismiss any evidence provided and claim it is all nonsense?
When I put stuff out for people to test, nobody wants to do it. It all goes quiet, weirdly.
No, it goes quiet when you run away.
So far I am yet to see you provide anything which actually merits testing.
Your sink analogy is garbage and I explained a proper way to test it which would show your claims and analysis of it is nonsense. But you just ignore that.
Your spinning disk just further proves the mainstream correct.
I try and better try to explain the stacking and how and why it works
Where?
So far the closest I have seen to you trying to explain stacking, which you claims is what makes things fall, is by appealing to things falling. That makes it entirely circular and not an explanation at all.
When I say, 'pay attention' I don't mean it as a dig
You sure seem to just use it as a way to dismiss objects to your model.
Perhaps you should start paying attention to what other people are saying.
Read and see if your explanations don't actually work and address the issues raised.
First of all you need to understand the stack.
THEN EXPLAIN IT!
Explain why the atmosphere stacks in the firstplace.
You repeatedly assert we need to understand it, but repeatedly fail to explain it.
Is it suprising at all that no one seems to understand when you don't explain?
If you don't want to discuss the more complex issues, then stop discussing them and stick to the basics. The fact that people aren't getting it is entirely on you.
Tell me what you think the stack is and why it would be called a stack and why the stack consists of different compressions from dense to expanded.
It is your model. You should be the one explaining it, not asking us to.
So far all you have done is said the atmosphere is a stack with more dense air below.
You haven't provided any reason why.
which I clearly do but I'm clearly being dished without people attempting to actually read what I've said.
Stop acting like you are the poor victim here. You are providing "explanations" which are easily contradicted by experiments or yourself.
So no, you aren't actually explaining why things fall.
This has been shown to you repeatedly, yet you continually ignore it.
That is why I am stuck at square one, because you can't even get past it and explain a simple thing like why things fall which doesn't cause massive contradictions for you later.
Meanwhile not one measurement to demonstrate his theory.
Somehow my electronic scales know the atmospheric pressure to show the correct weight.
They show the correct weight by displacement of atmosphere as you've been told.
The only issue with this for people like yourself is in you thinking the mass gets pulled on the scale plate....somehow to give a reading.
I mean, surely if people can understand a mercury barometer dish being pushed down on to give a reading I'm sure it shouldn't take much to understand how a mass will displace atmosphere and be pushed upon against a compressible scale plate to give a reading.
As I said, perhaps you should start paying attention?
Notice how you completely ignored the issue and the question asked?
This was in reference to your claim that the scales will magically adjust as the pressure adjusts so they report the mass of the object rather than it being significantly reduced as the pressure is reduced.
People understand a mercury barometer with mainstream physics, not with your model as you are yet to explain why it is the height which shows the atmospheric pressure, regardless of the shape and orientation of the tube and the height instead of the portion of tube filled.
Now make up your mind, do you want to stick to the basics?
If so, stick to the basics. If you think the stack is more basic, explain that. Don't just say it stacks. Explain WHY it stacks. As it is more basic than why things fall, make sure you don't use things falling to try and explain it. That means no appealing to analogies like a stack of brick which remain stacked because something is pushing/pulling them down.
If you think things falling is more basic than the stacking, as you have tried to use that to explain the stacking, then explain that. Don't just say things fall, explain why they do (in a way which wont be contradicted later when you try to explain why some things don't fall). As that would mean the falling is more basic, no appealing to the stack to explain it.