Air Pressure vs Gravity

In one of the cases the jar wasn't sealed.

What's that supposed to imply?

The point was, and again it has sailed right over your head, that the volume was constant .

Take out the weight and let the jar and it's volume sink into the jug.

What do you mean it won't sink?
Well ok, look to see how much the volume is displacing the water.

Let's add some density to push out some of that volume of air and see what happens. It sinks but can't compress the air by the weight of the dense mass inside because the false bottom stops the descent.
Shallow jugs and dishonesty. Or is it naivety?
Or is it just plain smugness attempts?

What do you reckon babymonkey?

The effect was always the same. The mass of the jar (it's plastic) is negligible compared with the 1 lb weight, so why didn't the 1 lb weight on its own displace the same amount of water?

You stopped it by sealing the jar.

How much was displaced when the lidless jar was in the water with the weight?

I didn't see a lidless jar in the water.

Nope, the two fingers were for you and you alone, and weren't an indication of dishonesty, just triumph. The volume is the important bit as indicated by the fact that the displacement didn't change when the mass was changed. The 1 lb weight on its own displaced nothing like the same volume as the jar, even when it was inside the jar with the lid was removed so it filled with water.

Triumph of what?
When you triumph, let me know, but make sure you do something worthwhile and try and be nice instead of a prick and you'll get the same back.
Or you can carry on being a prick.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 17, 2017, 07:25:19 AM

In one of the cases the jar wasn't sealed.

What's that supposed to imply?

That it was nothing to do with the lid being sealed.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 17, 2017, 07:25:19 AM

The point was, and again it has sailed right over your head, that the volume was constant .

Take out the weight and let the jar and it's volume sink into the jug.

What do you mean it won't sink?

It would be no problem to push the jar to the bottom of the jug with something like a skewer. Guess how much volume would be displaced?

Well ok, look to see how much the volume is displacing the water.

Let's add some density to push out some of that volume of air and see what happens. It sinks but can't compress the air by the weight of the dense mass inside because the false bottom stops the descent.

Absolute gibberish. There is no false bottom.

Shallow jugs and dishonesty. Or is it naivety?
Or is it just plain smugness attempts?

What do you reckon babymonkey?

No dishonesty, no naivety scrappydoo (see how easy dumbass name calling is), no smugness, just a simple demonstration that you are completely clueless about basic physics. It doesn't matter which way you try and bend this around, volume is what matters when it comes to displacing water, not density or mass. Two videos show you that quite simply. If you want to prove them wrong, do your own demonstration.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 17, 2017, 07:25:19 AM

The effect was always the same. The mass of the jar (it's plastic) is negligible compared with the 1 lb weight, so why didn't the 1 lb weight on its own displace the same amount of water?

You stopped it by sealing the jar.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 17, 2017, 07:25:19 AM

How much was displaced when the lidless jar was in the water with the weight?

I didn't see a lidless jar in the water.

You should have looked at the photos I posted properly.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 17, 2017, 07:25:19 AM

Nope, the two fingers were for you and you alone, and weren't an indication of dishonesty, just triumph. The volume is the important bit as indicated by the fact that the displacement didn't change when the mass was changed. The 1 lb weight on its own displaced nothing like the same volume as the jar, even when it was inside the jar with the lid was removed so it filled with water.

Triumph of what?
When you triumph, let me know, but make sure you do something worthwhile and try and be nice instead of a prick and you'll get the same back.
Or you can carry on being a prick.

Or you can do prove you've got the balls to stand up for your own theories and provide your own demonstration. You won't do it, because your understanding of physics is completely wrong and becuase of that you will fail every time to prove your point.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 17, 2017, 09:24:43 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 17, 2017, 07:25:19 AM

In one of the cases the jar wasn't sealed.

What's that supposed to imply?

That it was nothing to do with the lid being sealed.

Quote

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 17, 2017, 07:25:19 AM

The point was, and again it has sailed right over your head, that the volume was constant .

Take out the weight and let the jar and it's volume sink into the jug.

What do you mean it won't sink?

It would be no problem to push the jar to the bottom of the jug with something like a skewer. Guess how much volume would be displaced?

Quote

Well ok, look to see how much the volume is displacing the water.

Let's add some density to push out some of that volume of air and see what happens. It sinks but can't compress the air by the weight of the dense mass inside because the false bottom stops the descent.

Absolute gibberish. There is no false bottom.

Quote

Shallow jugs and dishonesty. Or is it naivety?
Or is it just plain smugness attempts?

What do you reckon babymonkey?

No dishonesty, no naivety scrappydoo (see how easy dumbass name calling is), no smugness, just a simple demonstration that you are completely clueless about basic physics. It doesn't matter which way you try and bend this around, volume is what matters when it comes to displacing water, not density or mass. Two videos show you that quite simply. If you want to prove them wrong, do your own demonstration.

Quote

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 17, 2017, 07:25:19 AM

The effect was always the same. The mass of the jar (it's plastic) is negligible compared with the 1 lb weight, so why didn't the 1 lb weight on its own displace the same amount of water?

You stopped it by sealing the jar.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 17, 2017, 07:25:19 AM

How much was displaced when the lidless jar was in the water with the weight?

I didn't see a lidless jar in the water.

You should have looked at the photos I posted properly.

Quote

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 17, 2017, 07:25:19 AM

Nope, the two fingers were for you and you alone, and weren't an indication of dishonesty, just triumph. The volume is the important bit as indicated by the fact that the displacement didn't change when the mass was changed. The 1 lb weight on its own displaced nothing like the same volume as the jar, even when it was inside the jar with the lid was removed so it filled with water.

Triumph of what?
When you triumph, let me know, but make sure you do something worthwhile and try and be nice instead of a prick and you'll get the same back.
Or you can carry on being a prick.

Or you can do prove you've got the balls to stand up for your own theories and provide your own demonstration. You won't do it, because your understanding of physics is completely wrong and becuase of that you will fail every time to prove your point.

All I see it word yapping.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 17, 2017, 07:25:19 AM

The point was, and again it has sailed right over your head, that the volume was constant .

Take out the weight and let the jar and it's volume sink into the jug.

What do you mean it won't sink?
Well ok, look to see how much the volume is displacing the water.

Do not confuse displacement and buoyancy.  They are related, but not the same thing.  The reason that the empty jar floats is because the volume of air in the container weighs less than the volume of water that it would displace.  This is what keeps steel ships from sinking.

Let's add some density to push out some of that volume of air and see what happens. It sinks but can't compress the air by the weight of the dense mass inside because the false bottom stops the descent.

Why would you want to compress the air inside?  If you're in a submarine, then you may want to increase your density, but you don't really want to compress the air (or the human occupants) inside.

Do not confuse displacement and buoyancy.  They are related, but not the same thing.  The reason that the empty jar floats is because the volume of air in the container weighs less than the volume of water that it would displace.  This is what keeps steel ships from sinking.

I'm not confusing displacement with buoyancy, it's you lot that are doing exactly that whether by naivety or by deliberate means.
Basically you're being duped.
You're answering your own questions against yourselves and can't see it because your minds are focused on twisted experiments.

Why would you want to compress the air inside?  If you're in a submarine, then you may want to increase your density, but you don't really want to compress the air (or the human occupants) inside.

It's not about crushing the occupants inside. It's about allowing the sub to sink to a depth that it can no longer push further than.
If it does this it will be squeezed and so will trapped air inside.
The more it is squeezed the deeper it goes until it no longer holds atmosphere.
From this point on it gives a proper density displacement.

The only other way to displace water by the same equal manner is to have the sub above water, whether that is high above or extremely low.
This is displacement by buoyancy, which creates the exact same displacement as what I said in the depth sinking.

Is that mixing up buoyancy and displacement.
Not really.
Volume is about the buoyancy and the density of That volume is what displaces the water or the atmosphere.

Quote from: markjo on January 17, 2017, 11:41:31 AM

Do not confuse displacement and buoyancy.  They are related, but not the same thing.  The reason that the empty jar floats is because the volume of air in the container weighs less than the volume of water that it would displace.  This is what keeps steel ships from sinking.

I'm not confusing displacement with buoyancy, it's you lot that are doing exactly that whether by naivety or by deliberate means.
Basically you're being duped.

Why does it feel like the only one trying to dupe us is you by trying to redefine basic concepts (like displacement and buoyancy) that have been used successfully for hundreds of years?

You're answering your own questions against yourselves and can't see it because your minds are focused on twisted experiments.

The experiments that we propose are simple, straightforward and don't require going to the bottom of the ocean to measure displacement.

Quote from: markjo on January 17, 2017, 11:41:31 AM

Why would you want to compress the air inside?  If you're in a submarine, then you may want to increase your density, but you don't really want to compress the air (or the human occupants) inside.

It's not about crushing the occupants inside. It's about allowing the sub to sink to a depth that it can no longer push further than.
If it does this it will be squeezed and so will trapped air inside.
The more it is squeezed the deeper it goes until it no longer holds atmosphere.
From this point on it gives a proper density displacement.

What if you want to know the displacement with air inside.  You know, air is something that is pretty handy to have inside a submarine that's underwater.

The only other way to displace water by the same equal manner is to have the sub above water, whether that is high above or extremely low.
This is displacement by buoyancy, which creates the exact same displacement as what I said in the depth sinking.

Huh? 

Is that mixing up buoyancy and displacement.
Not really.
Volume is about the buoyancy and the density of That volume is what displaces the water or the atmosphere.

Yes, really. 

Volume is how much space an object takes up.

Density is the ratio of an object's mass divided by its volume.

Displacement is how much of a medium an object shoves out of the way when placed in that medium.

Buoyancy is how much that medium squeezes the object placed in that medium.

This is how those terms have been used for hundreds of years without any problems.  The only dishonesty here is your attempt to redefine those words to suit your pet theory.

If a submarine is crushed by water pressure the air inside will be compressed but will not disappear, and the density will increase.

If the density increases then it will go deeper.
As it goes deeper the pressure will increase and the object will be more compressed increasing it's density making it sink even deeper until the bottom of the sea is reached making impossible to reach a point were we neutral buoyancy.

Regardless of any outcome, which is debatable giving whose involved, I think perseverance medals need to be struck for both Onebigmonkey guy and Mainframes who have debated long and hard under difficult circumstances.

Bizarrely the answer to this whole debate has been known about for over 2000 years, but on a flat earth forum where 'the leader ' thinks penguins are a product of Cold War genetic manipulation anything is possible. It reminds me of an episode of the Outer Limits.

How about explaining this Mr Sceptimatic.

Slight delay on the displacement demonstration. I've received the density cubes but the measuring cylinder isn't quite large enough for the cubes to drop freely to the bottom. In the interests of fairness I will delay until I can source a wider cylinder. Hopefully not more than a couple of days.

I remember doing the can crushing experiment many many years ago in high school. It's a pity Sceptimatic never attended school.

Also I found this video that Sceptimatic might like to explain..... but please don't cry FAKE! As Nasa was not involved in its making as it quite nicely demonstrates Archimedes principle that's been know about for quite some time!

Not a great video but at least it gets the point over....and again neither NASA or genetically modified penguins were involved in its production.

So let's recap
An object that floats will displace its weight in water. This is the basis for all those little lines painted on the hulls of all ships as fresh, salt and brackish all have different densities. It prevents them from being overloaded and sinking! We can thank Archimedes for pointing this out.

An object that sinks will displace not its weight in water but just its volume.

Both these facts are not open for debate and anyone who attempts it does so from blind ignorance. They are facts that are shown and proved every day in countless numbers of schools around the world. It's an experiment that is not the province of 'those experts' as anyone can do it in their kitchen as the bigmonkey guy did.
As an aside Scetimatic abusing him over this experiment was out of order as it demonstrated quite nicely the relationship between volume and displacement and how it was independent of weight.

If a submarine is crushed by water pressure the air inside will be compressed but will not disappear, and the density will increase.

If the density increases then it will go deeper.
As it goes deeper the pressure will increase and the object will be more compressed increasing it's density making it sink even deeper until the bottom of the sea is reached making impossible to reach a point were we neutral buoyancy.

Correct and it the real reason why density is the reason for displacement of water when submerged and not volume.

Regardless of any outcome, which is debatable giving whose involved, I think perseverance medals need to be struck for both Onebigmonkey guy and Mainframes who have debated long and hard under difficult circumstances.

Bizarrely the answer to this whole debate has been known about for over 2000 years, but on a flat earth forum where 'the leader ' thinks penguins are a product of Cold War genetic manipulation anything is possible. It reminds me of an episode of the Outer Limits.

Just like gravity this volume explanation can also be a dupe.
Everything still works out but the wrong explanation is used to show it.

Those who have a mind to understand it will see that.
Your mind is rotten.

How about explaining this Mr Sceptimatic.

What exactly would you like explaining.
You obviously think this goes against me so explain why it does or what you're trying to prove and I'll gladly explain my side.

In your own words explain what you believe is happening.

Quote from: Gumby on January 17, 2017, 01:29:43 PM

If a submarine is crushed by water pressure the air inside will be compressed but will not disappear, and the density will increase.

If the density increases then it will go deeper.
As it goes deeper the pressure will increase and the object will be more compressed increasing it's density making it sink even deeper until the bottom of the sea is reached making impossible to reach a point were we neutral buoyancy.

Correct and it the real reason why density is the reason for displacement of water when submerged and not volume.

No it's not....look at the video ......look at the real world. Any experiment done will prove your views are false.

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 17, 2017, 02:22:25 PM

How about explaining this Mr Sceptimatic.

What exactly would you like explaining.
You obviously think this goes against me so explain why it does or what you're trying to prove and I'll gladly explain my side.

In your own words explain what you believe is happening.

I challenge you to explain what's happening in all three videos in terms of your denpressure belief as they clearly show all what you believe to be wrong.

So let's recap

Yes, let's recap.

An object that floats will displace its weight in water.

An object that floats will displace it's own dense mass of atmosphere which will directly push back with equal force, resulting in the displacement of water equal in man made scale measurement of the two densities, being the object and the water.
Denpressure is the reason for this.

This is the basis for all those little lines painted on the hulls of all ships as fresh, salt and brackish all have different densities. It prevents them from being overloaded and sinking! We can thank Archimedes for pointing this out.

Due to the above explanation.

An object that sinks will displace not its weight in water but just its volume.

It will displace it's own dense mass of water under proper conditions.

Both these facts are not open for debate and anyone who attempts it does so from blind ignorance.

They are massively open for debate and need to be debated to get to the real truth.
The volume is a dupe. It's a clever dupe but a dupe nonetheless.

They are facts that are shown and proved every day in countless numbers of schools around the world. It's an experiment that is not the province of 'those experts' as anyone can do it in their kitchen as the bigmonkey guy did.

Gravity measurements are supposedly facts but have been destroyed just like this volume displacement has.

As an aside Scetimatic abusing him over this experiment was out of order as it demonstrated quite nicely the relationship between volume and displacement and how it was independent of weight.

The abuse is mutual.
He also demonstrated something that was not a truth.

Come on Sceptimatic it's quite clear to all, except you...
Drop a number of objects of the same dimension but differing density into water and they will all, in the universe we know, displace the same volume of water.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 18, 2017, 12:18:33 AM

Quote from: Gumby on January 17, 2017, 01:29:43 PM

If a submarine is crushed by water pressure the air inside will be compressed but will not disappear, and the density will increase.

If the density increases then it will go deeper.
As it goes deeper the pressure will increase and the object will be more compressed increasing it's density making it sink even deeper until the bottom of the sea is reached making impossible to reach a point were we neutral buoyancy.

Correct and it the real reason why density is the reason for displacement of water when submerged and not volume.

No it's not....look at the video ......look at the real world. Any experiment done will prove your views are false.

I'm 100% correct but just as you can't pacify a kid in a screaming tantrum, I don't expect you to ever accept anything other than mainstream protocol.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 18, 2017, 12:25:08 AM

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 17, 2017, 02:22:25 PM

How about explaining this Mr Sceptimatic.

What exactly would you like explaining.
You obviously think this goes against me so explain why it does or what you're trying to prove and I'll gladly explain my side.

In your own words explain what you believe is happening.

I challenge you to explain what's happening in all three videos in terms of your denpressure belief as they clearly show all what you believe to be wrong.

I will just as soon as you explain in your own words what is happening from start to finish that goes against what I've mentioned.
Once you do that I'll certainly explain it from my side from start to finish.
If you can't do it or won't do it, then stop whining like a kid.

Come on Sceptimatic it's quite clear to all, except you...
Drop a number of objects of the same dimension but differing density into water and they will all, in the universe we know, displace the same volume of water.

No they will not.
They absolutely will not.
They may do in a shallow container like your best friend babymonkey's, but that's only because the hard bottom saves the day.
Do it in a massive tank and something very different happens, which has been explained to you but overlooked as per normal with people like you.

Understand denpressure and you change the fantasy of your physics to reality.

Quote from: Gumby on January 17, 2017, 01:29:43 PM

If a submarine is crushed by water pressure the air inside will be compressed but will not disappear, and the density will increase.

If the density increases then it will go deeper.
As it goes deeper the pressure will increase and the object will be more compressed increasing it's density making it sink even deeper until the bottom of the sea is reached making impossible to reach a point were we neutral buoyancy.

Correct and it the real reason why density is the reason for displacement of water when submerged and not volume.

Equal (same volume) incompressible objects cause the same displacement regardless their density.
Compressible objects will have diferent densities at diferent depths.

Two cubes with the same dimensions will displace the same amount of water. If the cubes get deformed by compression the dimensions will be diferent and no comparison can be made, at the least in the scope of this discussion.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 18, 2017, 12:18:33 AM

Quote from: Gumby on January 17, 2017, 01:29:43 PM

If a submarine is crushed by water pressure the air inside will be compressed but will not disappear, and the density will increase.

If the density increases then it will go deeper.
As it goes deeper the pressure will increase and the object will be more compressed increasing it's density making it sink even deeper until the bottom of the sea is reached making impossible to reach a point were we neutral buoyancy.

Correct and it the real reason why density is the reason for displacement of water when submerged and not volume.

Equal (same volume) incompressible objects cause the same displacement regardless their density.
Compressible objects will have diferent densities at diferent depths.

Two cubes with the same dimensions will displace the same amount of water. If the cubes get deformed by compression the dimensions will be diferent and no comparison can be made, at the least in the scope of this discussion.

The very second a change is made with water pressure against a volume in terms of the smallest squeeze/crush, it immediately kills off the whole volume displaces the water and changes to the density being the real displacement of it.

This does not require an ocean to test, it just requires some objects to test with honesty, in a decent sized container that has enough pressure to exert a small crush on some objects.

This would be measurable under the right conditions, however small.
This is all the proof that is needed, because from that point on, we all know that allowing those objects to be crushed down, will naturally reduce the volume and if the volume is being reduced then it cannot be the reason for water displacement, can it?
Exactly the opposite which is what my denpressure predicts as density displacing water or atmospheric pressure.

I'm correct.

An easier way to test this would be to actually use a inflated balloon or two, filled with various objects. Marbles or ball bearing or whatever. Even sand.

The volume is there for both, equally but with different densities inside.
Now see which one displaces what amount of water, because this would give a much clearer reading.

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 18, 2017, 12:46:31 AM

Come on Sceptimatic it's quite clear to all, except you...
Drop a number of objects of the same dimension but differing density into water and they will all, in the universe we know, displace the same volume of water.

No they will not.
They absolutely will not.
They may do in a shallow container like your best friend babymonkey's, but that's only because the hard bottom saves the day.
Do it in a massive tank and something very different happens, which has been explained to you but overlooked as per normal with people like you.

Understand denpressure and you change the fantasy of your physics to reality.

So like it is like I have been saying.  There will be nothing deep enough to do any experiment.  Just like there is no vacuum chamber high enough to test if everything falls at the same rate.

You claimed you did experiments that support denpressure.  Why not just give us one here to conduct?

You have avoided directly answering the depth needed to conduct an experiment that will demonstrate it is density and not volume that displaces a medium.  You must have an idea since you know what is not deep enough.

Sceptimatic...you are ignoring the evidence due to a one man inspired blind faith.

The video clearly shows the situation in the real world, displacement being a result of volume irrespective of density. Note the volumes the two cubes displace, are you claiming this video to be a fake?

Again from the video anyone can see that the wooden block displaces its own weight in water.

It's all so simple, it's all so clear for everyone, apart from You!

There is only one option open to you, produces your own video or another video that shows denpressure in action...but we all know this to be an impossibility as denpressure is a figment of your imagination that could never be proved as it is against the laws of nature.....a bit like yourself!

An easier way to test this would be to actually use a inflated balloon or two, filled with various objects. Marbles or ball bearing or whatever. Even sand.

The volume is there for both, equally but with different densities inside.
Now see which one displaces what amount of water, because this would give a much clearer reading.

What could be clearer than two equal volume, differing density, cubes of metal put into water displacing equal volumes. The amount of material is not relevant. For a law to be a law it must be the case in All situations......but come on what about the video showing the two metal cubes.....are you claiming it's wrong? Or possibly faked?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 18, 2017, 12:53:50 AM

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 18, 2017, 12:46:31 AM

Come on Sceptimatic it's quite clear to all, except you...
Drop a number of objects of the same dimension but differing density into water and they will all, in the universe we know, displace the same volume of water.

No they will not.
They absolutely will not.
They may do in a shallow container like your best friend babymonkey's, but that's only because the hard bottom saves the day.
Do it in a massive tank and something very different happens, which has been explained to you but overlooked as per normal with people like you.

Understand denpressure and you change the fantasy of your physics to reality.

So like it is like I have been saying.  There will be nothing deep enough to do any experiment.  Just like there is no vacuum chamber high enough to test if everything falls at the same rate.

You claimed you did experiments that support denpressure.  Why not just give us one here to conduct?

You have avoided directly answering the depth needed to conduct an experiment that will demonstrate it is density and not volume that displaces a medium.  You must have an idea since you know what is not deep enough.

Use your brain, or don't.