Air Pressure vs Gravity

Quote from: Mainframes on January 29, 2017, 06:38:01 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.

And to move those bubbles around something had to act on them.

Brownian motion shows constant movement with no outside influence.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2017, 06:45:26 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 29, 2017, 06:38:01 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.

And to move those bubbles around something had to act on them.

Brownian motion shows constant movement with no outside influence.

This is why you'll always live in a fantasy world. Seriously you need to wake yourself up.

Quote from: Mainframes on January 29, 2017, 07:28:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2017, 06:45:26 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 29, 2017, 06:38:01 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.

And to move those bubbles around something had to act on them.

Brownian motion shows constant movement with no outside influence.

This is why you'll always live in a fantasy world. Seriously you need to wake yourself up.

It always ends up with personal abuse.

Quote from: Mainframes on January 29, 2017, 07:28:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2017, 06:45:26 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 29, 2017, 06:38:01 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.

And to move those bubbles around something had to act on them.

Brownian motion shows constant movement with no outside influence.

This is why you'll always live in a fantasy world. Seriously you need to wake yourself up.

The only person in a fantasy world is you. You have literally pulled denspressure from out of your arse with no evidence whatsoever, whilst denying a theory that is backed up by decades worth of data and evidence.

The only person in a fantasy world is you. You have literally pulled denspressure from out of your arse with no evidence whatsoever, whilst denying a theory that is backed up by decades worth of data and evidence.

Decades worth of data?

It's backed up by people who cannot be argued against, because it appears to be a crime on the quiet.
The so called evidence has nothing to back it up in reality and you know it.

It has stories and bullshit equations that profess to back it up but can't in reality, so don't be coming that crap with me, backward lad.

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.

I am willing to learn from others. I have never considered that a weakness. And I don't always agree with mainstream. But I don't just swallow things at face value. Newton's laws make sense to me not because they are mainstream but because they accurately describe the real world. I have personally verified some of them. I also know some engineers who use his laws every day. I don't know how you get around this fact. When you do a certain thing over and over again and always get the same result it's legitimate to make some conclusions even if you don't know the underlying reasons. (Cattle do this, people do this, and you do this. It would be almost impossible to live otherwise.)

Thinking outside the box is great within certain limits. Insisting that 2+2=5 is definitely outside the box but it's also just wrong. I'm sure we could come up with some clever angle to make it appear like 5 was a reasonable answer but it would still be wrong.

I have done the water displacement experiments and they do work just the way mainstream science predicts. When I did them I wasn't being dishonest and I wasn't trying to prove a point to anyone. I was just curious. I haven't done them under high pressure but what difference does that make when we're talking about the atmosphere? BTW if I did the experiments in a clear pipe that was 75 mm - 100 mm in diameter how deep would it need to be before you would consider it legitimate?

Do I understand you correctly that you think water will compress to the same density as mercury under high pressure?

Back to my earlier post, it's frustrating because you bring up expanding molecules with no evidence, but then put the onus on others to provide evidence that they don't expand. (As far as that goes where are you getting the idea of molecules from anyway? Mainstream science?) Then you seem to think you're quite clever because they can't provide the evidence. When are you going to provide evidence for anything you say?

Quote from: Mainframes on January 29, 2017, 09:39:50 AM

The only person in a fantasy world is you. You have literally pulled denspressure from out of your arse with no evidence whatsoever, whilst denying a theory that is backed up by decades worth of data and evidence.

Decades worth of data?

It's backed up by people who cannot be argued against, because it appears to be a crime on the quiet.
The so called evidence has nothing to back it up in reality and you know it.

It has stories and bullshit equations that profess to back it up but can't in reality, so don't be coming that crap with me, backward lad.

Ha ha ha! Yes decades of data. You see grown ups use kinetic theory to design things such as chemical plants. Volumetric flowrate, fluid dynamics, osmosis, diffusion, non-Newtonian fluids, amongst other processes all use kinetic theory. And yes I have been involved with all of these.

Ha ha ha! Yes decades of data. You see grown ups use kinetic theory to design things such as chemical plants. Volumetric flowrate, fluid dynamics, osmosis, diffusion, non-Newtonian fluids, amongst other processes all use kinetic theory. And yes I have been involved with all of these.

None of what you say requires gravity. Everything you see happening requires exactly what I've been telling you from the start.

You can try and go down the intricate way to try and somehow prove a point but all you do is miss out of the basic, simple stuff.
I seriously don't think you're capable of having the mind to see simplicity. I thin k your head is crammed full of absolute fantasy nonsense.
I believe you're a person that tries to analyse the equation for why your toast burns and what would happen to it inside the engine compartment of the star ship enterprise.


No wonder your head is crammed up your own arse.

Quote from: Mainframes on January 29, 2017, 10:32:25 AM

Ha ha ha! Yes decades of data. You see grown ups use kinetic theory to design things such as chemical plants. Volumetric flowrate, fluid dynamics, osmosis, diffusion, non-Newtonian fluids, amongst other processes all use kinetic theory. And yes I have been involved with all of these.

None of what you say requires gravity. Everything you see happening requires exactly what I've been telling you from the start.

You can try and go down the intricate way to try and somehow prove a point but all you do is miss out of the basic, simple stuff.
I seriously don't think you're capable of having the mind to see simplicity. I thin k your head is crammed full of absolute fantasy nonsense.
I believe you're a person that tries to analyse the equation for why your toast burns and what would happen to it inside the engine compartment of the star ship enterprise.


No wonder your head is crammed up your own arse.

They may not require gravity but they do destroy denpressure.

The irony of your comment is hilarious. There is nothing complex about gravity. Mass attracts mass. Kinetic theory has molecules bouncing around. Easy.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2017, 10:40:05 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 29, 2017, 10:32:25 AM

Ha ha ha! Yes decades of data. You see grown ups use kinetic theory to design things such as chemical plants. Volumetric flowrate, fluid dynamics, osmosis, diffusion, non-Newtonian fluids, amongst other processes all use kinetic theory. And yes I have been involved with all of these.

None of what you say requires gravity. Everything you see happening requires exactly what I've been telling you from the start.

You can try and go down the intricate way to try and somehow prove a point but all you do is miss out of the basic, simple stuff.
I seriously don't think you're capable of having the mind to see simplicity. I thin k your head is crammed full of absolute fantasy nonsense.
I believe you're a person that tries to analyse the equation for why your toast burns and what would happen to it inside the engine compartment of the star ship enterprise.


No wonder your head is crammed up your own arse.

They may not require gravity but they do destroy denpressure.

The irony of your comment is hilarious. There is nothing complex about gravity. Mass attracts mass. Kinetic theory has molecules bouncing around. Easy.

Mass attracts mass. Simple as that, eh?
A big iron ball against a grain of sand on a table. The grain of sand doesn't get attracted to the big iron ball.

Gravity is poppycock.
And your answer is kinetic theory has molecules bouncing around.
Wow, your explanations are a killer.
Try again because you appear so weak that I'm tempted to call you diluted.

Mass attracts mass. Simple as that, eh?
A big iron ball against a grain of sand on a table. The grain of sand doesn't get attracted to the big iron ball.

Actually, the grain of sand does get attracted to the iron ball.  The force of that attraction can be found by using this formula:


When are you going to come up with a formula to describe any part of denpressure?

The big iron ball does get attracted to the grain of sand. They both get attracted to the table, and the Earth the table is on. The balance of forces means they stay where they are relative to each other.

Quote from: Mainframes on January 29, 2017, 11:37:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2017, 10:40:05 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 29, 2017, 10:32:25 AM

Ha ha ha! Yes decades of data. You see grown ups use kinetic theory to design things such as chemical plants. Volumetric flowrate, fluid dynamics, osmosis, diffusion, non-Newtonian fluids, amongst other processes all use kinetic theory. And yes I have been involved with all of these.

None of what you say requires gravity. Everything you see happening requires exactly what I've been telling you from the start.

You can try and go down the intricate way to try and somehow prove a point but all you do is miss out of the basic, simple stuff.
I seriously don't think you're capable of having the mind to see simplicity. I thin k your head is crammed full of absolute fantasy nonsense.
I believe you're a person that tries to analyse the equation for why your toast burns and what would happen to it inside the engine compartment of the star ship enterprise.


No wonder your head is crammed up your own arse.

They may not require gravity but they do destroy denpressure.

The irony of your comment is hilarious. There is nothing complex about gravity. Mass attracts mass. Kinetic theory has molecules bouncing around. Easy.

Mass attracts mass. Simple as that, eh?
A big iron ball against a grain of sand on a table. The grain of sand doesn't get attracted to the big iron ball.

Gravity is poppycock.
And your answer is kinetic theory has molecules bouncing around.
Wow, your explanations are a killer.
Try again because you appear so weak that I'm tempted to call you diluted.

Try learning about magnitude of forces. Gravity is really weak and that's why it takes something the mass of a planet to generate any appreciable force.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2017, 03:28:01 PM

Mass attracts mass. Simple as that, eh?
A big iron ball against a grain of sand on a table. The grain of sand doesn't get attracted to the big iron ball.

Actually, the grain of sand does get attracted to the iron ball.  The force of that attraction can be found by using this formula:


When are you going to come up with a formula to describe any part of denpressure?

I'm still watching the grain of sand near the big iron ball and it's not moved at all towards it.

The big iron ball does get attracted to the grain of sand. They both get attracted to the table, and the Earth the table is on. The balance of forces means they stay where they are relative to each other.

The balance of forces mean they stay where they are?
I thought this was about mass attracting mass?

Didn't someone called Cavendish supposedly test this mass attracting mass out and supposedly the weights moved towards each other with the special equipment he had at the time but now can't be replicated without sleight of hand and mind tricks and what not.

Mass attracts mass in fantasy world.
The truth is, mass and the density of the mass, repels atmospheric pressure and can only be pushed into it.

Try learning about magnitude of forces. Gravity is really weak and that's why it takes something the mass of a planet to generate any appreciable force.

Yeah yeah, mass of planets and such one minute and when it suits, it's anything goes.
Gravity is what the so called scientists say it is, as and when the bullshit is required.
People should really be able to see through it but severe indoctrination and ridicule prevents them from engaging their logical brains.

Quote from: markjo on January 29, 2017, 04:53:12 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2017, 03:28:01 PM

Mass attracts mass. Simple as that, eh?
A big iron ball against a grain of sand on a table. The grain of sand doesn't get attracted to the big iron ball.

Actually, the grain of sand does get attracted to the iron ball.  The force of that attraction can be found by using this formula:


When are you going to come up with a formula to describe any part of denpressure?

I'm still watching the grain of sand near the big iron ball and it's not moved at all towards it.

Force due to gravity between those two objects is very small and isn't enough to overcome the friction on the surface they are sat on. Even if the surface was totally frictionless then:

Let's say an iron ball of mass 1kg was 10cm from a grain of sand of mass 0.7g. Plug these into the formula for gravitational force gives a force of 4.7 x 10^-15 Newtons. Apply this to the grain of sand and it would accelerate at 6.67 x 10^-9 m/s/s. At that rate it would take 29,985007 seconds to reach the iron ball. That's just under a year.

Gravity is weak.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2017, 01:38:18 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 29, 2017, 04:53:12 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2017, 03:28:01 PM

Mass attracts mass. Simple as that, eh?
A big iron ball against a grain of sand on a table. The grain of sand doesn't get attracted to the big iron ball.

Actually, the grain of sand does get attracted to the iron ball.  The force of that attraction can be found by using this formula:


When are you going to come up with a formula to describe any part of denpressure?

I'm still watching the grain of sand near the big iron ball and it's not moved at all towards it.

Force due to gravity between those two objects is very small and isn't enough to overcome the friction on the surface they are sat on. Even if the surface was totally frictionless then:

Let's say an iron ball of mass 1kg was 10cm from a grain of sand of mass 0.7g. Plug these into the formula for gravitational force gives a force of 4.7 x 10^-15 Newtons. Apply this to the grain of sand and it would accelerate at 6.67 x 10^-9 m/s/s. At that rate it would take 29,985007 seconds to reach the iron ball. That's just under a year.

Gravity is weak.

The iron ball I'm using is 1000kg approx, so in approximately 8 hours I should see that grain of sand stuck to the iron ball, right?

You have an iron ball weighing over 2,000 pounds on your table?

Quote from: Mainframes on January 30, 2017, 01:56:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2017, 01:38:18 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 29, 2017, 04:53:12 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2017, 03:28:01 PM

Mass attracts mass. Simple as that, eh?
A big iron ball against a grain of sand on a table. The grain of sand doesn't get attracted to the big iron ball.

Actually, the grain of sand does get attracted to the iron ball.  The force of that attraction can be found by using this formula:


When are you going to come up with a formula to describe any part of denpressure?

I'm still watching the grain of sand near the big iron ball and it's not moved at all towards it.

Force due to gravity between those two objects is very small and isn't enough to overcome the friction on the surface they are sat on. Even if the surface was totally frictionless then:

Let's say an iron ball of mass 1kg was 10cm from a grain of sand of mass 0.7g. Plug these into the formula for gravitational force gives a force of 4.7 x 10^-15 Newtons. Apply this to the grain of sand and it would accelerate at 6.67 x 10^-9 m/s/s. At that rate it would take 29,985007 seconds to reach the iron ball. That's just under a year.

Gravity is weak.

The iron ball I'm using is 1000kg approx, so in approximately 8 hours I should see that grain of sand stuck to the iron ball, right?

If there was absolutely no friction on the table.

You have an iron ball weighing over 2,000 pounds on your table?

More of a low trolley type table, yeah. All made of box section and metal plate.
It's a wrecking ball.
8 hours and the grain of sand will be stuck to it. I think this is how it's supposed to work, unless you people want to change anything.

I'll maybe use a hand full of sand and coat the ball in 8 hours. It'll be like an abrasive wrecking ball.

Am I getting this gravity stuff right?

If there was absolutely no friction on the table.

Oops.... you mean I have to somehow make a vacuum on the table?
Unless there's another way I can test it.
Any ideas?

I don't believe you're even trying it, much less you have a 1,000 kg iron ball.  Pics or it didn't happen.


Plus, you need to redo the math.  There is no way the sand is 10 cm away from the center of mass of a 1000 kg ball.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2017, 04:29:11 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 30, 2017, 01:56:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2017, 01:38:18 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 29, 2017, 04:53:12 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2017, 03:28:01 PM

Mass attracts mass. Simple as that, eh?
A big iron ball against a grain of sand on a table. The grain of sand doesn't get attracted to the big iron ball.

Actually, the grain of sand does get attracted to the iron ball.  The force of that attraction can be found by using this formula:


When are you going to come up with a formula to describe any part of denpressure?

I'm still watching the grain of sand near the big iron ball and it's not moved at all towards it.

Force due to gravity between those two objects is very small and isn't enough to overcome the friction on the surface they are sat on. Even if the surface was totally frictionless then:

Let's say an iron ball of mass 1kg was 10cm from a grain of sand of mass 0.7g. Plug these into the formula for gravitational force gives a force of 4.7 x 10^-15 Newtons. Apply this to the grain of sand and it would accelerate at 6.67 x 10^-9 m/s/s. At that rate it would take 29,985007 seconds to reach the iron ball. That's just under a year.

Gravity is weak.

The iron ball I'm using is 1000kg approx, so in approximately 8 hours I should see that grain of sand stuck to the iron ball, right?

If there was absolutely no friction on the table.

And if the gravitational attraction of the earth was ignored.

Am I getting this gravity stuff right?

No, you're just being a dick.

I don't believe you're even trying it, much less you have a 1,000 kg iron ball.  Pics or it didn't happen.


Plus, you need to redo the math.  There is no way the sand is 10 cm away from the center of mass of a 1000 kg ball.

Indeed. Forgot about that. A 1000kg iron ball had a radius of 35cm.

So if you were 10cm from the edge of the ball you would be 45cm from its centre. Therefore:

It would take 759 hours to reach the ball. This is assuming the acceleration of the iron ball is negligible;  a sense check gives 123.7 million years for the iron ball to roll to the sand if it were fixed in place.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 29, 2017, 10:48:59 PM

The big iron ball does get attracted to the grain of sand. They both get attracted to the table, and the Earth the table is on. The balance of forces means they stay where they are relative to each other.

The balance of forces mean they stay where they are?
I thought this was about mass attracting mass?

Didn't someone called Cavendish supposedly test this mass attracting mass out and supposedly the weights moved towards each other with the special equipment he had at the time but now can't be replicated without sleight of hand and mind tricks and what not.

Mass attracts mass in fantasy world.
The truth is, mass and the density of the mass, repels atmospheric pressure and can only be pushed into it.

He did and it does get replicated.  You have yet to explain how pressure manages to push in one single direction.

Quote from: Mainframes on January 30, 2017, 05:08:42 AM

If there was absolutely no friction on the table.

Oops.... you mean I have to somehow make a vacuum on the table?
Unless there's another way I can test it.
Any ideas?

There are many examples of this test being made using improved versions of the cavendish experiment.

So nobody has any answers. That's fine.
Lots of ahh but and well it's and what not's but no real answers. Just basically nonsense maths and pretence.

So nobody has any answers that I'm willing to accept. That's fine.

Fixed that for you.