Air Pressure vs Gravity

  • 1933 Replies
  • 171472 Views
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1530 on: January 27, 2017, 11:08:42 PM »
I think I'm catching on to this whole denpressure thing. It really has more to do with density than anything else.

I think it has more to do with absolute vacuum, of the kind found in some people's heads

True, but be careful around scepti when mentioning the word vacuum.. it seems to draw his ire  ;)

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1531 on: January 28, 2017, 01:07:15 AM »
Skip to 2:50 and see how the density of a material will displace the real amount of water.
The only way a volume of air inside any object will displace water is if energy is applied to it, which is a falsity in itself in terms of measurement.



So what do you say about the charge I levy against you that it's very clear to anyone who knows your MO (and like most FE'ers, anyway) that you would reject the video you posted if it went against denpressure? Because it's not even remotely controversial to say that any video/demonstration/experiment that destroys denpressure you reject out-of-hand a priori.

You're a dishonest charlatan.

You also attempt to muddy the waters by bringing gravity into a discussion about displacement. What does gravity have to do with how much volume an object will displace in water? Since I've called you on this, and if your past behaviour is anything to go by, you'll now dogmatically defend bringing gravity into this discussion of which it has no real place.

Since everyone else has thoroughly destroyed your 'ideas' about displacement (as well as denpressure itself), I'll just leave it there.
Nobody has destroyed my ideas. You and most others do not even know what my ideas are because you refuse to understand them and stamp your feet in favour of a supposed non existent force that cannot be explained, at all.

You are now saying, what has gravity got to do with this stuff. Gravity apparently has everything to do with it until it's decided it doesn't fit and then an excuse is made.

I was told gravity is pulling objects down and that objects fall at the same rate.
I am told that two objects of the same volume but different densities fall at the same rate and yet we know it's not true in atmosphere but provable in water even more so.

However, we get told of buoyancy and what not, that counteracts it, yet gravity apparently has nothing to do with atmosphere and blah blah blah.
he utter nonsense of it all is plain to see for those who dare to open their eyes. Your eyes are super-glued shut for all eternity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1532 on: January 28, 2017, 01:08:18 AM »
I think I'm catching on to this whole denpressure thing. It really has more to do with density than anything else.

I think it has more to do with absolute vacuum, of the kind found in some people's heads

True, but be careful around scepti when mentioning the word vacuum.. it seems to draw his ire  ;)
Understanding how pressure is evacuated would be a good start for most of you people, because you don't even understand it at all.

Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1533 on: January 28, 2017, 02:01:36 AM »
Skip to 2:50 and see how the density of a material will displace the real amount of water.
The only way a volume of air inside any object will displace water is if energy is applied to it, which is a falsity in itself in terms of measurement.



So what do you say about the charge I levy against you that it's very clear to anyone who knows your MO (and like most FE'ers, anyway) that you would reject the video you posted if it went against denpressure? Because it's not even remotely controversial to say that any video/demonstration/experiment that destroys denpressure you reject out-of-hand a priori.

You're a dishonest charlatan.

You also attempt to muddy the waters by bringing gravity into a discussion about displacement. What does gravity have to do with how much volume an object will displace in water? Since I've called you on this, and if your past behaviour is anything to go by, you'll now dogmatically defend bringing gravity into this discussion of which it has no real place.

Since everyone else has thoroughly destroyed your 'ideas' about displacement (as well as denpressure itself), I'll just leave it there.
Nobody has destroyed my ideas. You and most others do not even know what my ideas are because you refuse to understand them and stamp your feet in favour of a supposed non existent force that cannot be explained, at all.

You are now saying, what has gravity got to do with this stuff. Gravity apparently has everything to do with it until it's decided it doesn't fit and then an excuse is made.

I was told gravity is pulling objects down and that objects fall at the same rate.
I am told that two objects of the same volume but different densities fall at the same rate and yet we know it's not true in atmosphere but provable in water even more so.

However, we get told of buoyancy and what not, that counteracts it, yet gravity apparently has nothing to do with atmosphere and blah blah blah.
he utter nonsense of it all is plain to see for those who dare to open their eyes. Your eyes are super-glued shut for all eternity.
Why are you unable to test this yourself?

What are you trying to achieve by posting here?  Not one person agrees with you and you provide no test results.

Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1534 on: January 28, 2017, 08:31:21 AM »
I think I'm catching on to this whole denpressure thing. It really has more to do with density than anything else.

I think it has more to do with absolute vacuum, of the kind found in some people's heads

True, but be careful around scepti when mentioning the word vacuum.. it seems to draw his ire  ;)
Understanding how pressure is evacuated would be a good start for most of you people, because you don't even understand it at all.

Not exactly hard. Air molecules are removed whilst not allowing any back into the chamber. Pressure drops as number of molecules decreases.

The engineering of such devices varies greatly depending on requirements. A typical vacuum pump might use two rotating shapes that effectively form a one way door for molecules. Molecules find their way into the mechanism and are removed.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1535 on: January 28, 2017, 10:11:57 AM »
I think I'm catching on to this whole denpressure thing. It really has more to do with density than anything else.

I think it has more to do with absolute vacuum, of the kind found in some people's heads

True, but be careful around scepti when mentioning the word vacuum.. it seems to draw his ire  ;)
Understanding how pressure is evacuated would be a good start for most of you people, because you don't even understand it at all.

Not exactly hard. Air molecules are removed whilst not allowing any back into the chamber. Pressure drops as number of molecules decreases.

The engineering of such devices varies greatly depending on requirements. A typical vacuum pump might use two rotating shapes that effectively form a one way door for molecules. Molecules find their way into the mechanism and are removed.
Describe what happens to the molecules inside the chamber and how the pump works.
Just describe it all so I know how your thinking. Also tell me what happens to the decreasing molecules inside the chamber.


Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1536 on: January 28, 2017, 11:05:29 AM »
I think I'm catching on to this whole denpressure thing. It really has more to do with density than anything else.

I think it has more to do with absolute vacuum, of the kind found in some people's heads

True, but be careful around scepti when mentioning the word vacuum.. it seems to draw his ire  ;)
Understanding how pressure is evacuated would be a good start for most of you people, because you don't even understand it at all.

Not exactly hard. Air molecules are removed whilst not allowing any back into the chamber. Pressure drops as number of molecules decreases.

The engineering of such devices varies greatly depending on requirements. A typical vacuum pump might use two rotating shapes that effectively form a one way door for molecules. Molecules find their way into the mechanism and are removed.
Describe what happens to the molecules inside the chamber and how the pump works.
Just describe it all so I know how your thinking. Also tell me what happens to the decreasing molecules inside the chamber.

As I stated in my second paragraph. Molecules are bouncing around at random and some will find their way into the one way mechanism. This can take the form of two rotating shapes that will push molecules out in one direction while not allowing them back in.

Nothing happens to the descreasing molecules in the chamber. There as just less of them. The fewer molecules in the chamber the fewer impacts on the chamber wall and therefore less pressure. Eventually there are so few molecules that the pressure will be negligible and you will have a vacuum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1537 on: January 28, 2017, 12:38:37 PM »
As I stated in my second paragraph. Molecules are bouncing around at random and some will find their way into the one way mechanism.
No they're not bouncing around at random, at all.
They are under pressure and are expanding and compressing against each other, more or less so in areas of more energy force.

This can take the form of two rotating shapes that will push molecules out in one direction while not allowing them back in.
I'm not too sure what you mean here.
Nothing happens to the descreasing molecules in the chamber. There as just less of them.
less of them, yes but there's a reason why there's less and it's because they are more expanded in taking up the same space.


The fewer molecules in the chamber the fewer impacts on the chamber wall and therefore less pressure.
The impacts are through touching the walls of the chamber not by randomly bouncing into them.
The molecules are very small and dense before evacuation. As soon as external dense molecules are pushed away externally by the pump pushing them back, the molecules in the chamber can decompress by natural expansion from their compressed state.
The more powerful push the pump has, the more molecules can expand out of the chamber to be compressed externally into the already compressed external atmosphere.

The chamber can never be empty of molecules. It is always full no matter how strong the pump is. The only difference is in how expanded the molecules inside, are and how much expansion they have left in order to get to a point where their push on push expansion creates no more external push out of them.

Try and absorb what's being said. I'm almost certain you won't because you're in no way in all hell going to bother to understand the reality against the fiction you're schooled into.


Eventually there are so few molecules that the pressure will be negligible and you will have a vacuum.
Just rattling around in the chamber, eh?
Read above and you could literally start to think for yourself.

Maybe some genuine people will grasp it. You never know.

Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1538 on: January 28, 2017, 01:02:48 PM »
Please provide evidence of expanding molecules. How big can a molecule get? Does this change its physical properties?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1539 on: January 28, 2017, 11:21:16 PM »
Please provide evidence of expanding molecules. How big can a molecule get? Does this change its physical properties?
I don't know how big they get, I can't see them. They expand as much as they are allowed to by energy applied (pump/heat etc) that allows them to expand.

And yes their properties change, but that's not even worth mentioning until you grasp what's happening.

Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1540 on: January 29, 2017, 12:35:18 AM »
Please provide evidence of expanding molecules. How big can a molecule get? Does this change its physical properties?
I don't know how big they get, I can't see them. They expand as much as they are allowed to by energy applied (pump/heat etc) that allows them to expand.

And yes their properties change, but that's not even worth mentioning until you grasp what's happening.

What is your evidence that molecules expand?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1541 on: January 29, 2017, 12:41:18 AM »
Please provide evidence of expanding molecules. How big can a molecule get? Does this change its physical properties?
I don't know how big they get, I can't see them. They expand as much as they are allowed to by energy applied (pump/heat etc) that allows them to expand.

And yes their properties change, but that's not even worth mentioning until you grasp what's happening.

What is your evidence that molecules expand?
What is your evidence that they don't?

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1542 on: January 29, 2017, 12:44:56 AM »
A vacuum cleaner?
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1543 on: January 29, 2017, 12:50:03 AM »
A vacuum cleaner?
How about explaining how your vacuum cleaner proves against what I'm saying?

Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1544 on: January 29, 2017, 12:50:50 AM »
Please provide evidence of expanding molecules. How big can a molecule get? Does this change its physical properties?
I don't know how big they get, I can't see them. They expand as much as they are allowed to by energy applied (pump/heat etc) that allows them to expand.

And yes their properties change, but that's not even worth mentioning until you grasp what's happening.

What is your evidence that molecules expand?
What is your evidence that they don't?

You are asserting that they expand. Prove it. Burden of proof is on you.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1545 on: January 29, 2017, 12:53:49 AM »
Please provide evidence of expanding molecules. How big can a molecule get? Does this change its physical properties?
I don't know how big they get, I can't see them. They expand as much as they are allowed to by energy applied (pump/heat etc) that allows them to expand.

And yes their properties change, but that's not even worth mentioning until you grasp what's happening.

What is your evidence that molecules expand?
What is your evidence that they don't?

You are asserting that they expand. Prove it. Burden of proof is on you.
I can't physically prove it by direct eye observation no more than you can prove any of the stuff you follow from mainstream.

Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1546 on: January 29, 2017, 12:56:34 AM »
Please provide evidence of expanding molecules. How big can a molecule get? Does this change its physical properties?
I don't know how big they get, I can't see them. They expand as much as they are allowed to by energy applied (pump/heat etc) that allows them to expand.

And yes their properties change, but that's not even worth mentioning until you grasp what's happening.

What is your evidence that molecules expand?
What is your evidence that they don't?

You are asserting that they expand. Prove it. Burden of proof is on you.
I can't physically prove it by direct eye observation no more than you can prove any of the stuff you follow from mainstream.

Direct eye observation is not the only way of providing evidence but if we are that subject then Brownian Motion is good evidence of Kinetic Gas Theory. Brownian motion also is direct evidence against stacked molecules.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1547 on: January 29, 2017, 01:02:34 AM »
A vacuum cleaner?
How about explaining how your vacuum cleaner proves against what I'm saying?

If molecules expand to fill the space there would be no suction at the end of the vacuum cleaner hose. I said it. Now it's a fact unless you prove me wrong. And even if you prove me wrong, I'll just invent some other ridiculous completely unsubstantiated explanation and then I'll still be right! It's fun taking a trip down the rabbit hole once in a while!

Also:

How about explaining any evidence whatsoever for your expanding molecule theory.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1548 on: January 29, 2017, 01:51:14 AM »
Please provide evidence of expanding molecules. How big can a molecule get? Does this change its physical properties?
I don't know how big they get, I can't see them. They expand as much as they are allowed to by energy applied (pump/heat etc) that allows them to expand.

And yes their properties change, but that's not even worth mentioning until you grasp what's happening.

What is your evidence that molecules expand?
What is your evidence that they don't?

You are asserting that they expand. Prove it. Burden of proof is on you.
I can't physically prove it by direct eye observation no more than you can prove any of the stuff you follow from mainstream.

Direct eye observation is not the only way of providing evidence but if we are that subject then Brownian Motion is good evidence of Kinetic Gas Theory. Brownian motion also is direct evidence against stacked molecules.
No it's not.
Microscopes wouldn't be effective if we could see everything through them, because seeing through them means we see through something to see something, which means we don't see everything.
See what I mean?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1549 on: January 29, 2017, 01:53:25 AM »
A vacuum cleaner?
How about explaining how your vacuum cleaner proves against what I'm saying?

If molecules expand to fill the space there would be no suction at the end of the vacuum cleaner hose. I said it. Now it's a fact unless you prove me wrong. And even if you prove me wrong, I'll just invent some other ridiculous completely unsubstantiated explanation and then I'll still be right! It's fun taking a trip down the rabbit hole once in a while!

Also:

How about explaining any evidence whatsoever for your expanding molecule theory.
I think your post explains everything I need to know about binning you. Take a trip to the ignore.

Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1550 on: January 29, 2017, 02:26:12 AM »
Please provide evidence of expanding molecules. How big can a molecule get? Does this change its physical properties?
I don't know how big they get, I can't see them. They expand as much as they are allowed to by energy applied (pump/heat etc) that allows them to expand.

And yes their properties change, but that's not even worth mentioning until you grasp what's happening.

What is your evidence that molecules expand?
What is your evidence that they don't?

You are asserting that they expand. Prove it. Burden of proof is on you.
I can't physically prove it by direct eye observation no more than you can prove any of the stuff you follow from mainstream.

Direct eye observation is not the only way of providing evidence but if we are that subject then Brownian Motion is good evidence of Kinetic Gas Theory. Brownian motion also is direct evidence against stacked molecules.
No it's not.
Microscopes wouldn't be effective if we could see everything through them, because seeing through them means we see through something to see something, which means we don't see everything.
See what I mean?

Nice attempt at dodging the question. Light transmission through transparent solids (i.e. Glass lenses) does not present any problems in using a microscope. The limitations and strengths of microscopes are well known.

You can't explain Brownian motion using denpressure. There is no mechanism for it. Similarly concepts such as temperature-pressure relationships, diffusion, reaction kinetics, crystallisation and catalysis all destroy denspressure as it cannot possibly explain them. Kinetic has theory fits perfectly.

I tried to debate you before on denspressure and the problem of Brownian motion and you ran away.

Don't act high and mighty telling us to be freethinkers when you try and push a hypothesis that cannot be backed experimentally and is actively refuted by observable evidence.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1551 on: January 29, 2017, 02:30:39 AM »
A vacuum cleaner?
How about explaining how your vacuum cleaner proves against what I'm saying?

If molecules expand to fill the space there would be no suction at the end of the vacuum cleaner hose. I said it. Now it's a fact unless you prove me wrong. And even if you prove me wrong, I'll just invent some other ridiculous completely unsubstantiated explanation and then I'll still be right! It's fun taking a trip down the rabbit hole once in a while!

Also:

How about explaining any evidence whatsoever for your expanding molecule theory.
I think your post explains everything I need to know about binning you. Take a trip to the ignore.
Fine. But you do snarky posts all the time. Why are you allowed to be snarky but we aren't. Do you think I like being constantly accused of not thinking for myself etc.?

What makes you think you are just the right distance outside of the box? In order to formulate your theories you are still subscribing to some laws of physics accepted by the mainstream. If it were possible, someone could reject even more of the mainstream ideas than you have, then constantly accuse you of being an ignorant sheeple. Do you think you would like that? You might even be tempted to write a snarky post once in a while.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1552 on: January 29, 2017, 02:31:59 AM »
Nice attempt at dodging the question. Light transmission through transparent solids (i.e. Glass lenses) does not present any problems in using a microscope. The limitations and strengths of microscopes are well known.

You can't explain Brownian motion using denpressure. There is no mechanism for it. Similarly concepts such as temperature-pressure relationships, diffusion, reaction kinetics, crystallisation and catalysis all destroy denspressure as it cannot possibly explain them. Kinetic has theory fits perfectly.

I tried to debate you before on denspressure and the problem of Brownian motion and you ran away.

Don't act high and mighty telling us to be freethinkers when you try and push a hypothesis that cannot be backed experimentally and is actively refuted by observable evidence.
You don't even know what you're talking about with Brownian motion. You merely copy and paste stuff and pretend you know what you're arguing against.

You tell me in your own words how Brownian motion scuppers what I'm talking about.
Let's see if I'm running away or it's you not having a clue.
Mr Parrot coming it with an all knowing pretence that is merely all copy and paste.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1553 on: January 29, 2017, 02:36:39 AM »
A vacuum cleaner?
How about explaining how your vacuum cleaner proves against what I'm saying?

If molecules expand to fill the space there would be no suction at the end of the vacuum cleaner hose. I said it. Now it's a fact unless you prove me wrong. And even if you prove me wrong, I'll just invent some other ridiculous completely unsubstantiated explanation and then I'll still be right! It's fun taking a trip down the rabbit hole once in a while!

Also:

How about explaining any evidence whatsoever for your expanding molecule theory.
I think your post explains everything I need to know about binning you. Take a trip to the ignore.
Fine. But you do snarky posts all the time. Why are you allowed to be snarky but we aren't. Do you think I like being constantly accused of not thinking for myself etc.?

What makes you think you are just the right distance outside of the box? In order to formulate your theories you are still subscribing to some laws of physics accepted by the mainstream. If it were possible, someone could reject even more of the mainstream ideas than you have, then constantly accuse you of being an ignorant sheeple. Do you think you would like that? You might even be tempted to write a snarky post once in a while.
I can still open your posts.
You are weak. You hide behind the skirts/coat-tails of those you know are in the masses of opinion, rightly or wrongly.
You're a follower and not a thinker.
Your last post proved it and you think you get a badge of honour for it.
You're a robot.
Wake up and debate or keep coming out with what you just did. Either way I can deal with you but I prefer to deal with you in the correct way. In an amicable way and with a hope that maybe you can become a real person with a real individual mind.


Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1554 on: January 29, 2017, 02:43:18 AM »
Nice attempt at dodging the question. Light transmission through transparent solids (i.e. Glass lenses) does not present any problems in using a microscope. The limitations and strengths of microscopes are well known.

You can't explain Brownian motion using denpressure. There is no mechanism for it. Similarly concepts such as temperature-pressure relationships, diffusion, reaction kinetics, crystallisation and catalysis all destroy denspressure as it cannot possibly explain them. Kinetic has theory fits perfectly.

I tried to debate you before on denspressure and the problem of Brownian motion and you ran away.

Don't act high and mighty telling us to be freethinkers when you try and push a hypothesis that cannot be backed experimentally and is actively refuted by observable evidence.
You don't even know what you're talking about with Brownian motion. You merely copy and paste stuff and pretend you know what you're arguing against.

You tell me in your own words how Brownian motion scuppers what I'm talking about.
Let's see if I'm running away or it's you not having a clue.
Mr Parrot coming it with an all knowing pretence that is merely all copy and paste.

Lol. I have a chemical engineering degree, I know what I'm talking about.

Brownian motion is the erratic behaviour of visible particles in a fluid such as smoke, pollen and dust. The action of random impacts of the fluid molecules (such as air) cause the particles to bounce about. This reinforces the concept of kinetic theory describing gas and fluid molecules moving about at random colliding with each other and other objects (such as a container wall).

Your stacked molecules hypothesis can not explain this behaviour.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1555 on: January 29, 2017, 02:44:51 AM »
Nice attempt at dodging the question. Light transmission through transparent solids (i.e. Glass lenses) does not present any problems in using a microscope. The limitations and strengths of microscopes are well known.

You can't explain Brownian motion using denpressure. There is no mechanism for it. Similarly concepts such as temperature-pressure relationships, diffusion, reaction kinetics, crystallisation and catalysis all destroy denspressure as it cannot possibly explain them. Kinetic has theory fits perfectly.

I tried to debate you before on denspressure and the problem of Brownian motion and you ran away.

Don't act high and mighty telling us to be freethinkers when you try and push a hypothesis that cannot be backed experimentally and is actively refuted by observable evidence.
You don't even know what you're talking about with Brownian motion. You merely copy and paste stuff and pretend you know what you're arguing against.

You tell me in your own words how Brownian motion scuppers what I'm talking about.
Let's see if I'm running away or it's you not having a clue.
Mr Parrot coming it with an all knowing pretence that is merely all copy and paste.
Stop this obsession with asking posters to explain known facts. 

You have still not explained why you claim the weight of an object varies with atmospheric pressure.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1556 on: January 29, 2017, 03:52:42 AM »
Nice attempt at dodging the question. Light transmission through transparent solids (i.e. Glass lenses) does not present any problems in using a microscope. The limitations and strengths of microscopes are well known.

You can't explain Brownian motion using denpressure. There is no mechanism for it. Similarly concepts such as temperature-pressure relationships, diffusion, reaction kinetics, crystallisation and catalysis all destroy denspressure as it cannot possibly explain them. Kinetic has theory fits perfectly.

I tried to debate you before on denspressure and the problem of Brownian motion and you ran away.

Don't act high and mighty telling us to be freethinkers when you try and push a hypothesis that cannot be backed experimentally and is actively refuted by observable evidence.
You don't even know what you're talking about with Brownian motion. You merely copy and paste stuff and pretend you know what you're arguing against.

You tell me in your own words how Brownian motion scuppers what I'm talking about.
Let's see if I'm running away or it's you not having a clue.
Mr Parrot coming it with an all knowing pretence that is merely all copy and paste.

Lol. I have a chemical engineering degree, I know what I'm talking about.

Brownian motion is the erratic behaviour of visible particles in a fluid such as smoke, pollen and dust. The action of random impacts of the fluid molecules (such as air) cause the particles to bounce about. This reinforces the concept of kinetic theory describing gas and fluid molecules moving about at random colliding with each other and other objects (such as a container wall).

Your stacked molecules hypothesis can not explain this behaviour.
That behaviour is down to different densities added into the atmosphere.
It's like having random sized balloons in a room and wafting the atmosphere. they will all bounce about, but it's what they're bouncing about in, is the question.
Can you guess?

Same type of thing on a massively smaller scale, obviously.
Think about it.

Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1557 on: January 29, 2017, 05:01:09 AM »
Nice attempt at dodging the question. Light transmission through transparent solids (i.e. Glass lenses) does not present any problems in using a microscope. The limitations and strengths of microscopes are well known.

You can't explain Brownian motion using denpressure. There is no mechanism for it. Similarly concepts such as temperature-pressure relationships, diffusion, reaction kinetics, crystallisation and catalysis all destroy denspressure as it cannot possibly explain them. Kinetic has theory fits perfectly.

I tried to debate you before on denspressure and the problem of Brownian motion and you ran away.

Don't act high and mighty telling us to be freethinkers when you try and push a hypothesis that cannot be backed experimentally and is actively refuted by observable evidence.
You don't even know what you're talking about with Brownian motion. You merely copy and paste stuff and pretend you know what you're arguing against.

You tell me in your own words how Brownian motion scuppers what I'm talking about.
Let's see if I'm running away or it's you not having a clue.
Mr Parrot coming it with an all knowing pretence that is merely all copy and paste.

Lol. I have a chemical engineering degree, I know what I'm talking about.

Brownian motion is the erratic behaviour of visible particles in a fluid such as smoke, pollen and dust. The action of random impacts of the fluid molecules (such as air) cause the particles to bounce about. This reinforces the concept of kinetic theory describing gas and fluid molecules moving about at random colliding with each other and other objects (such as a container wall).

Your stacked molecules hypothesis can not explain this behaviour.
That behaviour is down to different densities added into the atmosphere.
It's like having random sized balloons in a room and wafting the atmosphere. they will all bounce about, but it's what they're bouncing about in, is the question.
Can you guess?

Same type of thing on a massively smaller scale, obviously.
Think about it.
Density is a measure of mass per unit volume.  You add the mass.

Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1558 on: January 29, 2017, 06:38:01 AM »
Nice attempt at dodging the question. Light transmission through transparent solids (i.e. Glass lenses) does not present any problems in using a microscope. The limitations and strengths of microscopes are well known.

You can't explain Brownian motion using denpressure. There is no mechanism for it. Similarly concepts such as temperature-pressure relationships, diffusion, reaction kinetics, crystallisation and catalysis all destroy denspressure as it cannot possibly explain them. Kinetic has theory fits perfectly.

I tried to debate you before on denspressure and the problem of Brownian motion and you ran away.

Don't act high and mighty telling us to be freethinkers when you try and push a hypothesis that cannot be backed experimentally and is actively refuted by observable evidence.
You don't even know what you're talking about with Brownian motion. You merely copy and paste stuff and pretend you know what you're arguing against.

You tell me in your own words how Brownian motion scuppers what I'm talking about.
Let's see if I'm running away or it's you not having a clue.
Mr Parrot coming it with an all knowing pretence that is merely all copy and paste.

Lol. I have a chemical engineering degree, I know what I'm talking about.

Brownian motion is the erratic behaviour of visible particles in a fluid such as smoke, pollen and dust. The action of random impacts of the fluid molecules (such as air) cause the particles to bounce about. This reinforces the concept of kinetic theory describing gas and fluid molecules moving about at random colliding with each other and other objects (such as a container wall).

Your stacked molecules hypothesis can not explain this behaviour.
That behaviour is down to different densities added into the atmosphere.
It's like having random sized balloons in a room and wafting the atmosphere. they will all bounce about, but it's what they're bouncing about in, is the question.
Can you guess?

Same type of thing on a massively smaller scale, obviously.
Think about it.

You've stated that there are no gaps between molecules and that they don't move around. Brownian motion shows this to be false.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28515
Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« Reply #1559 on: January 29, 2017, 06:45:26 AM »
You've stated that there are no gaps between molecules and that they don't move around. Brownian motion shows this to be false.
No, I never said they don't move around. I said they don't freely move around. they are always attached with no gaps.

It shocks me that you've taken this long and still can't grasp it. I'm thinking you're sort of, backward.

Think of washing up water bubbles in a sink. any gaps between the bubbles?
How about moving some bubbles around.
Any gaps as you do this?

Think about it and come back to me with the same, hopefully not with old backward stuff.