Air Pressure vs Gravity

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 01:41:08 PM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 15, 2017, 01:36:50 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 01:32:01 PM

Quote from: Gumby on January 15, 2017, 01:28:09 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 03:57:46 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 14, 2017, 11:59:55 AM

Take a pound of lead and a pound of steel  They weigh exactly the same amount.  Which will displace more water and why?

They will both displace the same amount of water because they displace the same amount of atmosphere regardless of their differing area.

Quote from: markjo on January 14, 2017, 11:59:55 AM

Take a 10 cm cube of lead and a 10 cm cube of steel.  Which will displace more water and why?

The 10 cm cube of lead will displace more water due to it being able to displace more atmospheric pressure by density compared to the more porous cube of steel of the exact same size.
This is due to denpressure as I've explained time and time again.

Quote from: markjo on January 14, 2017, 11:59:55 AM

In your mind, is there any difference between an object displacing water and displacing the atmosphere?

None whatsoever.

Can you prove that? I would like to see an experiment proving that Arquimedes was wrong.

Just waiting on onebigmonkey to follow instructions.

Do it yourself.

Just as I thought. You raced into the dishonest part in showing people your little con job but dare not follow instructions from me to do it in how it should be done.

You know the outcome that's why.

You're a coward. Do it yourself. I demonstrated quite simply that doubling the density of an object of the same volume displaces the same amount of water.

Get an empty container and fill it with 1 lb of lead. Mark the line. Now fill it with a pound of flour. Where's the line now?

Do as you're told, chicken.

Put a hole in the lid and try it again and stop the dishonesty.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 15, 2017, 01:51:08 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 01:41:08 PM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 15, 2017, 01:36:50 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 01:32:01 PM

Quote from: Gumby on January 15, 2017, 01:28:09 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 03:57:46 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 14, 2017, 11:59:55 AM

Take a pound of lead and a pound of steel  They weigh exactly the same amount.  Which will displace more water and why?

They will both displace the same amount of water because they displace the same amount of atmosphere regardless of their differing area.

Quote from: markjo on January 14, 2017, 11:59:55 AM

Take a 10 cm cube of lead and a 10 cm cube of steel.  Which will displace more water and why?

The 10 cm cube of lead will displace more water due to it being able to displace more atmospheric pressure by density compared to the more porous cube of steel of the exact same size.
This is due to denpressure as I've explained time and time again.

Quote from: markjo on January 14, 2017, 11:59:55 AM

In your mind, is there any difference between an object displacing water and displacing the atmosphere?

None whatsoever.

Can you prove that? I would like to see an experiment proving that Arquimedes was wrong.

Just waiting on onebigmonkey to follow instructions.

Do it yourself.

Just as I thought. You raced into the dishonest part in showing people your little con job but dare not follow instructions from me to do it in how it should be done.

You know the outcome that's why.

You're a coward. Do it yourself. I demonstrated quite simply that doubling the density of an object of the same volume displaces the same amount of water.

Get an empty container and fill it with 1 lb of lead. Mark the line. Now fill it with a pound of flour. Where's the line now?

Do as you're told, chicken.

Put a hole in the lid and try it again and stop the dishonesty.

I'm very sorry but you are wrong and not able to demonstrate any of your claims. Your refusal to demonstrate your claims destroys any credibility you had.

I'm very sorry but you are wrong and not able to demonstrate any of your claims. Your refusal to demonstrate your claims destroys any credibility you had.

Don't be sorry for me. I know I'm correct and this can be proven by you or anyone. All it takes is honesty.

Quote from: Gumby on January 15, 2017, 02:10:20 PM

I'm very sorry but you are wrong and not able to demonstrate any of your claims. Your refusal to demonstrate your claims destroys any credibility you had.

Don't be sorry for me. I know I'm correct and this can be proven by you or anyone. All it takes is honesty.

Then it can be proven by you. Go ahead. Do the demo.

Put a hole in the lid and try it again and stop the dishonesty.

This is why it's so hard to take you or your "theory" seriously.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 01:57:29 PM

Put a hole in the lid and try it again and stop the dishonesty.

This is why it's so hard to take you or your "theory" seriously.

Why? What's wrong with putting a hole in the lid?
It's about dense mass displacing the water, right?

Quote from: markjo on January 15, 2017, 02:30:36 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 01:57:29 PM

Put a hole in the lid and try it again and stop the dishonesty.

This is why it's so hard to take you or your "theory" seriously.

Why? What's wrong with putting a hole in the lid?

It pretty much defeats the purpose of keeping the volume constant while changing density/weight.

It's about dense mass displacing the water, right?

No.  It's about volume displacing water regardless of mass.

Quote from: Gumby on January 15, 2017, 02:10:20 PM

I'm very sorry but you are wrong and not able to demonstrate any of your claims. Your refusal to demonstrate your claims destroys any credibility you had.

Don't be sorry for me. I know I'm correct and this can be proven by you or anyone. All it takes is honesty.

Then go for it.  Prove your theory.  Show us the video.  Also, poking a hole in the lid would defeat the purpose of the experiment as they would no longer have the same volume.

Quote from: markjo on January 15, 2017, 02:30:36 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 01:57:29 PM

Put a hole in the lid and try it again and stop the dishonesty.

This is why it's so hard to take you or your "theory" seriously.

Why? What's wrong with putting a hole in the lid?
It's about dense mass displacing the water, right?

no, it's about volume displacing water.  He proved the density was irrelevant.

The jar hits the bottom of the jug and renders the experiment useless.

Try the same experiment in a long tube full of water and lets see what happens.
Dishonestly is the name of the game with some of you and others of you simply have no clue.

The jar hits the bottom of the jug and renders the experiment useless.

How so?  The water level rises as the container is placed in the container.  That is displacement, plain and simple.

Try the same experiment in a long tube full of water and lets see what happens.

Why don't you try it and show us what happens?

The jar hits the bottom of the jug and renders the experiment useless.

Try the same experiment in a long tube full of water and lets see what happens.
Dishonestly is the name of the game with some of you and others of you simply have no clue.

How does the jar hitting the bottom render it useless?  You could tie a string to the jar I suppose and suspend it there without hitting the bottom.  As long as it was completely submerged the results would be the same.

Quote from: Gumby on January 15, 2017, 02:10:20 PM

I'm very sorry but you are wrong and not able to demonstrate any of your claims. Your refusal to demonstrate your claims destroys any credibility you had.

Don't be sorry for me. I know I'm correct and this can be proven by you or anyone. All it takes is honesty.

I'm afraid that what you propose is wrong, it's up to you to demonstrate otherwise.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 03:00:16 PM

The jar hits the bottom of the jug and renders the experiment useless.

How so?  The water level rises as the container is placed in the container.  That is displacement, plain and simple.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 03:00:16 PM

Try the same experiment in a long tube full of water and lets see what happens.

Why don't you try it and show us what happens?

All you're doing with the jar is trapping atmospheric pressure inside of it.
If you add more dense mass to the jar you displace more atmospheric pressure from the jar, right?
Less dense mass like the one small dense ring will displace less atmospheric pressure inside the jar, right?

Ok, so the first one was dropped into a small jug and simply hit the bottom to be stopped from going further down.
The same happened with the second experiment with more dense rings added. It hits the bottom.
Nothing can be concluded from this because it's dishonest.
This is why I said put a hole in the jar because if those jars had been allowed to go deeper the air inside would have been compressed by the water crush, meaning the jar with the one ring in it would have much more air to compress which means less water to displace, where as the jar with more rings in it has less air to compress and so displaces more water.

That's why the experiment if dishonest.

I'm correct and you lot are incorrect.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 03:00:16 PM

The jar hits the bottom of the jug and renders the experiment useless.

Try the same experiment in a long tube full of water and lets see what happens.
Dishonestly is the name of the game with some of you and others of you simply have no clue.

How does the jar hitting the bottom render it useless?  You could tie a string to the jar I suppose and suspend it there without hitting the bottom.  As long as it was completely submerged the results would be the same.

You're not grasping it. Look at my reply to markjo, see if you grasp it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 02:15:19 PM

Quote from: Gumby on January 15, 2017, 02:10:20 PM

I'm very sorry but you are wrong and not able to demonstrate any of your claims. Your refusal to demonstrate your claims destroys any credibility you had.

Don't be sorry for me. I know I'm correct and this can be proven by you or anyone. All it takes is honesty.

I'm afraid that what you propose is wrong, it's up to you to demonstrate otherwise.

If you want the truth of something them do it yourself or if you prefer to follow the masses and believe in gravity and such, then be my guest but you're only cheating yourself.

The jar hits the bottom of the jug and renders the experiment useless.

Try the same experiment in a long tube full of water and lets see what happens.
Dishonestly is the name of the game with some of you and others of you simply have no clue.

Demonstrate or nobody will believe you. Easy.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 03:00:16 PM

The jar hits the bottom of the jug and renders the experiment useless.

Try the same experiment in a long tube full of water and lets see what happens.
Dishonestly is the name of the game with some of you and others of you simply have no clue.

Demonstrate or nobody will believe you. Easy.

I'm not interested whether you or anyone believes me. It's up to people to decide whether they want to step outside of the box and observe by logic or stay in it and just go with the mass flow of indoctrination.
It's not a problem to me. I'm just explaining it for those who actually have enough about them to at least take a deeper look.

Quote from: Gumby on January 15, 2017, 03:26:55 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 02:15:19 PM

Quote from: Gumby on January 15, 2017, 02:10:20 PM

I'm very sorry but you are wrong and not able to demonstrate any of your claims. Your refusal to demonstrate your claims destroys any credibility you had.

Don't be sorry for me. I know I'm correct and this can be proven by you or anyone. All it takes is honesty.

I'm afraid that what you propose is wrong, it's up to you to demonstrate otherwise.

If you want the truth of something them do it yourself or if you prefer to follow the masses and believe in gravity and such, then be my guest but you're only cheating yourself.

Choosing between you and what you call the masses is easy. Gravity is what keeps us in place.

Why do stuff fall in vacuum? There is no air pressure in vacuum!

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 03:33:25 PM

Quote from: Gumby on January 15, 2017, 03:26:55 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 02:15:19 PM

Quote from: Gumby on January 15, 2017, 02:10:20 PM

I'm very sorry but you are wrong and not able to demonstrate any of your claims. Your refusal to demonstrate your claims destroys any credibility you had.

Don't be sorry for me. I know I'm correct and this can be proven by you or anyone. All it takes is honesty.

I'm afraid that what you propose is wrong, it's up to you to demonstrate otherwise.

If you want the truth of something them do it yourself or if you prefer to follow the masses and believe in gravity and such, then be my guest but you're only cheating yourself.

Choosing between you and what you call the masses is easy. Gravity is what keeps us in place.

Why do stuff fall in vacuum? There is no air pressure in vacuum!

I gave you your 5 minutes in your alt name. Bye bye.

Quote from: Gumby on January 15, 2017, 03:33:51 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 03:00:16 PM

The jar hits the bottom of the jug and renders the experiment useless.

Try the same experiment in a long tube full of water and lets see what happens.
Dishonestly is the name of the game with some of you and others of you simply have no clue.

Demonstrate or nobody will believe you. Easy.

I'm not interested whether you or anyone believes me. It's up to people to decide whether they want to step outside of the box and observe by logic or stay in it and just go with the mass flow of indoctrination.
It's not a problem to me. I'm just explaining it for those who actually have enough about them to at least take a deeper look.

Same size lead and steel blocks displace the same amount of water.

There is no such thing as displacing air pressure.  Pressure is not an object.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 15, 2017, 03:24:14 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 03:00:16 PM

The jar hits the bottom of the jug and renders the experiment useless.

Try the same experiment in a long tube full of water and lets see what happens.
Dishonestly is the name of the game with some of you and others of you simply have no clue.

How does the jar hitting the bottom render it useless?  You could tie a string to the jar I suppose and suspend it there without hitting the bottom.  As long as it was completely submerged the results would be the same.

You're not grasping it. Look at my reply to markjo, see if you grasp it.

Ok, I see what you are saying.  Under enough pressure the water would have crushed the jars and then, yes, the on with multiple items in would have displaced more water.
But the only reason that's true is because the items in that jar, there being more of them, would then have more volume then the item in the other jar.  That's why he put them in jars to show that even one weighed more, the both displace same amount of water.
However, if you eliminate the jar entirely you take a one pound block of, say, glass, and a one pound block of lead.  The glass block will be bigger and it will displace more water, even though it is less dense then lead.  Or for that matter you could probably take a two pound block of lead and a one pound block of glass and, my guess, is the glass would still be bigger and if so, it will displace more water. 
You can actually predict exactly how much water is going to be displaced by simply measuring the volume of the object.

Quote from: markjo on January 15, 2017, 03:16:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 03:00:16 PM

The jar hits the bottom of the jug and renders the experiment useless.

How so?  The water level rises as the container is placed in the container.  That is displacement, plain and simple.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 03:00:16 PM

Try the same experiment in a long tube full of water and lets see what happens.

Why don't you try it and show us what happens?

All you're doing with the jar is trapping atmospheric pressure inside of it.

No.  He's putting different amounts of weight in the jar, thereby changing it's overall density.

If you add more dense mass to the jar you displace more atmospheric pressure from the jar, right?

No.  You displace the amount of air in the jar, but the atmospheric pressure itself remains the same.

Less dense mass like the one small dense ring will displace less atmospheric pressure inside the jar, right?

No.  Less dense mass displaces more atmosphere than more dense mass of the same weight.  That is unless you have a different definition of density than the accepted density = mass divided by volume.

Ok, so the first one was dropped into a small jug and simply hit the bottom to be stopped from going further down.
The same happened with the second experiment with more dense rings added. It hits the bottom.
Nothing can be concluded from this because it's dishonest.

It can be concluded that the amount of water displaced has nothing to do with the weight of the container.  That is unless you have a different definition of displacement than the one that everyone else is using.

This is why I said put a hole in the jar because if those jars had been allowed to go deeper the air inside would have been compressed by the water crush, meaning the jar with the one ring in it would have much more air to compress which means less water to displace, where as the jar with more rings in it has less air to compress and so displaces more water.

  Huh?  If the jar is more dense than the water, then it will always sink to the bottom, regardless of how far down that bottom is.

That's why the experiment if dishonest.

I'm correct and you lot are incorrect.

No, you just like to redefine certain words to make it seem that way.

Quote from: markjo on January 15, 2017, 03:16:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 03:00:16 PM

The jar hits the bottom of the jug and renders the experiment useless.

How so?  The water level rises as the container is placed in the container.  That is displacement, plain and simple.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 03:00:16 PM

Try the same experiment in a long tube full of water and lets see what happens.

Why don't you try it and show us what happens?

All you're doing with the jar is trapping atmospheric pressure inside of it.
If you add more dense mass to the jar you displace more atmospheric pressure from the jar, right?
Less dense mass like the one small dense ring will displace less atmospheric pressure inside the jar, right?

Ok, so the first one was dropped into a small jug and simply hit the bottom to be stopped from going further down.
The same happened with the second experiment with more dense rings added. It hits the bottom.
Nothing can be concluded from this because it's dishonest.

Nope, it was a demonstration of what happens when a known volume is placed in a fluid regardless of the mass or density of the object. The only dishonesty is your backtracking.

This is why I said put a hole in the jar because if those jars had been allowed to go deeper the air inside would have been compressed by the water crush, meaning the jar with the one ring in it would have much more air to compress which means less water to displace, where as the jar with more rings in it has less air to compress and so displaces more water.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Prove it in your own kitchen.

That's why the experiment if dishonest.

It's not an experiment, it's a demonstration.

Then make your own video and do your own demonstration. Stop demanding other people do your job for you. You're not being clever and leading us to some sort of salvation with your gentle teasing out of the facts and impeccable logic, you're being a gutless chickenshit hiding behind his keyboard and expecting everyone else to ask how high when you say jump.

I'll say it again: with one minute of video I have put more effort into proving you wrong than you have trying to prove your own nonsense right. That's how much faith you have in your own theories: none.

I can absolutely guarantee that when the volume remains the same the same amount of water will be displaced. The whole point of sealing the jar was to make the volume the same to prove to you that your statement was false, which it is.

It also doesn't matter what size jug it is - the result would have been identical if it had been a tall jug, a wide bowl, you name it

I'm correct and you lot are incorrect.

pmsl.

No.  He's putting different amounts of weight in the jar, thereby changing it's overall density.

Yes he's changing its density.

No.  You displace the amount of air in the jar, but the atmospheric pressure itself remains the same.

No it doesn't remain the same. Not after it's allowed to sink. The pressure builds due to external crushing effect on the container by the water acting on the air inside of the container to equalise density.

No.  Less dense mass displaces more atmosphere than more dense mass of the same weight.  That is unless you have a different definition of density than the accepted density = mass divided by volume.

No it doesn't. How can less dense mass displace MORE atmosphere?
Where you people get mixed up, or duped, whichever is the case, is not understanding how and why dense mass displaces atmosphere.

It can be concluded that the amount of water displaced has nothing to do with the weight of the container.  That is unless you have a different definition of displacement than the one that everyone else is using.

The amount of water displaced has everything to do with the mass inside of that container and the containers ability to contain it.
I can see quite clearly how you people have been duped, I really can.
The truth is different to how you're told this all works and is the reason why you people adhere to the gravity nonsense.

  Huh?  If the jar is more dense than the water, then it will always sink to the bottom, regardless of how far down that bottom is.

But it will only do so if the water can crush the air out of it or make it as dense as it.
The jar being open will sink. There is a massive difference and is the reason I said the experiment is dishonest.

Nope, it was a demonstration of what happens when a known volume is placed in a fluid regardless of the mass or density of the object. The only dishonesty is your backtracking.

There's no back-tracking by me. I'm trying to help you people see the reality and not the dupe. The problem is in finding out who are the honest one's. I'm dubious as all hell about you.

Then make your own video and do your own demonstration. Stop demanding other people do your job for you. You're not being clever and leading us to some sort of salvation with your gentle teasing out of the facts and impeccable logic, you're being a gutless chickenshit hiding behind his keyboard and expecting everyone else to ask how high when you say jump.

You decided to be the smug one by making a video os a known weight in a jar inside a frigging jug for crying out loud.
It's totally dishonest or naive of you to do so and think it proves anything.
All it proves is that you either know the truth and are trying your best to sidestep it or you really don't have a clue.

I'll say it again: with one minute of video I have put more effort into proving you wrong than you have trying to prove your own nonsense right. That's how much faith you have in your own theories: none.

If you run 25 miles the wrong way in a 5 mile cross country run you don't win because of it but you would have put more effort in, so congratulations on that.

I can absolutely guarantee that when the volume remains the same the same amount of water will be displaced. The whole point of sealing the jar was to make the volume the same to prove to you that your statement was false, which it is.

Do you know why drinks bottles expand and crush on planes?
Think about that whilst you're believing the jar inside a little jug proves anything.

It also doesn't matter what size jug it is - the result would have been identical if it had been a tall jug, a wide bowl, you name it

No it wouldn't. It might be if a strong glass jar is used but a flimsy plastic jar in a deeper container with accurate measurement of displacement will show I'm absolutely correct.

OBM destroyed your bullshit claims in a 40s video, scepti. Your ideas are that easily destroyed. Now all you're trying to do is backtrack to save face.

Displacement has nothing to do with density. This is so demonstrably easy to show that I can hardly believe you've tried to assert it.

Are you really trying to say that an 1m³ of cube of lead will displace more than a 1m³ cube of aluminum?

scepti seems to be getting more unhinged as this goes on.

Then again, he could be trolling now, even he surely doesn't actually believe this displacement shit.

Another kitchen sink drama here



ZOMG WTF??

The object with the greater density but the same weight and smaller volume displaces less water.

Still waiting sceppy, where's yours?

And just so there can be no wriggling on hooks, here are the same elements of the demonstration under two different conditions - one occupies less volume than the other. Guess which one displaces less water?