Air Pressure vs Gravity

Now here's something to think about.
Bi-metal strips or springs or metal in any form, distorts by expansion and contraction. It does this due to a change in pressure by friction.

Just get into that brain of yours! Metals are almost completely impervious to gases. Thats a fact, whatever that fantasy factory of yours imagines.

So your claim that any distortion of "Bi-metal strips or springs or metal in any form" is "due to a change in pressure by friction" in complete balderdash!

I know you won't bother to even read what I say, as you are somehow completely brainwashed into denying every bit of physics,  chemistry and metallurgy.

Scales vary in type but I would have thought that most spring or strain gauge based scales would indicate an object decreasing in weight for increased atmospheric pressure and vice-versa, due to the change in buoyancy for the weighed object.

For balance scales it would depend on the relative densities of the weighed object and the comparison weights.

Quote from: Lonegranger on December 18, 2016, 01:03:00 AM

But scales do not measure changes in air pressure...go read the literature.

I have a large print simplified version if you would prefer?

Please.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70231/effect-of-atmospheric-pressure-on-reading-of-a-weighing-scale

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/effect-of-air-pressure-on-weight.644707/

http://nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/atmospheric-pressure/

Fresh noobs are the best noobs.

Please explain the relevance of any of that to what Sceppy was claiming. Yes, it is quite true that an object will weigh slightly less in a near vacuum,
but the effect is very small as air has a mass of about 1.225 kg/m³ and iron has a mass of 7,850 kg/m³.
But, that's not what Sceppy says anyway.

That National Geographic reference in particular has nothing to do with the case.
,
As Lonegranger said "But scales do not measure changes in air pressure." Even Tonto would know that!
Neither mass comparison balances nor spring (or strain gauge) type scales are significantly affected.

Still I guess disputeone always has to try to create a dispute where none exists.

I hate it when I have to spell it out for you Rab, I know you are bright but people get so single track minded here.

scales do not measure changes in air pressure.

Yes, it is quite true that an object will weigh slightly less in a near vacuum,
but the effect is very small as air has a mass of about 1.225 kg/m³ and iron has a mass of 7,850 kg/m³

So scales will measure changes in air pressure.

That National Geographic reference in particular has nothing to do with the case.

Can't hurt to read it tho.

Still I guess disputeone always has to try to create a dispute where none exists.

5/10 unoriginal, but true I guess.

Edit, messed up quotes.

I hate it when I have to spell it out for you Rab, I know you are bright but people get so single track minded here.

And I'm not that keen on people creating "a dispute where none exists."

Quote from: Hermione on December 18, 2016, 01:03:00 AM

scales do not measure changes in air pressure.

Quite true, "scales do not measure changes in air pressure".

Quote from: rabinoz on December 18, 2016, 02:15:43 AM

Yes, it is quite true that an object will weigh slightly less in a near vacuum,
but the effect is very small as air has a mass of about 1.225 kg/m³ and iron has a mass of 7,850 kg/m³

So scales will measure changes in air pressure.

No, they might just detect the slight change in weight of an object, but as Hermione quite correctly said, the scales alone "do not measure changes in air pressure".

The best scales I have would just detect that 1 part in 7,000 (they weigh 7 kg by 1 gm and another will weigh 300 gm by 0.1 gm).
I know there are scales with better resolution, but not many in domestic use.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 18, 2016, 02:15:43 AM

That National Geographic reference, in particular, has nothing to do with the case.

Can't hurt to read it tho.

Guess not, but with all Sceppy's science fantasy, we hardly need more quite unnecessary complexity.

Maybe I could rename myself  "DisputeToo"  !

Often imitated, never copied.

http://www.dshop.com.au/buy/diamond-milligram-digital-precision-pocket-scale-i/4042?gclid=CIHczq3s_dACFQonvQod5Z4D-g

http://www.dshop.com.au/buy/200g-0.01g-digital-precision-pocket-scale/4108-200?gclid=CKLSr9zs_dACFc0IKgodcR8Gcg

Calibrate the scale in a vacuum, then place the scale in an ordinary room, or vice versa, what has caused the change on the scale?

It doesn't prove the earths flat, if it makes you feel better.

Quote from: Boots on December 13, 2016, 10:48:23 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.

Well I don't know if others have asked this question as some sort of "tactic" but I can assure you that there are no hidden strategies or tactics behind my questions. I have been very up front with you about this. I don't believe in the denpressure idea, but I want to know more about why you think it is an adequate explanation for the observations usually attributed to gravity. And BTW, let's just assume that I am a little simple and I have been brainwashed, how sad etc. etc. Having established that, perhaps we can focus more on the actual topic.

I have not seen a good explanation for why the earth is the bottom of the atmosphere stack. The floor isn't the bottom of a stack because we perceive it to be and because of dictionary definitions. Rather, our perceptions and dictionary definitions are formed because of what we have observed. I have not seen any real reason why I shouldn't be able to start a stack on the ceiling if I like, according to the denpressure idea, especially since the air pressure should be slightly lower at the ceiling than it is at the floor.

Also, would you kindly direct me to a repeatable experiment or two, which you feel best demonstrates how denpressure causes the effects usually attributed to gravity?

But scales do not measure changes in air pressure...

That's right, devices that measure changes in air pressure are called barometers.

Quote from: Boots on December 19, 2016, 01:37:29 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2016, 11:57:10 PM

Quote from: Boots on December 13, 2016, 10:48:23 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.

Well I don't know if others have asked this question as some sort of "tactic" but I can assure you that there are no hidden strategies or tactics behind my questions. I have been very up front with you about this. I don't believe in the denpressure idea, but I want to know more about why you think it is an adequate explanation for the observations usually attributed to gravity. And BTW, let's just assume that I am a little simple and I have been brainwashed, how sad etc. etc. Having established that, perhaps we can focus more on the actual topic.

I have not seen a good explanation for why the earth is the bottom of the atmosphere stack. The floor isn't the bottom of a stack because we perceive it to be and because of dictionary definitions. Rather, our perceptions and dictionary definitions are formed because of what we have observed. I have not seen any real reason why I shouldn't be able to start a stack on the ceiling if I like, according to the denpressure idea, especially since the air pressure should be slightly lower at the ceiling than it is at the floor.

Also, would you kindly direct me to a repeatable experiment or two, which you feel best demonstrates how denpressure causes the effects usually attributed to gravity?

There's plenty of explanations that more than explain denpressure but naturally you are under the gravity assumption, so stick to your thoughts on it.
I'm not going to explain to someone who has no intention of bothering to understand it.

Well I really am trying to understand it. There may be plenty of explanations that more than explain some aspects of denpressure but the only reasons given in this thread for the air and objects gravitating toward the floor are dictionary definitions and human perceptions about which direction is down. These are not causes but effects.

Also, I was hoping you would point me to an experiment or two.

Cheers.

Boots.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2016, 11:20:43 PM

Quote from: Boots on December 19, 2016, 01:37:29 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2016, 11:57:10 PM

Quote from: Boots on December 13, 2016, 10:48:23 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.

Well I don't know if others have asked this question as some sort of "tactic" but I can assure you that there are no hidden strategies or tactics behind my questions. I have been very up front with you about this. I don't believe in the denpressure idea, but I want to know more about why you think it is an adequate explanation for the observations usually attributed to gravity. And BTW, let's just assume that I am a little simple and I have been brainwashed, how sad etc. etc. Having established that, perhaps we can focus more on the actual topic.

I have not seen a good explanation for why the earth is the bottom of the atmosphere stack. The floor isn't the bottom of a stack because we perceive it to be and because of dictionary definitions. Rather, our perceptions and dictionary definitions are formed because of what we have observed. I have not seen any real reason why I shouldn't be able to start a stack on the ceiling if I like, according to the denpressure idea, especially since the air pressure should be slightly lower at the ceiling than it is at the floor.

Also, would you kindly direct me to a repeatable experiment or two, which you feel best demonstrates how denpressure causes the effects usually attributed to gravity?

There's plenty of explanations that more than explain denpressure but naturally you are under the gravity assumption, so stick to your thoughts on it.
I'm not going to explain to someone who has no intention of bothering to understand it.

Well I really am trying to understand it. There may be plenty of explanations that more than explain some aspects of denpressure but the only reasons given in this thread for the air and objects gravitating toward the floor are dictionary definitions and human perceptions about which direction is down. These are not causes but effects.

Also, I was hoping you would point me to an experiment or two.

Cheers.

Boots.

There's plenty of explanations that more than explain denpressure but naturally you are under the gravity assumption, so stick to your thoughts on it.
I'm not going to explain to someone who has no intention of bothering to understand it.

Quote from: Boots on December 19, 2016, 11:40:23 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2016, 11:20:43 PM

Quote from: Boots on December 19, 2016, 01:37:29 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2016, 11:57:10 PM

Quote from: Boots on December 13, 2016, 10:48:23 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.

Well I don't know if others have asked this question as some sort of "tactic" but I can assure you that there are no hidden strategies or tactics behind my questions. I have been very up front with you about this. I don't believe in the denpressure idea, but I want to know more about why you think it is an adequate explanation for the observations usually attributed to gravity. And BTW, let's just assume that I am a little simple and I have been brainwashed, how sad etc. etc. Having established that, perhaps we can focus more on the actual topic.

I have not seen a good explanation for why the earth is the bottom of the atmosphere stack. The floor isn't the bottom of a stack because we perceive it to be and because of dictionary definitions. Rather, our perceptions and dictionary definitions are formed because of what we have observed. I have not seen any real reason why I shouldn't be able to start a stack on the ceiling if I like, according to the denpressure idea, especially since the air pressure should be slightly lower at the ceiling than it is at the floor.

Also, would you kindly direct me to a repeatable experiment or two, which you feel best demonstrates how denpressure causes the effects usually attributed to gravity?

There's plenty of explanations that more than explain denpressure but naturally you are under the gravity assumption, so stick to your thoughts on it.
I'm not going to explain to someone who has no intention of bothering to understand it.

Well I really am trying to understand it. There may be plenty of explanations that more than explain some aspects of denpressure but the only reasons given in this thread for the air and objects gravitating toward the floor are dictionary definitions and human perceptions about which direction is down. These are not causes but effects.

Also, I was hoping you would point me to an experiment or two.

Cheers.

Boots.

There's plenty of explanations that more than explain denpressure but naturally you are under the gravity assumption, so stick to your thoughts on it.
I'm not going to explain to someone who has no intention of bothering to understand it.

Alright then. Thanks for your time!

There's plenty of explanations that more than explain denpressure ...

Are any of those explanations the least bit useful for engineers?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2016, 11:43:12 PM

There's plenty of explanations that more than explain denpressure ...

Are any of those explanations the least bit useful for engineers?

They must be because it's used every day but naturally just worked under another guise.

Quote from: markjo on December 20, 2016, 05:31:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2016, 11:43:12 PM

There's plenty of explanations that more than explain denpressure ...

Are any of those explanations the least bit useful for engineers?

They must be because it's used every day but naturally just worked under another guise.

Then please explain denpressure so that an engineer would understand it.

Quote from: markjo on December 20, 2016, 05:31:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2016, 11:43:12 PM

There's plenty of explanations that more than explain denpressure ...

Are any of those explanations the least bit useful for engineers?

They must be because it's used every day but naturally just worked under another guise.

But that's just not the case.  Your stacking theory doesn't work without some other force pulling things downward.  Pressure applies from all angles equally, it doesn't just push down without an external force.  It also doesn't hold up when we can see that weight does not change when air pressure does.
Again, sorry, but your theory simply doesn't match actual observations.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 20, 2016, 05:43:52 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 20, 2016, 05:31:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2016, 11:43:12 PM

There's plenty of explanations that more than explain denpressure ...

Are any of those explanations the least bit useful for engineers?

They must be because it's used every day but naturally just worked under another guise.

Then please explain denpressure so that an engineer would understand it.

They understand it fine. It's just sold with a different name added to it. A name that is just an added fiction.
If you can show me how engineers use the fictional gravity then show me, or tell me what they use and how it works.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 20, 2016, 05:43:52 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 20, 2016, 05:31:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2016, 11:43:12 PM

There's plenty of explanations that more than explain denpressure ...

Are any of those explanations the least bit useful for engineers?

They must be because it's used every day but naturally just worked under another guise.

But that's just not the case.  Your stacking theory doesn't work without some other force pulling things downward.  Pressure applies from all angles equally, it doesn't just push down without an external force.  It also doesn't hold up when we can see that weight does not change when air pressure does.
Again, sorry, but your theory simply doesn't match actual observations.

Let me put this to you and see if you can grasp it.
If air pressure changes affect your ears then you know change is in effect just by that sense, right?
If a beach ball or balloon inflates or deflates to your sight then you know there's been an air pressure change, right?
Everything under the atmospheric stack in under pressure and  when that atmospheric stack changes pressure due to the energy movement around the dome, then the dome expands and shrinks as and when this happens.
It creates a pressure change upon anything and that includes scales.

Whatever operates the scale mechanism is under change from atmospheric pressure changes just the same as everything.

Nope, that doesn't explain it.

If the air pressure decreases why doesn't this decrease the impact I am having on the scales? Why am I not I lighter when it's raining?

Quote from: markjo on December 20, 2016, 06:15:53 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 20, 2016, 05:43:52 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 20, 2016, 05:31:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2016, 11:43:12 PM

There's plenty of explanations that more than explain denpressure ...

Are any of those explanations the least bit useful for engineers?

They must be because it's used every day but naturally just worked under another guise.

Then please explain denpressure so that an engineer would understand it.

They understand it fine. It's just sold with a different name added to it. A name that is just an added fiction.

Engineers understand pressure just fine and they understand density just fine.  They don't understand how density and pressure act like gravity.

If you can show me how engineers use the fictional gravity then show me, or tell me what they use and how it works.

It's not so much that they use gravity much beyond explaining why things with mass have weight.  It's more that pressure and density don't work the way that you explain them.

If atmospheric pressure is pushing things down, then the weight of things should change as atmospheric pressure changes.  This simply does not happen as can easily be proven by putting a weight on a scale in a vacuum chamber and removing the air.

I strongly urge you to perform this trivially simple experiment yourself to see if real world observations agree or disagree with your "theory".

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 20, 2016, 06:46:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 20, 2016, 05:43:52 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 20, 2016, 05:31:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2016, 11:43:12 PM

There's plenty of explanations that more than explain denpressure ...

Are any of those explanations the least bit useful for engineers?

They must be because it's used every day but naturally just worked under another guise.

But that's just not the case.  Your stacking theory doesn't work without some other force pulling things downward.  Pressure applies from all angles equally, it doesn't just push down without an external force.  It also doesn't hold up when we can see that weight does not change when air pressure does.
Again, sorry, but your theory simply doesn't match actual observations.

Let me put this to you and see if you can grasp it.
If air pressure changes affect your ears then you know change is in effect just by that sense, right?
If a beach ball or balloon inflates or deflates to your sight then you know there's been an air pressure change, right?
Everything under the atmospheric stack in under pressure and  when that atmospheric stack changes pressure due to the energy movement around the dome, then the dome expands and shrinks as and when this happens.
It creates a pressure change upon anything and that includes scales.

Whatever operates the scale mechanism is under change from atmospheric pressure changes just the same as everything.

As I said I travel a lot between altitudes so I have seen that effect.  But it affects all sides equally, not just from the top.  That's why your theory doesn't work.  No one is saying atmospheric pressure doesn't have an effect, it just doesn't have the one you describe.  It doesn't explain why my weight doesn't change when the pressure change.  And it doesn't explain the stacking effect you mention.  You need some kind of external force for that.

If I'm understanding Scepti right, he claims the external force acting upon the atmosphere is the dome expanding and contracting. Now how that is possible without it breaking (it's frozen) or us knowing about it, I cannot say. But, I will say, if there were a dome, and it contracted and expanded, it would be equally the world over. Meaning higher pressure or lower pressure all at the same time. And of course this isn't happening, just compare the global weather.

Nope, that doesn't explain it.

If the air pressure decreases why doesn't this decrease the impact I am having on the scales? Why am I not I lighter when it's raining?

Why would you be lighter when it's raining

Engineers understand pressure just fine and they understand density just fine.  They don't understand how density and pressure act like gravity.

So tell me how they build by using gravity. It appears that you can't do it.

It's not so much that they use gravity much beyond explaining why things with mass have weight.  It's more that pressure and density don't work the way that you explain them.

So they don't use gravity then?

If atmospheric pressure is pushing things down, then the weight of things should change as atmospheric pressure changes.  This simply does not happen as can easily be proven by putting a weight on a scale in a vacuum chamber and removing the air.

Nobody has legitimately tested it out and that speaks volumes to me.
I call on any legitimate flat Earth theorist or any alternate Earth theorist or even just a global questioner to do some tests in a decent evacuation chamber.

I strongly urge you to perform this trivially simple experiment yourself to see if real world observations agree or disagree with your "theory".

I've already done it and I'll wait till others do it as well to see what comes up for them. It should be interesting if nothing else for you globalists...well, at least the genuine one's that are only following mass opinion and are potentially open to possible change.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 20, 2016, 07:33:57 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 20, 2016, 06:46:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 20, 2016, 05:43:52 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 20, 2016, 05:31:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2016, 11:43:12 PM

There's plenty of explanations that more than explain denpressure ...

Are any of those explanations the least bit useful for engineers?

They must be because it's used every day but naturally just worked under another guise.

But that's just not the case.  Your stacking theory doesn't work without some other force pulling things downward.  Pressure applies from all angles equally, it doesn't just push down without an external force.  It also doesn't hold up when we can see that weight does not change when air pressure does.
Again, sorry, but your theory simply doesn't match actual observations.

Let me put this to you and see if you can grasp it.
If air pressure changes affect your ears then you know change is in effect just by that sense, right?
If a beach ball or balloon inflates or deflates to your sight then you know there's been an air pressure change, right?
Everything under the atmospheric stack in under pressure and  when that atmospheric stack changes pressure due to the energy movement around the dome, then the dome expands and shrinks as and when this happens.
It creates a pressure change upon anything and that includes scales.

Whatever operates the scale mechanism is under change from atmospheric pressure changes just the same as everything.

As I said I travel a lot between altitudes so I have seen that effect.  But it affects all sides equally, not just from the top.  That's why your theory doesn't work.  No one is saying atmospheric pressure doesn't have an effect, it just doesn't have the one you describe.  It doesn't explain why my weight doesn't change when the pressure change.  And it doesn't explain the stacking effect you mention.  You need some kind of external force for that.

Then just leave it at that. Your mind is fully made up for global and its trimmings, so by all means stick to it like glue. It changes nothing from my side.

If I'm understanding Scepti right, he claims the external force acting upon the atmosphere is the dome expanding and contracting. Now how that is possible without it breaking (it's frozen) or us knowing about it, I cannot say. But, I will say, if there were a dome, and it contracted and expanded, it would be equally the world over. Meaning higher pressure or lower pressure all at the same time. And of course this isn't happening, just compare the global weather.

No it wouldn't be the same at all. You have mountains and all kinds of elevation s under this dome. You have land mass that is spread all around it from outer to inner.

Just remember that the inside of a dome will thicken as the energy source (central sun) moves around and away from it by process of hydrogen/helium, etc changes from gas to liquid to ice and then reversing that as the energy source breaks up that element.

To get an idea, just think of an ice build up in a freezer roof and then imagine changing the molecule agitation on it by switching off the freezer and opening the door. It defrosts to us.
We see droplets of water and also water sliding down.
Change that to a dome and just change it to a different kind of ice in terms of density and you create a whole lot of changes that we see and feel from below.

Your dome cannot exist of hydrogen and helium liquid or even solid, due to the lack of needing to be being pressurized, and the extreme cold being necessary.

Your dome cannot exist of hydrogen and helium liquid or even solid, due to the lack of needing to be being pressurized, and the extreme cold being necessary.

Just because you state something doesnt make it true. I remember when there were only three states of matter. You dont know everything ionspen, don't act like you do.

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 20, 2016, 10:23:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 20, 2016, 07:33:57 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 20, 2016, 06:46:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 20, 2016, 05:43:52 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 20, 2016, 05:31:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 19, 2016, 11:43:12 PM

There's plenty of explanations that more than explain denpressure ...

Are any of those explanations the least bit useful for engineers?

They must be because it's used every day but naturally just worked under another guise.

But that's just not the case.  Your stacking theory doesn't work without some other force pulling things downward.  Pressure applies from all angles equally, it doesn't just push down without an external force.  It also doesn't hold up when we can see that weight does not change when air pressure does.
Again, sorry, but your theory simply doesn't match actual observations.

Let me put this to you and see if you can grasp it.
If air pressure changes affect your ears then you know change is in effect just by that sense, right?
If a beach ball or balloon inflates or deflates to your sight then you know there's been an air pressure change, right?
Everything under the atmospheric stack in under pressure and  when that atmospheric stack changes pressure due to the energy movement around the dome, then the dome expands and shrinks as and when this happens.
It creates a pressure change upon anything and that includes scales.

Whatever operates the scale mechanism is under change from atmospheric pressure changes just the same as everything.

As I said I travel a lot between altitudes so I have seen that effect.  But it affects all sides equally, not just from the top.  That's why your theory doesn't work.  No one is saying atmospheric pressure doesn't have an effect, it just doesn't have the one you describe.  It doesn't explain why my weight doesn't change when the pressure change.  And it doesn't explain the stacking effect you mention.  You need some kind of external force for that.

Then just leave it at that. Your mind is fully made up for global and its trimmings, so by all means stick to it like glue. It changes nothing from my side.

So how do you get this stacking effect without some external force?  And why does pressure push down, instead of equally in all directions?  That's exactly what happens in those examples you gave, like balloons and beach balls, or soda bottles etc.
And why is my weight not like 25% less, or more, when I am on a mountain than it is when I am at sea level.  That's about how much less air pressure there is?

Quote from: IonSpen on December 20, 2016, 02:54:03 PM

Your dome cannot exist of hydrogen and helium liquid or even solid, due to the lack of needing to be being pressurized, and the extreme cold being necessary.

Just because you state something doesnt make it true. I remember when there were only three states of matter. You dont know everything ionspen, don't act like you do.

Because I state it doesn't make it true, I agree. But that's not what makes it true. What makes it true is that it's a fact. And stating facts is stating truth. Would you agree?
It's not a secret, nor is it even debatable that Hydrogen and Helium both require extreme cooling and pressure to go from the gas state to liquid, and then solid.
But more importantly, why aren't you saying this to Scepti? He's the one saying the dome is made of liquid and solid hydrogen & helium. Just because you state something doesn't make it true.

Quote from: markjo on December 20, 2016, 10:20:37 AM

Engineers understand pressure just fine and they understand density just fine.  They don't understand how density and pressure act like gravity.

So tell me how they build by using gravity. It appears that you can't do it.

Gravity is why things have weight.  Knowing how much things weigh is pretty important to engineers.

Quote from: markjo on December 20, 2016, 10:20:37 AM

It's not so much that they use gravity much beyond explaining why things with mass have weight.  It's more that pressure and density don't work the way that you explain them.

So they don't use gravity then?

They use gravity (as well as other forms of acceleration) to determine how much things weigh.

Quote from: markjo on December 20, 2016, 10:20:37 AM

If atmospheric pressure is pushing things down, then the weight of things should change as atmospheric pressure changes.  This simply does not happen as can easily be proven by putting a weight on a scale in a vacuum chamber and removing the air.

Nobody has legitimately tested it out and that speaks volumes to me.

Yes, the fact that you are one of those who never tested it speaks volumes to me too.

I call on any legitimate flat Earth theorist or any alternate Earth theorist or even just a global questioner to do some tests in a decent evacuation chamber.

Why can't you do it yourself?  You could probably rig up a quick and dirty vacuum chamber with a mason jar and a vacuum sealer.  Not the highest quality vacuum, but it should be more than enough to test your "theory".

Quote from: markjo on December 20, 2016, 10:20:37 AM

I strongly urge you to perform this trivially simple experiment yourself to see if real world observations agree or disagree with your "theory".

I've already done it and I'll wait till others do it as well to see what comes up for them. It should be interesting if nothing else for you globalists...well, at least the genuine one's that are only following mass opinion and are potentially open to possible change.

You did?  When?  Where are the results?