UA vs Denpressure

Unless of course your independent thinking causes you to ignore doors that are already open, and create doors which are not really there or locked.

You're entitled to think what you want.
I don't doubt that we all ignore open doors and also create them in many aspects of our lives from child to adult to near death.
The thing is, if you miss an open door and refuse to look back then you lose that open door,.
If you cannot create a door to open then you are devoid of independent thought.
If you create a door that isn't really there then you're a dreamer and you have to have a dream, because if you don't have a dream, then how are you going to have a dream come true.
Any door that is locked can be picked if you're patient enough to pick it.

Quote from: IonSpen on February 09, 2017, 11:18:07 AM

Scepti, does your denpressure rely on the sole fact the atmosphere is many miles high? Like you must have this so called stack all the way to the top?

The stack obviously has to go all the way to the top. That's what ends with a dome.

No, that's not what I'm asking. I completely understand it stops at the dome, as you say. I am asking is the miles and miles, hundreds, thousands - however many - is it due to the atmosphere's height?

Quote from: Rayzor on February 09, 2017, 07:35:40 AM

That still doesn't explain the origin of the downward force.   You jump up and the atmosphere pushes you back down,  but where does that downward push come from?

Putting it another way,  what determines the direction in stacking?

The ground aided by the central energy, the sun.
It's a build from the centre outwards.

If you need an analogy then imagine a nozzle in the centre  of a large field. under that nozzle is a fountain.
This fountain is pumping out glue.
This glue starts to cover an area as it gets pumped up but also falls back into the fountain pool and is re-pumped over time.
As this is happening we see a skin form and under that forming skin, more liquid is pumping making it rise until the top layers push up from underlying layers that stretch out as they get pushed up.
The more energy pushing up the glue, the more glue takes it's place in that stretch as it becomes denser and denser because it takes more push.
By the time the dome is made, its s stack of expanded elements at the top and down the dome and like a big sandwich all the way down like a whole domed world rainbow sandwich.

So there's your stack.

So now we have the stack,  but we still don't have direction,  while the sandwich is being formed, things would be pushed out away from the center not pulled back towards the center, once the stack has formed and the dome freezes solid,  there is no more pushing outwards.   

So you need to add another property to the model, and that is that as the stack is being formed,  less dense material is pumped out first and more dense material is pumped out last,  so there would be a density gradient.

Now,  how can you get from a density gradient to a pressure gradient?    Only if the things above are pressing down against the things below,   so what causes that pressing down action?

Edit:

If the skin forms instantly and is elastic,  then the material being pushed out could be like a stack of  stretched  layers of elastic,  like a series of balloons inside balloons,  that would give the pressure gradient  required.   But for that to work properly you wouldn't be able to move objects through the layers,  why?  because air would eventually flow from high pressure to low pressure and the pressures would equalize.   So some additional property is required to maintain the pressure gradient.

Also,  another problem arises,  that is when I drop something,   the pressure from the elastic layers  (the stack)  above is pushing down,  but there is another layer underneath of higher pressure and density, so things would be pushed down but couldn't fall.   

Quote from: IonSpen on February 09, 2017, 11:18:07 AM

Scepti, does your denpressure rely on the sole fact the atmosphere is many miles high? Like you must have this so called stack all the way to the top?

The stack obviously has to go all the way to the top. That's what ends with a dome.

Then the pressure would be equal all the way to the top.  Or the higher pressure air would simply push the upper, lower pressure air away

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 09, 2017, 02:20:06 PM

Quote from: IonSpen on February 09, 2017, 11:18:07 AM

Scepti, does your denpressure rely on the sole fact the atmosphere is many miles high? Like you must have this so called stack all the way to the top?

The stack obviously has to go all the way to the top. That's what ends with a dome.

No, that's not what I'm asking. I completely understand it stops at the dome, as you say. I am asking is the miles and miles, hundreds, thousands - however many - is it due to the atmosphere's height?

Denpressure works two ways.
The height is due to the stacked pressure build but the push up is the key to it all.
Here's something for you. If you are really bothered to understand it then please read and absorb everything that's been said and is getting said.
Don't just run around a hurdle..size it up and jump it when you know you have a better than average chance of doing so.

So now we have the stack,  but we still don't have direction,  while the sandwich is being formed, things would be pushed out away from the center not pulled back towards the center, once the stack has formed and the dome freezes solid,  there is no more pushing outwards.   

The dome doesn't just freeze solid as if it's an igloo.
You really honestly and truthfully have to open your mind up and understand what I've been saying all along.
I'm not playing games with you and I'm not changing anything.
I've explained how the dome works and why it breathes.
If you're interested then look back and if you're juyst game playing then do me a favour and blank me out as a psycho nutter, tin foil hat worthless prick and anything else you can think of.

So you need to add another property to the model, and that is that as the stack is being formed,  less dense material is pumped out first and more dense material is pumped out last,  so there would be a density gradient.

No, you're getting it wrong.
It starts with dense materia and as it's pushed out it becomes less dense as it's pushed out from underground.
The push breaks down dense elements and as they push up from the ground they become less dense as they peel off elements due to agitation/fricition/vibration/heat/sound.etc.etc.

Now,  how can you get from a density gradient to a pressure gradient?    Only if the things above are pressing down against the things below,   so what causes that pressing down action?

The pushing up action.

Edit:

If the skin forms instantly and is elastic,  then the material being pushed out could be like a stack of  stretched  layers of elastic,  like a series of balloons inside balloons,  that would give the pressure gradient  required.   But for that to work properly you wouldn't be able to move objects through the layers,  why?  because air would eventually flow from high pressure to low pressure and the pressures would equalize.   So some additional property is required to maintain the pressure gradient.

This has been explained and obviously you haven't bothered to take any notice of it.
You need to hold this thought because you are close.
It's a shame you would rather play games and ridicule, because you would get a bit more attention if I thought you were not a mainstream robot.
And yes, I do play it back to those that warrant it.

Also,  another problem arises,  that is when I drop something,   the pressure from the elastic layers  (the stack)  above is pushing down,  but there is another layer underneath of higher pressure and density, so things would be pushed down but couldn't fall.

Nope, you appear to dip your foot into the free thinkers pool and then as you lower your ankle in, you then snatch it back out and quickly dry it.
Stop fighting against yourself and take better time to delve deeper if you are interested...and like I said...if not, then do what you need to do because I'm up against many people and I try to answer many people.
You are one of those people and all you have to do is hit me with whatever.
I'm typing this not talking it like a fake Stephen Hawking speak and spell voice over.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 09, 2017, 02:20:06 PM

Quote from: IonSpen on February 09, 2017, 11:18:07 AM

Scepti, does your denpressure rely on the sole fact the atmosphere is many miles high? Like you must have this so called stack all the way to the top?

The stack obviously has to go all the way to the top. That's what ends with a dome.

Then the pressure would be equal all the way to the top.  Or the higher pressure air would simply push the upper, lower pressure air away

I'm losing patience with you.
Answer me this question.
if a dome was full of sponge balls and this dome was so big that it was thousands and thousands of miles in diameter and then miles and miles and miles high and at the centre of this dome there was a tube that was pushing sponge balls into the dome whilst at the bottom centre of the dome, other sponge balls were falling back into the void to be pushed back up the tube again...do you think all of the sponge balls would be equally expanded all over the dome from bottom to top and centre to top as well as outwards, horizontally as the dome slopes down to the foundation?
Now imagine sponge balls being like Russian dolls, except they are Russian sponge balls.
Imagine tehse Russian sponge balls being a dense set of elements made so b y the layerings of compression.
Imagine peeling one ball away and understanding that this ball is the size it is due to being stretched or expanded in size by the pressure of every sponge ball.
So as the outer layer peels off, it condenses and is trapped between other sponge ballsas the spinge balls push up. Basically one sponge ball has become less dense or shy of one element.
And so on and so on.
It's not as easy to explain and it requires people with the ability to grasp what I'm saying from my point...n ot their own point...because it does not work with people trying to add their own takes, blindly.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 01:47:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 08:57:14 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 07:01:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 06:12:10 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 05:43:29 AM

How do you calculate density without using volume?

Man made scales.

Can you give an example?  If I put a block of metal on some scales, how will it tell me the density?  What units are you using for density?

We can be talking grams and ounces or what was originally pounds and stones, to kilos to tonnes.

So a kilo of lead is the same density as a kilo of balsa wood?

How do you know you have a kilo of lead and a kilo of balsa wood?

Well, we put it on the "man made" scales, as you suggested.  So, if we put a lump of lead on some  scales and they read 1kg and then we out a piece of balsa wood on the scales and it also says 1kg, then it means they are the same density?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 11:43:34 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 01:47:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 08:57:14 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 07:01:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 06:12:10 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 05:43:29 AM

How do you calculate density without using volume?

Man made scales.

Can you give an example?  If I put a block of metal on some scales, how will it tell me the density?  What units are you using for density?

We can be talking grams and ounces or what was originally pounds and stones, to kilos to tonnes.

So a kilo of lead is the same density as a kilo of balsa wood?

How do you know you have a kilo of lead and a kilo of balsa wood?

Well, we put it on the "man made" scales, as you suggested.  So, if we put a lump of lead on some  scales and they read 1kg and then we out a piece of balsa wood on the scales and it also says 1kg, then it means they are the same density?

Yep, it means their structures ...their mass  has the same density.
The only difference is, the balsa wood will be huge compared to the lump of lead.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 10, 2017, 05:19:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 11:43:34 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 01:47:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 08:57:14 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 07:01:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 06:12:10 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 05:43:29 AM

How do you calculate density without using volume?

Man made scales.

Can you give an example?  If I put a block of metal on some scales, how will it tell me the density?  What units are you using for density?

We can be talking grams and ounces or what was originally pounds and stones, to kilos to tonnes.

So a kilo of lead is the same density as a kilo of balsa wood?

How do you know you have a kilo of lead and a kilo of balsa wood?

Well, we put it on the "man made" scales, as you suggested.  So, if we put a lump of lead on some  scales and they read 1kg and then we out a piece of balsa wood on the scales and it also says 1kg, then it means they are the same density?

Yep, it means their structures ...their mass  has the same density.
The only difference is, the balsa wood will be huge compared to the lump of lead.

Because they do not have the same density.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 05:54:28 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 10, 2017, 05:19:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 11:43:34 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 01:47:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 08:57:14 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 07:01:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 06:12:10 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 05:43:29 AM

How do you calculate density without using volume?

Man made scales.

Can you give an example?  If I put a block of metal on some scales, how will it tell me the density?  What units are you using for density?

We can be talking grams and ounces or what was originally pounds and stones, to kilos to tonnes.

So a kilo of lead is the same density as a kilo of balsa wood?

How do you know you have a kilo of lead and a kilo of balsa wood?

Well, we put it on the "man made" scales, as you suggested.  So, if we put a lump of lead on some  scales and they read 1kg and then we out a piece of balsa wood on the scales and it also says 1kg, then it means they are the same density?

Yep, it means their structures ...their mass  has the same density.
The only difference is, the balsa wood will be huge compared to the lump of lead.

Because they do not have the same density.

But they do have the same density.

And you wonder why you are a laughing stock.

And you wonder why you are a laughing stock.

No, not at all. I'm well aware of why.
Now how about telling me how what I said was wrong?

Density = Mass/Volume.

The volume of 1kg of lead is certainly different then the volume of 1kg of balsa wood.  Or do you have a different formula for Density? Or Volume? Or Mass?

Density = Mass/Volume.

The volume of 1kg of lead is certainly different then the volume of 1kg of balsa wood.  Or do you have a different formula for Density? Or Volume? Or Mass?

Let me ask you a few questions.
How do you determine the density of something. What do you do to find out if one thing is more dense than another?

Quote from: PawnedScum on February 10, 2017, 06:34:05 AM

Density = Mass/Volume.

The volume of 1kg of lead is certainly different then the volume of 1kg of balsa wood.  Or do you have a different formula for Density? Or Volume? Or Mass?

Let me ask you a few questions.
How do you determine the density of something. What do you do to find out if one thing is more dense than another?

I would use the formula already worked out a long time ago.

Or If you're not into the whole calculator brevity thing....try sticking an ice pick into the cube of lead, then stick it into the cube of balsa wood.  My guess is both methods would tell you that the density of the two objects is completely different.

Density = Mass/Volume.

The volume of 1kg of lead is certainly different then the volume of 1kg of balsa wood.  Or do you have a different formula for Density? Or Volume? Or Mass?

1kg of lead is very small and very dense 1kg of balsa wood is very large and not so dense.

If you compressed the balsa wood to the same size as the lead it would have a much higher density than when it was the original size.

Does that make sense?

Quote from: PawnedScum on February 10, 2017, 06:34:05 AM

Density = Mass/Volume.

The volume of 1kg of lead is certainly different then the volume of 1kg of balsa wood.  Or do you have a different formula for Density? Or Volume? Or Mass?

1kg of lead is very small and very dense 1kg of balsa wood is very large and not so dense.

If you compressed the balsa wood to the same size as the lead it would have a much higher density than when it was the original size.

Does that make sense?

Ah....but could you compress the lead to the same specifications that you compressed the balsa wood....?  The only way the experiment would be valid is if you performed the same operation on both substances.

Do you mean compress it proportionately to the balsa wood?

I very much doubt you could, that's kinda what scepti's getting at here.

Just treat it like a thought experiment and you might have fun.

Who says I'm not having fun now?

Who says I'm not having fun now?

I'm sorry to hear that.

Thought experiments can only take you so far.  I can have a thought experiment where my desk is really a ham sandwich. That's all well and good until I start to convince someone else that my desk is really a ham sandwich.  They are immediately going to point out the ways that my desk is not a ham sandwich and if I continue to insist it is they are going to show me ways that proves that it isn't a ham sandwich.  Maybe they will try to convince me that it is really a pizza, but more then likely they are going to try and convince me that it's a desk and even break it down to all the different parts that make up a desk.

Of course there may be some who just take my word that it is a ham sandwich.

Do you mean compress it proportionately to the balsa wood?

I very much doubt you could, that's kinda what scepti's getting at here.

Just treat it like a thought experiment and you might have fun.

Absolutely bang on.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 10, 2017, 05:19:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 11:43:34 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 01:47:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 08:57:14 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 07:01:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 06:12:10 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 05:43:29 AM

How do you calculate density without using volume?

Man made scales.

Can you give an example?  If I put a block of metal on some scales, how will it tell me the density?  What units are you using for density?

We can be talking grams and ounces or what was originally pounds and stones, to kilos to tonnes.

So a kilo of lead is the same density as a kilo of balsa wood?

How do you know you have a kilo of lead and a kilo of balsa wood?

Well, we put it on the "man made" scales, as you suggested.  So, if we put a lump of lead on some  scales and they read 1kg and then we out a piece of balsa wood on the scales and it also says 1kg, then it means they are the same density?

Yep, it means their structures ...their mass  has the same density.

So, if I placed some balsa wood on the scales and it measured at 2kg and measured some lead at 1kg, this would mean the balsa wood had the greater density?


I take it from this that when you say "density" you mean the same thing as what everyone else calls "mass"?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 05:54:28 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 10, 2017, 05:19:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 11:43:34 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 01:47:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 08:57:14 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 07:01:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 06:12:10 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 05:43:29 AM

How do you calculate density without using volume?

Man made scales.

Can you give an example?  If I put a block of metal on some scales, how will it tell me the density?  What units are you using for density?

We can be talking grams and ounces or what was originally pounds and stones, to kilos to tonnes.

So a kilo of lead is the same density as a kilo of balsa wood?

How do you know you have a kilo of lead and a kilo of balsa wood?

Well, we put it on the "man made" scales, as you suggested.  So, if we put a lump of lead on some  scales and they read 1kg and then we out a piece of balsa wood on the scales and it also says 1kg, then it means they are the same density?

Yep, it means their structures ...their mass  has the same density.

So, if I placed some balsa wood on the scales and it measured at 2kg and measured some lead at 1kg, this would mean the balsa wood had the greater density?


I take it from this that when you say "density" you mean the same thing as what everyone else calls "mass"?

You're shifting the goal posts, Jiminy. Come on, play the game.

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 09, 2017, 04:20:23 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 09, 2017, 02:20:06 PM

Quote from: IonSpen on February 09, 2017, 11:18:07 AM

Scepti, does your denpressure rely on the sole fact the atmosphere is many miles high? Like you must have this so called stack all the way to the top?

The stack obviously has to go all the way to the top. That's what ends with a dome.

Then the pressure would be equal all the way to the top.  Or the higher pressure air would simply push the upper, lower pressure air away

I'm losing patience with you.
Answer me this question.
if a dome was full of sponge balls and this dome was so big that it was thousands and thousands of miles in diameter and then miles and miles and miles high and at the centre of this dome there was a tube that was pushing sponge balls into the dome whilst at the bottom centre of the dome, other sponge balls were falling back into the void to be pushed back up the tube again...do you think all of the sponge balls would be equally expanded all over the dome from bottom to top and centre to top as well as outwards, horizontally as the dome slopes down to the foundation?
Now imagine sponge balls being like Russian dolls, except they are Russian sponge balls.
Imagine tehse Russian sponge balls being a dense set of elements made so b y the layerings of compression.
Imagine peeling one ball away and understanding that this ball is the size it is due to being stretched or expanded in size by the pressure of every sponge ball.
So as the outer layer peels off, it condenses and is trapped between other sponge ballsas the spinge balls push up. Basically one sponge ball has become less dense or shy of one element.
And so on and so on.
It's not as easy to explain and it requires people with the ability to grasp what I'm saying from my point...n ot their own point...because it does not work with people trying to add their own takes, blindly.

Firstly, frankly, I'm a little tired of you accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you as being brainwashed and unable to think outside the box.  Personally I am a science fiction writer, inventor, and someone whose job it is, literally to think outside the box.  The moment people stop saying, I've never seen anything like that, is the moment I have failed to do my job.  I am perfectly capable of understanding, and in fact inventing, things that stretch the imagination.  So please stop hiding behind that particular self delusion.
Now then, once again, you give an example of sponge balls.  You say they are forced out and then some of them fall down only to be pushed out again.
Why do they fall down?  Why not float up unless there is some force pushing them?
You talk about this massive dome being filled with such sponge balls.  I can picture that, I could write a story based on that if you like.  But there is nothing in your explaination that tells me why the pressure is not evenly distributed.  That has been my main question.  That has been the main question everyone is asking.  You seem to feel you have explained it, but I promise you, you have not.  every single example you give requires another force pushing down.
Simple pressure does not explain it.  Pressure applies evenly to all surface areas.
No, I am not brainwashed.  Yes I am perfectly capable of imagining worlds and laws that do not exist.  Yes, I have read what you have said about it.  Yes, I am genuinely curious about this and would love to understand it.
The problem isn't me.  The problem is either your explainations, or the theory itself.

I have been polite and patient with you as I see the deluge of questions you get, but you cannot simply shrug it off and say people refuse to understand or are unable to.  That simply isn't the case.  As a writer I implore you, please find a better way of explaining it.  Find analogies that don't require a force like gravity to make it work.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 10, 2017, 07:37:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2017, 05:54:28 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 10, 2017, 05:19:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 11:43:34 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 01:47:21 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 08:57:14 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 07:01:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 08, 2017, 06:12:10 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 08, 2017, 05:43:29 AM

How do you calculate density without using volume?

Man made scales.

Can you give an example?  If I put a block of metal on some scales, how will it tell me the density?  What units are you using for density?

We can be talking grams and ounces or what was originally pounds and stones, to kilos to tonnes.

So a kilo of lead is the same density as a kilo of balsa wood?

How do you know you have a kilo of lead and a kilo of balsa wood?

Well, we put it on the "man made" scales, as you suggested.  So, if we put a lump of lead on some  scales and they read 1kg and then we out a piece of balsa wood on the scales and it also says 1kg, then it means they are the same density?

Yep, it means their structures ...their mass  has the same density.

So, if I placed some balsa wood on the scales and it measured at 2kg and measured some lead at 1kg, this would mean the balsa wood had the greater density?


I take it from this that when you say "density" you mean the same thing as what everyone else calls "mass"?

You're shifting the goal posts, Jiminy. Come on, play the game.

I'm really not trying to shift anything, and it's difficult to keep track of which game we're playing at any time.  You said you can measure density by placing an object on some scales and the unit of measurement is grams, kilos etc.  Right?  It's in the quotes.

So again, if I placed some balsa wood on the scales and it measured at 2kg and measured some lead at 1kg, this would mean the balsa wood had the greater density?

If this isn't correct, then tell me how you would measure the density of a substance and what units you would use?

Firstly, frankly, I'm a little tired of you accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you as being brainwashed and unable to think outside the box.

We're all brainwashed, including myself. Don't take it so seriously.
The only difference in the brainwashing is in the amount each person takes on-board.

  Personally I am a science fiction writer, inventor, and someone whose job it is, literally to think outside the box.

Good for you, then try and work with me and not against me by using a global model that I absolutely will not adhere to.
Remember one massive thing. I was as brainwashed as you were with this globe and I expect just about all on here were at one stage, unless they come from a place where global indoctrination is not a compulsory agenda.

  The moment people stop saying, I've never seen anything like that, is the moment I have failed to do my job.  I am perfectly capable of understanding, and in fact inventing, things that stretch the imagination.  So please stop hiding behind that particular self delusion.

I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm merely telling you that you have to show willing and not just shake the hand in a no no no situation before I've even finished.
Do the jigsaw and don't give up just because pieces don't fit. Wait till you find those that do or wait till I hand you another piece.

Now then, once again, you give an example of sponge balls.  You say they are forced out and then some of them fall down only to be pushed out again.
Why do they fall down?  Why not float up unless there is some force pushing them?

No I didn't say they fall down.
You see, this is where you have to actually take thorough notice and not add things in that you decide I mean or what you decide you want to add in regardless. It's my model. It's my mind you have to access. You have to get in touch with my ways to understand what I'm telling you.

You talki about this massive dome being filled with such sponge balls.  I can picture that, I could write a story based on that if you like.

You can write an entire story on the entire model if you take the time to understand it and stop going into shield up defensive global mode.

  But there is nothing in your explaination that tells me why the pressure is not evenly distributed.

That's because you refuse to understand it. You can argue black and blue that you do, but you simply do not understand my model and never will unless you be patient and not jump ahead or go all global on me, because going global just makes me shut you down.

  That has been my main question.  That has been the main question everyone is asking.  You seem to feel you have explained it, but I promise you, you have not.  every single example you give requires another force pushing down.

I have explained it. I've explained it in all kinds of different ways.
Most people are not using their logic to understand and/or, are not asking the right follow on questions when things don't quite add up for them.
Most just go into "oh it's gravity" or " oh what an imbecile" or " oh he's looking for a Nobel prize."
The list is endless and it gains nothing for anyone of you.

It means nothing to me other than to make me waste my time on people that could be better spent on others.

Simple pressure does not explain it.  Pressure applies evenly to all surface areas.

Until something pushes into that pressure.That's the key.

No, I am not brainwashed.  Yes I am perfectly capable of imagining worlds and laws that do not exist.  Yes, I have read what you have said about it.  Yes, I am genuinely curious about this and would love to understand it.
The problem isn't me.  The problem is either your explainations, or the theory itself.

Some people on here are starting to understand what I'm saying. It doesn't mean they're in agreement, it just means they grasp certain stuff and can work from it to give them an understanding of what I'm putting forward.
You cannot grasp it.
now is it all down to me or you as well?


If only 50% of the class understand the topic after explanation from the tutor, does that mean the tutor wasn't explaining him/herself in the correct way?
Is it because 50% of the class are just ignorant or devoid of understanding?

The reality is that everyone has their own logic. The most intelligent people can be the most naive.
The most naive can be the most easy going robots or parrots for mimicking and going with it.

Sometimes strong smelling salts fail to wake up an unconscious person but most people will awaken depending on the dose being a weak or strong one.
A weak dose was all I needed. How weak does your dose have to be?

The point is you are still in your global mindset. You need to put it to the side to have any hope of understanding a different model.

Keep coming back digging at me with little purpose and I'm going to overlook you those times and only answer when I see something worthwhile from you that tells me you're serious.

Your choice.

I have been polite and patient with you as I see the deluge of questions you get, but you cannot simply shrug it off and say people refuse to understand or are unable to.  That simply isn't the case.  As a writer I implore you, please find a bette Dwayne of explaining it.  Find analogies that don't require a force like gravity to make it work.

Work with me and force yourself to go deeper into it and you might get some joy.

I'm really not trying to shift anything, and it's difficult to keep track of which game we're playing at any time.  You said you can measure density by placing an object on some scales and the unit of measurement is grams, kilos etc.  Right?  It's in the quotes.

So again, if I placed some balsa wood on the scales and it measured at 2kg and measured some lead at 1kg, this would mean the balsa wood had the greater density?

If this isn't correct, then tell me how you would measure the density of a substance and what units you would use?

You started off saying you has 1kg of lead and 1kg of balsa wood...but fair enough, let's go with this change.

Yes the 2kg of balsa wood would have more density than the 1kg of lead.

If you think it doesn't then tell me why.

Lol

Poor Sceptictank doesn't know he is dumb.