Air Pressure vs Gravity

Honestly, no.

All I can tell you is what has been observed. Mass has been shown to attract mass. The reasons why are hitherto unknown. Scientists can, however, use these observations to make predictions about the known universe, such as where on Earth a solar eclipse will be visible from.

If you want to play the honest game, honestly, then how about admitting that you are merely just following what has been placed before you and you physically do not HONESTLY know if what you are following, is the truth.

Question for sceptimatic:

Suppose there is a set of balance scales in a chamber. On one side of the scales is a metal block of volume 1 litre (0.001m³) and on the other side is a block of less dense metal of volume 2 litres.

The air pressure in the chamber is 1 bar (100 kPa). The scales are in balance - indicating that both metal blocks have the same 'weight' under these conditions.

Now suppose the air pressure in the chamber is reduced to 0.5 bar. What would happen to the scales in the denpressure model? Would they remain in balance or would one side go down? Assume the scales are sensitive enough to detect a difference in weight if there is one.

Tyson is not a journalist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

His description of earth as pear shaped is not unique to him, he did not invent the concept and it is one of the most widely mis-understood comments ever made. He simply meant Earth is not a perfect sphere, which it isn't - this has been known for many many years.

Widely misunderstood, is it?
He seems to be pretty clear on what he's saying, regardless of the awake people knowing it's bullshit.

Can you tell us why air has pressure?

Air has pressure due to the stacking from the ground , up.

As Earth solid decay it creates gases, basically.
As those gases expand and push against the more dense matter they are in, they are squeezed back and are pushed UP and OUT by force of numbers of molecules of less expanded matter.

To give you a visual, it's like pouring sand onto polystyrene balls in a tub and shaking it to see that the smaller, more dense sand has tried to crush the polystyrene balls, only the polystyrene balls get pushed UP rather than being crushed.

This is happening in all forms and in all types of matter until a stack is formed.
The stack of liquids and solids is already under us and aside us but the gases are stacked up from us and create a pressure upon us as the stack builds.
The stack always has a skin on it as it builds.
Think of it like the skin on custard and imagine filling that custard bowl from underneath to stretch that skin, only for that skin to get thinner until it settles and reforms a thicker skin.

This is a similar thing, except the skin would be the last elements in the stack under the least pressure forming a skin against a true vacuum, as far as we can think of a true vacuum being.

That skin would be ice to our minds, only the ice would be hydrogen/helium, etc kind of ice that is in a constant state of stretching and deforming as the energy of Earth's suns' reflection moves over it and changing the pressure build and thus, changing the size of the dome that houses all that pressure.

Think of it like a huge bubble with a huge hand over it pushing down on it slightly and releasing slowly, then slowly pushing down again, as if it was breathing.

As this happens, you will see waters ebb and flo and also pressure changes as we see and feel them.

So simple and yet shrugged off in favour of a nonsense gravity that cannot be explained.

Question for sceptimatic:

Suppose there is a set of balance scales in a chamber. On one side of the scales is a metal block of volume 1 litre (0.001m³) and on the other side is a block of less dense metal of volume 2 litres.

The air pressure in the chamber is 1 bar (100 kPa). The scales are in balance - indicating that both metal blocks have the same 'weight' under these conditions.

Now suppose the air pressure in the chamber is reduced to 0.5 bar. What would happen to the scales in the denpressure model? Would they remain in balance or would one side go down? Assume the scales are sensitive enough to detect a difference in weight if there is one.

Well you've already balanced the scales to even the both blocks up by adding more density to the less dense block side, so nothing will change as everything will simply even up around the scales and blocks.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on January 03, 2017, 03:05:38 AM

Question for sceptimatic:

Suppose there is a set of balance scales in a chamber. On one side of the scales is a metal block of volume 1 litre (0.001m³) and on the other side is a block of less dense metal of volume 2 litres.

The air pressure in the chamber is 1 bar (100 kPa). The scales are in balance - indicating that both metal blocks have the same 'weight' under these conditions.

Now suppose the air pressure in the chamber is reduced to 0.5 bar. What would happen to the scales in the denpressure model? Would they remain in balance or would one side go down? Assume the scales are sensitive enough to detect a difference in weight if there is one.

Well you've already balanced the scales to even the both blocks up by adding more density to the less dense block side, so nothing will change as everything will simply even up around the scales and blocks.

Ok, thanks.

We have the basis for a test here. Conventional science would predict that when the air pressure is lowered the side with the larger volume block would go down because it would have the greater reduction in buoyancy.

Now all we need is someone to perform the test!

To give you a visual, it's like pouring sand onto polystyrene balls in a tub and shaking it to see that the smaller, more dense sand has tried to crush the polystyrene balls, only the polystyrene balls get pushed UP rather than being crushed.

Well that explains why we're all floating around in the upper atmosphere, as we all know.  Still doesn't explain why the air (or the sand, in the metaphor) has a tendency to go down in the first place.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 03:20:29 AM

To give you a visual, it's like pouring sand onto polystyrene balls in a tub and shaking it to see that the smaller, more dense sand has tried to crush the polystyrene balls, only the polystyrene balls get pushed UP rather than being crushed.

Well that explains why we're all floating around in the upper atmosphere, as we all know.  Still doesn't explain why the air (or the sand, in the metaphor) has a tendency to go down in the first place.

It perfectly explains it but people like you will never see it because you not only have blinkers on, you also have a blindfold over the blinkers and listening to the story tellers telling you what they want to you to believe.
From that point on you just follow protocol. It's like a very powerful addictive drug. It's called a FTM drug.
Follow the masses in case you were struggling.

Quote from: deadsirius on January 03, 2017, 05:54:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 03:20:29 AM

To give you a visual, it's like pouring sand onto polystyrene balls in a tub and shaking it to see that the smaller, more dense sand has tried to crush the polystyrene balls, only the polystyrene balls get pushed UP rather than being crushed.

Well that explains why we're all floating around in the upper atmosphere, as we all know.  Still doesn't explain why the air (or the sand, in the metaphor) has a tendency to go down in the first place.

It perfectly explains it but people like you will never see it because you not only have blinkers on, you also have a blindfold over the blinkers and listening to the story tellers telling you what they want to you to believe.
From that point on you just follow protocol. It's like a very powerful addictive drug. It's called a FTM drug.
Follow the masses in case you were struggling.

Scepti, no one is denying that buoyancy (pretty much what you call denpressure) exists.  We're just saying that you still need gravity (or some form of acceleration) to cause the more dense stuff to sink and the less dense stuff to rise.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 03, 2017, 02:50:16 AM

Tyson is not a journalist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

His description of earth as pear shaped is not unique to him, he did not invent the concept and it is one of the most widely mis-understood comments ever made. He simply meant Earth is not a perfect sphere, which it isn't - this has been known for many many years.

Widely misunderstood, is it?
He seems to be pretty clear on what he's saying, regardless of the awake people knowing it's bullshit.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 03, 2017, 02:50:16 AM

Can you tell us why air has pressure?

Air has pressure due to the stacking from the ground , up.

As Earth solid decay it creates gases, basically.
As those gases expand and push against the more dense matter they are in, they are squeezed back and are pushed UP and OUT by force of numbers of molecules of less expanded matter.

To give you a visual, it's like pouring sand onto polystyrene balls in a tub and shaking it to see that the smaller, more dense sand has tried to crush the polystyrene balls, only the polystyrene balls get pushed UP rather than being crushed.

This is happening in all forms and in all types of matter until a stack is formed.
The stack of liquids and solids is already under us and aside us but the gases are stacked up from us and create a pressure upon us as the stack builds.
The stack always has a skin on it as it builds.
Think of it like the skin on custard and imagine filling that custard bowl from underneath to stretch that skin, only for that skin to get thinner until it settles and reforms a thicker skin.

This is a similar thing, except the skin would be the last elements in the stack under the least pressure forming a skin against a true vacuum, as far as we can think of a true vacuum being.

That skin would be ice to our minds, only the ice would be hydrogen/helium, etc kind of ice that is in a constant state of stretching and deforming as the energy of Earth's suns' reflection moves over it and changing the pressure build and thus, changing the size of the dome that houses all that pressure.

Think of it like a huge bubble with a huge hand over it pushing down on it slightly and releasing slowly, then slowly pushing down again, as if it was breathing.

As this happens, you will see waters ebb and flo and also pressure changes as we see and feel them.

So simple and yet shrugged off in favour of a nonsense gravity that cannot be explained.

But what you describe requires an outside force pushing down.  Without that outside pressure there is no reason for the balls to get pushed up.  Without that outside preassure downward, that we call gravity, there is no up.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 03, 2017, 02:50:16 AM

Tyson is not a journalist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

His description of earth as pear shaped is not unique to him, he did not invent the concept and it is one of the most widely mis-understood comments ever made. He simply meant Earth is not a perfect sphere, which it isn't - this has been known for many many years.

Widely misunderstood, is it?
He seems to be pretty clear on what he's saying, regardless of the awake people knowing it's bullshit.

aaaaand there you go misunderstanding it. If you think he genuinely meant that the Earth is actually shaped like a pear that you get from a greengrocer you're a bigger idiot than you think he is.

Thanks for the acknowledgement that he isn't a journalist.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 03, 2017, 02:50:16 AM

Can you tell us why air has pressure?

Air has pressure due to the stacking from the ground , up.

As Earth solid decay it creates gases, basically.
As those gases expand and push against the more dense matter they are in, they are squeezed back and are pushed UP and OUT by force of numbers of molecules of less expanded matter.

To give you a visual, it's like pouring sand onto polystyrene balls in a tub and shaking it to see that the smaller, more dense sand has tried to crush the polystyrene balls, only the polystyrene balls get pushed UP rather than being crushed.

This is happening in all forms and in all types of matter until a stack is formed.
The stack of liquids and solids is already under us and aside us but the gases are stacked up from us and create a pressure upon us as the stack builds.
The stack always has a skin on it as it builds.
Think of it like the skin on custard and imagine filling that custard bowl from underneath to stretch that skin, only for that skin to get thinner until it settles and reforms a thicker skin.

This is a similar thing, except the skin would be the last elements in the stack under the least pressure forming a skin against a true vacuum, as far as we can think of a true vacuum being.

That skin would be ice to our minds, only the ice would be hydrogen/helium, etc kind of ice that is in a constant state of stretching and deforming as the energy of Earth's suns' reflection moves over it and changing the pressure build and thus, changing the size of the dome that houses all that pressure.

Think of it like a huge bubble with a huge hand over it pushing down on it slightly and releasing slowly, then slowly pushing down again, as if it was breathing.

As this happens, you will see waters ebb and flo and also pressure changes as we see and feel them.

So simple and yet shrugged off in favour of a nonsense gravity that cannot be explained.

None of that makes any sense at all without gravity.

Air pressure on the Earth everyone exists in is a function of the interaction of the heat from the ground and gravity creating circulation currents. Warm air rises, cold air sinks. Different surfaces heat differently, creating pressure differentials that move the air from one place to another. Gravity means there is more air at ground level than higher up.

Meteorologists have produced complex models of the atmosphere that have worked very well for a long time within the existing model of the Earth.

Yours can't even explain why cold air sinks.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 06:02:22 AM

Quote from: deadsirius on January 03, 2017, 05:54:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 03:20:29 AM

To give you a visual, it's like pouring sand onto polystyrene balls in a tub and shaking it to see that the smaller, more dense sand has tried to crush the polystyrene balls, only the polystyrene balls get pushed UP rather than being crushed.

Well that explains why we're all floating around in the upper atmosphere, as we all know.  Still doesn't explain why the air (or the sand, in the metaphor) has a tendency to go down in the first place.

It perfectly explains it but people like you will never see it because you not only have blinkers on, you also have a blindfold over the blinkers and listening to the story tellers telling you what they want to you to believe.
From that point on you just follow protocol. It's like a very powerful addictive drug. It's called a FTM drug.
Follow the masses in case you were struggling.

Scepti, no one is denying that buoyancy (pretty much what you call denpressure) exists.  We're just saying that you still need gravity (or some form of acceleration) to cause the more dense stuff to sink and the less dense stuff to rise.

I've just explained why gravity bullshit is not required. I obviously do not, nor ever expect you and your like-minded peers to accept it. I'm well aware that gravity is required to keep the globe Earth alive and also the fictional space, etc.

I'm just showing the real genuine people that a small amount of common sense and the ability to see past the mainstream bullshit, makes it easy to actually get a more real look at what we are living in/on.

Quote from: markjo on January 03, 2017, 06:36:45 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 06:02:22 AM

Quote from: deadsirius on January 03, 2017, 05:54:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 03:20:29 AM

To give you a visual, it's like pouring sand onto polystyrene balls in a tub and shaking it to see that the smaller, more dense sand has tried to crush the polystyrene balls, only the polystyrene balls get pushed UP rather than being crushed.

Well that explains why we're all floating around in the upper atmosphere, as we all know.  Still doesn't explain why the air (or the sand, in the metaphor) has a tendency to go down in the first place.

It perfectly explains it but people like you will never see it because you not only have blinkers on, you also have a blindfold over the blinkers and listening to the story tellers telling you what they want to you to believe.
From that point on you just follow protocol. It's like a very powerful addictive drug. It's called a FTM drug.
Follow the masses in case you were struggling.

Scepti, no one is denying that buoyancy (pretty much what you call denpressure) exists.  We're just saying that you still need gravity (or some form of acceleration) to cause the more dense stuff to sink and the less dense stuff to rise.

I've just explained why gravity bullshit is not required. I obviously do not, nor ever expect you and your like-minded peers to accept it. I'm well aware that gravity is required to keep the globe Earth alive and also the fictional space, etc.

I'm just showing the real genuine people that a small amount of common sense and the ability to see past the mainstream bullshit, makes it easy to actually get a more real look at what we are living in/on.

But you didn't.  Your explanation requires some outside forcing pushing down or it doesn't work.  Every example you gave requires that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 07:50:35 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 03, 2017, 06:36:45 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 06:02:22 AM

Quote from: deadsirius on January 03, 2017, 05:54:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 03:20:29 AM

To give you a visual, it's like pouring sand onto polystyrene balls in a tub and shaking it to see that the smaller, more dense sand has tried to crush the polystyrene balls, only the polystyrene balls get pushed UP rather than being crushed.

Well that explains why we're all floating around in the upper atmosphere, as we all know.  Still doesn't explain why the air (or the sand, in the metaphor) has a tendency to go down in the first place.

It perfectly explains it but people like you will never see it because you not only have blinkers on, you also have a blindfold over the blinkers and listening to the story tellers telling you what they want to you to believe.
From that point on you just follow protocol. It's like a very powerful addictive drug. It's called a FTM drug.
Follow the masses in case you were struggling.

Scepti, no one is denying that buoyancy (pretty much what you call denpressure) exists.  We're just saying that you still need gravity (or some form of acceleration) to cause the more dense stuff to sink and the less dense stuff to rise.

I've just explained why gravity bullshit is not required. I obviously do not, nor ever expect you and your like-minded peers to accept it. I'm well aware that gravity is required to keep the globe Earth alive and also the fictional space, etc.

I'm just showing the real genuine people that a small amount of common sense and the ability to see past the mainstream bullshit, makes it easy to actually get a more real look at what we are living in/on.

But you didn't.  Your explanation requires some outside forcing pushing down or it doesn't work.  Every example you gave requires that.

It requires no outside force at all.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 03, 2017, 02:34:27 AM

Honestly, no.

All I can tell you is what has been observed. Mass has been shown to attract mass. The reasons why are hitherto unknown. Scientists can, however, use these observations to make predictions about the known universe, such as where on Earth a solar eclipse will be visible from.

If you want to play the honest game, honestly, then how about admitting that you are merely just following what has been placed before you and you physically do not HONESTLY know if what you are following, is the truth.

If we HONESTLY don't know anything about orbital mechanics, then why don't you make a bet with me?

I will bet you $100 that there will be a solar eclipse visible in Kansas City on August 21st, 2017 starting at 2:41 PM local time.

If you cannot use your model to make such accurate predictions, then I suggest you rethink your model.

It requires no outside force at all.

Are you aware of what happens to density towers under zero-g conditions?



In this video, students create a simple density tower illustrating the "stacked" nature of your model.

The density tower is taken aboard the "vomit comet" and, when zero g is achieved, you can see what happens when you remove the downward force caused by gravity. The density tower mixes together perfectly. Even though the substances are immiscible, they do not "push" each other into place as you claim they would.

The reality is, without an outside force pulling the more dense substances down, there will never be a "stack" as you so lovingly put it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 02:52:57 AM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on January 03, 2017, 02:34:27 AM

Honestly, no.

All I can tell you is what has been observed. Mass has been shown to attract mass. The reasons why are hitherto unknown. Scientists can, however, use these observations to make predictions about the known universe, such as where on Earth a solar eclipse will be visible from.

If you want to play the honest game, honestly, then how about admitting that you are merely just following what has been placed before you and you physically do not HONESTLY know if what you are following, is the truth.

If we HONESTLY don't know anything about orbital mechanics, then why don't you make a bet with me?

I will bet you $100 that there will be a solar eclipse visible in Kansas City on August 21st, 2017 starting at 2:41 PM local time.

If you cannot use your model to make such accurate predictions, then I suggest you rethink your model.

I don't need to rethink my model. I'm nowhere near the finished article with my model and may never be.
I'd like you to tell me how you can predict the solar eclipse and how you can do so by the means you think it happens.
Can you do this or are you reliant on copy/paste?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 08:21:04 AM

It requires no outside force at all.

Are you aware of what happens to density towers under zero-g conditions?



In this video, students create a simple density tower illustrating the "stacked" nature of your model.

The density tower is taken aboard the "vomit comet" and, when zero g is achieved, you can see what happens when you remove the downward force caused by gravity. The density tower mixes together perfectly. Even though the substances are immiscible, they do not "push" each other into place as you claim they would.

The reality is, without an outside force pulling the more dense substances down, there will never be a "stack" as you so lovingly put it.

There's no such thing as zero-g conditions.

I'd like you to tell me how you can predict the solar eclipse and how you can do so by the means you think it happens.
Can you do this or are you reliant on copy/paste?

It's simple, really. Astronomers are able to determine, with astounding accuracy, the exact position of the moon as it relates to earth. Using this precise knowledge of the Moon's exact location, astronomers can then determine when the Moon's path will bring it directly in between the Earth and Sun. Astronomers can them determine, based upon the Moon's position, precisely where and when the Moon's shadow will cross the earth.

So what about that $100 bet?

There's no such thing as zero-g conditions.

When you go skydiving, you experience zero g.

G is just a number that relates to the acceleration observed by objects that are falling. You have admitted in previous threads that the KC-135A does in fact nullify the effects of that downward force.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 10:10:29 AM

I'd like you to tell me how you can predict the solar eclipse and how you can do so by the means you think it happens.
Can you do this or are you reliant on copy/paste?

It's simple, really. Astronomers are able to determine, with astounding accuracy, the exact position of the moon as it relates to earth. Using this precise knowledge of the Moon's exact location, astronomers can then determine when the Moon's path will bring it directly in between the Earth and Sun. Astronomers can them determine, based upon the Moon's position, precisely where and when the Moon's shadow will cross the earth.

So what about that $100 bet?

I don't need to bet. You're proving nothing with the silly eclipse crap.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 10:18:58 AM

There's no such thing as zero-g conditions.

When you go skydiving, you experience zero g.

G is just a number that relates to the acceleration observed by objects that are falling. You have admitted in previous threads that the KC-135A does in fact nullify the effects of that downward force.

G isn't a number it's a letter and it means nothing in reality, when referring to Earth science.

I don't need to bet. You're proving nothing with the silly eclipse crap.

Possibly because your model has no way to predict them with such accuracy.

Please enlighten me. How could I possibly know precisely where and when a solar eclipse will be visible, to the exact minute? Am I clairvoyant?

How can I use your model to predict eclipses?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 10:28:30 AM

I don't need to bet. You're proving nothing with the silly eclipse crap.

Possibly because your model has no way to predict them with such accuracy.

Please enlighten me. How could I possibly know precisely where and when a solar eclipse will be visible, to the exact minute? Am I clairvoyant?

How can I use your model to predict eclipses?

How can you use your model to predict eclipses?

G isn't a number it's a letter

Ever heard of algebra?

and it means nothing in reality, when referring to Earth science.

G simply means an acceleration rate of ~9.8m/s/s

It has a lot to do with earth science. Specifically, it is the approximate rate of acceleration of any object falling towards the earth. This acceleration could be due to gravity, it could be due to denpressure, it could be due to upward acceleration.

You are implying this acceleration does not exist when it obviously does.

How can you use your model to predict eclipses?

I have already answered your question, simply, using my own words. Is there something you would like for me to go into more detail on? Other than that, refer to my earlier post.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 10:30:31 AM

G isn't a number it's a letter

Ever heard of algebra?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 10:30:31 AM

and it means nothing in reality, when referring to Earth science.

G simply means an acceleration rate of ~9.8m/s/s

It has a lot to do with earth science. Specifically, it is the approximate rate of acceleration of any object falling towards the earth. This acceleration could be due to gravity, it could be due to denpressure, it could be due to upward acceleration.

You are implying this acceleration does not exist when it obviously does.

It doesn't exist. It's not a constant like we are told. It's made up bullshit to fool people into a belief that gravity exists and objects fall at a set rate in a vacuum.
It's clap trap.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2017, 10:34:34 AM

How can you use your model to predict eclipses?

I have already answered your question, simply, using my own words. Is there something you would like for me to go into more detail on? Other than that, refer to my earlier post.

You haven't answered me at all.

I'll pose the question again.

How can you use your model to predict eclipses?

Poor Sceptictank. Too caught up in his own lie to see the truth.

I have explained as simply as I can. If you still don't understand, there is nothing more I can do for you. All I can say is this. Modern scientists have been able to accurately predict eclipses for a long time now.

How do you think this feat could possibly be achieved?


With regards to g, you're right. It is not a constant. It is an approximation. That's why I use the symbol (~) and the word "approximate"

Clearly there are many factors at play when determining the rate of acceleration that an object experiences as it hurdles toward the earth.

What variables would be the most important in determining the rate of acceleration in the denpressure model?

I have explained as simply as I can. If you still don't understand, there is nothing more I can do for you. All I can say is this. Modern scientists have been able to accurately predict eclipses for a long time now.

How do you think this feat could possibly be achieved?


With regards to g, you're right. It is not a constant. It is an approximation. That's why I use the symbol (~) and the word "approximate"

Clearly there are many factors at play when determining the rate of acceleration that an object experiences as it hurdles toward the earth.

What variables would be the most important in determining the rate of acceleration in the denpressure model?

You've explained nothing and you know you've explained nothing.
The only reason you can't tell me is because to do so would require you to find the relevant info and then copy and paste it all, or go through a lengthy process to try and make me believe you typed it out from your own mind.

If I'm wrong then answer my question.