UA vs Denpressure

Quote from: sokarul on January 31, 2017, 05:32:17 PM

Except that I'm a chemist and know for a fact there is nothing he says that is correct.  Not that you need a degree to know that...or for that matter even if you were above 5 years in age you would know nothing he says is correct.

Hardly that simple but, yeah, sure, the evidence seems to be more against than in favor. But the only convincing case I've seen made for that was by someone who took the time to actually hear what the hell was going on, rather than pronouncing victory based on, well, nothing.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 01, 2017, 02:17:45 AM

Therein lies the internal contradition in denspressure,  what determines  higher or lower?

In scepti's world there can be no up and down.   If you think you have a handle on it,  then give me an equation that describes the force on an object that is the equivalent of weight in a gravitational field.   

Putting it another way,  what creates the pressure gradient.  Without that pressure gradient there can be no buoyancy change with density  ( sort of analogous to gravitational field in the real world)

As Sokarul has observed the theory changes in unpredictable ways every time you ask a question.   Then when the contradictions become too glaring, he retreats to the "you've all been indoctrinated"  and "his ideas are only accessible by free thinkers".   

While we can all agree that it's a theory that doesn't apply to objective reality. It's an abstract world view that might have some interesting physics, but it needs more clarity and rigour.

The density of the air times the volume displaced (taking into account pores) multiplied by some constant of denpressure (which would vary with altitude). That'd be related to the volume of an object (taking into account the pores) and its density, multiplied by a likely somewhat adjusted constant.
Like I said, buoyancy.
Pretty sure the vertical bias and meaning of higher/lower's been gone into over and over.

So in your understanding of the model,  what do you understand to be the origin of the vertical bias which leads to the pressure gradient?   Without which there can be no buoyancy.

So in your understanding of the model,  what do you understand to be the origin of the vertical bias which leads to the pressure gradient?   Without which there can be no buoyancy.

So, what has this to do with "UA vs Denpressure"?

While I think UA is ridiculous, Denpressure is more  ridiculouser - if you'll excuse my Janglish.
And all discussion on Denpressure just reinforces that view.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 01, 2017, 11:20:03 PM

So in your understanding of the model,  what do you understand to be the origin of the vertical bias which leads to the pressure gradient?   Without which there can be no buoyancy.

So, what has this to do with "UA vs Denpressure"?

Everything,   what causes the vertical gradient is the very root of the question,   Gravity and UA are explained,   denspressure is not.

Quote from: sokarul on February 01, 2017, 11:37:12 AM

You know I made three videos that showed zero denpressure, right?

If memory serves, they were three videos you said showed zero denpressure, and then ignored literally every explanation and elaboration offered to you because you wanted to have disproven a model.

The experiments didn't go as Sceptictank would have liked so he cried foul. There was nothing actually wrong with them.

So in your understanding of the model,  what do you understand to be the origin of the vertical bias which leads to the pressure gradient?   Without which there can be no buoyancy.

There are a lot of ways to go into this, let's try the simplest.
As we're explaining Scepti's model, let's go for a good old analogy.

You're in space (no gravity), and you have a perfectly self-contained box filled to the brim with water, and sealed. There is no free space inside it: all of it is filled with water. Equally, there's no difference between the angle you take a reference frame to be: the lack of gravity means that however you look at the box, the forces inside will be the same, so far. It's perfectly symmetrical.
Now, slide in a CD, say. No water escapes the box, there's just now a CD suspended in the middle, displacing some water. Where is the pressure from the water acting?
The box itself isn't really relevant to the analogy, here. Strictly within the box, you have water, and a CD displacing some of it, and exerting force to do so. Does pressure act normal to the disc, or parallel to it?

The experiments didn't go as Sceptictank would have liked so he cried foul. There was nothing actually wrong with them.

Yes I'm absolutely going to listen to your masterful knowledge of denpressure.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 01, 2017, 11:20:03 PM

So in your understanding of the model,  what do you understand to be the origin of the vertical bias which leads to the pressure gradient?   Without which there can be no buoyancy.

There are a lot of ways to go into this, let's try the simplest.
As we're explaining Scepti's model, let's go for a good old analogy.

You're in space (no gravity), and you have a perfectly self-contained box filled to the brim with water, and sealed. There is no free space inside it: all of it is filled with water. Equally, there's no difference between the angle you take a reference frame to be: the lack of gravity means that however you look at the box, the forces inside will be the same, so far. It's perfectly symmetrical.
Now, slide in a CD, say. No water escapes the box, there's just now a CD suspended in the middle, displacing some water. Where is the pressure from the water acting?
The box itself isn't really relevant to the analogy, here. Strictly within the box, you have water, and a CD displacing some of it, and exerting force to do so. Does pressure act normal to the disc, or parallel to it?

Quote from: sokarul on February 02, 2017, 07:41:37 AM

The experiments didn't go as Sceptictank would have liked so he cried foul. There was nothing actually wrong with them.

Yes I'm absolutely going to listen to your masterful knowledge of denpressure.

The pressure is exerted equally on all sides of the disc.

Quote from: sokarul on February 02, 2017, 07:41:37 AM

The experiments didn't go as Sceptictank would have liked so he cried foul. There was nothing actually wrong with them.

Yes I'm absolutely going to listen to your masterful knowledge of denpressure.

Yeah I would run away from overwhelming evidence too if I was you.

Quote from: Jane on February 02, 2017, 12:21:37 PM

Quote from: sokarul on February 02, 2017, 07:41:37 AM

The experiments didn't go as Sceptictank would have liked so he cried foul. There was nothing actually wrong with them.

Yes I'm absolutely going to listen to your masterful knowledge of denpressure.

Yeah I would run away from overwhelming evidence too if I was you.

Bit like sceptimatic running away from me...

Quote from: Jane on February 02, 2017, 12:21:37 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 01, 2017, 11:20:03 PM

So in your understanding of the model,  what do you understand to be the origin of the vertical bias which leads to the pressure gradient?   Without which there can be no buoyancy.

There are a lot of ways to go into this, let's try the simplest.
As we're explaining Scepti's model, let's go for a good old analogy.

You're in space (no gravity), and you have a perfectly self-contained box filled to the brim with water, and sealed. There is no free space inside it: all of it is filled with water. Equally, there's no difference between the angle you take a reference frame to be: the lack of gravity means that however you look at the box, the forces inside will be the same, so far. It's perfectly symmetrical.
Now, slide in a CD, say. No water escapes the box, there's just now a CD suspended in the middle, displacing some water. Where is the pressure from the water acting?
The box itself isn't really relevant to the analogy, here. Strictly within the box, you have water, and a CD displacing some of it, and exerting force to do so. Does pressure act normal to the disc, or parallel to it?

Quote from: sokarul on February 02, 2017, 07:41:37 AM

The experiments didn't go as Sceptictank would have liked so he cried foul. There was nothing actually wrong with them.

Yes I'm absolutely going to listen to your masterful knowledge of denpressure.

The pressure is exerted equally on all sides of the disc.

Normal to it, or parallel to it?

Quote from: Jane on February 02, 2017, 12:21:37 PM

Quote from: sokarul on February 02, 2017, 07:41:37 AM

The experiments didn't go as Sceptictank would have liked so he cried foul. There was nothing actually wrong with them.

Yes I'm absolutely going to listen to your masterful knowledge of denpressure.

Yeah I would run away from overwhelming evidence too if I was you.

So far your evidence has amounted to "Look at me, i expertly refuted a model I have no understanding of and I'm not going to tell you how. My track record, however, is a strong indication that I just made up a lot of nonsense and refuse to be corrected on any of it." I don't need to run, you need to start walking.

So far your evidence has amounted to "Look at me, i expertly refuted a model I have no understanding of and I'm not going to tell you how. My track record, however, is a strong indication that I just made up a lot of nonsense and refuse to be corrected on any of it." I don't need to run, you need to start walking.

Not true but a good attempt.

Quote from: Jane on February 02, 2017, 04:08:48 PM

So far your evidence has amounted to "Look at me, i expertly refuted a model I have no understanding of and I'm not going to tell you how. My track record, however, is a strong indication that I just made up a lot of nonsense and refuse to be corrected on any of it." I don't need to run, you need to start walking.

Not true but a good attempt.

Then lose the snarky one liners and give the damn evidence, this is just tedious.

There are a lot of ways to go into this, let's try the simplest.
As we're explaining Scepti's model, let's go for a good old analogy.

You're in space (no gravity), and you have a perfectly self-contained box filled to the brim with water, and sealed. There is no free space inside it: all of it is filled with water. Equally, there's no difference between the angle you take a reference frame to be: the lack of gravity means that however you look at the box, the forces inside will be the same, so far. It's perfectly symmetrical.
Now, slide in a CD, say. No water escapes the box, there's just now a CD suspended in the middle, displacing some water. Where is the pressure from the water acting?
The box itself isn't really relevant to the analogy, here. Strictly within the box, you have water, and a CD displacing some of it, and exerting force to do so. Does pressure act normal to the disc, or parallel to it?

Moving right along,   assuming the liquid is static,  that is no flow in taking place,  the pressure is everywhere the same and normal to all the surfaces,  irrespective of shape,  it could be a disk or a sphere or any shape at all for that matter the pressure is always normal to the surface,  regardless of the surface orientation.  There is no preferred overall direction to the pressure,  it is a scalar field, not a vector field.

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 02, 2017, 12:49:04 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 02, 2017, 12:21:37 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 01, 2017, 11:20:03 PM

So in your understanding of the model,  what do you understand to be the origin of the vertical bias which leads to the pressure gradient?   Without which there can be no buoyancy.

There are a lot of ways to go into this, let's try the simplest.
As we're explaining Scepti's model, let's go for a good old analogy.

You're in space (no gravity), and you have a perfectly self-contained box filled to the brim with water, and sealed. There is no free space inside it: all of it is filled with water. Equally, there's no difference between the angle you take a reference frame to be: the lack of gravity means that however you look at the box, the forces inside will be the same, so far. It's perfectly symmetrical.
Now, slide in a CD, say. No water escapes the box, there's just now a CD suspended in the middle, displacing some water. Where is the pressure from the water acting?
The box itself isn't really relevant to the analogy, here. Strictly within the box, you have water, and a CD displacing some of it, and exerting force to do so. Does pressure act normal to the disc, or parallel to it?

Quote from: sokarul on February 02, 2017, 07:41:37 AM

The experiments didn't go as Sceptictank would have liked so he cried foul. There was nothing actually wrong with them.

Yes I'm absolutely going to listen to your masterful knowledge of denpressure.

The pressure is exerted equally on all sides of the disc.

Normal to it, or parallel to it?

Quote from: sokarul on February 02, 2017, 02:13:35 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 02, 2017, 12:21:37 PM

Quote from: sokarul on February 02, 2017, 07:41:37 AM

The experiments didn't go as Sceptictank would have liked so he cried foul. There was nothing actually wrong with them.

Yes I'm absolutely going to listen to your masterful knowledge of denpressure.

Yeah I would run away from overwhelming evidence too if I was you.

So far your evidence has amounted to "Look at me, i expertly refuted a model I have no understanding of and I'm not going to tell you how. My track record, however, is a strong indication that I just made up a lot of nonsense and refuse to be corrected on any of it." I don't need to run, you need to start walking.

I don't understand the question.  Equally to all surface areas of the disc.

Moving right along,   assuming the liquid is static,  that is no flow in taking place,  the pressure is everywhere the same and normal to all the surfaces,  irrespective of shape,  it could be a disk or a sphere or any shape at all for that matter the pressure is always normal to the surface,  regardless of the surface orientation.  There is no preferred overall direction to the pressure,  it is a scalar field, not a vector field.

But it would be normal to the surface of the disk, correct?
If you accept (even just briefly) Scepti's idea of molecules stacking, you can see why they would stack in a particular direction, then. There is something that sets one direction apart.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 02, 2017, 05:17:09 PM

Moving right along,   assuming the liquid is static,  that is no flow in taking place,  the pressure is everywhere the same and normal to all the surfaces,  irrespective of shape,  it could be a disk or a sphere or any shape at all for that matter the pressure is always normal to the surface,  regardless of the surface orientation.  There is no preferred overall direction to the pressure,  it is a scalar field, not a vector field.

But it would be normal to the surface of the disk, correct?
If you accept (even just briefly) Scepti's idea of molecules stacking, you can see why they would stack in a particular direction, then. There is something that sets one direction apart.

Scepti's model seems to imply the disc would be pushed to the bottom of the box. We all know this is not true. What about a force acting perpendicular to a surface equates to a downward push?

Quote from: Rayzor on February 02, 2017, 05:17:09 PM

Moving right along,   assuming the liquid is static,  that is no flow in taking place,  the pressure is everywhere the same and normal to all the surfaces,  irrespective of shape,  it could be a disk or a sphere or any shape at all for that matter the pressure is always normal to the surface,  regardless of the surface orientation.  There is no preferred overall direction to the pressure,  it is a scalar field, not a vector field.

But it would be normal to the surface of the disk, correct?
If you accept (even just briefly) Scepti's idea of molecules stacking, you can see why they would stack in a particular direction, then. There is something that sets one direction apart.

The direction of the force is a function of the shape of the object.   From what I understand about stacking, there is still no pressure gradient that would make stacking work. 

Imagine we put  2 objects of different density into the container of liquid,   say one is a block of steel,  the other a ping-pong ball,   the same forces are acting on both objects, there is still no buoyancy.

I propose that a new property of matter needs to be introduced to the model to make denspressure work,  something like universal attraction between mass.   

Quote from: sokarul on February 02, 2017, 04:22:44 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 02, 2017, 04:08:48 PM

So far your evidence has amounted to "Look at me, i expertly refuted a model I have no understanding of and I'm not going to tell you how. My track record, however, is a strong indication that I just made up a lot of nonsense and refuse to be corrected on any of it." I don't need to run, you need to start walking.

Not true but a good attempt.

Then lose the snarky one liners and give the damn evidence, this is just tedious.

You knew I posted videos and didn't respond to all the "explanations", but haven't seen the videos?  Me thinks you have no clue about anything.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 02, 2017, 05:17:09 PM

Moving right along,   assuming the liquid is static,  that is no flow in taking place,  the pressure is everywhere the same and normal to all the surfaces,  irrespective of shape,  it could be a disk or a sphere or any shape at all for that matter the pressure is always normal to the surface,  regardless of the surface orientation.  There is no preferred overall direction to the pressure,  it is a scalar field, not a vector field.

But it would be normal to the surface of the disk, correct?

Isn't that what he just said?

If you accept (even just briefly) Scepti's idea of molecules stacking, you can see why they would stack in a particular direction, then. There is something that sets one direction apart.

...and this is where the handwaving comes in.  What sets one direction apart?

I propose that a new property of matter needs to be introduced to the model to make denspressure work,  something like universal attraction between mass.   

Hey, you might be on  to something.

An alternative I've thought of is that the box is travelling through space accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s.   

Quote from: Rayzor on February 03, 2017, 06:52:04 PM

I propose that a new property of matter needs to be introduced to the model to make denspressure work,  something like universal attraction between mass.   

Hey, you might be on  to something.

An alternative I've thought of is that the box is travelling through space accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s.   

Damn  that's fiendishly clever of sceptimatic to secretly incorporate UA and gravity into his  drunken rambling  sorry,  model,  I might become a denspressure acolyte after all.

Denpressure is hitting a raw nerve with the shills.
The desperation to ridicule is getting epidemic.

Not shills - that assumes that people aren't genuinely disagreeing with you and are being put up to it.

Not desperation, just a natural response to hypocrisy. Using an ad hominem to whine about ad hominems is just another example of it.

You complain about indoctrination and blind acceptance of a made up story and expect everyone else to just accept your made up story. Hypocrisy. The only difference is that you don't actual have any evidence to back up your made up story. You demand that everyone must have personal experience of the things they bring in to discussion, despite not having anything to bring yourself. Hypocrisy.

Show us your home movies of the centre of the Earth. Get a barometer and do some measuring. Go buy a telescope and take your own photos. Make us a video demonstrating something. Should I hold my breath waiting for these?

Not shills - that assumes that people aren't genuinely disagreeing with you and are being put up to it.

Not desperation, just a natural response to hypocrisy. Using an ad hominem to whine about ad hominems is just another example of it.

You complain about indoctrination and blind acceptance of a made up story and expect everyone else to just accept your made up story. Hypocrisy. The only difference is that you don't actual have any evidence to back up your made up story. You demand that everyone must have personal experience of the things they bring in to discussion, despite not having anything to bring yourself. Hypocrisy.

Show us your home movies of the centre of the Earth. Get a barometer and do some measuring. Go buy a telescope and take your own photos. Make us a video demonstrating something. Should I hold my breath waiting for these?

Hold your breath as long as you feel you can, then do it again. You're worthless to me so do what you feel.

Denpressure is hitting a raw nerve with the shills.

Yeah, well as denpressure spreads all over the web like...like...something that doesn't spread, the authorities are desperate to shut it down.  The fact that you've convinced zero people over several years is frightening.  Imagine if you manage to convince 10 times as many people!

The desperation to ridicule is getting epidemic.

Don't flatter yourself.

Denpressure is hitting a raw nerve with the shills.
The desperation to ridicule is getting epidemic.

That's hardly an intelligent response to the question that was posed,  don't you want to defend your model?   

Denpressure is hitting a raw nerve with the shills. The desperation to ridicule is getting epidemic.

Still dreaming, I see. 

Both theories are patently ridiculous. The only reasonable theory is mine - that objects follow Newton's Three Laws of motion and thus falling objects are merely traveling in straight lines as inertia would dictate. Likewise for satellites like the moon or sun - they are traveling in straight cyclical lines above the flat earth.

Both theories are patently ridiculous. The only reasonable theory is mine - that objects follow Newton's Three Laws of motion and thus falling objects are merely traveling in straight lines as inertia would dictate. Likewise for satellites like the moon or sun - they are traveling in straight cyclical lines above the flat earth.

You might be surprised to hear that I agree with you,  that is the best model for a flat earth,   but,  starting from experimental evidence that scepti's model is not a model of the real world, the question I have is whether his model is at all a self consistent system albeit with its own physics and properties of matter.

So far we have failed to establish the cause of the pressure gradient that is required for denspressure physics to work,  now we are waiting for Jane to respond with more detail of her understanding of the model.   

Adding objects to a closed container increases the pressure, and the pressure is always normal to the surface of the added object,  but I can't see how we get from there to a pressure gradient,  maybe the whole thing is spinning and the gradient is away from the center towards the external surface?

Both theories are patently ridiculous. The only reasonable theory is mine - that objects follow Newton's Three Laws of motion and thus falling objects are merely traveling in straight lines as inertia would dictate. Likewise for satellites like the moon or sun - they are traveling in straight cyclical lines above the flat earth.

You don't exactly help by stating this crap.

I asked this in another denpressure post and sceptical couldn't answer it so he blocked me.  If we have two balloons, one filled with atmosphere and one with helium, the helium filled one floats, the other doesn't. If it's denpressure, how does it determines which one to push down and which ones to let rise?