Air Pressure vs Gravity

Imagine you are in an upside down pool. Now you have to jump up. As you do this you know you have to push the water out of your way but you also know that you've pushed your own dense mass of water out of the way and that dense mass of water has pushed right back onto you, along with the mass of water above you. You get pushed back down just like you do in the atmosphere.

Scepti, you know, you could save yourself a LOT of time and effort if you would make a thread or website, or whatever method you choose, and link people to it.
In this thread, you could have diagrams and demonstrations better showing what you're trying to say. You could provide the mathematics involved. Kind of like an FAQ. I'm sure you are asked the same questions over and over, by different people over time. Instead of repeating yourself, you could link to these drawings, diagrams, experiments you've done, etc and save a lot of time, wouldn't you think?

Scepti, you know, you could save yourself a LOT of time and effort if you would make a thread or website, or whatever method you choose, and link people to it.
In this thread, you could have diagrams and demonstrations better showing what you're trying to say. You could provide the mathematics involved. Kind of like an FAQ. I'm sure you are asked the same questions over and over, by different people over time. Instead of repeating yourself, you could link to these drawings, diagrams, experiments you've done, etc and save a lot of time, wouldn't you think?

I'm just waiting for those that have a real genuine interest in wiping gravity from the scientific world

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 23, 2016, 06:02:41 AM

Imagine you are in an upside down pool. Now you have to jump up. As you do this you know you have to push the water out of your way but you also know that you've pushed your own dense mass of water out of the way and that dense mass of water has pushed right back onto you, along with the mass of water above you. You get pushed back down just like you do in the atmosphere.

What pools have you been in?

Every time I push myself up from the bottom of a pool, I stay at the surface.

Even if you flip the pool upside down, I still make my way to the top because my body floats, just like most people

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on December 23, 2016, 09:45:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 23, 2016, 06:02:41 AM

Imagine you are in an upside down pool. Now you have to jump up. As you do this you know you have to push the water out of your way but you also know that you've pushed your own dense mass of water out of the way and that dense mass of water has pushed right back onto you, along with the mass of water above you. You get pushed back down just like you do in the atmosphere.

What pools have you been in?

Every time I push myself up from the bottom of a pool, I stay at the surface.

Even if you flip the pool upside down, I still make my way to the top because my body floats, just like most people

You just don't appear to have the common sense to grasp this stuff, do you?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 23, 2016, 01:32:04 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on December 23, 2016, 09:45:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 23, 2016, 06:02:41 AM

Imagine you are in an upside down pool. Now you have to jump up. As you do this you know you have to push the water out of your way but you also know that you've pushed your own dense mass of water out of the way and that dense mass of water has pushed right back onto you, along with the mass of water above you. You get pushed back down just like you do in the atmosphere.

What pools have you been in?

Every time I push myself up from the bottom of a pool, I stay at the surface.

Even if you flip the pool upside down, I still make my way to the top because my body floats, just like most people

You just don't appear to have the common sense to grasp this stuff, do you?

Perhaps he just doesn't have enough experience working with upside down pools? Unlike you, of course...

Scepti we were having a lovely discussion about ripples of superfluid distorting the reflected light of the dome, but I think it got buried. Could we continue this discussion?

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on December 22, 2016, 02:44:55 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 22, 2016, 10:42:18 AM

Don't forget that the sun reflection moves around the dome and changes elements as it does.

That's the point exactly. Due to varying atmospheric conditions, the physical makeup of the dome is constantly in flux.

When the dome is at its coldest, it forms a solid wall.

At warmer temperatures, the dome can become liquid, forming natural rivers.

My question is, shouldn't there be some way to verify if this is happening or not?

Against the innumerable stars in the night sky, surely one of those reflected points of light would ripple across the surface of a river of superfluid?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 22, 2016, 12:16:05 AM

The dome would be like clear glass

Have you seen rivulets of water on clear glass? They cause visual distortions.

You just don't appear to have the common sense to grasp this stuff, do you?
It's no wonder you people are like you are...unless of course you are doing this deliberately.
It's possible...who knows?
Who knows anything about anyone on here?
Maybe those that really know what's going on, eh?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 23, 2016, 01:32:04 PM

You just don't appear to have the common sense to grasp this stuff, do you?
It's no wonder you people are like you are...unless of course you are doing this deliberately.
It's possible...who knows?
Who knows anything about anyone on here?
Maybe those that really know what's going on, eh?

Why are you so upset?

I am asking simple questions.

Even if you turn a swimming pool upside down, buoyancy laws apply. I would float to the top of the system.

To keep me at the bottom of a pool, you would have to reverse the laws of buoyancy, not simply "turn the pool upside down".

Math truly is the language of the universe, and it speaks a common tongue among such subjects as physics, chemistry, music,  pretty much everything really. The best thing about it is that it doesn't lie.

Quote from: IonSpen on December 23, 2016, 11:50:38 AM

Math truly is the language of the universe, and it speaks a common tongue among such subjects as physics, chemistry, music,  pretty much everything really. The best thing about it is that it doesn't lie.

Just because math doesn't "lie" doesn't mean that theories supported by intricate mathematics are necessarily true. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explains in his article “How Economists Got It So Wrong,” "the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth." Also, virtually all competing theories in academia are supported by solid math, and they can't all possibly be true.

The intricacy of a theory's mathematical underpinnings (or lack thereof) is not necessarily a measure of its veracity.

I think you are misunderstanding the nature of mathematics. Proven mathematic theories that are beyond doubt are one thing, like the irrationality of root 2.....mathematics that are used as a tool to provide a guess in a field like economics is quite another.

Then who will listen to your inane psycho babble?

psy·cho·bab·ble
ˈsīkōˌbabəl/Submit
nouninformalderogatory
jargon used in popular psychology.

Quote from: IonSpen on December 23, 2016, 11:50:38 AM

Math truly is the language of the universe, and it speaks a common tongue among such subjects as physics, chemistry, music,  pretty much everything really. The best thing about it is that it doesn't lie.

Just because math doesn't "lie" doesn't mean that theories supported by intricate mathematics are necessarily true. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explains in his article “How Economists Got It So Wrong,” "the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth." Also, virtually all competing theories in academia are supported by solid math, and they can't all possibly be true.

The intricacy of a theory's mathematical underpinnings (or lack thereof) is not necessarily a measure of its veracity.

Quote from: IonSpen on December 23, 2016, 11:50:38 AM

Math truly is the language of the universe, and it speaks a common tongue among such subjects as physics, chemistry, music,  pretty much everything really. The best thing about it is that it doesn't lie.

Just because math doesn't "lie" doesn't mean that theories supported by intricate mathematics are necessarily true. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explains in his article “How Economists Got It So Wrong,” "the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth." Also, virtually all competing theories in academia are supported by solid math, and they can't all possibly be true.

The intricacy of a theory's mathematical underpinnings (or lack thereof) is not necessarily a measure of its veracity.

OK, I get what you're saying. But those theories do have math backing them up, right?

Are you maybe saying denspressure doesn't require maths? If it indeed does,
maybe you could demonstrate some of the simpler, less intricate formulas or equations?

And thank you for saying this - Also, virtually all competing theories in academia are supported by solid math
Denspressure would have to adhere to this.

Mathematics doesnt 'prove' a hypothesis. It is used to accurately DESCRIBE a hypothesis.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on December 23, 2016, 04:26:43 PM

Then who will listen to your inane psycho babble?

Quote

psy·cho·bab·ble
ˈsīkōˌbabəl/Submit
nouninformalderogatory
jargon used in popular psychology.

I don't believe he's acting like a wannabe psychologist here. Maybe pick another term to insult him with, lmao.

I may be wrong on that.

How about "psychotic babbling"?

You just don't appear to have the common sense to grasp this stuff, do you?

....

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”

Quote from: IonSpen on December 23, 2016, 05:30:37 PM

I may be wrong on that.

Prove it.

it would require hours of sifting through Sceptimatic's short, unfocused posts.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on December 23, 2016, 09:44:52 PM

it would require hours of sifting through Sceptimatic's short, unfocused posts.

Does it really require that much reading to get the gist of "denpressure?" Density and pressure, instead of gravity, account for the observed behavior of matter. This is the necessary and sufficient definition of "denpressure." The elimination of inertia need not be included.

I'm barely a recent lurker, and I can still easily grok this.

Haha OK friend. Try telling Scepti that inertia exists.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on December 23, 2016, 11:04:59 PM

Haha OK friend. Try telling Scepti that inertia exists.

sceptimatic isn't the only, or even original, adherent of this "denpressure" concept.

There’s no need to hold up a dome. The dome rests on the atmosphere as a final ice build of helium and other light elements in a sort of fully expanded sort of dormant state, which is the reason it became ice, anyway.

It’s a ground build up of super dense matter that expands from the bottom to the top in a push on push motion. There is no pull, except in the word we use to view what we see as pull.
The truth is, nothing pulls – it pushes.
No gravity needed. Gravity simply does not exist.

Air pressure is responsible for what happens to everything on Earth. There is nothing we can see – past the ice dome, except blackness to our perception, as beyond the ice dome, it is really a true vacuum.