Denpressure and tides 2nd

  • 401 Replies
  • 76044 Views
?

Canadabear

  • 2525
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #270 on: February 12, 2017, 04:34:07 AM »

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.

To understand your idea you have to answer our questions.
Please also reply to my post about that experiment.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #271 on: February 12, 2017, 04:47:11 AM »
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.

All that matters here is that these metals are all almost completely impervious to gases. No significant amount of air can penetrate them.
Good evidence for this is that we make pressure vessels of some of aluminium, iron (steel) and copper (usually as brass or bronze) that do not leak any measurable amount air.
Steel scuba tanks have a working pressure when full of up to 4,350 psi.

And their densities (the mass of 1 cubic metre of each) vary over a large range:
Magnesium:  1,738 kg/m3.
Aluminum:    2,712 kg/m3.
Titanium:      4,500 kg/m3.
Iron:              7,850 kg/m3.
Copper:        8,940 kg/m3.
Lead:          11,340 kg/m3.
Gold:          19,320 kg/m3.
Platinum:   21,400 kg/m3.
These metals vary quite dramatically in the mass of one cubic metre, but do not absorb any atmosphere.
So you cannot realistically ascribe these differences to their absorption of atmosphere.

On top of that, they would weigh almost exactly the same in a vacuum, there is no doubt about that at all!

Of course, you can claim anything else that you like, but don't pretend it has any connection with reality.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #272 on: February 12, 2017, 05:58:49 AM »
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.

All that matters here is that these metals are all almost completely impervious to gases. No significant amount of air can penetrate them.
Good evidence for this is that we make pressure vessels of some of aluminium, iron (steel) and copper (usually as brass or bronze) that do not leak any measurable amount air.
Steel scuba tanks have a working pressure when full of up to 4,350 psi.

And their densities (the mass of 1 cubic metre of each) vary over a large range:
Magnesium:  1,738 kg/m3.
Aluminum:    2,712 kg/m3.
Titanium:      4,500 kg/m3.
Iron:              7,850 kg/m3.
Copper:        8,940 kg/m3.
Lead:          11,340 kg/m3.
Gold:          19,320 kg/m3.
Platinum:   21,400 kg/m3.
These metals vary quite dramatically in the mass of one cubic metre, but do not absorb any atmosphere.
So you cannot realistically ascribe these differences to their absorption of atmosphere.

On top of that, they would weigh almost exactly the same in a vacuum, there is no doubt about that at all!

Of course, you can claim anything else that you like, but don't pretend it has any connection with reality.
Sometimes you think things cannot be porous and then you realise that when we go to extreme levels, we see many different changes.

Now back to density and mass and volume and denpressure and gravity and what not.

What's what in the world we've been coaxed into believing?
What's the actual truth when you actually start to break down the meanings of certain things?


?

Canadabear

  • 2525
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #273 on: February 12, 2017, 06:38:36 AM »
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.

All that matters here is that these metals are all almost completely impervious to gases. No significant amount of air can penetrate them.
Good evidence for this is that we make pressure vessels of some of aluminium, iron (steel) and copper (usually as brass or bronze) that do not leak any measurable amount air.
Steel scuba tanks have a working pressure when full of up to 4,350 psi.

And their densities (the mass of 1 cubic metre of each) vary over a large range:
Magnesium:  1,738 kg/m3.
Aluminum:    2,712 kg/m3.
Titanium:      4,500 kg/m3.
Iron:              7,850 kg/m3.
Copper:        8,940 kg/m3.
Lead:          11,340 kg/m3.
Gold:          19,320 kg/m3.
Platinum:   21,400 kg/m3.
These metals vary quite dramatically in the mass of one cubic metre, but do not absorb any atmosphere.
So you cannot realistically ascribe these differences to their absorption of atmosphere.

On top of that, they would weigh almost exactly the same in a vacuum, there is no doubt about that at all!

Of course, you can claim anything else that you like, but don't pretend it has any connection with reality.
Sometimes you think things cannot be porous and then you realise that when we go to extreme levels, we see many different changes.

Now back to density and mass and volume and denpressure and gravity and what not.

What's what in the world we've been coaxed into believing?
What's the actual truth when you actually start to break down the meanings of certain things?

As you said: sometimes and extreme levels.
But we talk about normal conditions where you can not compress metals that much.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #274 on: February 12, 2017, 12:16:49 PM »
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.
Silver and Aluminium don't have molecules. It is their atomic structure. Aluminium has 13 protons and 14 neutrons in its nucleus, and 13 electrons in various shells.
Silver has 47 electrons and protons and 107 or 109 neutrons.
The nucleus, where all this extra mass comes from is tiny, mere femto metres.
But the "solid" part of the structure comes from the electron clouds (otherwise the structure would collapse and pull itself together more).
In solid aluminium, this has a radius of 143 pm.
In silver, it is 144 pm.
Both are of the FCC structure (a close packed structure)

This size and FCC structure, the only thing which should be important in your model, have been experimentally verified by X-ray diffraction and the like.

The void space of an FCC lattice is approximately 26%, with the atoms taking up 74%. That means if you take 1 ml (cm^3) the actual volume that is displaced by the atoms would be 0.74 ml if air can fit in the voids, and 1 ml if it can't (the vast majority of it can't, and it wouldn't be able to squueze right between the atoms, if you say it would fit in some but not others, that would be detrimental as the voids in silver are larger, yet it weighs more). Yet for aluminium, this 0.74 ml of air being displaced would generate a weight of 2.7 g, while for silver, it generates a weight 10.49 g.

So 2 virtually identical structures (in terms of displacing air) have a very different weight.

I understand that your model displays a different process.
I understand that in my model, weight is generated by gravity, which is a force that is proportional to the product of masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them, and is akin to inertia in an accelerating reference frame governed by the differential of time space due to the curvature of space.
I understand that in your model, weight is generated by displacing air.

The issue (as far as I can tell) isn't with understanding. It is with acceptance and if your model matches observed reality.

From what i know so far, your model does not match reality and thus I do not accept it.

If I'm not understanding, tell me what causes weight, as it cannot simply be displacing air.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2017, 12:20:28 PM by JackBlack »

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #275 on: February 12, 2017, 12:23:42 PM »
Sometimes you think things cannot be porous and then you realise that when we go to extreme levels, we see many different changes.

Now back to density and mass and volume and denpressure and gravity and what not.

What's what in the world we've been coaxed into believing?
What's the actual truth when you actually start to break down the meanings of certain things?
What is the video on super-fluid helium meant to show?
Are you talking about the glass frit which we know is porous and it is just that not everything can go through the pores?

But yes, when we go to extreme levels, we do see changes, such as when nuclei begin to fuse or collapse into neturonium in the core of a neutron star or collapse into a black hole.
But that is completely changing the structure.

Again, mass is resistance to a force, it is effectively a measure of its inertia.
Volume is the amount of space something occupies.
Density is mass per unit volume.

?

Canadabear

  • 2525
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #276 on: February 12, 2017, 12:33:12 PM »
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.
Silver and Aluminium don't have molecules. It is their atomic structure. Aluminium has 13 protons and 14 neutrons in its nucleus, and 13 electrons in various shells.
Silver has 47 electrons and protons and 107 or 109 neutrons.
The nucleus, where all this extra mass comes from is tiny, mere femto metres.
But the "solid" part of the structure comes from the electron clouds (otherwise the structure would collapse and pull itself together more).
In solid aluminium, this has a radius of 143 pm.
In silver, it is 144 pm.
Both are of the FCC structure (a close packed structure)

This size and FCC structure, the only thing which should be important in your model, have been experimentally verified by X-ray diffraction and the like.

The void space of an FCC lattice is approximately 26%, with the atoms taking up 74%. That means if you take 1 ml (cm^3) the actual volume that is displaced by the atoms would be 0.74 ml if air can fit in the voids, and 1 ml if it can't (the vast majority of it can't, and it wouldn't be able to squueze right between the atoms, if you say it would fit in some but not others, that would be detrimental as the voids in silver are larger, yet it weighs more). Yet for aluminium, this 0.74 ml of air being displaced would generate a weight of 2.7 g, while for silver, it generates a weight 10.49 g.

So 2 virtually identical structures (in terms of displacing air) have a very different weight.

I understand that your model displays a different process.
I understand that in my model, weight is generated by gravity, which is a force that is proportional to the product of masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them, and is akin to inertia in an accelerating reference frame governed by the differential of time space due to the curvature of space.
I understand that in your model, weight is generated by displacing air.

The issue (as far as I can tell) isn't with understanding. It is with acceptance and if your model matches observed reality.

From what i know so far, your model does not match reality and thus I do not accept it.

If I'm not understanding, tell me what causes weight, as it cannot simply be displacing air.

You have something completely wrong.
You can not fit air in the void spaces in metal atoms.  Simply because air is also made of atoms.
How shall the atoms of the different gases and vapors of the air fit between metal atoms.
BTW: air is mostly nitrogen, oxygen and other gases but also water molecules.
These molecules have a size of appr. 275 pm.  Manganese atoms have a size of appr. 205 pm. 
How does the water vapour of the air fit into the manganese.

Please clarify.
My other questions are also still open.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #277 on: February 12, 2017, 01:00:35 PM »
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.
Silver and Aluminium don't have molecules. It is their atomic structure. Aluminium has 13 protons and 14 neutrons in its nucleus, and 13 electrons in various shells.
Silver has 47 electrons and protons and 107 or 109 neutrons.
The nucleus, where all this extra mass comes from is tiny, mere femto metres.
But the "solid" part of the structure comes from the electron clouds (otherwise the structure would collapse and pull itself together more).
In solid aluminium, this has a radius of 143 pm.
In silver, it is 144 pm.
Both are of the FCC structure (a close packed structure)

This size and FCC structure, the only thing which should be important in your model, have been experimentally verified by X-ray diffraction and the like.

The void space of an FCC lattice is approximately 26%, with the atoms taking up 74%. That means if you take 1 ml (cm^3) the actual volume that is displaced by the atoms would be 0.74 ml if air can fit in the voids, and 1 ml if it can't (the vast majority of it can't, and it wouldn't be able to squueze right between the atoms, if you say it would fit in some but not others, that would be detrimental as the voids in silver are larger, yet it weighs more). Yet for aluminium, this 0.74 ml of air being displaced would generate a weight of 2.7 g, while for silver, it generates a weight 10.49 g.

So 2 virtually identical structures (in terms of displacing air) have a very different weight.

I understand that your model displays a different process.
I understand that in my model, weight is generated by gravity, which is a force that is proportional to the product of masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them, and is akin to inertia in an accelerating reference frame governed by the differential of time space due to the curvature of space.
I understand that in your model, weight is generated by displacing air.

The issue (as far as I can tell) isn't with understanding. It is with acceptance and if your model matches observed reality.

From what i know so far, your model does not match reality and thus I do not accept it.

If I'm not understanding, tell me what causes weight, as it cannot simply be displacing air.

You have something completely wrong.
You can not fit air in the void spaces in metal atoms.  Simply because air is also made of atoms.
How shall the atoms of the different gases and vapors of the air fit between metal atoms.
BTW: air is mostly nitrogen, oxygen and other gases but also water molecules.
These molecules have a size of appr. 275 pm.  Manganese atoms have a size of appr. 205 pm. 
How does the water vapour of the air fit into the manganese.

Please clarify.
My other questions are also still open.
I was being nice and providing a best case scenario for him. And did you notice how I said the vast majority of it cant?

?

Canadabear

  • 2525
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #278 on: February 12, 2017, 01:23:28 PM »
Quote from: JackBlack
I was being nice and providing a best case scenario for him. And did you notice how I said the vast majority of it cant?
[/quote

Why be nice,  he is ignoring anyway the questions we ask.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #279 on: February 12, 2017, 02:31:09 PM »
Sometimes you think things cannot be porous and then you realise that when we go to extreme levels, we see many different changes.
Now back to density and mass and volume and denpressure and gravity and what not.

What's what in the world we've been coaxed into believing?
What's the actual truth when you actually start to break down the meanings of certain things?
Sure, only for helium at close to absolute zero!

And to put all your ideas of absorbing air into perspective, one cubic metre of air (at Normal Temperature and Pressure) is 1.225 kg.
So even if one cubic metre of these metals absorbed it's own volume of air it's mass increase would be trivial, and could play part in explaining weight.

So, please get back to reality and explain actual observations and not what you dream should happen.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #280 on: February 13, 2017, 12:36:38 AM »
As you said: sometimes and extreme levels.
But we talk about normal conditions where you can not compress metals that much.
And you understand that it's the structure that is the key to denpressure,

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #281 on: February 13, 2017, 12:39:58 AM »

Silver and Aluminium don't have molecules. It is their atomic structure. Aluminium has 13 protons and 14 neutrons in its nucleus, and 13 electrons in various shells.
Silver has 47 electrons and protons and 107 or 109 neutrons.
The nucleus, where all this extra mass comes from is tiny, mere femto metres.
But the "solid" part of the structure comes from the electron clouds (otherwise the structure would collapse and pull itself together more).
In solid aluminium, this has a radius of 143 pm.
In silver, it is 144 pm.
Both are of the FCC structure (a close packed structure)
This size and FCC structure, the only thing which should be important in your model, have been experimentally verified by X-ray diffraction and the like.
The void space of an FCC lattice is approximately 26%, with the atoms taking up 74%. That means if you take 1 ml (cm^3) the actual volume that is displaced by the atoms would be 0.74 ml if air can fit in the voids, and 1 ml if it can't (the vast majority of it can't, and it wouldn't be able to squueze right between the atoms, if you say it would fit in some but not others, that would be detrimental as the voids in silver are larger, yet it weighs more). Yet for aluminium, this 0.74 ml of air being displaced would generate a weight of 2.7 g, while for silver, it generates a weight 10.49 g.

So 2 virtually identical structures (in terms of displacing air) have a very different weight.

I understand that your model displays a different process.
I understand that in my model, weight is generated by gravity, which is a force that is proportional to the product of masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them, and is akin to inertia in an accelerating reference frame governed by the differential of time space due to the curvature of space.
I understand that in your model, weight is generated by displacing air.

The issue (as far as I can tell) isn't with understanding. It is with acceptance and if your model matches observed reality.

From what i know so far, your model does not match reality and thus I do not accept it.

If I'm not understanding, tell me what causes weight, as it cannot simply be displacing air.
Come back to me when you can actually use your own brain. I'm sick of you coming in with this utter bullshit to somehow back you up and you have no clue what you're talking about.

Use your own brain or don't waste your own time...and Mine.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #282 on: February 13, 2017, 12:59:31 AM »

What is the video on super-fluid helium meant to show?
Are you talking about the glass frit which we know is porous and it is just that not everything can go through the pores?

But yes, when we go to extreme levels, we do see changes, such as when nuclei begin to fuse or collapse into neturonium in the core of a neutron star or collapse into a black hole.
But that is completely changing the structure.
It goes way off with this so let's leave it. It's confusing enough as it is for people like you.


Again, mass is resistance to a force, it is effectively a measure of its inertia.
Can you explain this to me in the simplest terms making sure I know for certain what this is?

Volume is the amount of space something occupies.
Ok, so we know that  a box occupies a space in a room and a person cannot walk through it as it creates a barrier by taking up space.
Does the box occupy the space inside of it? Or does the space occupy the box?
Does the space inside the box occupy the space outside of it?
Or does the space inside the box stay seperate and under pressure as if it was outside of the box?

In terms of gravity, what does this all mean.
In terms of denpressure, I can explain it as soon as you explain what's what with this volume stuff.

Density is mass per unit volume.
Mass per unit volume.

Can you explain this with a simple analogy. Simple terms that show it all works.

We can do this with it all and then  get to weight and such.
This can be quite fun and may help me....or you...eh?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #283 on: February 13, 2017, 01:01:15 AM »
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.
Silver and Aluminium don't have molecules. It is their atomic structure. Aluminium has 13 protons and 14 neutrons in its nucleus, and 13 electrons in various shells.
Silver has 47 electrons and protons and 107 or 109 neutrons.
The nucleus, where all this extra mass comes from is tiny, mere femto metres.
But the "solid" part of the structure comes from the electron clouds (otherwise the structure would collapse and pull itself together more).
In solid aluminium, this has a radius of 143 pm.
In silver, it is 144 pm.
Both are of the FCC structure (a close packed structure)

This size and FCC structure, the only thing which should be important in your model, have been experimentally verified by X-ray diffraction and the like.

The void space of an FCC lattice is approximately 26%, with the atoms taking up 74%. That means if you take 1 ml (cm^3) the actual volume that is displaced by the atoms would be 0.74 ml if air can fit in the voids, and 1 ml if it can't (the vast majority of it can't, and it wouldn't be able to squueze right between the atoms, if you say it would fit in some but not others, that would be detrimental as the voids in silver are larger, yet it weighs more). Yet for aluminium, this 0.74 ml of air being displaced would generate a weight of 2.7 g, while for silver, it generates a weight 10.49 g.

So 2 virtually identical structures (in terms of displacing air) have a very different weight.

I understand that your model displays a different process.
I understand that in my model, weight is generated by gravity, which is a force that is proportional to the product of masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them, and is akin to inertia in an accelerating reference frame governed by the differential of time space due to the curvature of space.
I understand that in your model, weight is generated by displacing air.

The issue (as far as I can tell) isn't with understanding. It is with acceptance and if your model matches observed reality.

From what i know so far, your model does not match reality and thus I do not accept it.

If I'm not understanding, tell me what causes weight, as it cannot simply be displacing air.

You have something completely wrong.
You can not fit air in the void spaces in metal atoms.  Simply because air is also made of atoms.
How shall the atoms of the different gases and vapors of the air fit between metal atoms.
BTW: air is mostly nitrogen, oxygen and other gases but also water molecules.
These molecules have a size of appr. 275 pm.  Manganese atoms have a size of appr. 205 pm. 
How does the water vapour of the air fit into the manganese.

Please clarify.
My other questions are also still open.
I was being nice and providing a best case scenario for him. And did you notice how I said the vast majority of it cant?
That's nice that you're being nice. You seem a nice person when you act like this in giving out the wrong stuff and trying to get out of it.  ;D

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #284 on: February 13, 2017, 01:02:15 AM »
Quote from: JackBlack

I was being nice and providing a best case scenario for him. And did you notice how I said the vast majority of it cant?

Why be nice,  he is ignoring anyway the questions we ask.
Exactly. Just attempt ridicule and be nasty, then blame me.  :P

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #285 on: February 13, 2017, 01:41:53 AM »
Come back to me when you can actually use your own brain. I'm sick of you coming in with this utter bullshit to somehow back you up and you have no clue what you're talking about.

Use your own brain or don't waste your own time...and Mine.
I am using my own brain.

Now how about you try a rational response rather than just insulting me and dismissing everything as bullshit when you can't refute it?

If you think I have no clue what I am talking about feel free to ask more about it, because I can assure you that I do.

?

Canadabear

  • 2525
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #286 on: February 13, 2017, 02:09:29 AM »
Quote from: JackBlack

I was being nice and providing a best case scenario for him. And did you notice how I said the vast majority of it cant?

Why be nice,  he is ignoring anyway the questions we ask.
Exactly. Just attempt ridicule and be nasty, then blame me.  :P

I was never ridicule and nasty here.
Why should I be nice to somebody that ignore questions I have.  I ask a lot of times for an explanation and got no clear answer.  I suggest experiments but you simply ignore these.
I ask you about you experiments and research you claim you did, but also there you gave no answer.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #287 on: February 13, 2017, 02:15:05 AM »
It goes way off with this so let's leave it. It's confusing enough as it is for people like you.
I'm happy to leave it, but seriously, stop with the insults.
Just because we don't accept your claims doesn't mean we are confused.


Again, mass is resistance to a force, it is effectively a measure of its inertia.
Can you explain this to me in the simplest terms making sure I know for certain what this is?
If you push something (i.e. give it a force), with no other forces acting upon it, it will begin to accelerate.
But not everything accelerates at the same rate for the same force.
Some things (things with a large mass) will accelerate slowly from a given force or require significant force to accelerate at a certain rate.
Other things (things with a low mass) will accelerate quickly from a given force, or require very little force to accelerate at a certain rate.
Mass is effectively a measure of the resistance to acceleration, i.e. a term which links force and acceleration in a linear manner, such that the force divided by the mass gives you the rate of acceleration.

Volume is the amount of space something occupies.
Ok, so we know that  a box occupies a space in a room and a person cannot walk through it as it creates a barrier by taking up space.
Does the box occupy the space inside of it? Or does the space occupy the box?
Does the space inside the box occupy the space outside of it?
Or does the space inside the box stay seperate and under pressure as if it was outside of the box?
This is where it gets more complicated, and depends on exactly what you are using it for.
For example, in terms of working out bouyancy, in water, you include any volume contained up to the first point the water can flow in, as well as the "barrier" itself, so for the case of a sealed box, you would include the volume inside.
If you are talking about bouyancy in air, then it depends on if air can get in, or if air is already trapped inside. If it can't get in and isn't trapped inside, then you do include the volume inside, otherwise you just include the barrier.

But that also links into the mass contained. If you are trying to accelerate that sealed box, you are also accelerating the air inside, and thus need to include that mass.

If you are trying to determine the density of the bulk material, you include any volume (and mass) of the pores of the material, for example in a sponge or gel.
If you are trying to determine the density at the nano-level, then you just include the material which makes up the structure/substance of interest, which in the case of a sponge is the fibres, and ignore the mass and volume occupied by air.

If you are discussing gasses, you include all the space in the container that the gas is in, which includes the space occupied by the molecules and the space in the void between them. In your model, that void space doesn't exist and instead the molecules expand and occupy that space.

In terms of gravity, what does this all mean.
In terms of denpressure, I can explain it as soon as you explain what's what with this volume stuff.
Volume is quite irrelevant to gravity.
Mass is related for the explanation of gravity.
Mass curves space time, with the curvature being proportional to mass.
As we exist in 3D, and lots of objects can effectively be considered points, at least from a great enough distance, or if you just consider the individual atoms, this curvature decays at a rate proportional to 1/d^3, where d is the distance from the source, which means the curvature is proportional to 1/d^2.
Any object in this curved space will accelerate at a rate proportional to the curvature, indpendent of the mass of the object being accelerated
This means gravity functions as a force which is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them (as it is proportional to the curvature, which is proportional to the "stationary" mass and inversely proportional to the distance squared, and as it directly produces an acceleration, to determine the force you need to times it by the objects resistance to acceleration (its mass)).


Density is mass per unit volume.
Mass per unit volume.

Can you explain this with a simple analogy. Simple terms that show it all works.
Consider water.
If you have 1000 kg of water, it occupies a volume of 1 m^3.
Thus, its density is 1000 kg per m^3.
If you have 1 g, it occupies a volume of 1 ml.
Thus its density is 1 g per ml.

If you have 50 g, and it occupies 50 ml, then its density is 50 g per 50 ml, which simplifies to 1 g per ml.

This looks different to the 1000 kg per m^3, but that is because they are different units, akin to how you can order some things in a variety of units.

For example, 24 eggs and 2 dozen eggs looks different, but each dozen is 12, so the 2 dozen is 24.

You can do the same for the water.
1 kg is 1000 g.
1 m is 100 cm, so 1m^3 is (100 cm)^3=100^3 cm^3= 1 000 000 cm^3.
This means your 1000 kg per m^3 is equivalent to 1 000 000 g per 1 000 000 cm^3, which simplifies to 1 g per cm^3.
As 1 ml is 1 cm^3, this is also equivalent to 1 g per ml.

We can do this with it all and then  get to weight and such.
This can be quite fun and may help me....or you...eh?
Lets hope so.
As long as the discussion continues (preferably without insults), then it can be fun.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #288 on: February 13, 2017, 02:21:42 AM »
Some analogies for density

You can buy groceries in all sorts of packs.

Toblerones typically come in packs with 13 peaks.
Thus its "density" can be 13 peaks per pack.

That would mean if you want 100 peaks you would need 100 peaks/(13 peaks per pack) which works out to be ~7.7 packs. As you can only buy them in packs, this would mean you need 8 packs.

Bread is different, and has more varieties.
The bread I am used to has 2 main varieties, sandwich and toast.
Sandwich bread comes in packs of 20.
Toast bread comes in packs of 16 (as the slicers are thicker).
Thus their densities are 20 per pack and 16 per pack.

Different sausages come in a variety of different sizes, but the one I normally see come in packs of 24.

I had previously mentioned eggs come in packs of 12 (or dozens).

So if I want 100 of each, I would need 5 packs of sandwich bread, 6.25 packs of toast bread, and 4.17 packs of sausages and cartons of eggs.

These are all in the form of item per pack, with the exception of the toblerone. Instead, for toblerones, each item has 13 peaks, and its "density" is actually 13 peaks per item and 1 item per pack.
But this isn't the only unit we can use.
Similar rules apply to bread, where you can consider loaves or slices.

Some things you can buy in boxes, where each box has many packs.

Does that make sense?

?

kikael

  • 35
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #289 on: February 13, 2017, 02:41:53 AM »
I'm sorry to interject, but i kinda doubt you'll get much of an answer Jack, which is a shame really since you seem to be very knowledgeable about a lot of things and write nice explanations from which I myself learn a lot about things I didn't know or had just a basic understanding about. So thanks for that :)

Back to the topic at hand..
How about a reply to my last question scepti? I know its been conveniently buried by other posts, so it wasn't hard to ignore but I'd still like an answer. To spare you the trouble of going back to it, here goes again. I'll even extend it a little bit and try to make it even more precise since you guys are discussing porousness now.

...
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.
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.

Now if you want to bring porousness into the picture that doesn't really change much. Yes it should mean that some materials have more air inside of them, therefore the outside pressure would be lower and that would seemingly explain the difference in weight. But it really wouldn't, because again, the pressure would lower for everything inside that pressure system and not magically just for that porous object.
So that brings me back to the question from my previous post, how come the 3 jars have different weights since they have pretty much the same volume, and are under the same pressure system?

Oh and just to clarify, if it looks like I'm simplifying things I'm doing it on purpose, and not because I'm not trying to give it too much thought or to understand.

*

disputeone

  • 27991
  • +108/-88
  • Or should I?
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #290 on: February 13, 2017, 02:42:50 AM »
Anyone who took high-school science would know that Jack. It's not what we are here for.

If you have an actual point feel free to bring it up but this is looking a lot like a witch burning to me.

We know you like the orthodox model, we know you think it's better than any other model.

It's nearly like a religious fervor the tone some people take when coming here.

No ones going to come here read a model and instantly convert to FE, if they are that gullible and non questioning then they deserve to be decieved. You guys needn't worry.

I feel like we are just going over the same points here, scepti has answered most questions I've seen asked, you guys don't like the answers, we get it. There's no need to hold up the discussion ad nauseum.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #291 on: February 13, 2017, 02:46:56 AM »
Anyone who took high-school science would know that Jack. It's not what we are here for.

If you have an actual point feel free to bring it up but this is looking a lot like a witch burning to me.

We know you like the orthodox model, we know you think it's better than any other model.

It's nearly like a religious fervor the tone some people take when coming here.

No ones going to come here read a model and instantly convert to FE, if they are that gullible and non questioning then they deserve to be decieved. You guys needn't worry.

I feel like we are just going over the same points here, scepti has answered most questions I've seen asked, you guys don't like the answers, we get it. There's no need to hold up the discussion ad nauseum.
He asked for an explanation so I gave him one.
I would say if anyone is acting like a religious fanatic it would be scepti.
When confronted with a problem he just insults and accuses people of not thinking or not understanding or the like.

I would also prefer it if even the really gullible didn't get deceived. These people need to learn to learn. After all, lots of them can vote.

I also disagree that he has answered them. With some he has repeatedly avoided them or gave non-answers which didn't address the issue. Hopefully that will change soon.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #292 on: February 13, 2017, 02:47:59 AM »
you seem to be very knowledgeable about a lot of things and write nice explanations from which I myself learn a lot about things I didn't know or had just a basic understanding about. So thanks for that :)
Thanks.
I try and be helpful when I can.

*

disputeone

  • 27991
  • +108/-88
  • Or should I?
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #293 on: February 13, 2017, 02:56:41 AM »
you seem to be very knowledgeable about a lot of things and write nice explanations from which I myself learn a lot about things I didn't know or had just a basic understanding about. So thanks for that :)
Thanks.
I try and be helpful when I can.

I agree, you are knowledgeable and are very willing to share that knowledge I don't dislike you. I just stand up for FE a lot, I've been here a while and seen all the angry globularists come and go, well,
:) ;) :D Rab is still here ;D 8) :P

(Smilies for Rab because I'm pretty sure that's what he does when he's joking around, I'm still not quite sure.)
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

disputeone

  • 27991
  • +108/-88
  • Or should I?
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #294 on: February 13, 2017, 02:58:20 AM »
I would also prefer it if even the really gullible didn't get deceived. These people need to learn to learn. After all, lots of them can vote.

Wouldn't it be better if you could just vote for them?

Edit, I apologize, I cherry picked that out of context and assigned a meaning to it that it didn't have.

I know that is not what you would like.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2017, 03:09:17 AM by disputeone »
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

?

Canadabear

  • 2525
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #295 on: February 13, 2017, 06:25:40 AM »

...
I just stand up for FE a lot
...

but the problem is you stand up for a lie.

it is scientific proven that the earth is round and circles around the sun. It does not have a dome.
And Tides are not caused by a thing like denpressure.

And that what we try to do here, keep other people falling for the lies that is here promoted.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #296 on: February 13, 2017, 07:19:55 AM »
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.
The jar full of air means the air in the jar is equalised to the external air. All you have done is put a lid on it and created a thin barrier to both atmospheres...internal and external.
Basically you have not pushed out any of the air in the jar.
Let's assume all the jars with lids are 1kg and all are on equal scale plates.
Ok we see that the first jar full of normal atmospheric sea level pressure has a weight of 1kg due to the jars density displacing it's entire dense make up of atmosphere.

Ok now we go to the second jar that we see, weighs 1kg, so we take off the lid and push out all the air inside by adding denser water.
This denser water under sea level conditions can displace a lot of atmosphere. If we crushed it further we could displace more but we are dealing with just a jar full, which pushes out the 14.7 psi of pressure away from it and then the lid goes on.
We now see the scales move up to a higher weight because that atmosphere inside the jar is now added to the external pressure and is pushing back onto the jar aided by the normal atmospheric pressure that was at first, at equilibrium.

The third jar is exactly the same thing. The mercury pushes away more atmosphere because it massively less porous than the water and so displaces more atmosphere from the jar under sea level pressure which results in an even bigger scale change due to that atmospheric push into the already equalised atmosphere that has now made it unequal, which shows on the scale as denpressure reading.

You could do the same in an opposite way as proof of measurement by playing with low pressure and measuring it. It involves pushing up scales instead of compressing them. You know it as a vacuum, but we don't need to go into that. This is confusing you enough as it is.




to bring porousness into the picture that doesn't really change much. Yes it should mean that some materials have more air inside of them, therefore the outside pressure would be lower and that would seemingly explain the difference in weight. But it really wouldn't, because again, the pressure would lower for everything inside that pressure system and not magically just for that porous object.
So that brings me back to the question from my previous post, how come the 3 jars have different weights since they have pretty much the same volume, and are under the same pressure system?

Oh and just to clarify, if it looks like I'm simplifying things I'm doing it on purpose, and not because I'm not trying to give it too much thought or to understand.
Maybe what I've explained above will help. I have a strange feeling that it won't. In fact I have a strange feeling that I could write a 12 million page essay on it and you would still have the same come back, because I don't think you have any intention of grasping it and also I think you're a game player, just using another name because you want to make it appear that there are more of you, as well as playing the good guy, bad guy, indifferent guy.
Reel me in with a pretence that you want to udnerstand it then just say....nahhhhh I like the global response better.
 ;D

10 a penny.  ;D

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #297 on: February 13, 2017, 07:26:24 AM »

...
I just stand up for FE a lot
...

but the problem is you stand up for a lie.

it is scientific proven that the earth is round and circles around the sun. It does not have a dome.
And Tides are not caused by a thing like denpressure.

And that what we try to do here, keep other people falling for the lies that is here promoted.
I think he's just telling you that he's having some fun and is not a robot just taking up for a model that is basically rubber stamped into the minds of the wider populations of the world that we know of.

He probably thinks I'm as nutty as a fruit cake and my theory is a load of crap but he's trying to grasp the nuttiness of it so he can see where it goes.
What else is there to do?

You have to ask yourself (assuming you aren't paid) why do you want to bother sitting there trying to tell me about a globe when I've spent most of my life with that mindset but managed to start questioning it...with good reason.
Why do you wish to try and bring me back to the globe when you can quite clearly see it is NEVER EVER going to happen.


Do you feel that your goal is to stop the monster trying to push denpressure onto people?
What are you afraid of?

You said yourself that denpressure was lunacy and wasn't worth a crap. You said it doesn't stand up at all, so why are you wasting your time on it?

?

Canadabear

  • 2525
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #298 on: February 13, 2017, 07:40:17 AM »
...
We now see the scales move up to a higher weight because that atmosphere inside the jar is now added to the external pressure and is pushing back onto the jar aided by the normal atmospheric pressure that was at first, at equilibrium.
...

why does the atmosphere only pushes on this jar is there a bubble of higher atmospheric pressure above this jar.
does this higher pressure bubble move always with the jar?

please explain this for us.

?

Canadabear

  • 2525
  • +0/-0
Re: Denpressure and tides 2nd
« Reply #299 on: February 13, 2017, 07:50:00 AM »

...
I just stand up for FE a lot
...

but the problem is you stand up for a lie.

it is scientific proven that the earth is round and circles around the sun. It does not have a dome.
And Tides are not caused by a thing like denpressure.

And that what we try to do here, keep other people falling for the lies that is here promoted.
I think he's just telling you that he's having some fun and is not a robot just taking up for a model that is basically rubber stamped into the minds of the wider populations of the world that we know of.

He probably thinks I'm as nutty as a fruit cake and my theory is a load of crap but he's trying to grasp the nuttiness of it so he can see where it goes.
What else is there to do?

You have to ask yourself (assuming you aren't paid) why do you want to bother sitting there trying to tell me about a globe when I've spent most of my life with that mindset but managed to start questioning it...with good reason.
Why do you wish to try and bring me back to the globe when you can quite clearly see it is NEVER EVER going to happen.


Do you feel that your goal is to stop the monster trying to push denpressure onto people?
What are you afraid of?

You said yourself that denpressure was lunacy and wasn't worth a crap. You said it doesn't stand up at all, so why are you wasting your time on it?

i did the same as he did, i took out you nuttiness out of your claims. The only thing different is that i left with absolute nothing. Nothing that i could believe what you are claiming.

you ask what i am afraid of?
exactly what you just see in america at the moment, that a total idiot is President that said that climate change is not real, that puts out regulations that scientist are not allowed to publish reports that is not in accordance to his views.
That these kind of believes are brought into schools and science will get eliminate from schools.