Denpressure and tides 2nd

As far as I'm aware, all questions were answered.
Just because you don't like the answers does not mean I refused to answer.
I keep asking what gravity is and still haven't had an answer from you people and you lot even come armed with a library of supposed ready made answers without you even having to really think...but look....no answer.

No. They weren't.
You refused to answer them and instead just ignored us.

You are yet to explain why objects weigh less when you remove the air even though you claim that weight is caused by displacing air.

Yes, you keep asking what gravity is, because you don't want to focus on denpressure because you know it fails.

Unlike your denpressure idea, there are plenty of places to be informed about gravity.
So how about instead of continually trying to derail the thread you stick to discussing denpressure?

I understand that you get confused by my way of thinking and many will. It's not because my way of thinking is difficult. It's because you refuse to lower yourself to drop down to basics.
You keep mentioning calculations. You keep bringing up meanings.
You will go through brick walls to bring me equations that you think are relevant to YOUR discussion and what you believe I should place against my thought process.

No. We are fine to drop down to basics, but we will go back up and actually analyse what that means. If you take a too simplistic picture you will miss very important facts.

Yes, we keep bringing up calculations and equations. That is because they are relevant to denpressure.
They show your model to be wrong.

No, no, no, it does not work like that.
You're a smart person. You are intelligent. You are probably smarter than the average bear.....BUT....only in the blinkers you wear.

I'm at one side of those blinkers and others are at the other side and yet you do not see.
You can tread your path until you expire but your pockets can and will be picked on your journey, because of your refusal to take off those blinkers to see and evaluate what is beside you.

Nope. We aren't the ones wearing blinkers here.
We see you quite well.
We see your denpressure nonsense quite well.
But you keep wearing blinkers to try and hide from the truth.

How about you take off your blinkers and address the issues with your idea honestly and rationally?

It's called naivety and gullibility. Basically different words but a similar meaning, yet can be used in different contexts. See what I mean?

Yes, that is what you want from us, to be gullible fools that just eat up the crap you are spouting.
Too bad for you that we are intelligent people that will think before accepting it.

Just take a little peek through any gap you can see through and start from there. Let's see you put that brilliant mind to work in a reality check rather than a fantasy story following.

That's exactly what we did.
We took a peek through the gaps in your idea, and determined that it failed a reality check, so we will keep working in reality rather than fantasy story you are presenting.

Ok then, I'd like you to explain to me how gravity is used in every day life in construction or whatever.
Now I don't want you to just say stuff like..." well ermmm, bridges...there...bridges prove it"..I want you to actually tell me how gravity/gravitation/gravilocks or gravygravvygravity whatever you want to call it, works to aid in construction.
I'll make it easier.
Me and you are stood at the water. I say to you, " now then Rab, I'm going to build a bridge but I'm worried about this gravity stuff..can you help?"
I want you to say " sure scepti, here's my gravity meter and graviton detector and I'll show you how to use it and even help you, so let's go into the porta-cabin that has miraculously appeared behind us whilst we were chatting."
Ok Rab, I'd like you to now show me how gravity calculates how we construct the bridge.
I need to be sure it's gravity. I don't want to be having a drink later and telling the construction workers that is apparently gravity that helps us. I need to show them and I'm banking on you, Rab.

Firstly, he didn't say it was used in everyday life. He said it works in every situation on Earth.

But as for how it is used, one obvious way is GPS, where gravity is required to keep the satellites in orbit.
No gravity (or significantly different gravity) then no orbits, then no satellites, then no GPS.
Satellites are also used to monitor and predict the weather.

That's fine. I'll take the verification. Let's build that bridge.

So rather than verify gravity with experiments, you want to know exactly how it would be used in building a bridge?
How does that make sense at all?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 09:58:04 PM

Not only that, gravitation works and explains the operation of many things, including the period of pendulums and it's variation with altitude and latitude - you know, that little question that caused you to blow your top (again).

As basic as you can, you can explain this as well.

To put it simply, the period of a pendulum is determined by several factors, one of which is the acceleration due to gravity. This means pendulums at high altitude do not have the same period as one at low altitudes.
However, air pressure is irrelevant to it.
So if you wanted a very accurate pendulum clock, you needed to know the strength of gravity at a particular location to determine what the period was.

I'm not calculating anything. I have no need to.

Again, if you want anyone to take your model seriously as a model of reality, then you need to be able to do calculations based upon it to predict reality.
That then allows you to test that theory.

However, if you just want to be seen as a childish crackpot, spouting insane ideas with no bearing on reality, then you have no need to.

If calculations were the ultimate proof of thought processes then you would not be here arguing against a flat Earth and alternate thought processes.
Yet we have massive conflicts of opinions on calculations of sun distances on a flat to a globe. Not by a minor amount but by over 92 million miles, etc, etc.
Now neither could be right but certainly both CANNOT be right. Right?

The calculations themselves aren't the ultimate proof. I wouldn't even say they are proof. But they are a key part of the evidence.
If you are able to calculate things based upon your model, and that calculation matches reality, it indicates your model is more likely to be correct.
If you are able to calculate things based upon your model, and that calculation doesn't match reality, it indicates your model is wrong or at least is flawed.

The calculations for the globe model show the sun to be very distant. It is too far to easily measure the distance accurately.
The same kind of calculations when used on a flat earth model show the sun to be in numerous different locations and numerous different altitudes, all depending on what points you pick to do it at.
This shows the FET to be wrong.

So no, both cannot be right. The sun can't be in 2 places at once. As such, FET is wrong.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 10, 2017, 11:42:21 PM

You clearly do not understand what "density" means if you can write this:

Maybe it's you that doesn't get what I'm saying.

Maybe that's because you aren't saying what you mean?
If you don't mean density, don't say density.

There's confusion because there's a bit of duping nonsense going on with it to deliberately confuse.
It's done so gravity appears to have a meaning...a real property and it basically does not.
This is why you are not answering my questions on explaining gravity. It's because your head is crammed with memorising 800 packs of playing cards and you just don't have the time for real logic.

No. The confusion is caused by lay people not understanding the key details.
Weight is rather complex, and isn't actually measured in kg, but N (or kg weight).
It has nothing to do with intentional dishonesty, at least not normally.

Gravity does have a meaning. No gravity, no weight.

Again, we are the ones using real logic.

See what I mean?
You cannot explain what gravity is and you go on about my model.
Describe what this absolute load of gunk actually means in terms of proving gravity.

Again, this is not the place to discuss gravity. This is the place to discuss your model.
If you want to discuss gravity, make a new thread on it or go to the countless resources out there.

See what I mean?
Use your basic mind to explain how this nails gravity so that I have no doubts.
OK, this is what Newtonian Gravitation is 
the force between two masses as proportional to the product of their masses and inversally proportional to the square of the distance between them
Explain this gunk above.

It has been experimentally verified that there exists a force between any 2 masses that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them.

So gravity has been experimentally verified.

The actual basis of this force is rather complex and thus wouldn't fit your requirement of basic mind or simple.

Whether you like it or not, "density" is the "mass" per unit "volume". "Gravity" and "weight" don't come into it.

Let's go through this very slowly.

What is mass and also what is volume, then we will deal with density.

Ok mass first and then volume.

If you want a word for something else, go and use the correct word for that thing or if there is no word, make up your own and define clearly what it means.

I'll use what I need to use.

This all started with your claiming that 2 kg of balsa has a higher density than 1 kg of lead. Have you yet seen why that is so wrong.

My claim is correct and if not, then stop arguing and tell me why not.

There are many grades of balsa, but a typical density is about 160 kg/m³ and the density of lead is  11,340 kg/m³.
So, honestly I cannot work out what you mean by "density", whether you mean "mass", "weight" or something else.

I'm not arsed about grades of blasa. You mentioned 2kg of balsa  against 1kg of lead.

You are yet to explain why objects weigh less when you remove the air even though you claim that weight is caused by displacing air.

I already explained about scales in different environments.

Yes, you keep asking what gravity is, because you don't want to focus on denpressure because you know it fails.

I'm fully focused on denpressure. I kn ow what it is. You don't so you try to deflect explaining gravity by pulling the usual stroke.

Unlike your denpressure idea, there are plenty of places to be informed about gravity.
So how about instead of continually trying to derail the thread you stick to discussing denpressure?

There are plenty of places that explain nothing about what gravity is.

Yes, we keep bringing up calculations and equations. That is because they are relevant to denpressure.
They show your model to be wrong.

They aren't relevant to something you have no clue about and trust me, you have no clue. You pretend you know it but never show me that you even grasp a small part of it, so why are you arguing against it?

Nope. We aren't the ones wearing blinkers here.
We see you quite well.
We see your denpressure nonsense quite well.

Like I said about your blinkers.

But you keep wearing blinkers to try and hide from the truth.

Nah, I'm after truth, you are defending mass indoctrination of a swerve of the truth.

How about you take off your blinkers and address the issues with your idea honestly and rationally?

I think I'm more than putting the effort in to do that. the issue is being up against masses of you people that try to scupper it at every turn so that the few get muddled.

Yes, that is what you want from us, to be gullible fools that just eat up the crap you are spouting.
Too bad for you that we are intelligent people that will think before accepting it.

This is why you will always stay robotic, until you can start to think for yourself.
Intelligence is not gauged by just memorising given literature. Real intelligence is about having the ability to diversify.
You are a programmed robot.

Firstly, he didn't say it was used in everyday life. He said it works in every situation on Earth.

But as for how it is used, one obvious way is GPS, where gravity is required to keep the satellites in orbit.
No gravity (or significantly different gravity) then no orbits, then no satellites, then no GPS.
Satellites are also used to monitor and predict the weather.

You're not explaining anything and you know it.

So rather than verify gravity with experiments, you want to know exactly how it would be used in building a bridge?
How does that make sense at all?

I keep getting told about bridges by some people.
I say, "explain gravity then, because it doesn't exist to me."

Answer: " You utter fool scepti, how do you think bridges are built and stay up.2

So I used a bridge as a starting point.
We can use any construction if you're not happy with your little bridge.

To put it simply, the period of a pendulum is determined by several factors, one of which is the acceleration due to gravity. This means pendulums at high altitude do not have the same period as one at low altitudes.
However, air pressure is irrelevant to it.
So if you wanted a very accurate pendulum clock, you needed to know the strength of gravity at a particular location to determine what the period was.

It explains nothing and you know this.

Again, if you want anyone to take your model seriously as a model of reality, then you need to be able to do calculations based upon it to predict reality.
That then allows you to test that theory.

However, if you just want to be seen as a childish crackpot, spouting insane ideas with no bearing on reality, then you have no need to.

If I tipped a lorry load of calculations out, I would still be a crack pot and don't you even bother saying any different.
Your globe and it's trimmings will always win the day no matter whether it's bullshit, for as long as those at the top deem it necessary.

The calculations themselves aren't the ultimate proof. I wouldn't even say they are proof. But they are a key part of the evidence.

And what would the jury say to that?
Because it appears that your calculations have caused a unanimous jury verdict of guilty for your model as your truth and yet, as you say, calculations aren't proof at all.
My jury is still around the table and will be for a long long time, because my model is far from finished.
One thing my model has done, even in the small part is...it's destroyed your global nonsense by gravity alone.

If you are able to calculate things based upon your model, and that calculation matches reality, it indicates your model is more likely to be correct.
If you are able to calculate things based upon your model, and that calculation doesn't match reality, it indicates your model is wrong or at least is flawed.

Well I know that when I push an object into atmospheric pressure to displace it, I can measure a man made scale number from that displacement which gives me a weight measurement.
I can do this with water as well.
It's easy with denpressure.
I have no need to mention about weight being so complex. It's piss easy.
All you do is get right down to basics and throw away the nonsense of gravity and all its required bullshit.

The calculations for the globe model show the sun to be very distant. It is too far to easily measure the distance accurately.
The same kind of calculations when used on a flat earth model show the sun to be in numerous different locations and numerous different altitudes, all depending on what points you pick to do it at.
This shows the FET to be wrong.

So no, both cannot be right. The sun can't be in 2 places at once. As such, FET is wrong.

Your indoctrination and robotic level is through the roof.

No. The confusion is caused by lay people not understanding the key details.
Weight is rather complex, and isn't actually measured in kg, but N (or kg weight).
It has nothing to do with intentional dishonesty, at least not normally.

Course it's complex. It's made like that so people get confused about the reality of what causes the measurement.

Gravity does have a meaning. No gravity, no weight.

Denpressure has a meaning. No denpressure and no life at all to even have weight.
The no gravity and no weight requires people to really think on it because the very words kill off the global nonsense if you're prepared to think how your own body works.
However, I'm sure the robots will not compute it.

Again, we are the ones using real logic.

Binary.

Again, this is not the place to discuss gravity. This is the place to discuss your model.
If you want to discuss gravity, make a new thread on it or go to the countless resources out there.

Explain it and I won't need to bother. If you don't then I will keep bringing it up every time you have a go at denpressure.
I at least explain mine.

It has been experimentally verified that there exists a force between any 2 masses that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them.

So gravity has been experimentally verified.

The actual basis of this force is rather complex and thus wouldn't fit your requirement of basic mind or simple.

You don't even know what you're actually meaning.
You use complex as though it can only be understood by people with super brains.
The truth is rather simpler.
People are being duped by utter nonsense and most will accept it because they are afraid to question it.
Why are they afraid?
Because most people lose interest in complex explanations in anything and would not dare to question something they cannot understand and would rather champion it against the minority because any back up they need can be put up as a shield via written papers with that very same nonsense on it.

I'm a different gravy. I can stand my ground and I can strip people like you down to the raw and make you use your own mind, which is when you get found out and start stuttering along because your back up sheets get muddled.

Let's go through this very slowly.

Is that to make sure you understand?

What is mass and also what is volume, then we will deal with density.

Mass represents an entity's resistance to acceleration for a given force.
It is the m term in the relationship F=ma.

Volume is a 3D spatial extent.

For discussing the volume of entities, especially things like balsa, it can be complex as there are multiple possible options.
One is to consider the block as a whole, including all the air inside.
Another is to consider just the volume actually occupied by the substance, i.e. the small scale non-porous sections.

The best case scenrio for you, is just counting the non-porous sections, which would correspond to how much air is displaced, which in turn gives it its weight (not mass though). However, as in reality weight is proportional to mass, this would mean 1 kg of lead and 1 kg of balsa occupy the same volume, and thus have the same density.
That is another problem with your denpressure idea.

It is due to the porous nature of balsa and sponges that I prefer comparing aluminium and silver which have near identical structures with the difference being different atoms.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 11, 2017, 12:46:18 AM

This all started with your claiming that 2 kg of balsa has a higher density than 1 kg of lead. Have you yet seen why that is so wrong.

My claim is correct and if not, then stop arguing and tell me why not.

It is wrong because balsa, at best in your model, has the same density as lead. In reality, its density is much less, even if you just consider the non-porous sections, which would put it at a similar level to high density fibreboard (wood which has been taken apart and then had its fibre compressed under great loads to form a solid slab, which is capable of holding vacuum), but that is still only around 1000 kg/m^3 at best, still much below lead.

That is why you are wrong, because balsa is not denser than lead.

There are many grades of balsa, but a typical density is about 160 kg/m³ and the density of lead is  11,340 kg/m³.
So, honestly I cannot work out what you mean by "density", whether you mean "mass", "weight" or something else.

I'm not arsed about grades of blasa. You mentioned 2kg of balsa  against 1kg of lead.
[/quote]
And the 2kg vs 1 kg is irrelevant as mass is an extensive property while density is an intensive property, so it doesn't matter if you have 1 tonne or 1 mg of a particular phase, the density is the same.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 01:02:42 AM

Let's go through this very slowly.

Is that to make sure you understand?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 01:02:42 AM

What is mass and also what is volume, then we will deal with density.

Mass represents an entity's resistance to acceleration for a given force.
It is the m term in the relationship F=ma.

Volume is a 3D spatial extent.

For discussing the volume of entities, especially things like balsa, it can be complex as there are multiple possible options.
One is to consider the block as a whole, including all the air inside.
Another is to consider just the volume actually occupied by the substance, i.e. the small scale non-porous sections.

The best case scenrio for you, is just counting the non-porous sections, which would correspond to how much air is displaced, which in turn gives it its weight (not mass though). However, as in reality weight is proportional to mass, this would mean 1 kg of lead and 1 kg of balsa occupy the same volume, and thus have the same density.
That is another problem with your denpressure idea.

It is due to the porous nature of balsa and sponges that I prefer comparing aluminium and silver which have near identical structures with the difference being different atoms.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 01:02:42 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 11, 2017, 12:46:18 AM

This all started with your claiming that 2 kg of balsa has a higher density than 1 kg of lead. Have you yet seen why that is so wrong.

My claim is correct and if not, then stop arguing and tell me why not.

It is wrong because balsa, at best in your model, has the same density as lead. In reality, its density is much less, even if you just consider the non-porous sections, which would put it at a similar level to high density fibreboard (wood which has been taken apart and then had its fibre compressed under great loads to form a solid slab, which is capable of holding vacuum), but that is still only around 1000 kg/m^3 at best, still much below lead.

That is why you are wrong, because balsa is not denser than lead.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 11, 2017, 12:46:18 AM

There are many grades of balsa, but a typical density is about 160 kg/m³ and the density of lead is  11,340 kg/m³.
So, honestly I cannot work out what you mean by "density", whether you mean "mass", "weight" or something else.

I'm not arsed about grades of blasa. You mentioned 2kg of balsa  against 1kg of lead.

And the 2kg vs 1 kg is irrelevant as mass is an extensive property while density is an intensive property, so it doesn't matter if you have 1 tonne or 1 mg of a particular phase, the density is the same.

You've proved my point without realising that you have. Well done.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 11, 2017, 12:46:18 AM

Whether you like it or not, "density" is the "mass" per unit "volume". "Gravity" and "weight" don't come into it.

Let's go through this very slowly.
What is mass and also what is volume, then we will deal with density.
Ok mass first and then volume.

I do believe that I defined them quite accurately in an earlier post. Why should I repeat myself if you don't pay attention?
But it was here Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd « Reply #228 on: Today at 09:37:40 AM ».

Quote from: rabinoz on February 11, 2017, 12:46:18 AM

If you want a word for something else, go and use the correct word for that thing or if there is no word, make up your own and define clearly what it means.

I'll use what I need to use.

Well, don't blame everyone else for misunderstanding what you say. If you change the definition of words that's your look out!

Quote from: rabinoz on February 11, 2017, 12:46:18 AM

This all started with your claiming that 2 kg of balsa has a higher density than 1 kg of lead. Have you yet seen why that is so wrong.

My claim is correct and if not, then stop arguing and tell me why not.

You are incorrect because "density" is the "mass" of a unit "volume" and not "weight" or anything else.
The mass of 1 cubic metre of balsa is 160 kg and the mass of 1 cubic metre of lead is 11,340 kg, so lead is almost 71 times as dense as balsa.
Or on a more easily scale grasped a 10 x 10 x 10 cm cube (1/1000 of a cubic metre) of balsa would have a mass of 0.16 kg or 160 gm.
But that 10 x 10 x 10 cm cube of lead would have a mass of 11.34 kg.

But 2 kg of balsa still has a density of 160 kg/m³ and 1 kg of lesd still has a density of 11,340 kg/m³.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 11, 2017, 12:46:18 AM

There are many grades of balsa, but a typical density is about 160 kg/m³ and the density of lead is  11,340 kg/m³.
So, honestly I cannot work out what you mean by "density", whether you mean "mass", "weight" or something else.

I'm not arsed about grades of blasa. You mentioned 2kg of balsa  against 1kg of lead.

I mentoned grades of balsa because the density of various grades can vary from under 80  kg/m³ to over 225  kg/m³.

And I explained all about the 2kg of balsa  against 1kg of lead above.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 12:57:27 AM

You are yet to explain why objects weigh less when you remove the air even though you claim that weight is caused by displacing air.

I already explained about scales in different environments.

You might want to check on what explaining is.
Baselessly asserting crap and then ignoring the refutation is not explaining.
Also, that is completely irrelevant as the scales are in the same environment.
I wasn't talking about taking something to a high altitude or using a vacuum chamber.
I was talking about removing the air inside the object.

I'm fully focused on denpressure. I kn ow what it is. You don't so you try to deflect explaining gravity by pulling the usual stroke.

If you are fully focused on denpressure why do you keep bringing up gravity?
You are the one deflecting.
This post was to discuss denpressure, and rather than do that you continually want to discuss gravity.

There are plenty of places that explain nothing about what gravity is.

Yes, like Harry Potter. So what?
I didn't say everywhere does.

They aren't relevant to something you have no clue about and trust me, you have no clue. You pretend you know it but never show me that you even grasp a small part of it, so why are you arguing against it?

Again, I have a clue. I am basing the argument upon what you have claimed.
I have shown you that I do grasp it by effectively arguing against it and demonstrating that key claims are completely wrong and outright contradict reality.

I have absolutely no reason to trust you.
I do have a clue about your idea based upon what you have said about it.

The only way you could be right and I have no clue is if you have been blatantly lying about it rather than presenting your model at all.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 12:57:27 AM

Nope. We aren't the ones wearing blinkers here.
We see you quite well.
We see your denpressure nonsense quite well.

Like I said about your blinkers.

Like I said, we aren't the one with blinders/blinkers.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 12:57:27 AM

But you keep wearing blinkers to try and hide from the truth.

Nah, I'm after truth, you are defending mass indoctrination of a swerve of the truth.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 12:57:27 AM

How about you take off your blinkers and address the issues with your idea honestly and rationally?

I think I'm more than putting the effort in to do that. the issue is being up against masses of you people that try to scupper it at every turn so that the few get muddled.

I don't care if you think that. The simple fact is that you are not.
You are presented with a quite simple problem which your model cannot address and you just ignore it rather than thinking about it at all.
I was even nice and just focused on one key issue rather than every single one.

So how about you put in the effort and try to honestly and rationally explain that without contradicting what you have said before?

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 12:57:27 AM

Yes, that is what you want from us, to be gullible fools that just eat up the crap you are spouting.
Too bad for you that we are intelligent people that will think before accepting it.

This is why you will always stay robotic, until you can start to think for yourself.
Intelligence is not gauged by just memorising given literature. Real intelligence is about having the ability to diversify.
You are a programmed robot.

No. We are not programmed robots. That is what you want, people that just focus on saying gravity is best and you are wrong without trying to justify their claims at all.
Instead we are intelligent and actually think about what you are saying enough to realise it contradicts reality.
I have the ability to diversify. That doesn't mean I just accept whatever crap someone says.
I am intelligent, which means I can learn and think about things.
That means rather than just accept your simple "explanation" that things weigh an amount dependant upon how much air they displace, complete with simple ideas like you can compress sponges to take up less space but you can't easily compress lead, I will actually think about it and realise that isn't the case at all, and that by displacing more air things weigh less.

Real intelligence means being able to rationally respond to arguments and questions people make rather than just dismissing them.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 12:57:27 AM

Firstly, he didn't say it was used in everyday life. He said it works in every situation on Earth.

But as for how it is used, one obvious way is GPS, where gravity is required to keep the satellites in orbit.
No gravity (or significantly different gravity) then no orbits, then no satellites, then no GPS.
Satellites are also used to monitor and predict the weather.

You're not explaining anything and you know it.

You wanted it kept basic didn't you?
And like I said, I want to focus on denpressure here, not continually get deflected to gravity.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 12:57:27 AM

So rather than verify gravity with experiments, you want to know exactly how it would be used in building a bridge?
How does that make sense at all?

I keep getting told about bridges by some people.
I say, "explain gravity then, because it doesn't exist to me."

Answer: " You utter fool scepti, how do you think bridges are built and stay up.2

So I used a bridge as a starting point.
We can use any construction if you're not happy with your little bridge.

Firstly, that still has no bearing on it being verified by experiments.
But, I am yet to see someone do that.
Do you have an actual quote with a link?

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 12:57:27 AM

To put it simply, the period of a pendulum is determined by several factors, one of which is the acceleration due to gravity. This means pendulums at high altitude do not have the same period as one at low altitudes.
However, air pressure is irrelevant to it.
So if you wanted a very accurate pendulum clock, you needed to know the strength of gravity at a particular location to determine what the period was.

It explains nothing and you know this.

No. It explains the function of the pendulum.
Remember, you wanted it basic.

If I tipped a lorry load of calculations out, I would still be a crack pot and don't you even bother saying any different.

Yes. When your calculations contradict observed reality and you don't admit it, you will still be a crack pot.

Your globe and it's trimmings will always win the day no matter whether it's bullshit, for as long as those at the top deem it necessary.

No. It will always win the day because it isn't bullshit and is the best explanation for all the data.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 12:57:27 AM

The calculations themselves aren't the ultimate proof. I wouldn't even say they are proof. But they are a key part of the evidence.

And what would the jury say to that?

I would say truth isn't determined by popular vote.
Are you trying to act like a dishonest lawyer, trying to con people to their side, or like a scientist trying to discover the truth and see if their model works?

Because it appears that your calculations have caused a unanimous jury verdict of guilty for your model as your truth and yet, as you say, calculations aren't proof at all.

How does it appear that my calculations (alone) have done that?

I say the calculations themselves aren't.
You can happily calculate all sorts of crap. It means nothing.

The evidence comes from testing how well those calculations match reality.

In the case of your denpressure model, it fails miserably.

My jury is still around the table and will be for a long long time, because my model is far from finished.
One thing my model has done, even in the small part is...it's destroyed your global nonsense by gravity alone.

And it likely never will be finished as fundamental parts contradict reality.
Your model hasn't destroyed the reality of gravity or Earth being round at all.
Gravity existing as we know it or in some other way has no bearing on Earth being round.
The evidence indicates Earth is round. Gravity just provides an explanation for why.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 12:57:27 AM

If you are able to calculate things based upon your model, and that calculation matches reality, it indicates your model is more likely to be correct.
If you are able to calculate things based upon your model, and that calculation doesn't match reality, it indicates your model is wrong or at least is flawed.

Well I know that when I push an object into atmospheric pressure to displace it, I can measure a man made scale number from that displacement which gives me a weight measurement.
I can do this with water as well.
It's easy with denpressure.
I have no need to mention about weight being so complex. It's piss easy.
All you do is get right down to basics and throw away the nonsense of gravity and all its required bullshit.

Yes, you can, and you find out that by pushing an object into air, it weighs less as it is displacing that air, so displacing the air doesn't give it its weight.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 12:57:27 AM

The calculations for the globe model show the sun to be very distant. It is too far to easily measure the distance accurately.
The same kind of calculations when used on a flat earth model show the sun to be in numerous different locations and numerous different altitudes, all depending on what points you pick to do it at.
This shows the FET to be wrong.

So no, both cannot be right. The sun can't be in 2 places at once. As such, FET is wrong.

Your indoctrination and robotic level is through the roof.

No. It isn't. My reason and rationality may be, but I am quite far from indoctrinated or robotic (at least in that sense).
Do you have any rational arguments against that or just insults?
That does seem to be your go to strategy.
Someone points out you are wrong, even with an explanation, and you just call them indoctrinated and robotic.
So really, who is the indoctrinated robot here?

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 12:57:27 AM

No. The confusion is caused by lay people not understanding the key details.
Weight is rather complex, and isn't actually measured in kg, but N (or kg weight).
It has nothing to do with intentional dishonesty, at least not normally.

Course it's complex. It's made like that so people get confused about the reality of what causes the measurement.

No. It is more to do with increased understanding.
Lots of things in reality are complex.
It has nothing to do with intentionally confusing people.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 12:57:27 AM

Gravity does have a meaning. No gravity, no weight.

Denpressure has a meaning. No denpressure and no life at all to even have weight.

So now you are claiming that not only does your magic denpressure cause weight, it also causes life itself?

The no gravity and no weight requires people to really think on it because the very words kill off the global nonsense if you're prepared to think how your own body works.
However, I'm sure the robots will not compute it.

No. It doesn't. If you wish to claim such nonsense you really should back it up.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 12:57:27 AM

Again, this is not the place to discuss gravity. This is the place to discuss your model.
If you want to discuss gravity, make a new thread on it or go to the countless resources out there.

Explain it and I won't need to bother. If you don't then I will keep bringing it up every time you have a go at denpressure.
I at least explain mine.

And all that shows is that you need to deflect because you know your model is fundamentally flawed. Rather than defend your model you try and show that other things are just as bad.

You don't explain yours. You make pathetic attempts at explanations then run away or start ignoring people when real questions are asked about it or real issues are raised.

You don't even know what you're actually meaning.

No. I do know what I mean.

You use complex as though it can only be understood by people with super brains.

No. I use complex to indicate it isn't something a 2 year old can grasp.

The truth is rather simpler.
People are being duped by utter nonsense and most will accept it because they are afraid to question it.

No. That is just your delusional bullshit because you don't want to accept gravity.
The truth is simple, your denpressure idea is bullshit which cannot explain simple observations from reality.

I'm a different gravy. I can stand my ground and I can strip people like you down to the raw and make you use your own mind, which is when you get found out and start stuttering along because your back up sheets get muddled.

Nope.
When you get me to use your mind I show just how full of holes your idea is.
You are the one that has been found out, not us.
I don't use back up sheets.

You cannot stand your ground. All you can do is run away and deflect.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 02:12:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 01:02:42 AM

Let's go through this very slowly.

Is that to make sure you understand?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 01:02:42 AM

What is mass and also what is volume, then we will deal with density.

Mass represents an entity's resistance to acceleration for a given force.
It is the m term in the relationship F=ma.

Volume is a 3D spatial extent.

For discussing the volume of entities, especially things like balsa, it can be complex as there are multiple possible options.
One is to consider the block as a whole, including all the air inside.
Another is to consider just the volume actually occupied by the substance, i.e. the small scale non-porous sections.

The best case scenrio for you, is just counting the non-porous sections, which would correspond to how much air is displaced, which in turn gives it its weight (not mass though). However, as in reality weight is proportional to mass, this would mean 1 kg of lead and 1 kg of balsa occupy the same volume, and thus have the same density.
That is another problem with your denpressure idea.

It is due to the porous nature of balsa and sponges that I prefer comparing aluminium and silver which have near identical structures with the difference being different atoms.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 01:02:42 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 11, 2017, 12:46:18 AM

This all started with your claiming that 2 kg of balsa has a higher density than 1 kg of lead. Have you yet seen why that is so wrong.

My claim is correct and if not, then stop arguing and tell me why not.

It is wrong because balsa, at best in your model, has the same density as lead. In reality, its density is much less, even if you just consider the non-porous sections, which would put it at a similar level to high density fibreboard (wood which has been taken apart and then had its fibre compressed under great loads to form a solid slab, which is capable of holding vacuum), but that is still only around 1000 kg/m^3 at best, still much below lead.

That is why you are wrong, because balsa is not denser than lead.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 11, 2017, 12:46:18 AM

There are many grades of balsa, but a typical density is about 160 kg/m³ and the density of lead is  11,340 kg/m³.
So, honestly I cannot work out what you mean by "density", whether you mean "mass", "weight" or something else.

I'm not arsed about grades of blasa. You mentioned 2kg of balsa  against 1kg of lead.

And the 2kg vs 1 kg is irrelevant as mass is an extensive property while density is an intensive property, so it doesn't matter if you have 1 tonne or 1 mg of a particular phase, the density is the same.

You've proved my point without realising that you have. Well done.

So your point is that you are either lying dishonest scum with no concern for the truth or you have no idea what you are talking about?

I certainly didn't prove that balsa is more dense than lead like you were claiming.

So your point is that you are either lying dishonest scum with no concern for the truth or you have no idea what you are talking about?

Calm yourself down or you'll never understand anything and will just keep parroting and parroting till you expire.

I certainly didn't prove that balsa is more dense than lead like you were claiming.

I never claimed you said balsa was more dense than lead. Stop telling lies.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 02:51:31 AM

So your point is that you are either lying dishonest scum with no concern for the truth or you have no idea what you are talking about?

Calm yourself down or you'll never understand anything and will just keep parroting and parroting till you expire.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 02:51:31 AM

I certainly didn't prove that balsa is more dense than lead like you were claiming.

I never claimed you said balsa was more dense than lead. Stop telling lies.

Scepi, think about it, if nobody else than you can understand your thinging, is it not possible that your thinking is wrong.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2017, 02:56:26 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 02:51:31 AM

So your point is that you are either lying dishonest scum with no concern for the truth or you have no idea what you are talking about?

Calm yourself down or you'll never understand anything and will just keep parroting and parroting till you expire.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 02:51:31 AM

I certainly didn't prove that balsa is more dense than lead like you were claiming.

I never claimed you said balsa was more dense than lead. Stop telling lies.

Scepi, think about it, if nobody else than you can understand your thinging, is it not possible that your thinking is wrong.

Nope. It's my own model and people don't understand it because they simply reuse to in many cases.

Has it crossed your mind that you could be being duped by mainstream usage of duped science?

First off, hi everyone, I'm new here as you can see So have mercy Been a lurker for some time, but its getting kinda hard to keep quiet..

So, I have a short question regarding denpressure for scepti, as noone asked it and scepti actually brought it up himself. Its a simpler version of the question regarding a tank/jar with vacuum inside it and what would happen to its weight.
Well instead of vacuum, which can be kinda tricky, or to put it better it can leave room to wiggle and get out of since its not so easy to accomplish and the change to weight is not too big, lets have a container thats closed off (a tank, glass jar, even a plastic bottle if you want, it doesnt really matter) and first measure its weight on a scale while its "empty" (full of air). Then fill it up with water and measure its weight again, it should be pretty obvious what will happen but i want you to explain what happens under denpressure if we assume the volume of the container stays the same or changes a very small amount and therefore it displaces pretty much the same amount of the atmosphere?

I hope the question is clear, I tried to keep it as simple as possible and I think its pretty important because I dont see how your model explains what happens in reality in this scenario.

Hey Canadabear, I understand sceptis model! Is it possible that you are making grand generalizations without any real substance to your claims in an attempt to dissuade people away from alternative thinking?

Hey Canadabear, I understand sceptis model! Is it possible that you are making grand generalizations without any real substance to your claims in an attempt to dissuade people away from alternative thinking?

Question Authority

OK you understand it, than explain it to me.
What evidence made you believe it.

First off, hi everyone, I'm new here as you can see So have mercy Been a lurker for some time, but its getting kinda hard to keep quiet..

So, I have a short question regarding denpressure for scepti, as noone asked it and scepti actually brought it up himself. Its a simpler version of the question regarding a tank/jar with vacuum inside it and what would happen to its weight.
Well instead of vacuum, which can be kinda tricky, or to put it better it can leave room to wiggle and get out of since its not so easy to accomplish and the change to weight is not too big, lets have a container thats closed off (a tank, glass jar, even a plastic bottle if you want, it doesnt really matter) and first measure its weight on a scale while its "empty" (full of air). Then fill it up with water and measure its weight again, it should be pretty obvious what will happen but i want you to explain what happens under denpressure if we assume the volume of the container stays the same or changes a very small amount and therefore it displaces pretty much the same amount of the atmosphere?

I hope the question is clear, I tried to keep it as simple as possible and I think its pretty important because I dont see how your model explains what happens in reality in this scenario.

Ok, under denpressure the jar full of air is a jar that we can basically call at equilibrium with the external atmosphere.
Basically it leaves the atmosphere acting solely on the density of the glass itself.
To put it simpler, it's as if you flatten the glass jar out and measure that dense mass of it by it's displacement of the atmosphere that pushes back against that jar.
That's al;l it's doing with the air in so we can negate the air in the jar.
See what I mean?

Ok so now we have the jar filled with water and now the water has pushed out all the air and replaced it with a more dense matter (water) that now also acts against the atmosphere, so we have a whole jar including the water that's displacing the atmosphere, meaning that atmosphere is pushing back by that much over equilibrium.
We now see the effects of the displacement on man made scales and see the difference in displacement of the jar full of air at equilibrium and the full jar of liquid that is not.

Quote from: kikael on February 11, 2017, 07:41:31 AM

First off, hi everyone, I'm new here as you can see So have mercy Been a lurker for some time, but its getting kinda hard to keep quiet..

So, I have a short question regarding denpressure for scepti, as noone asked it and scepti actually brought it up himself. Its a simpler version of the question regarding a tank/jar with vacuum inside it and what would happen to its weight.
Well instead of vacuum, which can be kinda tricky, or to put it better it can leave room to wiggle and get out of since its not so easy to accomplish and the change to weight is not too big, lets have a container thats closed off (a tank, glass jar, even a plastic bottle if you want, it doesnt really matter) and first measure its weight on a scale while its "empty" (full of air). Then fill it up with water and measure its weight again, it should be pretty obvious what will happen but i want you to explain what happens under denpressure if we assume the volume of the container stays the same or changes a very small amount and therefore it displaces pretty much the same amount of the atmosphere?

I hope the question is clear, I tried to keep it as simple as possible and I think its pretty important because I dont see how your model explains what happens in reality in this scenario.

Ok, under denpressure the jar full of air is a jar that we can basically call at equilibrium with the external atmosphere.
Basically it leaves the atmosphere acting solely on the density of the glass itself.
To put it simpler, it's as if you flatten the glass jar out and measure that dense mass of it by it's displacement of the atmosphere that pushes back against that jar.
That's al;l it's doing with the air in so we can negate the air in the jar.
See what I mean?

Ok so now we have the jar filled with water and now the water has pushed out all the air and replaced it with a more dense matter (water) that now also acts against the atmosphere, so we have a whole jar including the water that's displacing the atmosphere, meaning that atmosphere is pushing back by that much over equilibrium.
We now see the effects of the displacement on man made scales and see the difference in displacement of the jar full of air at equilibrium and the full jar of liquid that is not.

How does the density of a material change the atmosphere that is pushing back on the material in the jar? 
That means why does a jar of water weight less than a jar of mercury?
It displace the same volume air in the jar and the jar with the same density before the filling of a different material.

Quote from: kikael on February 11, 2017, 07:41:31 AM

First off, hi everyone, I'm new here as you can see So have mercy Been a lurker for some time, but its getting kinda hard to keep quiet..

So, I have a short question regarding denpressure for scepti, as noone asked it and scepti actually brought it up himself. Its a simpler version of the question regarding a tank/jar with vacuum inside it and what would happen to its weight.
Well instead of vacuum, which can be kinda tricky, or to put it better it can leave room to wiggle and get out of since its not so easy to accomplish and the change to weight is not too big, lets have a container thats closed off (a tank, glass jar, even a plastic bottle if you want, it doesnt really matter) and first measure its weight on a scale while its "empty" (full of air). Then fill it up with water and measure its weight again, it should be pretty obvious what will happen but i want you to explain what happens under denpressure if we assume the volume of the container stays the same or changes a very small amount and therefore it displaces pretty much the same amount of the atmosphere?

I hope the question is clear, I tried to keep it as simple as possible and I think its pretty important because I dont see how your model explains what happens in reality in this scenario.

Ok, under denpressure the jar full of air is a jar that we can basically call at equilibrium with the external atmosphere.
Basically it leaves the atmosphere acting solely on the density of the glass itself.
To put it simpler, it's as if you flatten the glass jar out and measure that dense mass of it by it's displacement of the atmosphere that pushes back against that jar.
That's al;l it's doing with the air in so we can negate the air in the jar.
See what I mean?

Ok so now we have the jar filled with water and now the water has pushed out all the air and replaced it with a more dense matter (water) that now also acts against the atmosphere, so we have a whole jar including the water that's displacing the atmosphere, meaning that atmosphere is pushing back by that much over equilibrium.
We now see the effects of the displacement on man made scales and see the difference in displacement of the jar full of air at equilibrium and the full jar of liquid that is not.

Thats why I explicitly said its a closed container, and stated that we should have the same volume of atmosphere being displaced. Off course that doesnt work with an open container, since the volume of displaced atmosphere changes. What I wanted to know is basically the same thing that Canadabear asked in his post, I just wanted to give a clear border between the inside of the container and the outside so that we have pressure acting against the same thing (same surface) in both cases. If atmospheric pressure is what gives objects weight by how much of atmosphere is displaced, then why does that pressure care (and how would it even know) whats inside such a container?
Unlike gravity, pressure stops acting directly on things if there is a bordering surface. If I'm not mistaken that should actually be the main principle behind pressure, a force against a surface? Or does pressure under your model work differently?

Thats why I explicitly said its a closed container, and stated that we should have the same volume of atmosphere being displaced. Off course that doesnt work with an open container, since the volume of displaced atmosphere changes. What I wanted to know is basically the same thing that Canadabear asked in his post, I just wanted to give a clear border between the inside of the container and the outside so that we have pressure acting against the same thing (same surface) in both cases. If atmospheric pressure is what gives objects weight by how much of atmosphere is displaced, then why does that pressure care (and how would it even know) whats inside such a container?
Unlike gravity, pressure stops acting directly on things if there is a bordering surface. If I'm not mistaken that should actually be the main principle behind pressure, a force against a surface? Or does pressure under your model work differently?

It's not a case of it caring, thats just the way it is.
Imagine you're a bottom feeding fish or spongebob or whatever.
You have a glass and you decide to put the lid on it, your glass if full of water with a lid on it. It's equalised to the water.
Now the thickness of the actual jar and the thickness of the lid is displacing the water and that water pressure will act on that thickness alone.
Get out your bottom of the sea fish made measuring scales and you get a fish made weight.
Or a spongebob, depending on how you want to view it.

Ok now spongebob decides to grab some sea bottom sand  and fills the other jar with it. The sand pushes out the water inside and that water must go somewhere, right?
It stays out of the jar because we now have a lid on it.
So the water that has been pushed out of the jar is now adding that much water pressure back onto the jar, as well as the jars thickness like the first jar, giving you a weight change due to added pressure.


Now take all of that and sit it on a flat above water, in atmospheric pressure and just think about it.

It's not a case of it caring, thats just the way it is.
Imagine you're a bottom feeding fish or spongebob or whatever.
You have a glass and you decide to put the lid on it, your glass if full of water with a lid on it. It's equalised to the water.
Now the thickness of the actual jar and the thickness of the lid is displacing the water and that water pressure will act on that thickness alone.
Get out your bottom of the sea fish made measuring scales and you get a fish made weight.
Or a spongebob, depending on how you want to view it.

Ok now spongebob decides to grab some sea bottom sand  and fills the other jar with it. The sand pushes out the water inside and that water must go somewhere, right?
It stays out of the jar because we now have a lid on it.
So the water that has been pushed out of the jar is now adding that much water pressure back onto the jar, as well as the jars thickness like the first jar, giving you a weight change due to added pressure.


Now take all of that and sit it on a flat above water, in atmospheric pressure and just think about it.

Well, the sand also didn't magically appear out of nowhere, did it? They effectively just traded places so I don't see why there would be any significant change in pressure exerted on the jar. And even if there was a change in pressure it wouldn't magically affect just the jar, but instead everything that's under the influence of that pressure which would result in negligible change in overall weight and certainly not the massive change we see if we for instance fill a jar with water.

So lets go even simpler, lets say instead of just 1 jar you have 3 sealed jars of exactly the same volume filled to the brim. The first one is filled with air, the second one with water and the third one with mercury. Now you measure the weight of each of those jars, why is there any difference in the measurements? They displace the same volume of atmosphere and there was no pushing out of any air/atmosphere out of any jar.

First off, hi everyone, I'm new here as you can see So have mercy Been a lurker for some time, but its getting kinda hard to keep quiet..

So, I have a short question regarding denpressure for scepti, as noone asked it and scepti actually brought it up himself. Its a simpler version of the question regarding a tank/jar with vacuum inside it and what would happen to its weight.
Well instead of vacuum, which can be kinda tricky, or to put it better it can leave room to wiggle and get out of since its not so easy to accomplish and the change to weight is not too big, lets have a container thats closed off (a tank, glass jar, even a plastic bottle if you want, it doesnt really matter) and first measure its weight on a scale while its "empty" (full of air). Then fill it up with water and measure its weight again, it should be pretty obvious what will happen but i want you to explain what happens under denpressure if we assume the volume of the container stays the same or changes a very small amount and therefore it displaces pretty much the same amount of the atmosphere?

I hope the question is clear, I tried to keep it as simple as possible and I think its pretty important because I dont see how your model explains what happens in reality in this scenario.

No. The volume doesn't remain the same. In the case of the "empty" one, the volume inside is not counted. When you fill it with water you displace the air inside, causing it to weigh more.

What would be better is filling it with air, so you are effectively displacing less air.

Hey Canadabear, I understand sceptis model! Is it possible that you are making grand generalizations without any real substance to your claims in an attempt to dissuade people away from alternative thinking?

Question Authority

And Scepti is trying to be an authority on this. We are questioning him, just like you say. But he doesn't like that.

So perhaps you can explain the issues?
How come a container weighs less when you displace all the air from inside it if weight is caused by displacing air?
If weight isn't caused by displacing air, then what is causing it?

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 02:51:31 AM

So your point is that you are either lying dishonest scum with no concern for the truth or you have no idea what you are talking about?

Calm yourself down or you'll never understand anything and will just keep parroting and parroting till you expire.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 02:51:31 AM

I certainly didn't prove that balsa is more dense than lead like you were claiming.

I never claimed you said balsa was more dense than lead. Stop telling lies.

And I never said you did, so how about you stop telling lies?

I said you were claiming balsa was more dense than lead, and guess what? You were:

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

If that wasn't what you thought I somehow proved in my post, what do you think I proved?

Nope. It's my own model and people don't understand it because they simply reuse to in many cases.

Has it crossed your mind that you could be being duped by mainstream usage of duped science?

Has it crossed your mind that perhaps people do understand it and just realise it is completely wrong?
I'm not refusing to understand it, I am understanding it and realising it makes no sense.

Has it crossed your mind that you could be so opposed to mainstream science that you are clinging to a model which makes no sense?

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on February 11, 2017, 08:02:03 AM

Hey Canadabear, I understand sceptis model! Is it possible that you are making grand generalizations without any real substance to your claims in an attempt to dissuade people away from alternative thinking?

Question Authority

And Scepti is trying to be an authority on this. We are questioning him, just like you say. But he doesn't like that.

So perhaps you can explain the issues?
How come a container weighs less when you displace all the air from inside it if weight is caused by displacing air?
If weight isn't caused by displacing air, then what is causing it?

From what I understand and what makes sense to me considering denpressure, is that the volume (empty space) of an object limits the amount of air it can displace and the density (solid part) of an object is what actually displaces the atmosphere.

Air has density, you can see this in an inflated tyre, at 0 psi the tire is soft and struggles to hold a shape, at 36 psi it is firm and can support the weight of me and my bike.

Oxygen has an atomic mass of 15.9994 u+- Carbon dioxide has a mass of 44.01 g/mol. I am sure you knew that.

If there is a jar with air in it there is x amount of empty space, when you evacuate the air from a container you are lowering the density of the entire container by increasing the volume (empty space) in an object and it weighs less as a result. Because, as stated before the density of an object causes the atmosphere to be displaced.

He has been trying to explain this with the 1kg of balsa wood and the 1kg of lead comparison.

In our model the container weighs less empty because the air has mass which is attracted to the earth centre based on its mass and the inverse sqaure of the distance, in scepti's model the container weighs less because the air has density (which scpeti has made clear that is what causes mass).

--------------------------------------

Personally I find this (denpressure) fascinating and accept that if I want to learn the model I am going to have to learn the basics from scepti before I start trying to poke holes in it.

What you guys are doing is the equivalent of telling your university teacher that he is wrong after one class of GR because GR is "absurd"

Learn the entire theory of GR, then try and poke holes in it, otherwise you might look silly.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2017, 01:16:51 PM

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on February 11, 2017, 08:02:03 AM

Hey Canadabear, I understand sceptis model! Is it possible that you are making grand generalizations without any real substance to your claims in an attempt to dissuade people away from alternative thinking?

Question Authority

And Scepti is trying to be an authority on this. We are questioning him, just like you say. But he doesn't like that.

So perhaps you can explain the issues?
How come a container weighs less when you displace all the air from inside it if weight is caused by displacing air?
If weight isn't caused by displacing air, then what is causing it?

From what I understand and what makes sense to me considering denpressure, is that the volume (empty space) of an object limits the amount of air it can displace and the density (solid part) of an object is what actually displaces the atmosphere.

Air has density, you can see this in an inflated tyre, at 0 psi the tire is soft and struggles to hold a shape, at 36 psi it is firm and can support the weight of me and my bike.

Oxygen has an atomic mass of 15.9994 u+- Carbon dioxide has a mass of 44.01 g/mol. I am sure you knew that.

If there is a jar with air in it there is x amount of empty space, when you evacuate the air from a container you are lowering the density of the entire container by increasing the volume (empty space) in an object and it weighs less as a result. Because, as stated before the density of an object causes the atmosphere to be displaced.

He has been trying to explain this with the 1kg of balsa wood and the 1kg of lead comparison.

In our model the container weighs less empty because the air has mass which is attracted to the earth centre based on its mass and the inverse sqaure of the distance, in scepti's model the container weighs less because the air has density (which scpeti has made clear that is what causes mass).

--------------------------------------

Personally I find this (denpressure) fascinating and accept that if I want to learn the model I am going to have to learn the basics from scepti before I start trying to poke holes in it.

What you guys are doing is the equivalent of telling your university teacher that he is wrong after one class of GR because GR is "absurd"

Learn the entire theory of GR, then try and poke holes in it, otherwise you might look silly.

OK I take from that, that you do not fully understand his theory and have to lean it from him.
That's the same what I try to do but he refuse to answer my questions I have about Denpressure. The only explanation I get is I have to think like about it as Spongebob fills a jar under water with sand.

How about a experiment like this:
We have two jars.
Both with a lid sealed against the atmosphere.
One is filled with water the other with air and both without a pressure difference to the outside atmosphere.
Now we connect one hose from the water jar thru a pump to the air jar.
And a second hose from the air jar direct to the water jar.
Everything has equal pressure.
We can measure the weight of both jars,  water jar heavy, air jar light.
Now we start the pump and pump the water from the water jar to the air jar.
Because of the second hose the air will flow from the air jar to the water jar.
At the end we see:
The former water jar is full of air and the former air jar is full of water and the pressure in both jars is the same and also the same as outside because there is no volume change.
If we look at the weight we will see that now the former air jar is now heavy and the former water jar is light.
How does this is possible in the Denpressure  idea. 
We could even put both jars in separate chambers so that the atmosphere around the one jar can not exchange with the other atmosphere around the other jar.

Please explain without the involvement of Spongebob ;-)

From what I understand and what makes sense to me considering denpressure, is that the volume (empty space) of an object limits the amount of air it can displace and the density (solid part) of an object is what actually displaces the atmosphere.

Why should it matter if it is the solid part displacing the air, or a pore/hole inside it that is? Both options displace air.

Air has density, you can see this in an inflated tyre, at 0 psi the tire is soft and struggles to hold a shape, at 36 psi it is firm and can support the weight of me and my bike.

That is based entirely upon pressure, not density.
It doesn't matter if you fill it with helium or with sulphur hexafluoride, it will inflate and hold shape and weight.

And while it may have density, it should have no weight according to what he has said so far, as it isn't displacing any air.

Oxygen has an atomic mass of 15.9994 u+- Carbon dioxide has a mass of 44.01 g/mol. I am sure you knew that.

Not the exact numbers, but roughly.

If there is a jar with air in it there is x amount of empty space, when you evacuate the air from a container you are lowering the density of the entire container by increasing the volume (empty space) in an object and it weighs less as a result. Because, as stated before the density of an object causes the atmosphere to be displaced.

But why? Before he claimed things have different densities because they displace a different amount of air. This seems to just be becoming circular.

Also, the density alone cannot account for it, you need the density and the volume.

in scepti's model the container weighs less because the air has density (which scpeti has made clear that is what causes mass).

Not really, and not sure about mass specifically, but he claimed that displacing air causes weight.

Personally I find this (denpressure) fascinating and accept that if I want to learn the model I am going to have to learn the basics from scepti before I start trying to poke holes in it.

What you guys are doing is the equivalent of telling your university teacher that he is wrong after one class of GR because GR is "absurd"

Learn the entire theory of GR, then try and poke holes in it, otherwise you might look silly.

I'm not poking holes, I am finding them and wanting them explained.
He already admits his theory is incomplete, so how are we meant to learn it all.

I also don't really care about looking silly, I care about answers.
So if I notice a hole I ask about it, either it can be filled and lots of people can learn, or it can't and the idea falls apart.

It's just from where I am you guys don't seem to grasp it at all.

Scepti and myself have definitely had our differences but I have to agree with him here.

I don't know if you guys are just too smart to grasp the basics of it, it's probably that.

It's just from where I am you guys don't seem to grasp it at all.

Scepti and myself have definitely had our differences but I have to agree with him here.

I don't know if you guys are just too smart to grasp the basics of it, it's probably that.

No. The issue is that I don't settle for the basics. I want to know more and to be able to test it.

I get the idea, balsa is porous, a lot of it is just air filled voids. At a very basic level that may appear to explain it, but when you actually think about it, you realise that it isn't that full of air. Even if you remove all the air and compress it into a solid block, it is still no where near as dense as lead.
There is clearly something else to it, and weight isn't simply caused by displacing air.

If anything is getting in the way it is me overthinking things which means I will actually investigate it rather than just accept it, at least if I have time, and my broad education.

What part don't you think I am grasping?

I get the idea, balsa is porous, a lot of it is just air filled voids. At a very basic level that may appear to explain it, but when you actually think about it, you realise that it isn't that full of air. Even if you remove all the air and compress it into a solid block, it is still no where near as dense as lead.
There is clearly something else to it, and weight isn't simply caused by displacing air.

Ok think about this.
My argument was about the 1kg of balsa and the 1kg of lead. I was asked which one was more dense. I said both were the same.
They both weight 1kg because they both DISPLACE that amount of atmosphere, regardless of one being of more of your volume than the other. They still hold the exact same matter as a material object. The only difference is in how they are structurally built.

If you squash both objects until you cannot squash them any more in terms of squeezing out atmosphere from the pores, then you have 2 blocks of EQUAL size and weight because that weight will not change.
The only thing that will change to your viewing eye is the size of the balsa to match the size of the lead, whilst the lead would change marginally, it would be overlooked in favour of what you would view in the balsa totally taking a smaller more compact form.

Now you can argue that you have made the balsa more dense or the lead a little more dense but your weight tells you different.
You can argue about atomic structures but you're arguing about stuff that can be crushed into smaller objects that still displace the same atmosphere creating that pressure push/resistance from those objects onto a man made measuring scale that will measure the leverage of that object against what it displaced, which is it's own dense mass of atmosphere.

Ok think about this.
My argument was about the 1kg of balsa and the 1kg of lead. I was asked which one was more dense. I said both were the same.
They both weight 1kg because they both DISPLACE that amount of atmosphere, regardless of one being of more of your volume than the other. They still hold the exact same matter as a material object. The only difference is in how they are structurally built.

If you squash both objects until you cannot squash them any more in terms of squeezing out atmosphere from the pores, then you have 2 blocks of EQUAL size and weight because that weight will not change.
The only thing that will change to your viewing eye is the size of the balsa to match the size of the lead, whilst the lead would change marginally, it would be overlooked in favour of what you would view in the balsa totally taking a smaller more compact form.

Now you can argue that you have made the balsa more dense or the lead a little more dense but your weight tells you different.
You can argue about atomic structures but you're arguing about stuff that can be crushed into smaller objects that still displace the same atmosphere creating that pressure push/resistance from those objects onto a man made measuring scale that will measure the leverage of that object against what it displaced, which is it's own dense mass of atmosphere.

I understand that entirely.
I object to you claiming the 2kg block is more dense as that doesn't match that.
I also object to that claim as it contradicts reality.
If you crush it as much as possible, unless you start changing the molecular or nuclear structure, balsa is still less dense than wood.
As I said before, best case scenario you end up with something akin to HDF, which is roughly 1000 kg/m^3, still only 1/10th that of lead.
Aluminium and silver present an even greater problem as they are pretty much identical except the atomic structure.

And again, it can't account for things weighing less under vacuum even though heaps more air is displaced.

I understand that entirely.
I object to you claiming the 2kg block is more dense as that doesn't match that.
I also object to that claim as it contradicts reality.
If you crush it as much as possible, unless you start changing the molecular or nuclear structure, balsa is still less dense than wood.


As I said before, best case scenario you end up with something akin to HDF, which is roughly 1000 kg/m^3, still only 1/10th that of lead.
Aluminium and silver present an even greater problem as they are pretty much identical except the atomic structure.

And again, it can't account for things weighing less under vacuum even though heaps more air is displaced.

Do we need to go into molecular structure?
If we do then tell me about molecular structure of the Aluminium and the silver.
Don't give me atomic numbers and such, I'd like you to give me a simplistic but brief anology as to how they differ from each other.

Or you can accept that my model displays a different process to what you adhere to, That can be swering the actual reality.
This is where you have to try and come on-board my thoughts whether you believe what I say, or not.
It's not about you accepting or believing. It's about you understanding my model.