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

  • 3822 Replies
  • 133840 Views
?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23280
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3690 on: February 11, 2019, 11:08:04 PM »

Quote from: JackBlack
Then there are mercury barometers, which if there is no weight from gravity and instead only comes from air pressure there is no reason the mercury shouldn't fill the tube entirely. If you want to appeal to a small amount of air trapped inside, then it should be dependent upon the size and geometry of the tube, and independent of orientation, with the same length of tubing filled regardless of if it is upright, upside down, sideways or at some random angle. Instead we observe the height from the fluid outside to the level of the fluid inside the tube is dependent upon air pressure and not on the size or geometry of the tube, and it is that height, not the portion of the tube filled.
So you think having a tub of mercury specifically designed for atmospheric push onto it is ok to turn upside down and everything should read just fine ?

All that explaining and you're down to this.
Hmmmm.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23280
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3691 on: February 11, 2019, 11:11:59 PM »
Quote from: JackBlack
Because the wall is your foundation now.
And why doesn't the same thing happen when you just place an object against the wall?
Equal resistance.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3692 on: February 12, 2019, 12:25:48 AM »
I can explain it all using denpressure.
Give me any scenario and I'll explain it. What I won't do is play around with equations that are not needed in order to explain.
We should be able to ask for generic explanations which always hold, rather than needing completely different explanations for different scenarios.

A simple example is two balloons, one filled with CO2 the other with helium.
The CO2 filled balloon falls while the helium filled one rises.
But they occupy the same volume, it is just one is filled with CO2 the other with helium.
If pressure was all there was, they would both be pushed the same.
This is what you get for refusing to pay attention.

A C02 balloon and a helium balloon are two gases that hold different masses.
Think of the skinned gobstopper effect.
These two end up with different layers to they gobstopper end procurt among a multitude of atmospheric gaseous/fluid gobstopper masses with more layers.

This is why I asked for people to understand my model before they simply dive in.
This is why I asked for people to get to the basics first before we deal with this stuff.

This is why I ask people to understand the stack.
Unfortunately when I try to use analogies some people take them as actual material reality as if I actually think gobstoppers are singular molecules in themselves.

And people wonder why I ask them to start at the beginning and not to move too fast and get lost.
You're lost, Jack if you cannot understand this after all this time.

I'll be more than happy to explain this to people who actually want to learn from my side. I'd explain it to Jack but I never explain anything to him as he clearly states in every post, so it's hard to keep explaining anything.
Yet here I am trying to give him a chance.

Keep crying that no ones listening.
Youve been given ample amount of time and space to provide a clear model of your theory...yet here we are oushing 125...
Or possibly your misuse of language and pooor communication skills is the problem.

Lets see some diagrams and experiemtns.
Take us to the basics.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3693 on: February 12, 2019, 12:31:32 AM »
Back to basics, somehow my electronic scales measure the atmospheric pressure to produce the correct reading regardless of changes in pressure.

*

Stash

  • 4032
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3694 on: February 12, 2019, 12:32:00 AM »
Quote from: JackBlack
Because the wall is your foundation now.
And why doesn't the same thing happen when you just place an object against the wall?
Equal resistance.

Could you elaborate by what you mean by "Equal resistance"?

If I pressed a book to a wall, the wall is now the book's foundation. If I take my hand away, will the book stay against the wall b/c of it being the foundation and some sort of equal resistance?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3695 on: February 12, 2019, 03:11:28 AM »
This is what you get for refusing to pay attention.
No, I do pay attention, this is what you get from people that pay attention and realise your model is nonsense.
You claim the atmosphere below doesn't push up and it is only the stack above pushing down, but then the CO2 balloon goes down while the helium balloon goes up.


This is why I asked for people to understand my model before they simply dive in.
This is why I asked for people to get to the basics first before we deal with this stuff.

This is why I ask people to understand the stack.
Yet I repeatedly ask you to explain what causes the stacking and you just dismiss it and assert that you have already explained it.

You're lost, Jack if you cannot understand this after all this time.
The issue isn't me not understanding, it is me understanding and realising the implications of your claims.


So like I have asked before, can you pick either why things fall or why the atmosphere stacks in the first place (whichever is more basic) and explain it?

So you think having a tub of mercury specifically designed for atmospheric push onto it is ok to turn upside down and everything should read just fine ?
Not turning everything upside down, just the tube.
I even gave an example before with a dish with a hole in the bottom, connected to a flexible tube with the end sealed (or which is then connected to a rigid tube with its end sealed instead).

We start with the setup like this:

According to your model/explanation, the atmosphere is pushing down on the surface of the mercury, which in turn pushes the mercury into the tube.
So if we now go and change the orientation of the tube to be more like this:

The tube should still be full.
There is nothing in the tube to cause the mercury to fall down.
If you want to appeal to air trapped inside it, it would also be in the first example, preventing the mercury from going all the way down.
But it drops (at least if the tube is high enough).

This has been brought up before and you have no explanation. Instead you just repeatedly dodge the argument.

Quote from: JackBlack
Because the wall is your foundation now.
And why doesn't the same thing happen when you just place an object against the wall?
Equal resistance.
What do you mean by that?
That the wall is resisting being a foundation for the object?
If so why? Why for the object and not the jar?
Or did you mean it is equal between the object and the bell jar, in which case why does it fall?

One or 2 word statements doesn't provide an explanation.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23280
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3696 on: February 12, 2019, 10:00:44 AM »
Quote from: JackBlack
Because the wall is your foundation now.
And why doesn't the same thing happen when you just place an object against the wall?
Equal resistance.

Could you elaborate by what you mean by "Equal resistance"?

If I pressed a book to a wall, the wall is now the book's foundation. If I take my hand away, will the book stay against the wall b/c of it being the foundation and some sort of equal resistance?
Equal resistance is the reason why you can't use a wall as a foundation.

It's about pressure applied and reacted against with virtually equal resistance.

For instance.
Let's take a so called window suction device. You know that you can place it on the window and it will fall off. Why?
Because you have applied no energy to push out the equalised psi pressure inside of it so the resistance of the atmosphere in the device is unable to be squashed/pushed into due to that resistive pressure pushing right back.


However, if you push on the device and expel some of that pressure then what little pressure is left inside is not enough to resist the external pressure , which basically overcomes that resistance and clamps the device to the window by the amount of pressure that was expelled from it leaving only what psi of pressure inside to resist, as small as it may be or as high as it may be but low enough to be overcome.


This will work in any situation that provides a foundation to aid in the evacuation of internal pressure against external atmospheric pressure in this scenario.

A book or any object unable to be evacuated will have zero effect to allow for this except for it's own displacement of external atmosphere by it's own dense mass.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 10:52:35 AM by sceptimatic »

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23280
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3697 on: February 12, 2019, 10:33:51 AM »
This is what you get for refusing to pay attention.
No, I do pay attention, this is what you get from people that pay attention and realise your model is nonsense.
You claim the atmosphere below doesn't push up and it is only the stack above pushing down, but then the CO2 balloon goes down while the helium balloon goes up.
The atmosphere below any object within it is simply resisting the mass of that object and the push of the atmosphere above by the resistance of those molecules upon each other in that above atmosphere.

C02 is a denser molecule than the air it is placed in. Helium is a less dense molecule than the air that it is placed in.
Why?
Like I explained before of which you've took absolutely no notice of so I'm giving you one last go.

Analogy time. Gobstopper time.
I hand you a gobstopper and tell you there's a lot of layers in it.
I tell you that these layers represent a different expanded and contracted mass of  molecules that make up a real dense piece of matter.
That gobstopper is under immense pressure but among many of the same or similar they can make many many (infinite) expansions and contraction by the power of applied energy in friction.
This peels the layers but just like a bubble in the sink, they form smaller bubbles as they peel or bigger bubbles as they're allowed to expand from the centre where they are under severe pressure.

 Why have I explained this part?
Because I want  you to understand the process of how certain molecules are released by whatever methods to be split into less and less layers and attached layers to layers where there's no full on peel but a multitude of peels making a structure of something else.


So we get down to CO2 and helium as the near end products of the super masses that we call gases/fluids.
The C02 having a few more dense layers attached to it than the helium.
Now it's up against atmosphere which has a set amount of layers which are in multitude at sea level meaning more of them are crushed into smaller sizes becoming more dense and yet forced energy to release helium fills a balloon  with helium molecules that even compressed are not as dense as the many layered compressed natural sea level molecules.

This results in the molecules being unable to be crushed down against the stack resistance by the above atmosphere creates a squeeze and that squeeze becomes weaker and weaker allowing the helium molecules to expand against lesser stacked atmosphere above due to their balloon compression overcoming that less resistance above as it's continuously crushed up.


The C02 is under more densely compact layers The layers are more dense than the dense layers of the normal seal level atmosphere, coupled with the push down of the atmosphere above. It means the stack cannot hold them and they are pushed through it until they take their place among the natural layers by their eventual friction stacking to become part of the natural atmosphere.

If you don't understand this then fine but don't keep making on that I don't explain.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23280
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3698 on: February 12, 2019, 10:48:50 AM »
Quote from: JackBlack

Not turning everything upside down, just the tube.
I even gave an example before with a dish with a hole in the bottom, connected to a flexible tube with the end sealed (or which is then connected to a rigid tube with its end sealed instead).

We start with the setup like this:

According to your model/explanation, the atmosphere is pushing down on the surface of the mercury, which in turn pushes the mercury into the tube.
So if we now go and change the orientation of the tube to be more like this:

The tube should still be full.
There is nothing in the tube to cause the mercury to fall down.
If you want to appeal to air trapped inside it, it would also be in the first example, preventing the mercury from going all the way down.
But it drops (at least if the tube is high enough).

This has been brought up before and you have no explanation. Instead you just repeatedly dodge the argument.


Then your barometer becomes useless as a barometer.
The whole point of a barometer is to have a small amount of atmospheric pressure inside of it.

Turning that barometer upside down has filled every available space inside so if you turn it over you will get nothing unless there  is enough atmospheric molecules inside the mercury that will be squeezed out by the pressure of it and the external atmosphere.


The whole point of the barometer is to leave as little atmosphere inside as possible.

I explained why but I will again.

Failure to have any pressure inside other than mercury and a pretend vacuum like you think there is, would render the whole thing pointless because there is nothing to push the mercury back down after the atmosphere has pushed onto the mercury tub to push the mercury up against the fictional vacuum inside.

What am I saying?

If you do not have a resistance to the push you do not have a push back when the push becomes less.
How do you get the resistance?
You compress the small amount of air inside that tube which acts like a spring. A potential energy which will act upon the mercury push against it to allow the reading but also decompress the mercury back down as soon as the pressure on the tub is lessened by external atmosphere.

Have a really good think about what I've just said people. Not you Jack, I know what you'll come back with
Something like " so scepti, you've explained nothing."


I'm doing this for the minds of others...not you specifically.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 10:51:00 AM by sceptimatic »

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3699 on: February 12, 2019, 11:38:44 AM »
This is what you get for refusing to pay attention.
No, I do pay attention, this is what you get from people that pay attention and realise your model is nonsense.
You claim the atmosphere below doesn't push up and it is only the stack above pushing down, but then the CO2 balloon goes down while the helium balloon goes up.
The atmosphere below any object within it is simply resisting the mass of that object and the push of the atmosphere above by the resistance of those molecules upon each other in that above atmosphere.

C02 is a denser molecule than the air it is placed in. Helium is a less dense molecule than the air that it is placed in.
Why?
Like I explained before of which you've took absolutely no notice of so I'm giving you one last go.

Analogy time. Gobstopper time.
I hand you a gobstopper and tell you there's a lot of layers in it.
I tell you that these layers represent a different expanded and contracted mass of  molecules that make up a real dense piece of matter.
That gobstopper is under immense pressure but among many of the same or similar they can make many many (infinite) expansions and contraction by the power of applied energy in friction.
This peels the layers but just like a bubble in the sink, they form smaller bubbles as they peel or bigger bubbles as they're allowed to expand from the centre where they are under severe pressure.

 Why have I explained this part?
Because I want  you to understand the process of how certain molecules are released by whatever methods to be split into less and less layers and attached layers to layers where there's no full on peel but a multitude of peels making a structure of something else.


So we get down to CO2 and helium as the near end products of the super masses that we call gases/fluids.
The C02 having a few more dense layers attached to it than the helium.
Now it's up against atmosphere which has a set amount of layers which are in multitude at sea level meaning more of them are crushed into smaller sizes becoming more dense and yet forced energy to release helium fills a balloon  with helium molecules that even compressed are not as dense as the many layered compressed natural sea level molecules.

This results in the molecules being unable to be crushed down against the stack resistance by the above atmosphere creates a squeeze and that squeeze becomes weaker and weaker allowing the helium molecules to expand against lesser stacked atmosphere above due to their balloon compression overcoming that less resistance above as it's continuously crushed up.


The C02 is under more densely compact layers The layers are more dense than the dense layers of the normal seal level atmosphere, coupled with the push down of the atmosphere above. It means the stack cannot hold them and they are pushed through it until they take their place among the natural layers by their eventual friction stacking to become part of the natural atmosphere.

If you don't understand this then fine but don't keep making on that I don't explain.

No...you dont explain well
Can you provide a diagram?

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3700 on: February 12, 2019, 11:43:09 AM »
Quote from: JackBlack

Not turning everything upside down, just the tube.
I even gave an example before with a dish with a hole in the bottom, connected to a flexible tube with the end sealed (or which is then connected to a rigid tube with its end sealed instead).

We start with the setup like this:

According to your model/explanation, the atmosphere is pushing down on the surface of the mercury, which in turn pushes the mercury into the tube.
So if we now go and change the orientation of the tube to be more like this:

The tube should still be full.
There is nothing in the tube to cause the mercury to fall down.
If you want to appeal to air trapped inside it, it would also be in the first example, preventing the mercury from going all the way down.
But it drops (at least if the tube is high enough).

This has been brought up before and you have no explanation. Instead you just repeatedly dodge the argument.


Then your barometer becomes useless as a barometer.
The whole point of a barometer is to have a small amount of atmospheric pressure inside of it.

Turning that barometer upside down has filled every available space inside so if you turn it over you will get nothing unless there  is enough atmospheric molecules inside the mercury that will be squeezed out by the pressure of it and the external atmosphere.


The whole point of the barometer is to leave as little atmosphere inside as possible.

I explained why but I will again.

Failure to have any pressure inside other than mercury and a pretend vacuum like you think there is, would render the whole thing pointless because there is nothing to push the mercury back down after the atmosphere has pushed onto the mercury tub to push the mercury up against the fictional vacuum inside.

What am I saying?

If you do not have a resistance to the push you do not have a push back when the push becomes less.
How do you get the resistance?
You compress the small amount of air inside that tube which acts like a spring. A potential energy which will act upon the mercury push against it to allow the reading but also decompress the mercury back down as soon as the pressure on the tub is lessened by external atmosphere.

Have a really good think about what I've just said people. Not you Jack, I know what you'll come back with
Something like " so scepti, you've explained nothing."


I'm doing this for the minds of others...not you specifically.

There is one possibilty as to what would draw the mercury back down wihkut the need for atmosphere.
We dont need to say its name.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23280
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3701 on: February 12, 2019, 12:56:50 PM »


There is one possibilty as to what would draw the mercury back down wihkut the need for atmosphere.
We dont need to say its name.
Correct, you don't need to say its name, because that would imply a pull and you clearly know that the pressure upon the mercury in the dish is a push.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3702 on: February 12, 2019, 01:03:30 PM »
However, if you push on the device and expel some of that pressure then what little pressure is left inside is not enough to resist the external pressure
So you are just appealing to how mainstream science has pressure work, where it works in all directions, not just down?

That means an object in mid-air would be pushed from all directions, not down.

The atmosphere below any object within it is simply resisting the mass of that object and the push of the atmosphere above
Which means it isn't pushing up and thus it can't push the helium balloon (or anything) up.
At best it can slow its rate of descent.

Helium is a less dense molecule than the air that it is placed in.
Which doesn't help at all.
The air below isn't pushing up, so the helium balloon can't get pushed up.
The air above is pushing down.
That means the balloon should go down.

Why have I explained this part?
Most likely to avoid explaining how the balloon goes up when there is nothing pushing it up.
I don't really care why it is less dense, and would rather focus on the reason it goes up or down rather than having to deal with what molecules actually are and how you completely ignore that.

crushed up.
Crushing is inwards, not up or down.

If you don't understand this then fine but don't keep making on that I don't explain.
If you want me to stop saying you aren't explaining, then start explaining.
Stop using words like crushed for things going up and down.
You say there is only push, so use push.
Explain how the helium balloon goes up without being pushed up.
If it is just expanding the best you would get is the balloon expanding, not going up.

I want you to explain how the helium filled balloon goes up, if the air below isn't pushing it up. What else is there to push it up?
If you can't, then I want you to admit that the air below does push up.

Then your barometer becomes useless as a barometer.
Which is the point. Under your model, fluid filled barometers don't work.

The whole point of a barometer is to have a small amount of atmospheric pressure inside of it.
The whole point of the barometer is to leave as little atmosphere inside as possible.
So do you want a small amount, or as little as possible? The 2 are vastly different.

A real barometer has as little as possible, with every little bit causing inaccuracies.

Failure to have any pressure inside other than mercury and a pretend vacuum like you think there is, would render the whole thing pointless because there is nothing to push the mercury back down after the atmosphere has pushed onto the mercury tub to push the mercury up against the fictional vacuum inside.
Only in your model.
In reality, it works fine.

But if you have atmosphere inside it, it will resist regardless of the orientation of the tube (with some exceptions depending upon the size of the tube).
You can even try this with a straw and water.
You can put a straw in a glass of water to partially fill the straw and then seal it with your finger and take it out, and the water remains inside (unless you shake it). Then you can move it around, and the water stays in place. When upside down the water remains at the top and the air remains at the bottom.

So again, if it relied upon air being trapped inside, it would work the same regardless of orientation.

Have a really good think about what I've just said people. Not you Jack, I know what you'll come back with
Something like " so scepti, you've explained nothing."
Be honest, you don't really want people to think. If they do, they will realise your "explanation" doesn't work.
You haven't explained the big issue, why it requires a specific orientation.
Instead you have provided an "explanation" which would work equally well with any orientation of the tube, completely avoiding the issue and not providing an explanation to address the actual problem.

Correct, you don't need to say its name, because that would imply a pull and you clearly know that the pressure upon the mercury in the dish is a push.
Yes, the pressure on the mercury dish is a push. That doesn't mean everything is.
As for if it would be a push or pull, that is semantics.
If a particle is moved by a field is it a push or a pull? Or is it a push if it is moving away from the field's source and a pull if it is moving towards the source? What about if the field is generated by 2 plates and it moves between it towards one of the plates?
What if it moves perpendicular to the direction of the source of the field?

If you want to say you can't have a pull, that is just another claim you are yet to justify.

I also notice that even though you said people should go to the basics, you haven't bothered with it.

Again, which is more basic, why things fall or why the atmosphere stacks?
Pick whichever is more basic and explain it.

*

rabinoz

  • 25561
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3703 on: February 12, 2019, 06:08:35 PM »


There is one possibilty as to what would draw the mercury back down wihkut the need for atmosphere.
We dont need to say its name.
Correct, you don't need to say its name, because that would imply a pull and you clearly know that the pressure upon the mercury in the dish is a push.
Correct and here that same atmospheric pressure pushes up to hold the water in:
         
And in the third "trick" here the air pressure in pressing sideways!
So atmospheric pressure can press (cause a force) down, up or sideways - static pressure does not have a preferred direction.

*

Stash

  • 4032
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3704 on: February 12, 2019, 08:41:43 PM »
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?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23280
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3705 on: February 12, 2019, 11:28:03 PM »


There is one possibilty as to what would draw the mercury back down wihkut the need for atmosphere.
We dont need to say its name.
Correct, you don't need to say its name, because that would imply a pull and you clearly know that the pressure upon the mercury in the dish is a push.
Correct and here that same atmospheric pressure pushes up to hold the water in:
         
And in the third "trick" here the air pressure in pressing sideways!
So atmospheric pressure can press (cause a force) down, up or sideways - static pressure does not have a preferred direction.
The atmosphere is not pushing up, 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.
The person holding the glass is the one that's allowing the stack to resist at that point only.
Where a push would happen would be if the person decided to lower the glass a little and push into the stack below. Or if he dropped the glass which creates a compression and a resisting push or crush from the sides in this case.

The real push or crush comes from the displacement of below stack by above atmosphere with the usage of an object displacing it and being allowed to fall or be pushed against the below stack from above.

Take some real time to actually think on this if you're interested enough to be honest with yourself.

If you want to argue a push from below you can but it's not the push you think it is in this situation.
To make this clearer, this is akin to imagining surface water being the stack and holding that glass and card flat and level onto that water surface with the atmosphere trying to push the glass down but can't because there is so little in the glass to compress the water so the water holds the card and the contents of the glass while the person is stopping the external atmosphere from pushing that glass and contents into that water and displacing it, which is when you would see the resistance and crush back.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23280
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3706 on: February 12, 2019, 11:36:41 PM »
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?
It depends how you look at it.
I've explained and better explained thew variations from push to push to push to resistance to push to crush.

It's how variations of actions present themselves to us for us to have a view...or at least my view on the stacking system and objects within it.

It's about literally paying full attention and even fully focusing on just this model while casting your own aside for the time being, otherwise it's made almost difficult in the extreme.

*

Stash

  • 4032
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3707 on: February 12, 2019, 11:57:00 PM »
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?
It depends how you look at it.
I've explained and better explained thew variations from push to push to push to resistance to push to crush.

It's how variations of actions present themselves to us for us to have a view...or at least my view on the stacking system and objects within it.

It's about literally paying full attention and even fully focusing on just this model while casting your own aside for the time being, otherwise it's made almost difficult in the extreme.

I know, I know, you always default to, "If you don't get it it's because you're not paying attention, you're indoctrinated, you're this or that, blah, blah, blah."

Listen, millions of people have learned things that they had no knowledge of before. For some I'm sure shocking reason to you, no one to date has bought into your assertions. That's probably a 'man in the mirror' moment for you, no one else.

All of your explanations and analogies result in things like, "variations from push to push to push to resistance to push to crush" are bollocks. Neither your explanations, analogies or whatever you meant by that have seemed to amount to very much of an understanding to anyone.

Providing some experimental data would. But we both know you never will.

So I'm stuck with how does the 'stacking' know which way to push when I want something to stick to a wall or drop to the ground. How does the stacking know?

No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23280
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3708 on: February 13, 2019, 03:47:28 AM »
I know, I know, you always default to, "If you don't get it it's because you're not paying attention, you're indoctrinated, you're this or that, blah, blah, blah."

Listen, millions of people have learned things that they had no knowledge of before. For some I'm sure shocking reason to you, no one to date has bought into your assertions. That's probably a 'man in the mirror' moment for you, no one else.

All of your explanations and analogies result in things like, "variations from push to push to push to resistance to push to crush" are bollocks. Neither your explanations, analogies or whatever you meant by that have seemed to amount to very much of an understanding to anyone.

Providing some experimental data would. But we both know you never will.

So I'm stuck with how does the 'stacking' know which way to push when I want something to stick to a wall or drop to the ground. How does the stacking know?
I have no issue with people taking an age to grasp what I'm saying as long as their interest is in doing that.
What I seem to be up against is immediate denial of anything I say with the old " provide evidence" carry on.
When I put stuff out for people to test, nobody wants to do it. It all goes quiet, weirdly.

I've tried and better tried to explain the evacuation of a chamber and it's swept under the carpet by the likes of yourself because it seems you're scared to go against what you've been schooled into.

I might use that a lot but it's my genuine thought.

I try and better try to explain the stacking and how and why it works and I get immediate attempted ridicule or just plain denial instead of actually taking the time to actually understand it.

When I say, 'pay attention' I don't mean it as a dig, I mean it as a way of saying, "pay close attention to MY model and how and why it works" instead of your and others refusal to actually just understand it piece by piece.

I'm not asking you or anyone to believe what I say. But if you're going to attack it or appear to want to understand it, then do so with the knowledge of knowing what you are attacking or aside of what you've been schooled into.

Being schooled isn't a dig either. It's the truth. We're all schooled, generally. You only know what you know because you were schooled into that belief system where everything else is nothing more than pseudo science to you or basically lies in your mind.

If you're genuinely interested then put some deep effort in no matter how tedious it becomes for you if you don't quite understand it. Dig deeper and ask the right questions to give you a better chance.
And the key thing is not to take what I say as if I've solved the entire world.
Just take it as something you want to see as an alternate theory that could potentially match up...on the understanding that what you've been schooled into could equally be nothing more than a shoe-horned fit, to fit a potential for you, which could be anything but a potential and could be an actual deliberate dupe to this day but maybe based on a belief system of the time.


Ok after all that, you want to know how the stacking knows.
It's not a case of it knowing, it's a case of a natural stacking system that follows on, act for act against anything placed into it.

First of all you need to understand the stack.
So to get back to the basics and to see where you've come. 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.

Until you know this you're always going to ask the same questions and also follow the likes of Jackblack with the old,  "you never explain why things fall"....which I clearly do but I'm clearly being dished without people attempting to actually read what I've said.
This is why Jackblack is back to square one. Try not to follow him and do this for you without fearing being called a flat Earther for trying to understand my side.



« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 03:52:08 AM by sceptimatic »

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3709 on: February 13, 2019, 05:15:11 AM »
Meanwhile not one measurement to demonstrate his theory.

Somehow my electronic scales know the atmospheric pressure to show the correct weight.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23280
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3710 on: February 13, 2019, 09:25:30 AM »
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.


*

rabinoz

  • 25561
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3711 on: February 13, 2019, 12:32:06 PM »
I know, I know, you always default to, "If you don't get it it's because you're not paying attention, you're indoctrinated, you're this or that, blah, blah, blah."

Providing some experimental data would. But we both know you never will.

So I'm stuck with how does the 'stacking' know which way to push when I want something to stick to a wall or drop to the ground. How does the stacking know?
I have no issue with people taking an age to grasp what I'm saying as long as their interest is in doing that.
What I seem to be up against is immediate denial of anything I say with the old " provide evidence" carry on.
When I put stuff out for people to test, nobody wants to do it. It all goes quiet, weirdly.
I'm genuinely not interested in trying to "grasp what you'resaying" because you REFUSE to either post evidence or even where it is to be found.

I'm not interested in your putting "stuff out for people to test" because:
  • if they don't get the result you want, you will say that they did not do it properly and
  • you must put out tests that can really differentiate between gravitation and denpressure.
So, post your evidence or links to it or forget it.

Any genuine investigator would be only too pleased to show the evidence that his work is based on but you try to hide it!

And in the end, all you do, as do all flat-earthers do is to declare as fake anything that disagrees with what you say.
There are hundreds of experiments demonstrating that mass appears to attract mass but you simply declare them all meaningless for no reason at all.
There is plenty of evidence, and hundreds of thousands of eye-witnesses, that rockets do what you claim is impossible, yet you ignore the lot!

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23280
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3712 on: February 13, 2019, 12:55:33 PM »
I know, I know, you always default to, "If you don't get it it's because you're not paying attention, you're indoctrinated, you're this or that, blah, blah, blah."

Providing some experimental data would. But we both know you never will.

So I'm stuck with how does the 'stacking' know which way to push when I want something to stick to a wall or drop to the ground. How does the stacking know?
I have no issue with people taking an age to grasp what I'm saying as long as their interest is in doing that.
What I seem to be up against is immediate denial of anything I say with the old " provide evidence" carry on.
When I put stuff out for people to test, nobody wants to do it. It all goes quiet, weirdly.
I'm genuinely not interested in trying to "grasp what you'resaying" because you REFUSE to either post evidence or even where it is to be found.

I'm not interested in your putting "stuff out for people to test" because:
  • if they don't get the result you want, you will say that they did not do it properly and
  • you must put out tests that can really differentiate between gravitation and denpressure.
So, post your evidence or links to it or forget it.

Any genuine investigator would be only too pleased to show the evidence that his work is based on but you try to hide it!

And in the end, all you do, as do all flat-earthers do is to declare as fake anything that disagrees with what you say.
There are hundreds of experiments demonstrating that mass appears to attract mass but you simply declare them all meaningless for no reason at all.
There is plenty of evidence, and hundreds of thousands of eye-witnesses, that rockets do what you claim is impossible, yet you ignore the lot!
Then stay away from my posts and don't waste your time. See if you can do it.

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3713 on: February 13, 2019, 01:02:26 PM »
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.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23280
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3714 on: February 13, 2019, 02:24:31 PM »

Itís a fundamental property of matter and the universe.

Itís like asking why do opposite electrical charges attract each other.
So just admit you have no clue.
So what is it you are arguing for?
Is it for a force that doesn't exist, just because or is it for a force that doesn't exist but is made to exist by people who have been placed on a pedestal as some kind of authority and basic stardom, where this must be the correct answer?
No, it is a force proven to exists by hundreds of scientists and more hundreds of ordinary people doing these experiments often in their own homes.
Demonstration of Gravitation Attraction by Jimmy Demello
Gravitational Attraction by Thomas Koch
Cavendish Gravity Experiment Time Lapse Version 1 by Andrew Bennett
Cavendish Gravity Experiment Time Lapse Version 2 by Andrew Bennett
Universal Gravitation Demonstration by Nick Merrill
Newton's gravity law demonstrated with a torsion balance by Ejo Schrama
Believe what you like but don't confuse your fantasy world with the big wide real world out there.
The fantasy world is the one you adhere to like a limpet.
You're dead set on using a pretence of a proof for your gravity. There is none. There is no proof of it because it does not exist.

And again, Cavendish experiment categorically proves that matter is attracted to matter.

We donít know the mechanism but we definitely know that it happens.

You have absolutely no proof whatsoever for denspressure. None.
A barometer alone proves denpressure. The same barometer kills off gravity.

*

rabinoz

  • 25561
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3715 on: February 13, 2019, 02:26:16 PM »
So, post your evidence or links to it or forget it.

Any genuine investigator would be only too pleased to show the evidence that his work is based on but you try to hide it!

And in the end, all you do, as do all flat-earthers do is to declare as fake anything that disagrees with what you say.
There are hundreds of experiments demonstrating that mass appears to attract mass but you simply declare them all meaningless for no reason at all.
There is plenty of evidence, and hundreds of thousands of eye-witnesses, that rockets do what you claim is impossible, yet you ignore the lot!
Then stay away from my posts and don't waste your time. See if you can do it.
Why? I don't take orders from someone who refuses to post evidence for all the stuff he imagines would happen!

Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3716 on: February 13, 2019, 02:33:56 PM »
A barometer alone proves denpressure. The same barometer kills off gravity.
You seem to have mistyped.
As we have been over countless times, they disproves denpressure and further support gravity or some magical force which pushes things down with a force proportional to their mass..

The fact that it is the height of the column that relates to pressure regardless of orientation and geometry of the tube shows it is not pressure.
If it was going to be pressure then the tube would be entirely filled unless you had a pocket of air inside it, in which case the same amount of the tube would be filled regardless of orientation, and that also means different geometry tubes would be filled to different extents.

You have been completely unable to provide a denpressure based explanation of how a barometer works which actually addresses these issues.
You have also been completely unable to refute the actual explanation of how it works based upon gravity.

The best you would be able to get with a barometer is being able to provide an explanation of how it works in your fantasy land, which still wouldn't prove denpressure as it works according to mainstream physics.

*

rabinoz

  • 25561
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3717 on: February 13, 2019, 02:34:32 PM »
You have absolutely no proof whatsoever for denspressure. None.
A barometer alone proves denpressure. The same barometer kills off gravity.
No it does not! A barometer fits perfectly with gravity and air pressure.

This is exactly what I mean by your mis-interpreting evidence.  So post your evidence!

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23280
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3718 on: February 13, 2019, 02:41:16 PM »
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.

Let me put this to you.

If a person lifts a weight and holds it above his/her head, the person can be said to be pushing that weight, right?
Buy if you look at it you can say that the person is merely resisting that weight after pushing that weight up.

Would you agree with this?

If someone tried to push down on that weight you would have to resist that push, right?
By resisting that push you can stop the person pushing down that weight if you are strong enough to resist. Fair enough?
Now transfer that analogy to the stack.



Quote from: JackBlack
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.

It will only push up if you push into it and displacing that stack which raises that stack up the sides, just like you would see water raise up the sides of a boat and friction grip it or crush it or resist that boats push into it.
However, if you were to hold a glass with a card over the water in it whilst only having a tiny bit of atmosphere inside it, it's going to rest on the stack wherever your hand holds it.
You're not pushing into the stack, the stack is simply resisting the weak push of the tiny bit of atmosphere inside the glass.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23280
Re: Den Pressure - A Definable Hypothesis & Experiments (Scepti, iWitness)
« Reply #3719 on: February 13, 2019, 02:43:34 PM »
So, post your evidence or links to it or forget it.

Any genuine investigator would be only too pleased to show the evidence that his work is based on but you try to hide it!

And in the end, all you do, as do all flat-earthers do is to declare as fake anything that disagrees with what you say.
There are hundreds of experiments demonstrating that mass appears to attract mass but you simply declare them all meaningless for no reason at all.
There is plenty of evidence, and hundreds of thousands of eye-witnesses, that rockets do what you claim is impossible, yet you ignore the lot!
Then stay away from my posts and don't waste your time. See if you can do it.
Why? I don't take orders from someone who refuses to post evidence for all the stuff he imagines would happen!
I'm asking you not telling you.
By all means come in but try to stop whining about it if you do.

Don't bother arguing this. Leave it at that because I'm not playing tit for tat with this. Use AR if you feel the need to have a good rant.