Air Pressure vs Gravity

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.

Define nonsense maths and point out what is wrong.

Btw have provided any experimental evidence for denpressure yet? Didn't think so.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2017, 06:30:03 AM

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.

Define nonsense maths and point out what is wrong.

Btw have provided any experimental evidence for denpressure yet? Didn't think so.

This kind of nonsense.

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.


This is why you people will never live in the real world.

Quote from: Mainframes on January 30, 2017, 08:23:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2017, 06:30:03 AM

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.

Define nonsense maths and point out what is wrong.

Btw have provided any experimental evidence for denpressure yet? Didn't think so.

This kind of nonsense.

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.


This is why you people will never live in the real world.

Where is the error? No hand waving. Actually show me what is wrong.

Quote from: Mainframes on January 30, 2017, 08:23:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2017, 06:30:03 AM

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.

Define nonsense maths and point out what is wrong.

Btw have provided any experimental evidence for denpressure yet? Didn't think so.

This kind of nonsense.

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.


This is why you people will never live in the real world.

Incorrect.  You said that there is no attraction between the ball and the grain of sand.  I provided a formula that shows that  there attraction does exist, but it's so small as to be negligible and vastly overwhelmed by many other "real world" forces. 

Keep your maths and run with that. I wouldn't waste my time following that complete load of tosh.
I love the answers though.
Oh it's so small that nobody can actually check it out. 

And I get called for not providing so called evidence.

Keep your maths and run with that. I wouldn't waste my time following that complete load of tosh.
I love the answers though.
Oh it's so small that nobody can actually check it out. 

And I get called for not providing so called evidence.

And that why people perform experiments that actually show gravity at work. Trying to show a grain of sand attracted to a lump of iron is a bad experiment. The cavendish experiment and the modern updates to it actually show gravity at work quite nicely.

Try searching YouTube for cavendish experiment.

Bet you can't display any evidence or any numbers at all......

Keep your maths and run with that. I wouldn't waste my time following that complete load of tosh.
I love the answers though.
Oh it's so small that nobody can actually check it out. 

How much gravitational attraction between the iron ball and grain of sand did you expect?

Maybe if you tried the math with some more reasonable examples.  Let's say the earth and a 75 kg person.  I bet that the same maths would produce much more believable results.

And I get called for not providing so called evidence.

And rightly so.  You can't even predict how variations in atmospheric pressure should affect how hard the atmosphere pushes objects down.

And that why people perform experiments that actually show gravity at work.

But tehre are no experiments that show gravity at work. There are experiment that are told proves gravity is at work. When asked how, they say, " well it jujst does, ok."

Trying to show a grain of sand attracted to a lump of iron is a bad experiment.

Of course.
Putting a speck of dust against a mountain is a bad experiment.
Anything is bad that doesn't show gravity, which means everything is bad because gravity is a big con job and is clear to see it for what it is when you look at reality, assuming you can remove the trance like hypnotic spell you are under

The cavendish experiment and the modern updates to it actually show gravity at work quite nicely.

No it doesn't. I've searched for this stuff and it looks the nonsense that it is and also shows up your efforts to say the grain of sand won't work.
We know it won't work unless the wind blows it there.
A pathetic con.

Try searching YouTube for cavendish experiment.

Bet you can't display any evidence or any numbers at all......

Numbers for what?
You people can't grasp basic stuff.

How much gravitational attraction between the iron ball and grain of sand did you expect?

None. I knew it was a load of old fanny.

Maybe if you tried the math with some more reasonable examples.  Let's say the earth and a 75 kg person.  I bet that the same maths would produce much more believable results.

Yeah the easy cop out. earth and a person. Magical gravity, the fairy tales for kids before bed.




 

You can't even predict how variations in atmospheric pressure should affect how hard the atmosphere pushes objects down.

A barometer will tell me all of that, just fine.

Now what mechanism shows us gravitational pull? push? grab? stretch? or whatever the load of old clap trap is meant to be in the world of cons.

How does barometric pressure correlate with downward force?

If I weigh 100kg at sea level (100kPa), how much would I weigh at 97kPa?

Would I weigh 3% less?

Quote from: markjo on January 30, 2017, 10:19:05 AM

How much gravitational attraction between the iron ball and grain of sand did you expect?

None. I knew it was a load of old fanny.

Quote from: markjo on January 30, 2017, 10:19:05 AM

Maybe if you tried the math with some more reasonable examples.  Let's say the earth and a 75 kg person.  I bet that the same maths would produce much more believable results.

Yeah the easy cop out. earth and a person. Magical gravity, the fairy tales for kids before bed.




 

Quote from: markjo on January 30, 2017, 10:19:05 AM

You can't even predict how variations in atmospheric pressure should affect how hard the atmosphere pushes objects down.

A barometer will tell me all of that, just fine.

Now what mechanism shows us gravitational pull? push? grab? stretch? or whatever the load of old clap trap is meant to be in the world of cons.

Weird how a barometer changes readings with pressure but my weight starts the same. It's almost like a barometer was designed to measure pressure and that gravity still causes weight......

Quote from: markjo on January 30, 2017, 10:19:05 AM

How much gravitational attraction between the iron ball and grain of sand did you expect?

None.

And as it turns out, the maths pretty much agree with you to better than 10 decimal places.  Imagine that.

Quote from: markjo on January 30, 2017, 10:19:05 AM

Maybe if you tried the math with some more reasonable examples.  Let's say the earth and a 75 kg person.  I bet that the same maths would produce much more believable results.

Yeah the easy cop out. earth and a person. Magical gravity, the fairy tales for kids before bed.

Using a realistic example is a cop out? 

Quote from: markjo on January 30, 2017, 10:19:05 AM

You can't even predict how variations in atmospheric pressure should affect how hard the atmosphere pushes objects down.

A barometer will tell me all of that, just fine.

Oh?  So now you can use a barometer as a scale?

Now what mechanism shows us gravitational pull? push? grab? stretch? or whatever the load of old clap trap is meant to be in the world of cons.

I've already told you, warped space-time as described by Einstein's theory of general relativity.

We don't need to use a barometer as THE scale. I'm just pointing out the pressure push against resistance.
A normal everyday scale suffices for measurement but you people believe that's gravity causing weight by mass on mass.
You can't explain why and that somehow makes you right because Newton and Einstein and co said it was.
You just follow the supposed leaders.

Take away space shenanigans and a spinning Earth and gravity is not required as the magical force.
Then weirdly my denpressure becomes all too real and all too easy to see why it's real.

Whilst this Earth spin, space nonsense stays in people's minds, then so will all the rest of the added in magic that the puppeteers mentally placed before them.

We don't need to use a barometer as THE scale. I'm just pointing out the pressure push against resistance.
A normal everyday scale suffices for measurement but you people believe that's gravity causing weight by mass on mass.
You can't explain why and that somehow makes you right because Newton and Einstein and co said it was.
You just follow the supposed leaders.

Take away space shenanigans and a spinning Earth and gravity is not required as the magical force.
Then weirdly my denpressure becomes all too real and all too easy to see why it's real.

That would make things in a vacuum chamber float and not fall to Earth due to that magical force we call gravity.

Clearly that is not the case; in absence of pressure, things still fall to Earth's surface.

Gravity doesn't depend on "space" "agencies". Astronomy can be studied without taking those fake space things into account.

Of course you can call it all "holograms", but then there should be a source for those, and an explanation for the differences in holograms between Mars (retrograde motion), Venus (the seasons), Jupiter and Moons (what keeps them in orbit if orbits don't exist), what causes the rings of Saturn?, how can the "hologramatic" Moon be full of "craters that do not really exist", etc. etc.

Problem is when you start introducing so many ideas that are unfounded, it becomes a mess. Why not strip down the televised unreality of things and start from there?

Take away space shenanigans and a spinning Earth and gravity is not required as the magical force.

Incorrect!

There is no connection between "a spinning Earth and gravity".

Gravitation is not caused be rotation. A stationary spherical earth would have almost the same gravity as the rotating earth.

That would make things in a vacuum chamber float and not fall to Earth due to that magical force we call gravity.
Clearly that is not the case; in absence of pressure, things still fall to Earth's surface.

Nothing can fall unless energy places it into a position to fall. That energy pushes a dense object upwards into a less dense stack, the higher it is pushed up. Once energy ceases to push up, the resistance to that push reacts back onto it and squeezes that object back down.
The squeeze at height would be much less but so would the resistance to the density of the object.
You cannot have that object float in a chamber of evacuated pressure, because there's just not enough pressure below the object to keep it buoyant or neutrally buoyant.

Gravity doesn't depend on "space" "agencies". Astronomy can be studied without taking those fake space things into account.

There's no such thing as space agencies unless they're selling bulding plots as space, etc, on Earth.
Whatever people are studying, it is what the Earth provides onto the dome for them to study.
The conclusions they come to are borne out of basic indoctrination in most cases. They're taught what's what.
Of course it can be argued that some are self taught and what not but let me put this to you.

Wake up and get a telescope without books to guide you and what are you looking at?
The truth is, you wouldn't have the faintest idea but you could guess.

Of course you can call it all "holograms", but then there should be a source for those, and an explanation for the differences in holograms between Mars (retrograde motion), Venus (the seasons), Jupiter and Moons (what keeps them in orbit if orbits don't exist), what causes the rings of Saturn?, how can the "hologramatic" Moon be full of "craters that do not really exist", etc. etc.

There is a source. I've explained it.

Problem is when you start introducing so many ideas that are unfounded, it becomes a mess. Why not strip down the televised unreality of things and start from there?

It's always a problem. It was never going to be easy for obvious reasons.

You cannot have that object float in a chamber of evacuated pressure, because there's just not enough pressure below the object to keep it buoyant or neutrally buoyant.

Exactly. So you cannot replace "gravity" with "pressure".

Holding an object and just letting it drop doesn't add energy to the object.

The easiest explanation for crater-shaped features on the Moon, is that they are caused by impacts, just like on Earth. Supposing a hologram with smaller holograms in the shapes of craters doesn't answer anything.

And indeed, it's good to look through a telescope. But never have I watched through a telescope and thought "those spheres (!) in the sky must be holograms from an unknown source". You see objects surrounding another object through time (e.g. planet moons around planets). What causes "holograms" to do that around "other holograms"?

Exactly. So you cannot replace "gravity" with "pressure".

I can and I have.

Holding an object and just letting it drop doesn't add energy to the object.

Are you telling me an object can be held without using energy? If so, tell me how it's done and especially inside a chamber evacuated of pressure.

The easiest explanation for crater-shaped features on the Moon, is that they are caused by impacts, just like on Earth. Supposing a hologram with smaller holograms in the shapes of craters doesn't answer anything.

Ok so what you're saying is, the moon facing EARTH is taking incoming meteors that are falling out of Earth and hitting it. If not then tell me how your moon is being hit to make the craters whilst facing Earth?
If they're coming in from  so called outer space, then is Earth curve balling them into the moon?
It seems to me it would be like someone trying to fire an arrow at a target by trying to aim it around a target that was 4 times larger in the middle of the range.

Makes no sense. Well to be fair, the whole
ball Earth spin and moon rock etc, makes no sense, at all.

And indeed, it's good to look through a telescope. But never have I watched through a telescope and thought "those spheres (!) in the sky must be holograms from an unknown source". You see objects surrounding another object through time (e.g. planet moons around planets). What causes "holograms" to do that around "other holograms"?

Maybe you haven't thought that.
You are reliant on how you were taught with your sky viewing.

You admit you cannot replace gravity with pressure as then there wouldn't be falling objects in a vacuum chamber and yet you say you replaced gravity with pressure? That makes no sense.

Put a ball of 50 cm diameter on a plate with a hole of 49 cm that can be expanded to 51 by sliding to the side. What happens? The ball falls through because of gravity (or if you hate that term "a magical force that makes objects fall down").

I don't need to rely on others when making observations, either with the naked eye, through a camera lens, binoculars or a telescope. I see round (2D) objects moving and other objects moving around other objects as they sometimes disappear behind the other object.

The craters on the Moon are thought to be 100s of millions of years old (most of them). That's a lot of time for space debris to impact the Moon. And at a distance of 380,000 km there's apparently enough attraction from her for objects that are influenced more by her gravitational field than by the Earth.

If your alternative explanation makes sense, I am interested and open. But the "hologram" web of non-connected patchwork is a much worse explanation than what is directly visible; craters.

Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on January 30, 2017, 05:41:09 PM

Holding an object and just letting it drop doesn't add energy to the object.

Are you telling me an object can be held without using energy? If so, tell me how it's done and especially inside a chamber evacuated of pressure.

How much energy does a table use to hold a book?

Ok so what you're saying is, the moon facing EARTH is taking incoming meteors that are falling out of Earth and hitting it. If not then tell me how your moon is being hit to make the craters whilst facing Earth?
If they're coming in from  so called outer space, then is Earth curve balling them into the moon?
It seems to me it would be like someone trying to fire an arrow at a target by trying to aim it around a target that was 4 times larger in the middle of the range.

When you look at the distances, there is no problem.

The Globe earth is about 12,700 km in diameter and the moon about 3,474 km in diameter and on average is about 385,000 km away.

It's a bit like shooting past a disk 127 cm in diameter (the earth) at a target 35 cm in diameter (the moon) and about 39 m away,
so shooting at the moon past the earth is no big deal.

The earth does not block much of the space debris' access to the moon at all.
It is not quite that simple because the gravitation of the earth will deflect some close ones, but won't change things greatly.

This diagram it fairly closely to scale - the moon's a long way off!

Wake up and get a telescope without books to guide you and what are you looking at?
The truth is, you wouldn't have the faintest idea but you could guess.

How do you think the planets were first studied? People without telescopes figured out they were different to the stars, and the first people with telescopes didn't have guide books to help them.

I've got a telescope and I know how to use it. I suggest you get one and wake up.

Given the atmospheric pressure and the volume and mass of an object, how much acceleration will the magic pressure cause?

Also btw pressure doesn't exist, can you show me a physical piece of pressure, you can say that your barometer moving shows pressure but it doesn't, it just shows a barometer moving, no one can explain why this magical invisible pressure real exists. Stop being a brainwashed sheep and realise that denpressure is impossible, be a free thinker and realise the truth.

You admit you cannot replace gravity with pressure as then there wouldn't be falling objects in a vacuum chamber and yet you say you replaced gravity with pressure? That makes no sense.

No I didn't admit anything of the sort. You are telling me about it.
There is always a force. There is always pressure.

Put a ball of 50 cm diameter on a plate with a hole of 49 cm that can be expanded to 51 by sliding to the side. What happens? The ball falls through because of gravity (or if you hate that term "a magical force that makes objects fall down").

How do you expand the plate?
Would it be energy applied?
By applying this energy you are altering the pressure of the environment, whether you think you are or not.
There's a lot more happening than you think just by what you said. Always think of action/reaction. High verses low or high creates low by action and a following reaction.

I don't need to rely on others when making observations, either with the naked eye, through a camera lens, binoculars or a telescope. I see round (2D) objects moving and other objects moving around other objects as they sometimes disappear behind the other object.

You can carry on talking about what you see and what you make of it. It still doesn't make you correct and you know this.

The craters on the Moon are thought to be 100s of millions of years old (most of them). That's a lot of time for space debris to impact the Moon. And at a distance of 380,000 km there's apparently enough attraction from her for objects that are influenced more by her gravitational field than by the Earth.

Do you see where you have to be told about the 100's of millions of years. Told to you by people who just literally think this crap up.
They can't back any of it up. They just rely on mass compliance.
Doesn't it make you think that in just a few hundred years we've got to this stage and yet all that supposed earlier times of man produces nothing much?
Millions of years old dinosaurs and blah blah. I won't go into this here but the gist is simple. We are being fed moon garbage and all the rest of it by silly stories that cannot be backed up but are backed up by people who pretend it can and yet never physically prove any of it, other than to believe what you're told to believe and expect the same compliance.

If your alternative explanation makes sense, I am interested and open. But the "hologram" web of non-connected patchwork is a much worse explanation than what is directly visible; craters.

That's fine. I'm not asking you to believe it. I simply ask for people to try and grasp it. If you can't or feel it's not worth your time or you simply believe it's senseless, then treat it as such, but try and resist telling me it's crap until you have a real understanding of it to warrant you saying it. It makes it easier for me to deal with and saves people going into the bin in droves when they attempt the same stuff.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2017, 05:54:15 PM

Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on January 30, 2017, 05:41:09 PM

Holding an object and just letting it drop doesn't add energy to the object.

Are you telling me an object can be held without using energy? If so, tell me how it's done and especially inside a chamber evacuated of pressure.

How much energy does a table use to hold a book?

Quite a bit.
Tell me something.
How much energy does it take for you to stand up for hours as opposed to laying down for hours?
You have to understand what your dense body is pushing away and how much compression of that is pushed right back onto you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2017, 05:22:17 PM

Wake up and get a telescope without books to guide you and what are you looking at?
The truth is, you wouldn't have the faintest idea but you could guess.

How do you think the planets were first studied? People without telescopes figured out they were different to the stars, and the first people with telescopes didn't have guide books to help them.

I've got a telescope and I know how to use it. I suggest you get one and wake up.

Sounds fine but shows nothing other than yap yapping.
Parroting.

Quote from: markjo on January 30, 2017, 07:35:53 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2017, 05:54:15 PM

Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on January 30, 2017, 05:41:09 PM

Holding an object and just letting it drop doesn't add energy to the object.

Are you telling me an object can be held without using energy? If so, tell me how it's done and especially inside a chamber evacuated of pressure.

How much energy does a table use to hold a book?

Quite a bit.
Tell me something.
How much energy does it take for you to stand up for hours as opposed to laying down for hours?
You have to understand what your dense body is pushing away and how much compression of that is pushed right back onto you.

I takes more energy to stand upright because your muscles are having to hold your limbs straight and your torso upright. You seem to be implying that standing on a set of scales and lying on them would give different results.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 30, 2017, 10:53:33 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2017, 05:22:17 PM

Wake up and get a telescope without books to guide you and what are you looking at?
The truth is, you wouldn't have the faintest idea but you could guess.

How do you think the planets were first studied? People without telescopes figured out they were different to the stars, and the first people with telescopes didn't have guide books to help them.

I've got a telescope and I know how to use it. I suggest you get one and wake up.

Sounds fine but shows nothing other than yap yapping.
Parroting.

Did the first observers of the heavens have textbook? Simple question, you ought to be able to manage an answer.

You ever look up and pay attention? You ever notice Jupiter, or Mars, or Venus wander across the skies so that they are in a different place relative to the stars every day? You ever see the moons of Jupiter or its bands with your own eyes? Ever looked at the moon through a telescope and seen the shadows cast by crater walls and mountains?

 I'm parroting nothing, I'm reporting my own direct experience, something in which you seem deficient.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2017, 02:45:40 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 30, 2017, 07:35:53 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2017, 05:54:15 PM

Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on January 30, 2017, 05:41:09 PM

Holding an object and just letting it drop doesn't add energy to the object.

Are you telling me an object can be held without using energy? If so, tell me how it's done and especially inside a chamber evacuated of pressure.

How much energy does a table use to hold a book?

Quite a bit.
Tell me something.
How much energy does it take for you to stand up for hours as opposed to laying down for hours?
You have to understand what your dense body is pushing away and how much compression of that is pushed right back onto you.

I takes more energy to stand upright because your muscles are having to hold your limbs straight and your torso upright. You seem to be implying that standing on a set of scales and lying on them would give different results.

No, I'm not implying anything of the sort. No wonder you make no head way.

Did the first observers of the heavens have textbook? Simple question, you ought to be able to manage an answer.

I don't know what they had.
Can you tell me how you know what they had, when you consider that they had no text books or anything to leave for you to understand?

Or did they somehow leave carved out tablets depicting what's happening.
Tell me how you know about these first observers of your heavens.
Just a brief explanation will suffice.

You ever look up and pay attention? You ever notice Jupiter, or Mars, or Venus wander across the skies so that they are in a different place relative to the stars every day? You ever see the moons of Jupiter or its bands with your own eyes? Ever looked at the moon through a telescope and seen the shadows cast by crater walls and mountains?

You don't really know what you're looking at, do you?
You think you know because you were told it's this and that, but you truthfully do not know. Your reliance is completely on sticking to the mainstream indoctrinated view.

I'm parroting nothing, I'm reporting my own direct experience, something in which you seem deficient.

You're parroting the same stuff after viewing.

There's no shame in admitting it. It's epidemic. It's a con of the people.
Most people are not unintelligent or backward. They are just gullible and naive. It's all borne out of a need to be recognised by society as being able to recite what was trained into them by parroting.