Air Pressure vs Gravity

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 07:39:31 AM

A 10 cm cube of steel weighs more than the 10 cm cube of water than it displaces, therefore it sinks to the bottom.  A 10 cm cube of balsa weighs less than the 10 cm cube of water that it displaces, therefore it floats on top (despite being porous).  That means that the "buoyancy level" of objects more dense than water is the bottom of the container, regardless of how deep or shallow.

Not sure what you mean by that buoyancy level being the bottom of the container.

Well, "buoyancy level" is a term that you came up with, you why don't you explain what it means?

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 07:39:31 AM

Buoyancy is dependent on the relative densities of the object and the fluid that it's in.

relative densities of the object?
What are you talking about?

What do You think?  Relative density means the density of the object compared to the density of the water (or whatever fluid).

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 07:39:31 AM

Wooden shipwrecks and steel shipwrecks sink equally deep in the ocean.

That depends on the depth of the ocean and the trapped atmosphere within the wood being squeezed out.
Not as straightforward as you think it is.

Actually, it is that straightforward.  You're the one who is trying to make it more complicated than it really is.  Or can you provide an example of a wooden shipwreck that didn't sink all the way to the ocean floor?

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 07:39:31 AM

Then perhaps you should make your own video of the experiment done correctly.

I don't need to, I know what I'm talking about. Babymonkey jumped in with his little measuring jug experiment that was dishonest. I didn't ask him to do it.

Perhaps not, but the burden of proof is still on you to prove that your claims are correct.  A video of you performing an experiment demonstrating your theory could go a long way in helping you meet that burden.

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 07:52:37 AM

No.  Where we get mixed up is that you seem to have different definitions of words like "displacement" than the rest of the world.

Do I?
Let's see.
If I put a block of lead in water, the water that the lead is now taken up has been displaced and is now outside of that block and all around it.
If I do the same in atmospheric pressure at sea level (for instance) then that block displaces the air that the block now occupies, which forces that air to compress by that blocks mass/density.

Are we differing?

You were doing fine right up to where I highlighted.  Displacement is how much volume the object takes up within the medium.  The squeezing is getting into buoyant forces.  The two are related, but not quite the same thing.  Kinda like how Newton's first two laws are related to, but not quite the same thing as his third law.

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 07:52:37 AM

Gravity has nothing to do with displacement.  Volume has everything to do with displacement.

Tell me how volume displaces water? Tell me how it displaces atmosphere?

By moving the air or water out of the way and taking up that space.

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 07:52:37 AM

The jar clearly had air in it and still sank.  What's your point?

It has air in it and still sank because the dense mass inside of it displaced the rest of the air from the container and created less buoyancy.

So you're saying that there was no air left in the container after it sank to the bottom? 

So you're saying that there was no air left in the container after it sank to the bottom? 

Nope. I'm saying that the air is more compressed but due to the false bottom or for instance: a small jug that does not allow the water to crush the jar any further resulting in hard to read  displacement at the side of the jug.
That's why it's dishonest.

devil's advocate
noun [ C usually singular ] UK ​ /ˌdev.əlz ˈęd.və.kət/ US ​ /ˌdev.əlz ˈęd.və.kət/
​
someone who pretends, in an argument or discussion, to be against an idea or plan that a lot of people support, in order to make people discuss and consider it in more detail:
I don't really believe all that - I was just playing devil's advocate.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/devil-s-advocate

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 08:41:46 AM

So you're saying that there was no air left in the container after it sank to the bottom? 

Nope. I'm saying that the air is more compressed but due to the false bottom or for instance: a small jug that does not allow the water to crush the jar any further resulting in hard to read  displacement at the side of the jug.
That's why it's dishonest.

No air is compressed, it just moves around.  As does water.

The experiment fails because you the water is not deep enough.  Similar to dropping things in a vacuum chamber which he refuses to acknowledge they fall at the same rate.  Just the chamber is not tall enough to notice the difference. In that case just about 122 feet was not high enough.  So the bowling ball and feathers hit the ground at the same time because they did not fall far enough.

My guess you need some place that is deeper than the Mariana Trench for the experiment to be valid. Since stuff of different densities end up on the ocean floor.

So no experiment can be done.

The denpressure thing really fails when we are looking at solid incompressible objects. Somehow scepti thinks that objects of different densities will displace different volumes of air/water. Experimental evidence and common sense shows us that this is not true and that different densities wil displace identical volumes.

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 08:41:46 AM

So you're saying that there was no air left in the container after it sank to the bottom? 

Nope. I'm saying that the air is more compressed but due to the false bottom or for instance: a small jug that does not allow the water to crush the jar any further resulting in hard to read  displacement at the side of the jug.
That's why it's dishonest.

He's measuring the displacement of the sealed container itself, not the displacement of the contents of the container. 

You do understand that the whole point of experiment was to test the displacement of a constant volume at different weights/densities, don't you?  You know, like the 10 cm cube of steel vs 10 cm cube of lead that we've been talking about.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 09:09:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 08:41:46 AM

So you're saying that there was no air left in the container after it sank to the bottom? 

Nope. I'm saying that the air is more compressed but due to the false bottom or for instance: a small jug that does not allow the water to crush the jar any further resulting in hard to read  displacement at the side of the jug.
That's why it's dishonest.

He's measuring the displacement of the sealed container itself, not the displacement of the contents of the container. 

You do understand that the whole point of experiment was to test the displacement of a constant volume at different weights/densities, don't you?  You know, like the 10 cm cube of steel vs 10 cm cube of lead that we've been talking about.

And I'm telling you that it cannot be done with a small jug of water.

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 10:11:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 09:09:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 08:41:46 AM

So you're saying that there was no air left in the container after it sank to the bottom? 

Nope. I'm saying that the air is more compressed but due to the false bottom or for instance: a small jug that does not allow the water to crush the jar any further resulting in hard to read  displacement at the side of the jug.
That's why it's dishonest.

He's measuring the displacement of the sealed container itself, not the displacement of the contents of the container. 

You do understand that the whole point of experiment was to test the displacement of a constant volume at different weights/densities, don't you?  You know, like the 10 cm cube of steel vs 10 cm cube of lead that we've been talking about.

And I'm telling you that it cannot be done with a small jug of water.

Except I did.

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 10:11:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 09:09:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 08:41:46 AM

So you're saying that there was no air left in the container after it sank to the bottom? 

Nope. I'm saying that the air is more compressed but due to the false bottom or for instance: a small jug that does not allow the water to crush the jar any further resulting in hard to read  displacement at the side of the jug.
That's why it's dishonest.

He's measuring the displacement of the sealed container itself, not the displacement of the contents of the container. 

You do understand that the whole point of experiment was to test the displacement of a constant volume at different weights/densities, don't you?  You know, like the 10 cm cube of steel vs 10 cm cube of lead that we've been talking about.

And I'm telling you that it cannot be done with a small jug of water.

But he did and, regardless of the weight, the same amount of water was displaced.

Seems the only objection for the experiment is the depth or size of the container.

So how big does the container need to be? I am guessing depth is the most important consideration.

To test displacement of a solid object you only need enough fluid to completely submerge the object in.

The jar is confusing matters because scepti wants to able to subject the jar to a crushing force enough to compress the air inside.we need to get back to solid incompressible objects and check displacements at varying densities.

I have ordered a set of density cubes and a measuring cylinder with 1ml graduations. All cubes are 2cm cubed and made from various metals. Together with a set of calipers to confirm size and a set of scales to confirm weight/mass. This will undeniably prove that different densities DO NOT displace different amounts of fluid.

Seems the only objection for the experiment is the depth or size of the container.

So how big does the container need to be? I am guessing depth is the most important consideration.

A bit deeper than any container sceppy gets shown.

To test displacement of a solid object you only need enough fluid to completely submerge the object in.

The jar is confusing matters because scepti wants to able to subject the jar to a crushing force enough to compress the air inside.we need to get back to solid incompressible objects and check displacements at varying densities.

I have ordered a set of density cubes and a measuring cylinder with 1ml graduations. All cubes are 2cm cubed and made from various metals. Together with a set of calipers to confirm size and a set of scales to confirm weight/mass. This will undeniably prove that different densities DO NOT displace different amounts of fluid.

Again, more dedication to the cause of truth than sceppy has shown in any of his ramblings.

I did try earlier to do a video with objects I thought were the same weight - I have a nice lump of gallena and a decent sized fossil. Naturally the larger fossil displaced more water, but there was a slight difference in weights so he would have had a get out of jail free card.

I could, if I could be arsed, put a ruler in our largest pan and measure the displacement from the gallena and the equivalent weight of potato...

Quote from: Mainframes on January 16, 2017, 11:39:27 AM

To test displacement of a solid object you only need enough fluid to completely submerge the object in.

The jar is confusing matters because scepti wants to able to subject the jar to a crushing force enough to compress the air inside.we need to get back to solid incompressible objects and check displacements at varying densities.

I have ordered a set of density cubes and a measuring cylinder with 1ml graduations. All cubes are 2cm cubed and made from various metals. Together with a set of calipers to confirm size and a set of scales to confirm weight/mass. This will undeniably prove that different densities DO NOT displace different amounts of fluid.

Again, more dedication to the cause of truth than sceppy has shown in any of his ramblings.

I did try earlier to do a video with objects I thought were the same weight - I have a nice lump of gallena and a decent sized fossil. Naturally the larger fossil displaced more water, but there was a slight difference in weights so he would have had a get out of jail free card.

I could, if I could be arsed, put a ruler in our largest pan and measure the displacement from the gallena and the equivalent weight of potato...

Worth a go at least.

Well I'll have a set of very consistent and fully validated weights and measures and should get an accurate result. My prediction is that the fluid will displace by exactly 8ml for each cube.

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 10:11:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 09:09:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 08:41:46 AM

So you're saying that there was no air left in the container after it sank to the bottom? 

Nope. I'm saying that the air is more compressed but due to the false bottom or for instance: a small jug that does not allow the water to crush the jar any further resulting in hard to read  displacement at the side of the jug.
That's why it's dishonest.

He's measuring the displacement of the sealed container itself, not the displacement of the contents of the container. 

You do understand that the whole point of experiment was to test the displacement of a constant volume at different weights/densities, don't you?  You know, like the 10 cm cube of steel vs 10 cm cube of lead that we've been talking about.

And I'm telling you that it cannot be done with a small jug of water.

Sure it can.  I didn't catch the measurements, but let's say that jug read a measurement of 500 cc of water.  You place a 250 cc sealed container in the jug and the and the water level rises to the 750 cc mark.  That means that 250 cc of water has been displaced by the 250 cc container.  What's so difficult about that to understand?

If you want to go even one step further, fill the jug to the brim and then place the 250 cc container in the water.  If you measure how much water has spilled out, you will find that it comes out to 250 cc, the same volume of the container in the water.

Quote from: Woody on January 16, 2017, 11:37:15 AM

Seems the only objection for the experiment is the depth or size of the container.

So how big does the container need to be? I am guessing depth is the most important consideration.

A bit deeper than any container sceppy gets shown.

Exactly.

My guess is no one here has the resources available to conduct am experiment he would agree is not flawed.

People with the resources available will not do such an experiment to prove or disprove something that has been accepted as true and has held up for over 2,000 years.  Even if they did the experiment would be flawed for some reason. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 11:18:27 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 10:11:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 09:09:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 08:41:46 AM

So you're saying that there was no air left in the container after it sank to the bottom? 

Nope. I'm saying that the air is more compressed but due to the false bottom or for instance: a small jug that does not allow the water to crush the jar any further resulting in hard to read  displacement at the side of the jug.
That's why it's dishonest.

He's measuring the displacement of the sealed container itself, not the displacement of the contents of the container. 

You do understand that the whole point of experiment was to test the displacement of a constant volume at different weights/densities, don't you?  You know, like the 10 cm cube of steel vs 10 cm cube of lead that we've been talking about.

And I'm telling you that it cannot be done with a small jug of water.

Except I did.

Because you are dishonest.

Barometric Pressure effects your weight..... let that sink in and for the record which weave reminded since day one there is nothing observable or measurable about gravity it only exists in your head what you know is gravity is really magnetism the science of magnetism has not been known for a very long time they keep it out of mainstream common knowledge and understanding.... ancient Sumer and Egypt had a very good understanding matter of fact they didn't even use oil they understood acoustic levitation diamagnetism and electromagnetic feilds as well as the duality of pressure and the positive negate male female arc reality...

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 16, 2017, 11:22:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 11:18:27 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 10:11:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 09:09:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 08:41:46 AM

So you're saying that there was no air left in the container after it sank to the bottom? 

Nope. I'm saying that the air is more compressed but due to the false bottom or for instance: a small jug that does not allow the water to crush the jar any further resulting in hard to read  displacement at the side of the jug.
That's why it's dishonest.

He's measuring the displacement of the sealed container itself, not the displacement of the contents of the container. 

You do understand that the whole point of experiment was to test the displacement of a constant volume at different weights/densities, don't you?  You know, like the 10 cm cube of steel vs 10 cm cube of lead that we've been talking about.

And I'm telling you that it cannot be done with a small jug of water.

Except I did.

Because you are dishonest.

There was nothing dishonest about it.  He said what he was going to.  An experiment to see if two things of the same volumes but different weights/density would displace the same amount of water.  He did that and his results were that they did.  You could see everything he was using in the experiment right there.  There was no dishonesty.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 11:18:27 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 10:11:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 09:09:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 08:41:46 AM

So you're saying that there was no air left in the container after it sank to the bottom? 

Nope. I'm saying that the air is more compressed but due to the false bottom or for instance: a small jug that does not allow the water to crush the jar any further resulting in hard to read  displacement at the side of the jug.
That's why it's dishonest.

He's measuring the displacement of the sealed container itself, not the displacement of the contents of the container. 

You do understand that the whole point of experiment was to test the displacement of a constant volume at different weights/densities, don't you?  You know, like the 10 cm cube of steel vs 10 cm cube of lead that we've been talking about.

And I'm telling you that it cannot be done with a small jug of water.

But he did and, regardless of the weight, the same amount of water was displaced.

Not exactly.
What appears to be the same amount of water being displaced because the measurement is far too tiny due to the dishonesty of using the small jug.


Have a think about this.
Tell me what would happen if that same jar and weights were pushed down  into a 20 foot deep tank of water?

Just in case you don't know, here's what would happen.

The first jar with the single weight in would be crushed by the mass of water. It would compress the larger volume of air inside which would mean that the volume of that jar would be reduced and displacing less water.

The other jar with the varied weights in displaced more air inside the jar so when this was pushed down it would still be crushed but the air inside being much less volume due to the dense weights inside would not compress nearly as much and would displace much more water.

This would happen and that's why the small jug is a dishonest way of doing this experiment. It is and it's as simple as that.

Seems the only objection for the experiment is the depth or size of the container.

So how big does the container need to be? I am guessing depth is the most important consideration.

Correct.
Think about it.
Just think about a submarine diving and being crushed. Anything being crushed will lose volume and this is why we are duped with the volume scam, because experiments are not done legitimately.

To test displacement of a solid object you only need enough fluid to completely submerge the object in.

The jar is confusing matters because scepti wants to able to subject the jar to a crushing force enough to compress the air inside.we need to get back to solid incompressible objects and check displacements at varying densities.

I have ordered a set of density cubes and a measuring cylinder with 1ml graduations. All cubes are 2cm cubed and made from various metals. Together with a set of calipers to confirm size and a set of scales to confirm weight/mass. This will undeniably prove that different densities DO NOT displace different amounts of fluid.

Yep, this will give a much clearer more legitimate scope on things.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 12:07:30 PM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 16, 2017, 11:22:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 11:18:27 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 10:11:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 09:09:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 08:41:46 AM

So you're saying that there was no air left in the container after it sank to the bottom? 

Nope. I'm saying that the air is more compressed but due to the false bottom or for instance: a small jug that does not allow the water to crush the jar any further resulting in hard to read  displacement at the side of the jug.
That's why it's dishonest.

He's measuring the displacement of the sealed container itself, not the displacement of the contents of the container. 

You do understand that the whole point of experiment was to test the displacement of a constant volume at different weights/densities, don't you?  You know, like the 10 cm cube of steel vs 10 cm cube of lead that we've been talking about.

And I'm telling you that it cannot be done with a small jug of water.

Except I did.

Because you are dishonest.

There was nothing dishonest about it.  He said what he was going to.  An experiment to see if two things of the same volumes but different weights/density would displace the same amount of water.  He did that and his results were that they did.  You could see everything he was using in the experiment right there.  There was no dishonesty.

I think by 'dishonest' he means 'came to different conclusions than me after actually being arsed to try something'.

If I was being dishonest I wouldn't have bothered showing the video - I would have just claimed I'd done it. If I was being dishonest I would have posted the demonstration I just tried and claimed it showed objects the same weight even though it didn't - it would have been a piece of cake to edit the video to show the same weight on the old fashioned balance scales I was using. If I was being dishonest I would just make some shit up and tell everyone else they were wrong and that they should respect my authoritah...

Quote from: Woody on January 16, 2017, 11:37:15 AM

Seems the only objection for the experiment is the depth or size of the container.

So how big does the container need to be? I am guessing depth is the most important consideration.

Correct.
Think about it.
Just think about a submarine diving and being crushed. Anything being crushed will lose volume and this is why we are duped with the volume scam, because experiments are not done legitimately.

How deep does the container need to be?

If you know what is not deep enough you must have a general idea of what is.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 16, 2017, 11:27:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 11:18:27 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 10:11:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 09:09:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 08:41:46 AM

So you're saying that there was no air left in the container after it sank to the bottom? 

Nope. I'm saying that the air is more compressed but due to the false bottom or for instance: a small jug that does not allow the water to crush the jar any further resulting in hard to read  displacement at the side of the jug.
That's why it's dishonest.

He's measuring the displacement of the sealed container itself, not the displacement of the contents of the container. 

You do understand that the whole point of experiment was to test the displacement of a constant volume at different weights/densities, don't you?  You know, like the 10 cm cube of steel vs 10 cm cube of lead that we've been talking about.

And I'm telling you that it cannot be done with a small jug of water.

But he did and, regardless of the weight, the same amount of water was displaced.

Not exactly.
What appears to be the same amount of water being displaced because the measurement is far too tiny due to the dishonesty of using the small jug.


Have a think about this.
Tell me what would happen if that same jar and weights were pushed down  into a 20 foot deep tank of water?

Just in case you don't know, here's what would happen.

The first jar with the single weight in would be crushed by the mass of water. It would compress the larger volume of air inside which would mean that the volume of that jar would be reduced and displacing less water.

The other jar with the varied weights in displaced more air inside the jar so when this was pushed down it would still be crushed but the air inside being much less volume due to the dense weights inside would not compress nearly as much and would displace much more water.

This would happen and that's why the small jug is a dishonest way of doing this experiment. It is and it's as simple as that.

Well, under 20 feet of water it seems unlikely that the jar would be crushed.  But it still doesn't make it dishonest.  The two jars of different weights did displace the same amount of water.  Now, if the issue is that the jars contained air and, for some reason that's a problem, then the solution is simple. 
Take a cubic centimeter of glass, about 2.6 grams in weight and a cubic centimeter of lead, about 11 grams in weight.  No air.  They will both displace 1 cubic centimeter of water.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 16, 2017, 12:14:02 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 12:07:30 PM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 16, 2017, 11:22:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 11:18:27 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 10:11:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 09:09:00 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 16, 2017, 08:41:46 AM

So you're saying that there was no air left in the container after it sank to the bottom? 

Nope. I'm saying that the air is more compressed but due to the false bottom or for instance: a small jug that does not allow the water to crush the jar any further resulting in hard to read  displacement at the side of the jug.
That's why it's dishonest.

He's measuring the displacement of the sealed container itself, not the displacement of the contents of the container. 

You do understand that the whole point of experiment was to test the displacement of a constant volume at different weights/densities, don't you?  You know, like the 10 cm cube of steel vs 10 cm cube of lead that we've been talking about.

And I'm telling you that it cannot be done with a small jug of water.

Except I did.

Because you are dishonest.

There was nothing dishonest about it.  He said what he was going to.  An experiment to see if two things of the same volumes but different weights/density would displace the same amount of water.  He did that and his results were that they did.  You could see everything he was using in the experiment right there.  There was no dishonesty.

I think by 'dishonest' he means 'came to different conclusions than me after actually being arsed to try something'.

If I was being dishonest I wouldn't have bothered showing the video - I would have just claimed I'd done it. If I was being dishonest I would have posted the demonstration I just tried and claimed it showed objects the same weight even though it didn't - it would have been a piece of cake to edit the video to show the same weight on the old fashioned balance scales I was using. If I was being dishonest I would just make some shit up and tell everyone else they were wrong and that they should respect my authoritah...

Ok then I'll downgrade it to naive.

Quote from: Mainframes on January 16, 2017, 11:39:27 AM

To test displacement of a solid object you only need enough fluid to completely submerge the object in.

The jar is confusing matters because scepti wants to able to subject the jar to a crushing force enough to compress the air inside.we need to get back to solid incompressible objects and check displacements at varying densities.

I have ordered a set of density cubes and a measuring cylinder with 1ml graduations. All cubes are 2cm cubed and made from various metals. Together with a set of calipers to confirm size and a set of scales to confirm weight/mass. This will undeniably prove that different densities DO NOT displace different amounts of fluid.

Yep, this will give a much clearer more legitimate scope on things.

You heard it here folks. Sceptimatic is happy with this experiment and therefore cannot complain at whatever result happens.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 16, 2017, 12:18:39 PM

Quote from: Woody on January 16, 2017, 11:37:15 AM

Seems the only objection for the experiment is the depth or size of the container.

So how big does the container need to be? I am guessing depth is the most important consideration.

Correct.
Think about it.
Just think about a submarine diving and being crushed. Anything being crushed will lose volume and this is why we are duped with the volume scam, because experiments are not done legitimately.

How deep does the container need to be?

If you know what is not deep enough you must have a general idea of what is.

Answer me this question.
If I gave you a bottle of sea level atmosphere and asked you to take that bottle down as far as you could underwater (assuming you could go extreme deep), then tell me what would happen to that bottle as you push it down?

Also just as you pushed it under you would note that the entire bottle area/volume displaced the water.
As you push it down, does it still displace the same amount of water or does it start to crush and displace less water due to the atmosphere inside of it compressing by crushing/squeezing?

Now imagine doing it with the same sized bottle, except this bottle is made of solid lead.
Which bottle is going to displace more water?