Air Pressure vs Gravity

  • 1933 Replies
  • 345291 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #60 on: December 13, 2016, 09:43:08 PM »
They cannot believe in a flat earth, the brainwashing was too strong for them to over come it.
Says the most brainwashed little sheep of all the little sheepies. Baa, baa.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #61 on: December 13, 2016, 09:51:32 PM »
They cannot believe in a flat earth, the brainwashing was too strong for them to over come it.
Says the most brainwashed little sheep of all the little sheepies. Baa, baa.

LOL you guys! Do you think scepti's gonna come back and respond to my posts? I hope so. I didn't start this thread to ridicule his idea. I just want to understand it better. At the moment I am somewhat confused by it.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #62 on: December 13, 2016, 11:57:10 PM »
Okay. But why do you consider the earth the bottom of the stack? Why isn't it the top of the stack or a side?
This is a tactic that you people use all of the time. Why?
Indoctrination has seen to it that we use the term up for above out heads and down for below.
Our bodies are balanced by that thought process, in terms of, tip us upside down and we lose orientation.
I al;ready mentioned stacked atmosphere from the position of down to up.
Fllor to ceiling.
Land to dome top.
Sea bed to sea level.

Honestly, why use this?
I thought you really wanted to understand?

Let's p[ut it this way (and accept it or leave it)... if the dictionary changes where we have to follow protocol in terms of words where up is down and down is up, or up is horizontal or down is the side, or whatever...then up is up and down is down and a stack is a stack from down to up not up to down.

Don't come back with this clap trap.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #63 on: December 14, 2016, 12:02:19 AM »
And I also still don't know why you think air pressure always directs object down when that is where the air pressure is the highest.
It's the object itself that plays its part in that. The object, (any object) will displace it's own mass of atmosphere and that atmosphere will push back against the push into it.

So what we have here is Archimedes' principle, or at least a version of it, is that correct? I'm not trying to lead you anywhere with this, just asking.
Sort of, except gravity is used to dupe the people.
Careful what you come back with if you want it answered.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #64 on: December 14, 2016, 12:20:09 AM »
Well, let's say I put a m3 cube in a chamber

If I pump more air into the chamber, there will not be unbalanced force pushing in any direction, for instance downwards, because pressure is a scalar value. A scalar value is a value that only has a magnitude, not a direction. The reason pressure is a scalar it is measured by force/area:

Force is a vector, meaning it has magnitude and direction
Area is a value of distance^2, so it is just direction.

Force over area then means: it is a magnitude over a direction of area
Therefore all points on an area have a force pushing inwards perpendicular to the surface.

Considering every point on the cube in the chamber is exposed to the air, the force will push equally on every point on it perpendicular to the surface, meaning no movement.
Yes but any object inside this chamber is under crushing pressure. The more pressure added, the more crushing force added to whatever object is inside.

A
s a simple proof of concept, when I float underwater in a pool, I'm not pushed in any direction (considering gravity and buoyant force are cancelling each other out) because all the pressure is equal on all surfaces of my body. Otherwise, I would probably be pushed in some random direction.

Understand?
You are pushed in a direction. It's down into the pool by atmospheric pressure against the density of the water that you displace comes back to squeeze you back up.

*

disputeone

  • 27998
  • +110/-92
  • Or should I?
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #65 on: December 14, 2016, 12:23:25 AM »
Scepti, honest question, I kinda have my head around your model, atmoplanic pressure holds us down like a sort of inverse boyancy (if I'm wrong please clarify.)

Why do I weigh the same in my house under a roof? The way I understand it it should be like water pressure, e.g an exposed diver would be crushed by the pressure that a submarine can reach, however in the submarine the passengers do not feel the pressure as it is all exerted on the hull. When I get in my car or my house why don't I feel a reduction in weight due to a solid roof.

To further clarify, if I am at 10 metres depth in a pool, I can feel a very large amount of pressure on my body, if I then climbed into a 2m x 2m water tight box filled with water, the pressure on me is only what the box is capable of holding as the box takes all of the pressure of the pool and we are only left with the pressure of the say 2m × 2m box.

Can the pressure from the atmoplane pass through our solid objects? Or am I totally missing something here.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30079
  • +129/-72
  • The Only Yang Scholar in Ying Universe
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #66 on: December 14, 2016, 12:45:50 AM »
Quote
Vacuum effects about 5 t/m2 in land level.

Think an average man as 80 kgs and 1,80 metres. Get it 2 metre for easy calculating. We can get width of a human as 1 meter. So a human about 1m withg * 2 mt heigh * 2 sides = 4 m2

Intikam bad calculate, as always. Air pressure aprox 1013 hPa = 10 t/m˛. Intikam wrong by 100%. Intikam forget vacuum holder work adherence force, not atmosphere force.
And average human body surface is 2m˛ not 4m˛. Again Intikam off by 100%.
Little light not give good advice to Intikam.

I got vacuum effect 5 t/m2 instead of 10 ; as %50.
I got surface 4m^2 instead of 2 m^2; as %200.

My calculation: 5*4m^2= 20 ton
True calculation: 10*2 m^2 = 20ton.

Mistake = zero. Result: True.

This is a proof God helps me.  ;D
He (somebody) is a troll homo playing role of girl.

(Look at the date)

WERERPC LEVEL2

DAY 1 ENDS IN:


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #67 on: December 14, 2016, 12:51:49 AM »
So when you are in a car, and it accelerates, and you get pressed back in the seat, what's that?
It's atmospheric compression. AC-force, or ACOM-force.

Nope. It isn't.  Not even when you have the window open.

Still waiting for a response to the video I posted of the big fuck off vacuum chamber in which gravity works just fine.
Yes it is and it's provable.

Then do so.

Quote
As for your video of a so called vacuum chamber. It's a load of old bullshit.

Your logic is unfindable.

It is a vacuum chamber. At zero atmospheric pressure. Objects fall, almost as if they were subject to a force called gravity.
Tell me about this force you call gravity.
A simple explanation will suffice.
Tell me what's happening inside the so called vacuum chamber.
Tell me what gravity is doing and how you can tell it's gravity.

Once you do this, if you can, then I'll concede.
However, if you use magic or complete and utter gobbledegook, then I'll have to teach you the correct term.
A hint: It doesn't involve anything fictional that begins with the letter g.

Ok, over to you.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #68 on: December 14, 2016, 01:43:22 AM »
Scepti, honest question, I kinda have my head around your model, atmoplanic pressure holds us down like a sort of inverse boyancy (if I'm wrong please clarify.)
Yep you're sort of on the right track.

Why do I weigh the same in my house under a roof?
If  you understand the inverse buoyancy then you also understand that your house is not a sealed unit. It means that atmosphere will fill it rather than crush it.
However, you can create a low pressure inside your house by expanding molecules via heat by body count and/or central heating/fire.
Think of this as creating an air lock under water.
Can you grasp what I'm saying?

The way I understand it it should be like water pressure, e.g an exposed diver would be crushed by the pressure that a submarine can reach, however in the submarine the passengers do not feel the pressure as it is all exerted on the hull. When I get in my car or my house why don't I feel a reduction in weight due to a solid roof.
The submarine is a sealed container of air pressure. It has a hull strong enough to withstand the external water pressure exerted upon it.
The hull as well as the internal air pressure are enough to stop if being crushed as long as the right depth is adhered to.
As for your car and house. Your car and house, as I said earlier, are not sealed units. They equalise the pressure, almost, unless you either accelerate in open top or near sealed environment.This changes the atmospheric pressure wave against you.
Open top would naturally friction push your body and near sealed inside a car under acceleration would build compression upon your body.

To further clarify, if I am at 10 metres depth in a pool, I can feel a very large amount of pressure on my body, if I then climbed into a 2m x 2m water tight box filled with water, the pressure on me is only what the box is capable of holding as the box takes all of the pressure of the pool and we are only left with the pressure of the say 2m × 2m box.
Assuming you could miraculously breathe and the box is strong enough to resist the pressure, then you will be fine.


Can the pressure from the atmoplane pass through our solid objects? Or am I totally missing something here.
This is where most people fail to grasp and this is actually key to understanding atmospheric pressure upon density/mass.
The answer is, it can pass through what you assume are solid objects and cannot pass through some solid objects.
The mere fact that we assume solid to be solid, is only a small portion of the truth.

This is why porosity comes in. This is why atmospheric pressure acts on any object that is placed into it and we know all objects are placed into atmosphere from bottom up, which is also something to keep in  mind.

A brick and a bar of gold of equal size.
You know which one feels heavier.
You're told that gravity acts on the mass of the gold and that's why it's pulled down harder, yet regardless of this, you're still told that both objects fall at 9.8m/s and it's accepted.

The reality is far simpler.
The brick is porous and the gold is not, or very close to not.
This means that the brick has most of its make-up already taken up by the atmosphere. So that atmosphere inside of the brick already renders most of that brick make-up as actual atmosphere with bonded elements (clay mix, etc).
Now think about this.
Before your brick became this porous, it was much more dense. It was full of water and clay mix, etc.
It repelled the atmospheric pressure upon it. It meant it could resist it or push against the push of atmosphere.
You can feel the difference in a fresh made brick and a ready to use brick.
To make that brick porous like we see, the bricks are dried out. Water is expelled by expansion and replaced with atmosphere, making the brick much less dense and much more porous, meaning much less atmospheric pressure pushing the actual solid elements that make it due to it being already saturated with atmosphere.

Now to the gold bar.
It's what we term as solid. It's as close to solid as we can get. It repels almost all atmospheric pressure, meaning all of that pressure is pushing on the entire area of that gold bar which is resisting that pressure.
You feel the difference in strength of push by holding both.
You measure the scale weight by man made scale plate etc, with that object placed upon/in it.

There's a reason why a sponge is as light as it is.
This should be obvious now.
Grab a sponge and squeeze it as tight as humanly possible. Use a machine to squeeze it tighter and tighter until it's almost impossible to squeeze it any more.
What do you have?
You have a sponge (say face size) is now the size of a pea or smaller. That's how dense it became and that's all that the atmospheric pressure is actually pushing against.
So if you let the sponge expand, you know that it's density is only acted upon by a tiny amount which makes it feel as light as it does.

Try that with a gold bar and all you do is misshape it. You do not crush it down, so therefore you are looking at something that repels atmospheric pressure to such an extent that it becomes super heavy in your hand and weighs as a much higher measurement on a scale plate.

If you're as intelligent as I think you are then you will try and grasp it and not try to play games like most do.
The ball is in your court.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 01:52:52 AM by sceptimatic »

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • +0/-2
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #69 on: December 14, 2016, 01:58:57 AM »
According to your theory, I could create a vacuum here on the surface of the earth, and expect whatever is inside, to appear weightless. If the seal of the vacuum is actually porous then it would not be a vacuum for very long, and still, at very low pressures, the object inside would appear almost weightless.

Can you back up this claim with an experiment (doesn't have to be performed by you, but I'm sure some scientist tried this at some point)?

Besides, I do not understand what porosity has to do with anything. If you try to seal off something from the atmosphere, you obviously don't use porous materials.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #70 on: December 14, 2016, 02:13:02 AM »
According to your theory, I could create a vacuum here on the surface of the earth, and expect whatever is inside, to appear weightless. If the seal of the vacuum is actually porous then it would not be a vacuum for very long, and still, at very low pressures, the object inside would appear almost weightless.
How do you define weightless?

Can you back up this claim with an experiment (doesn't have to be performed by you, but I'm sure some scientist tried this at some point)?
Yep, experiments can be done to verify a lot of the stuff I mention but weirdly nobody...no super scientists on here appear to have evacuation chambers and equipment to THOROUGHLY and CLEARLY test out stuff in a honest manner.
A kid called sokarul once tried to dupe people with a pretence of a vacuum and also a clear non-compliance to my strict instructions.
I binned this person.
Babyhighspeed was the next instalment and that's fell through.
Strange isn't it, how all these clever globalists and what not, do not want to prove me wrong and yet are happy to call me a nutter.  ;D
Oh and yes I can go through the experiments if anyone is legitimately intent on scuppering my thoughts.
All they need to do is show the required equipment and follow instructions to the letter.

Besides, I do not understand what porosity has to do with anything. If you try to seal off something from the atmosphere, you obviously don't use porous materials.
Who's talking about sealing anything off?
I'm talking about objects within the atmosphere.

*

TheRealBillNye

  • 1224
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #71 on: December 14, 2016, 02:57:01 AM »
Scepti thinks all vacuum chambers are myths.

If you mention Brian Cox he goes into a frothing rage.


*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • +0/-2
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #72 on: December 14, 2016, 04:14:57 AM »
I'm going to try to explain it a bit more clearly.

If I understand your idea correctly, it means that we're stuck to this earth due to a downward buoyancy-like force caused by the atmosphere. Right?
That would mean that if we were to make a chamber and seal it off entirely, and then lower the pressure by removing air from inside the chamber, this downward buoyancy should decrease, approaching the point where there is no force pulling any object inside the chamber down. Which is what I mean with weightlessness.

Not to mention that regular buoyancy is the result of gravity, so I'm curious how you think the atmosphere exerts pressure on us.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

*

disputeone

  • 27998
  • +110/-92
  • Or should I?
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #73 on: December 14, 2016, 04:55:31 AM »
Why do I weigh the same in my house under a roof?
If  you understand the inverse buoyancy then you also understand that your house is not a sealed unit. It means that atmosphere will fill it rather than crush it.
However, you can create a low pressure inside your house by expanding molecules via heat by body count and/or central heating/fire.
Think of this as creating an air lock under water.
Can you grasp what I'm saying?

Alright that's a reasonable explanation, I can understand that.

The way I understand it it should be like water pressure, e.g an exposed diver would be crushed by the pressure that a submarine can reach, however in the submarine the passengers do not feel the pressure as it is all exerted on the hull. When I get in my car or my house why don't I feel a reduction in weight due to a solid roof.
The submarine is a sealed container of air pressure. It has a hull strong enough to withstand the external water pressure exerted upon it.
The hull as well as the internal air pressure are enough to stop if being crushed as long as the right depth is adhered to.
As for your car and house. Your car and house, as I said earlier, are not sealed units. They equalise the pressure, almost, unless you either accelerate in open top or near sealed environment.This changes the atmospheric pressure wave against you.
Open top would naturally friction push your body and near sealed inside a car under acceleration would build compression upon your body.

And on my bike the accelerating force on me is a friction push like an open top?

Can the pressure from the atmoplane pass through our solid objects? Or am I totally missing something here.
This is where most people fail to grasp and this is actually key to understanding atmospheric pressure upon density/mass.
The answer is, it can pass through what you assume are solid objects and cannot pass through some solid objects.
The mere fact that we assume solid to be solid, is only a small portion of the truth.

This is why porosity comes in. This is why atmospheric pressure acts on any object that is placed into it and we know all objects are placed into atmosphere from bottom up, which is also something to keep in  mind.

A brick and a bar of gold of equal size.
You know which one feels heavier.
You're told that gravity acts on the mass of the gold and that's why it's pulled down harder, yet regardless of this, you're still told that both objects fall at 9.8m/s and it's accepted.

The reality is far simpler.
The brick is porous and the gold is not, or very close to not.
This means that the brick has most of its make-up already taken up by the atmosphere. So that atmosphere inside of the brick already renders most of that brick make-up as actual atmosphere with bonded elements (clay mix, etc).
Now think about this.
Before your brick became this porous, it was much more dense. It was full of water and clay mix, etc.
It repelled the atmospheric pressure upon it. It meant it could resist it or push against the push of atmosphere.
You can feel the difference in a fresh made brick and a ready to use brick.
To make that brick porous like we see, the bricks are dried out. Water is expelled by expansion and replaced with atmosphere, making the brick much less dense and much more porous, meaning much less atmospheric pressure pushing the actual solid elements that make it due to it being already saturated with atmosphere.

Now to the gold bar.
It's what we term as solid. It's as close to solid as we can get. It repels almost all atmospheric pressure, meaning all of that pressure is pushing on the entire area of that gold bar which is resisting that pressure.
You feel the difference in strength of push by holding both.
You measure the scale weight by man made scale plate etc, with that object placed upon/in it.

There's a reason why a sponge is as light as it is.
This should be obvious now.
Grab a sponge and squeeze it as tight as humanly possible. Use a machine to squeeze it tighter and tighter until it's almost impossible to squeeze it any more.
What do you have?
You have a sponge (say face size) is now the size of a pea or smaller. That's how dense it became and that's all that the atmospheric pressure is actually pushing against.
So if you let the sponge expand, you know that it's density is only acted upon by a tiny amount which makes it feel as light as it does.

Try that with a gold bar and all you do is misshape it. You do not crush it down, so therefore you are looking at something that repels atmospheric pressure to such an extent that it becomes super heavy in your hand and weighs as a much higher measurement on a scale plate.

To be fair you explained that very well, it's not that difficult to get your head around. Am I correct in assuming then, that things don't have an inherent mass, their mass is determined by density and the amount of the atmosphere it displaces?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 04:57:21 AM by disputeone »
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45082
  • +87/-109
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #74 on: December 14, 2016, 05:29:21 AM »
And what in the heck did any of that contribute to the thread. You basically just agreed with me "yes vacuum chambers have air"... "Vacuum is not an absolute term"...But then I am still told I should do more research and I'm a trouble maker...??? What is wrong with you people? What do you want? What will make you change your thickheaded noggins into realizing that you have been lied to and that earth is flat?
They cannot believe in a flat earth, the brainwashing was too strong for them to over come it.
If by "brainwashing" you mean "hundreds of years worth of peer reviewed real world experiments and observations that are used everyday by transcontinental travel and shipping industries", then I would have to agree.  All of that brainwashing is pretty hard to overcome.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • +0/-0
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #75 on: December 14, 2016, 06:01:11 AM »
Tell me about this force you call gravity.
A simple explanation will suffice.
Tell me what's happening inside the so called vacuum chamber.
Tell me what gravity is doing and how you can tell it's gravity.

Once you do this, if you can, then I'll concede.
However, if you use magic or complete and utter gobbledegook, then I'll have to teach you the correct term.
A hint: It doesn't involve anything fictional that begins with the letter g.

Ok, over to you.

As you have no intention of accepting that gravity is a force that acts on mass and causes it to attract other mass, there is no point in me even trying. Google exists. Find some evidence.

You have no intention of explaining why it is that a vacuum chamber still allows objects to fall to the ground, and as someone who has played with one I can tell you they exist. I can also tell you that Brian Cox exists.

I do not expect you to be able to explain why the atmosphere is able to exert pressure, because that involves gravity.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

?

Badxtoss

  • 3268
  • +0/-0
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #76 on: December 14, 2016, 06:03:10 AM »
Okay. But why do you consider the earth the bottom of the stack? Why isn't it the top of the stack or a side?
This is a tactic that you people use all of the time. Why?
Indoctrination has seen to it that we use the term up for above out heads and down for below.
Our bodies are balanced by that thought process, in terms of, tip us upside down and we lose orientation.
I al;ready mentioned stacked atmosphere from the position of down to up.
Fllor to ceiling.
Land to dome top.
Sea bed to sea level.

Honestly, why use this?
I thought you really wanted to understand?

Let's p[ut it this way (and accept it or leave it)... if the dictionary changes where we have to follow protocol in terms of words where up is down and down is up, or up is horizontal or down is the side, or whatever...then up is up and down is down and a stack is a stack from down to up not up to down.

Don't come back with this clap trap.
Sure you can change the words, but our bodies are balanced by our inner ears, which rely on gravity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #77 on: December 14, 2016, 06:08:45 AM »
I'm going to try to explain it a bit more clearly.

If I understand your idea correctly, it means that we're stuck to this earth due to a downward buoyancy-like force caused by the atmosphere. Right?
That would mean that if we were to make a chamber and seal it off entirely, and then lower the pressure by removing air from inside the chamber, this downward buoyancy should decrease, approaching the point where there is no force pulling any object inside the chamber down. Which is what I mean with weightlessness.

Not to mention that regular buoyancy is the result of gravity, so I'm curious how you think the atmosphere exerts pressure on us.
What is weightlessness to you?
This might seem like a silly question but trust me it's pertinent.
Just tell me what weightlessness is to you and how you can understand it in a physical sense.
As for your regular buoyancy being the result of gravity. Prove to me that gravity is a force.
The more you hang on to this the more you lose the chance of actually grasping the  fact, at least, of gravity being a massive con job. Which also means you'll never understand what I'm telling you. Assuming you do, which I'm sceptical about.

*

Triangles

  • 63
  • +0/-0
  • Forgot my old account, but i'm back.
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #78 on: December 14, 2016, 06:22:11 AM »
Well, let's say I put a m3 cube in a chamber

If I pump more air into the chamber, there will not be unbalanced force pushing in any direction, for instance downwards, because pressure is a scalar value. A scalar value is a value that only has a magnitude, not a direction. The reason pressure is a scalar it is measured by force/area:

Force is a vector, meaning it has magnitude and direction
Area is a value of distance^2, so it is just direction.

Force over area then means: it is a magnitude over a direction of area
Therefore all points on an area have a force pushing inwards perpendicular to the surface.

Considering every point on the cube in the chamber is exposed to the air, the force will push equally on every point on it perpendicular to the surface, meaning no movement.
Yes but any object inside this chamber is under crushing pressure. The more pressure added, the more crushing force added to whatever object is inside.

A
s a simple proof of concept, when I float underwater in a pool, I'm not pushed in any direction (considering gravity and buoyant force are cancelling each other out) because all the pressure is equal on all surfaces of my body. Otherwise, I would probably be pushed in some random direction.

Understand?
You are pushed in a direction. It's down into the pool by atmospheric pressure against the density of the water that you displace comes back to squeeze you back up.

Please explain to me HOW a scalar can move you in one direction, and doesn't act equally over a surface area.
Explain how pressure pushes on one side of an object, but not the other.

Also, I would feel a "push down" on the upper half of myself if it were air pressure holding me down, which I believe everyone is in agreement that we don't perceive this feeling.
Quote from:  rabinoz
::) Sandokhanian Science  ::).
Ah yes, I majored in this.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #79 on: December 14, 2016, 06:23:47 AM »
And on my bike the accelerating force on me is a friction push like an open top?
Yep. But it's your energy that causes it. Your mass pushes into the atmosphere and you compress it until it falls around your body and fills the lower pressure you created by using your forward energy.

Am I correct in assuming then, that things don't have an inherent mass, their mass is determined by density and the amount of the atmosphere it displaces?
Basically, yes.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #80 on: December 14, 2016, 06:33:41 AM »
As you have no intention of accepting that gravity is a force that acts on mass and causes it to attract other mass, there is no point in me even trying. Google exists. Find some evidence.
The mere fact that you do have google and a whole host of other stuff at your finger tips, gives you an easy ride.
However, I have no help with what I'm saying. I have to type out my thoughts and it takes time and a lot of patience.
The answer you gave me was what I expected of you.
You could easily copy and paste but then again you have to find the answer to the question I posed.
You can't find it and you know it.
And yet you argue black and blue that I'm so wrong and you're so right when all your brain power is based on parroting.
You have no intention of explaining why it is that a vacuum chamber still allows objects to fall to the ground, and as someone who has played with one I can tell you they exist. I can also tell you that Brian Cox exists.
Oh, I did tell you but you chose not to accept.
I also know that a person who goes by the name, Brian Cox exists. That doesn't mean anything to me.
I do not expect you to be able to explain why the atmosphere is able to exert pressure, because that involves gravity.
I've already explained this and gravity does not enter into it, just like real rabbits do not manifest themselves inside magicians hats.They are placed there in order to dupe, excite, amaze the ever excitable public.
Just like the magicians use gravity. It allows them to perform many magic tricks to dupe, excite, amaze the ever excitable wannabe scientists.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #81 on: December 14, 2016, 06:35:18 AM »
Okay. But why do you consider the earth the bottom of the stack? Why isn't it the top of the stack or a side?
This is a tactic that you people use all of the time. Why?
Indoctrination has seen to it that we use the term up for above out heads and down for below.
Our bodies are balanced by that thought process, in terms of, tip us upside down and we lose orientation.
I al;ready mentioned stacked atmosphere from the position of down to up.
Fllor to ceiling.
Land to dome top.
Sea bed to sea level.

Honestly, why use this?
I thought you really wanted to understand?

Let's p[ut it this way (and accept it or leave it)... if the dictionary changes where we have to follow protocol in terms of words where up is down and down is up, or up is horizontal or down is the side, or whatever...then up is up and down is down and a stack is a stack from down to up not up to down.

Don't come back with this clap trap.
Sure you can change the words, but our bodies are balanced by our inner ears, which rely on gravity.
Ever felt the change in pressure inside your ears?
Sure you have. You've been in a plane or dropped down a steep bank in a car or bus, right?
No gravity, just atmospheric pressure upon your person.

*

Triangles

  • 63
  • +0/-0
  • Forgot my old account, but i'm back.
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #82 on: December 14, 2016, 06:37:19 AM »
Am I correct in assuming then, that things don't have an inherent mass, their mass is determined by density and the amount of the atmosphere it displaces?
Basically, yes.
But... but... density is dependent on mass...
How would we know density without mass?

Also, you are right, mass is determined on density and the amount of atmosphere.
Density * displacement of volume is mass. We just don't normally compute it that direction.

It's great to know you are slowly learning physics.
Quote from:  rabinoz
::) Sandokhanian Science  ::).
Ah yes, I majored in this.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #83 on: December 14, 2016, 06:42:58 AM »
Please explain to me HOW a scalar can move you in one direction, and doesn't act equally over a surface area.
Explain how pressure pushes on one side of an object, but not the other.
Give me some examples so I know where you're going with this.


Also, I would feel a "push down" on the upper half of myself if it were air pressure holding me down, which I believe everyone is in agreement that we don't perceive this feeling.
Ok here's an explanation. Let's see how perceptive you are.

If I planted a back pack on your back, you would feel it.
However, if I put the entire density of that back pack all over your entire body with paint, you wouldn't really take too much time worrying about being burdened with that extra density.

Can you see what I'm saying?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #84 on: December 14, 2016, 06:45:57 AM »
Am I correct in assuming then, that things don't have an inherent mass, their mass is determined by density and the amount of the atmosphere it displaces?
Basically, yes.
But... but... density is dependent on mass...
How would we know density without mass?

Also, you are right, mass is determined on density and the amount of atmosphere.
Density * displacement of volume is mass. We just don't normally compute it that direction.

It's great to know you are slowly learning physics.
Now if you could try to learn the proper way, you will find out that gravity is complete and utter bullshit.
Keep thinking and you have a chance of getting there.
Slack off and you go back to the start, which renders you obsolete, in the world of reality..

*

Triangles

  • 63
  • +0/-0
  • Forgot my old account, but i'm back.
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #85 on: December 14, 2016, 07:05:34 AM »
Please explain to me HOW a scalar can move you in one direction, and doesn't act equally over a surface area.
Explain how pressure pushes on one side of an object, but not the other.
Give me some examples so I know where you're going with this.

Pressure acts equally over the surface area of a body! It provides equal force perpendicular at every point of an object. I have been saying the same thing.

It is hard to some up with any examples because they all involve being on earth, where gravity affects things

Ok, let's say I'm in the ocean, sinking. If I continue to sink, I will feel more and more of a crushing force pushing inward on my body considering as I sink, there is more and more water above me.

But, despite this, my velocity does not increase as I move further down, as buoyant force and drag work in opposition.

In your case, saying pressure is the force pushing downward, the increasing amount of water above me should continue to accelerate me and overcome the terminal velocity of a body in water.

Conceptually, pressure working as gravity doesn't make sense for many reasons, but most demonstrable: An object in free fall would continue to overcome drag, and terminal velocity wouldn't exist.

Your rationale for why air pressure pushes downwards is that all the air above you weighs down upon you. Ignoring the question of what is holding the air down, the principle upon which you base your rationale is flawed, I recommend you research Pascal's Law

Also, I would feel a "push down" on the upper half of myself if it were air pressure holding me down, which I believe everyone is in agreement that we don't perceive this feeling.
Ok here's an explanation. Let's see how perceptive you are.

If I planted a back pack on your back, you would feel it.
However, if I put the entire density of that back pack all over your entire body with paint, you wouldn't really take too much time worrying about being burdened with that extra density.

Can you see what I'm saying?

I understand what you mean, but there is a flaw in your analogy.

Pressure acts perpendicular inwards to the surface of the object. If pressure were pushing downwards, it would have to only act on the surfaces that point upwards, like the top of the shoulders and the top of the head. That would result in a net force downwards but that's not how pressure works.

The paint doesn't simulate pressure, it all pulls downward uniformly, resulting in a net force.

Understand?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 07:09:42 AM by Triangles »
Quote from:  rabinoz
::) Sandokhanian Science  ::).
Ah yes, I majored in this.

*

Triangles

  • 63
  • +0/-0
  • Forgot my old account, but i'm back.
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #86 on: December 14, 2016, 07:06:55 AM »
Am I correct in assuming then, that things don't have an inherent mass, their mass is determined by density and the amount of the atmosphere it displaces?
Basically, yes.
But... but... density is dependent on mass...
How would we know density without mass?

Also, you are right, mass is determined on density and the amount of atmosphere.
Density * displacement of volume is mass. We just don't normally compute it that direction.

It's great to know you are slowly learning physics.
Now if you could try to learn the proper way, you will find out that gravity is complete and utter bullshit.
Keep thinking and you have a chance of getting there.
Slack off and you go back to the start, which renders you obsolete, in the world of reality..

The proper way to calculate density?

Please demonstrate calculating density without mass...
Quote from:  rabinoz
::) Sandokhanian Science  ::).
Ah yes, I majored in this.

*

The Real Celine Dion

  • 4423
  • +0/-0
  • Use as directed
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #87 on: December 14, 2016, 07:18:16 AM »
Cycles can predict WHEN an eclipse will happen, but can't predict WHERE it will. Knowledge of orbital mechanics lets us predict exactly where they will occur.

Thanks Al. Your scientific knowledge truly knows no bounds. Are they hiring at Umbrella Corp?
I believe we have an opening for Guinea Pig #2449976443
You just got Weskered, bitches!

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • +0/-2
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #88 on: December 14, 2016, 08:34:19 AM »
I'm going to try to explain it a bit more clearly.

If I understand your idea correctly, it means that we're stuck to this earth due to a downward buoyancy-like force caused by the atmosphere. Right?
That would mean that if we were to make a chamber and seal it off entirely, and then lower the pressure by removing air from inside the chamber, this downward buoyancy should decrease, approaching the point where there is no force pulling any object inside the chamber down. Which is what I mean with weightlessness.

Not to mention that regular buoyancy is the result of gravity, so I'm curious how you think the atmosphere exerts pressure on us.
What is weightlessness to you?
This might seem like a silly question but trust me it's pertinent.
Just tell me what weightlessness is to you and how you can understand it in a physical sense.
As for your regular buoyancy being the result of gravity. Prove to me that gravity is a force.
The more you hang on to this the more you lose the chance of actually grasping the  fact, at least, of gravity being a massive con job. Which also means you'll never understand what I'm telling you. Assuming you do, which I'm sceptical about.
Weightlessness = not being affected by the downward-pulling force/acceleration that is usually exerted on us, i.e. keeps us on the ground.

I can't prove gravity; nobody can prove or disprove it, all we can do is present evidence that it may be true. For example, correlations have been made between density of the earth's crust and gravity anomalies: gravity is stronger where the rocks under your feet have a higher density. Gravity also explains the orbits in space of for example planets around suns or moons around planets or rings around planets, which are all observable.

In the end, there is a downward acceleration that does not lower in a chamber with an artificially lowered pressure.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #89 on: December 14, 2016, 08:49:12 AM »
I'm going to try to explain it a bit more clearly.

If I understand your idea correctly, it means that we're stuck to this earth due to a downward buoyancy-like force caused by the atmosphere. Right?
That would mean that if we were to make a chamber and seal it off entirely, and then lower the pressure by removing air from inside the chamber, this downward buoyancy should decrease, approaching the point where there is no force pulling any object inside the chamber down. Which is what I mean with weightlessness.

Not to mention that regular buoyancy is the result of gravity, so I'm curious how you think the atmosphere exerts pressure on us.
What is weightlessness to you?
This might seem like a silly question but trust me it's pertinent.
Just tell me what weightlessness is to you and how you can understand it in a physical sense.
As for your regular buoyancy being the result of gravity. Prove to me that gravity is a force.
The more you hang on to this the more you lose the chance of actually grasping the  fact, at least, of gravity being a massive con job. Which also means you'll never understand what I'm telling you. Assuming you do, which I'm sceptical about.
Weightlessness = not being affected by the downward-pulling force/acceleration that is usually exerted on us, i.e. keeps us on the ground.

I can't prove gravity; nobody can prove or disprove it, all we can do is present evidence that it may be true. For example, correlations have been made between density of the earth's crust and gravity anomalies: gravity is stronger where the rocks under your feet have a higher density. Gravity also explains the orbits in space of for example planets around suns or moons around planets or rings around planets, which are all observable.

In the end, there is a downward acceleration that does not lower in a chamber with an artificially lowered pressure.
What is weightlessness to you?