Denspressure vs Reality

  • 1394 Replies
  • 56140 Views
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #90 on: November 05, 2017, 11:31:18 AM »


What dies push my body forward when I slow down in my car?
The slosh of atmospheric compressed air.
Except the atmosphere compresses in the front of the car.  If anything it should push you back when you stop and forward when you accelerate. 
This is what happens to helium balloons in a car.
Yes it compresses in front of teh car and has to decompress as the car keeps moving into it, which is why it's pushed around the car to fill the lower pressure created by the rear of the car moving away through normal atmospheric pressure.
That compressed air slams into the air at the back constantly and back onto the car which creates a natural reaction to action in equal terms.
The same thing is happening inside the car, except inside of it it's closed so acts like a internal compression tank which holds a compression as long as a speed is attained but sill immediately slosh once brakes are applied, which is why you see the actions of what you see with a person in that car.
I'm really not following you on this.  From what I can tell you say it is the air pressure pushing you forward but the air pressure is now greater in the front of the car so it should be pushing you back like it does the helium balloons.

Also as I said, you should feel this pressure change and also be able to measure it.

And Scepimatic still did not explain why the atmosphere sloshes in the car.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #91 on: November 05, 2017, 11:32:39 AM »


What dies push my body forward when I slow down in my car?
The slosh of atmospheric compressed air.
Except the atmosphere compresses in the front of the car.  If anything it should push you back when you stop and forward when you accelerate. 
This is what happens to helium balloons in a car.
Yes it compresses in front of teh car and has to decompress as the car keeps moving into it, which is why it's pushed around the car to fill the lower pressure created by the rear of the car moving away through normal atmospheric pressure.
That compressed air slams into the air at the back constantly and back onto the car which creates a natural reaction to action in equal terms.
The same thing is happening inside the car, except inside of it it's closed so acts like a internal compression tank which holds a compression as long as a speed is attained but sill immediately slosh once brakes are applied, which is why you see the actions of what you see with a person in that car.

Still no explanation why I do not feel the pressure at the back of my body.
I only feel the pressure from the belt that holds me back.
With your idea I should feel the same pressure at my back from the atmosphere.

Please explain that for us.

Also you could address my other questions.
Sometimes you have to look a bit deeper into answers.
Try it.

It is not explained where the pressure of the sloshing atmosphere act on my body.
It can not my back because I do not feel it.

You have to explain it better that it is understandable.
You do feel it. You just don't register it as anything like that.
I'll try and make this a bit more simpler.
Imagine you are in a tube secured in a seat and at each end of that tube is a plunger with you in the middle.

You are in equal atmosphere at this time.
Now imagine one plunger starts to compress the air towards you. You would feel it but not be too mindful.

Now imagine that plunger moving towards you a little bit faster.
If you weren't secured into your seat your body would start to be pushed further back until that plunger stops but more pressure would be on you and you would feel it and know it because of that environment.

Now imagine the other plunger towards your back gets sharply pushed towards it in a sort of super fast effect.
This would be like braking and it would slam you forward but then hit a compression barrier and slam back with much less force before equalisation.

This is what's happening in your vehicle.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #92 on: November 05, 2017, 11:33:47 AM »
scepti, imagine a metal sphere sitting on the table. Say it's a steel ball from a bearing.

Do you agree with these points?:
  • The sphere is solid steel: Iron, Carbon, a little Chromium, and maybe some other trace elements
  • There is not enough room for atmospheric elements in the steel's crystal structure.
  • Air pressure on the sphere is constant on the surface of the sphere.
  • The air pressure always pushes normal to the surface at each point.
  • The force is balanced in all directions, because the force of the pressure opposes itself on each opposite point on the sphere.
  • The sphere would weigh the same in a vacuum.

Which one is it that I can help you to understand?
The issue is in not being able to push a vacuum to measure anything.
You also have to remember that scales would have to function in this impossible environment.
Now I've heard many arguments about, " yeah but we can get so close to a vacuum as to be one."
No we can't.
We can get to a very low pressure and understanding why will also ensure you understand why the density of any object still has atmosphere in, whether it's clearly understandable or in the metal ball scenario, not accepted as having any.

jane understand my atmospheric evacuation from a container and knows how teh atmosphere can never be fully released.

Are you saying that you agree to points 1 through 5 and that I should help you understand 6?
I'm saying it can't be done.
Do you agree with points 1 through 5?
No I don't.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #93 on: November 05, 2017, 11:34:56 AM »


What dies push my body forward when I slow down in my car?
The slosh of atmospheric compressed air.
Except the atmosphere compresses in the front of the car.  If anything it should push you back when you stop and forward when you accelerate. 
This is what happens to helium balloons in a car.
Yes it compresses in front of teh car and has to decompress as the car keeps moving into it, which is why it's pushed around the car to fill the lower pressure created by the rear of the car moving away through normal atmospheric pressure.
That compressed air slams into the air at the back constantly and back onto the car which creates a natural reaction to action in equal terms.
The same thing is happening inside the car, except inside of it it's closed so acts like a internal compression tank which holds a compression as long as a speed is attained but sill immediately slosh once brakes are applied, which is why you see the actions of what you see with a person in that car.
I'm really not following you on this.  From what I can tell you say it is the air pressure pushing you forward but the air pressure is now greater in the front of the car so it should be pushing you back like it does the helium balloons.
Take note of the tube analogy.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #94 on: November 05, 2017, 11:36:45 AM »
scepti, imagine a metal sphere sitting on the table. Say it's a steel ball from a bearing.

Do you agree with these points?:
  • The sphere is solid steel: Iron, Carbon, a little Chromium, and maybe some other trace elements
  • There is not enough room for atmospheric elements in the steel's crystal structure.
  • Air pressure on the sphere is constant on the surface of the sphere.
  • The air pressure always pushes normal to the surface at each point.
  • The force is balanced in all directions, because the force of the pressure opposes itself on each opposite point on the sphere.
  • The sphere would weigh the same in a vacuum.

Which one is it that I can help you to understand?
The issue is in not being able to push a vacuum to measure anything.
You also have to remember that scales would have to function in this impossible environment.
Now I've heard many arguments about, " yeah but we can get so close to a vacuum as to be one."
No we can't.
We can get to a very low pressure and understanding why will also ensure you understand why the density of any object still has atmosphere in, whether it's clearly understandable or in the metal ball scenario, not accepted as having any.

jane understand my atmospheric evacuation from a container and knows how teh atmosphere can never be fully released.

Are you saying that you agree to points 1 through 5 and that I should help you understand 6?
I'm saying it can't be done.
Do you agree with points 1 through 5?
No I don't.

Can you tell me which points you do agree on?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #95 on: November 05, 2017, 11:39:07 AM »


What dies push my body forward when I slow down in my car?
The slosh of atmospheric compressed air.
Except the atmosphere compresses in the front of the car.  If anything it should push you back when you stop and forward when you accelerate. 
This is what happens to helium balloons in a car.
Yes it compresses in front of teh car and has to decompress as the car keeps moving into it, which is why it's pushed around the car to fill the lower pressure created by the rear of the car moving away through normal atmospheric pressure.
That compressed air slams into the air at the back constantly and back onto the car which creates a natural reaction to action in equal terms.
The same thing is happening inside the car, except inside of it it's closed so acts like a internal compression tank which holds a compression as long as a speed is attained but sill immediately slosh once brakes are applied, which is why you see the actions of what you see with a person in that car.
I'm really not following you on this.  From what I can tell you say it is the air pressure pushing you forward but the air pressure is now greater in the front of the car so it should be pushing you back like it does the helium balloons.

Also as I said, you should feel this pressure change and also be able to measure it.

And Scepimatic still did not explain why the atmosphere sloshes in the car.
A barometer will measure it.
Even a nice set of delicate digital scales will by placing the scale plate vertically facing the windscreen  from the back of the vehicle as you accelerate and even build up a speed then staying constant.
Try all ways to see what I'm telling you.

The balloons in a vehicle should be more than enough to tell you what I'm telling you but you just don't see it and most don't.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #96 on: November 05, 2017, 11:40:52 AM »
scepti, imagine a metal sphere sitting on the table. Say it's a steel ball from a bearing.

Do you agree with these points?:
  • The sphere is solid steel: Iron, Carbon, a little Chromium, and maybe some other trace elements
  • There is not enough room for atmospheric elements in the steel's crystal structure.
  • Air pressure on the sphere is constant on the surface of the sphere.
  • The air pressure always pushes normal to the surface at each point.
  • The force is balanced in all directions, because the force of the pressure opposes itself on each opposite point on the sphere.
  • The sphere would weigh the same in a vacuum.

Which one is it that I can help you to understand?
The issue is in not being able to push a vacuum to measure anything.
You also have to remember that scales would have to function in this impossible environment.
Now I've heard many arguments about, " yeah but we can get so close to a vacuum as to be one."
No we can't.
We can get to a very low pressure and understanding why will also ensure you understand why the density of any object still has atmosphere in, whether it's clearly understandable or in the metal ball scenario, not accepted as having any.

jane understand my atmospheric evacuation from a container and knows how teh atmosphere can never be fully released.

Are you saying that you agree to points 1 through 5 and that I should help you understand 6?
I'm saying it can't be done.
Do you agree with points 1 through 5?
No I don't.

Can you tell me which points you do agree on?
None.#
You are playing imagine with your ball in saying it does not hold atmosphere and then telling me it will weigh the same in a vacuum.
I've told you a vacuum isn't possible inside Earth.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #97 on: November 05, 2017, 11:44:40 AM »
scepti, imagine a metal sphere sitting on the table. Say it's a steel ball from a bearing.

Do you agree with these points?:
  • The sphere is solid steel: Iron, Carbon, a little Chromium, and maybe some other trace elements
  • There is not enough room for atmospheric elements in the steel's crystal structure.
  • Air pressure on the sphere is constant on the surface of the sphere.
  • The air pressure always pushes normal to the surface at each point.
  • The force is balanced in all directions, because the force of the pressure opposes itself on each opposite point on the sphere.
  • The sphere would weigh the same in a vacuum.

Which one is it that I can help you to understand?
The issue is in not being able to push a vacuum to measure anything.
You also have to remember that scales would have to function in this impossible environment.
Now I've heard many arguments about, " yeah but we can get so close to a vacuum as to be one."
No we can't.
We can get to a very low pressure and understanding why will also ensure you understand why the density of any object still has atmosphere in, whether it's clearly understandable or in the metal ball scenario, not accepted as having any.

jane understand my atmospheric evacuation from a container and knows how teh atmosphere can never be fully released.

Are you saying that you agree to points 1 through 5 and that I should help you understand 6?
I'm saying it can't be done.
Do you agree with points 1 through 5?
No I don't.

Can you tell me which points you do agree on?
None.#
You are playing imagine with your ball in saying it does not hold atmosphere and then telling me it will weigh the same in a vacuum.
I've told you a vacuum isn't possible inside Earth.

You don't agree on #1? We can take it a step at a time, it's ok with me. A solid steel ball can sit on a surface in a room full of air. can we agree on that much?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #98 on: November 05, 2017, 11:47:18 AM »


You don't agree on #1? We can take it a step at a time, it's ok with me. A solid steel ball can sit on a surface in a room full of air. can we agree on that much?
A solid looking steel ball, yes.
Ok, carry on.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #99 on: November 05, 2017, 11:49:06 AM »


What dies push my body forward when I slow down in my car?
The slosh of atmospheric compressed air.
Except the atmosphere compresses in the front of the car.  If anything it should push you back when you stop and forward when you accelerate. 
This is what happens to helium balloons in a car.
Yes it compresses in front of teh car and has to decompress as the car keeps moving into it, which is why it's pushed around the car to fill the lower pressure created by the rear of the car moving away through normal atmospheric pressure.
That compressed air slams into the air at the back constantly and back onto the car which creates a natural reaction to action in equal terms.
The same thing is happening inside the car, except inside of it it's closed so acts like a internal compression tank which holds a compression as long as a speed is attained but sill immediately slosh once brakes are applied, which is why you see the actions of what you see with a person in that car.

Still no explanation why I do not feel the pressure at the back of my body.
I only feel the pressure from the belt that holds me back.
With your idea I should feel the same pressure at my back from the atmosphere.

Please explain that for us.

Also you could address my other questions.
Sometimes you have to look a bit deeper into answers.
Try it.

It is not explained where the pressure of the sloshing atmosphere act on my body.
It can not my back because I do not feel it.

You have to explain it better that it is understandable.
You do feel it. You just don't register it as anything like that.
I'll try and make this a bit more simpler.
Imagine you are in a tube secured in a seat and at each end of that tube is a plunger with you in the middle.

You are in equal atmosphere at this time.
Now imagine one plunger starts to compress the air towards you. You would feel it but not be too mindful.

Now imagine that plunger moving towards you a little bit faster.
If you weren't secured into your seat your body would start to be pushed further back until that plunger stops but more pressure would be on you and you would feel it and know it because of that environment.

Now imagine the other plunger towards your back gets sharply pushed towards it in a sort of super fast effect.
This would be like braking and it would slam you forward but then hit a compression barrier and slam back with much less force before equalisation.

This is what's happening in your vehicle.

I say that is Bullshit what you claim there.
And as it is your claim you have to prove it right.
Do the experiment and show us the results.

Also again still no explanation why the atmosphere sloshes, as you claim inertia does not exist.
Looks like you ignore this because you can not explain it.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #100 on: November 05, 2017, 12:12:56 PM »


You don't agree on #1? We can take it a step at a time, it's ok with me. A solid steel ball can sit on a surface in a room full of air. can we agree on that much?
A solid looking steel ball, yes.
Ok, carry on.

Ok then #2: "There is not enough room for atmospheric elements in the steel's crystal structure."
When the steel is a liquid, these gasses DO dissolve into the molten steel. The steel is not a crystal structure when it is a liquid, and that's why they can dissolve. When the steel solidifies in the mold, it crystallizes. This crystallization process rejects the dissolved gasses, and the bubbles either escape or get trapped in the metal. If you were to cut it open, you'd see the porosity created by these bubbles. It's not good for a few reasons. First, the bubbles create weak spots in the steel leading to an overall decrease in strength. Second, steel is oxidized by the oxygen, also reducing the strength. So, if you need to, you can buy "killed" steel that is fully deoxidized and degassed. But the point is still valid for the steel with trapped gasses, because those gasses do not fit into the crystal structure. Instead, they combine together and form visible porosities that are not part of the steel crystal structure.

So, can we agree that the steel ball is "killed steel" and there are zero oxygen or nitrogen molecules inside the steel ball?

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #101 on: November 05, 2017, 01:04:13 PM »
You are pushing to the atmosphere and resisting the push back with your feet and body.
Why are you pushing to the atmosphere, and why are you only pushing up?

Dig the hole and the hole fills with atmosphere...but from where and how does it work?
From the atmosphere above, as it is pulled down by gravity, and pumped into the chamber to prevent the water flooding in.

When you dig the hole you transfer each Earth dig away from the hole. This compresses into the atmosphere just as the atmosphere is pushed into the hole and so on and so on until the dig stops.
Nope. More air is pumped in (by volume) than dirt is removed.

If the weight of these workers depended on the atmospheric pressure they would weigh 4.4 times their normal weight.
Were that true, they would have no chance of even walking, let alone doing hard work!
Yes they would but also they suffered death and health problems due to it.
How would they be able to walk and work?

Scales also suffer the same change. Think about it.
No they don't.
It all depends upon what type of scale you are using.
If you are using a simple beam balance with a reference mass, then yes, it suffers from the same change.

If you are using a spring, with a specific spring constant, it does not suffer the same change.
If you are using an electronic balance based upon emf, it does not suffer the same change.

We can measure weight independently of gravity.

The mere fact we can measure pressure by using weight, such as with a mercury barometer, shows that the weight does not change, but the pressure does.

The weights are already calculated but they factor in gravity as cause and effect and people just accept it.
No. People accept it because it is what works. It is what all the evidence points to.
Denspressure doesn't work at all.

If his jump was ever real he'd be dead.
Why?
He didn't jump from space, just really high up.

It proves it rather than destroys it.
How does it prove it?
It shows that the weight of an object does not depend upon its volume, as you would expect if it was due to displacing air.

That sure sounds like it is DISPROVING it.

You can  never have the same volume and different mass/density. Understand what volume means and then understand denpressure to see why.
But we do, frequently.
Understand what volume and mass mean.
And there you go with your circular garbage again.

You are assuming denspressure is true to dismiss anything which goes against denspressure.
Yes, according to denspressure a specific volume would only every have 1 weight. But reality shows that is not the case, refuting denspressure.

Theoretically you could jump higher at a higher altitude but as we all know, the body would expand all of it's cells to equalise the lower pressure at altitude, meaning massive loss of ability to function the muscles.
Nope.
There would be equalisation of pressure, but your muscles will still function basically the same. So no, there is no inability to sustain the energy required.

But, like we know, it's not possible in how we actually are built
No, it would be possible based upon how we are "built".
What makes it impossible is that your weight doesn't change with pressure.

The same thing is happening inside the car, except inside of it it's closed so acts like a internal compression tank which holds a compression as long as a speed is attained but sill immediately slosh once brakes are applied, which is why you see the actions of what you see with a person in that car.
That makes no sense at all.
What compression is it holding? Why is it holding it?

The issue is in not being able to push a vacuum to measure anything.
Yet we can still measure the weight, even in a vacuum.

You also have to remember that scales would have to function in this impossible environment.
There is nothing impossible about this environment, and the scales do function.

Now I've heard many arguments about, " yeah but we can get so close to a vacuum as to be one."
You mean you have made many "arguments" ignoring the fact that a vacuum doesn't need to be perfect.

We can get to a very low pressure and understanding why will also ensure you understand why the density of any object still has atmosphere in, whether it's clearly understandable or in the metal ball scenario, not accepted as having any.
No it wont.
Appealing to pure fantasy doesn't help.

jane understand my atmospheric evacuation from a container and knows how teh atmosphere can never be fully released.
No. She understood it. She knows it is wrong.
Just because your model says something, and people understand that, doesn't mean it is true.

Sometimes you have to look a bit deeper into answers.
Try it.
We do look deeper. That is why we realise your nonsense is nonsense.

Inertia explains it. Denspressure does not.

You do feel it. You just don't register it as anything like that.
No, we don't.
We know what wind feels like. We know what the air pushing us feels like.
This is not what happens in a car when you stop.
There is no push from behind as the air pushes us forwards.

Now imagine that plunger moving towards you a little bit faster.
If you weren't secured into your seat your body would start to be pushed further back until that plunger stops but more pressure would be on you and you would feel it and know it because of that environment.
If it was moving fast enough to do that we would feel the air moving past us as wind and pushing on us.

So no, that is not what is happening.

The balloons in a vehicle should be more than enough to tell you what I'm telling you but you just don't see it and most don't.
No. They don't.
They tell the opposite.
When travelling at a constant speed, a helium filled balloon will go straight up. If there was some magic atmospheric compression, you would expect it to be pushed from vertical, but it isn't. Then when you stop, the balloon moves backwards, due to a pressure gradient formed due to the inertia of the air resulting in a force akin to the buoyant force.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #102 on: November 05, 2017, 01:09:13 PM »
Ok then #2: "There is not enough room for atmospheric elements in the steel's crystal structure."
When the steel is a liquid, these gasses DO dissolve into the molten steel. The steel is not a crystal structure when it is a liquid, and that's why they can dissolve. When the steel solidifies in the mold, it crystallizes. This crystallization process rejects the dissolved gasses, and the bubbles either escape or get trapped in the metal. If you were to cut it open, you'd see the porosity created by these bubbles. It's not good for a few reasons. First, the bubbles create weak spots in the steel leading to an overall decrease in strength. Second, steel is oxidized by the oxygen, also reducing the strength. So, if you need to, you can buy "killed" steel that is fully deoxidized and degassed. But the point is still valid for the steel with trapped gasses, because those gasses do not fit into the crystal structure. Instead, they combine together and form visible porosities that are not part of the steel crystal structure.

So, can we agree that the steel ball is "killed steel" and there are zero oxygen or nitrogen molecules inside the steel ball?
No we can't agree, because there's levels beyond levels that we as humans cannot eradicate from the steel, etc.

There will always be porosity.
Take gold for instance. It's super dense but still porous after solidification.
However, it does manage to do an excellent job of squeezing out more atmospheric gases from it than a lot of other metals to leave a much more tighter super minute dense structure to it.
This enables it to displace more atmosphere as a shaped object and why it transfers that extra dense displacement of atmosphere onto a man made scale to read a higher weight.

It's pretty simple when you think about it.

*

rabinoz

  • 26337
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #103 on: November 05, 2017, 01:14:12 PM »
The issue is in not being able to push a vacuum to measure anything.
You also have to remember that scales would have to function in this impossible environment.
Quote from: sceptimatic
  • Most scales would work exactly the same in any near vacuum we can manage on earth.
    A "High vacuum" has a pressure range of roughly 10-6 down to 10-12 atmospheres and lowering the pressure still further is not going to make any measurable difference to weight.

    If you disagree, please show reliable theoretical or experimental evidence to the contrary.

  • You claim "in this impossible environment", but a near vacuum down to 10-15 atmospheres is possible on earth.

Now I've heard many arguments about, "yeah but we can get so close to a vacuum as to be one."
No we can't.
So you say, with not a trace of evidence to back it up.

Quote from: sceptimatic
We can get to a very low pressure and understanding why will also ensure you understand why the density of any object still has atmosphere in, whether it's clearly understandable or in the metal ball scenario, not accepted as having any.
Since air at atmospheric pressure has a density of only about 1.225 km/m3
and if you can't work out what that means air contained in a volume of 1 1 1 m has a mass of 1.225 kg.
The same volume of, say, stainless steel has a density of about 8000 1.225 km/m3.

So what difference can the release or not of any trapped air make?

If you disagree, please show reliable theoretical or experimental evidence to the contrary.

Quote from: sceptimatic
jane understand my atmospheric evacuation from a container and knows how the atmosphere can never be fully released.

At least in a discussion like this, who cares if "the atmosphere can never be fully released" or not.
Non-released atmosphere has an almost unmeasurable effect on the weight of dense materials such as stainless steel.

But everybody else knows this and you refuse to take any notice of any evidence to the contrary!
This video is not a "high precision" one, but it is a demonstration:

Weighing in a Vacuum, Cody'sLab
Now, you come up with evidence or even a simple demonstration, not just more of your empty words.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #104 on: November 05, 2017, 01:19:15 PM »
Ok then #2: "There is not enough room for atmospheric elements in the steel's crystal structure."
When the steel is a liquid, these gasses DO dissolve into the molten steel. The steel is not a crystal structure when it is a liquid, and that's why they can dissolve. When the steel solidifies in the mold, it crystallizes. This crystallization process rejects the dissolved gasses, and the bubbles either escape or get trapped in the metal. If you were to cut it open, you'd see the porosity created by these bubbles. It's not good for a few reasons. First, the bubbles create weak spots in the steel leading to an overall decrease in strength. Second, steel is oxidized by the oxygen, also reducing the strength. So, if you need to, you can buy "killed" steel that is fully deoxidized and degassed. But the point is still valid for the steel with trapped gasses, because those gasses do not fit into the crystal structure. Instead, they combine together and form visible porosities that are not part of the steel crystal structure.

So, can we agree that the steel ball is "killed steel" and there are zero oxygen or nitrogen molecules inside the steel ball?
No we can't agree, because there's levels beyond levels that we as humans cannot eradicate from the steel, etc.

There will always be porosity.
Take gold for instance. It's super dense but still porous after solidification.
However, it does manage to do an excellent job of squeezing out more atmospheric gases from it than a lot of other metals to leave a much more tighter super minute dense structure to it.
This enables it to displace more atmosphere as a shaped object and why it transfers that extra dense displacement of atmosphere onto a man made scale to read a higher weight.

It's pretty simple when you think about it.

I'm confident that I gave a solid explanation of why a solid steel ball is actually solid. Sure, there's "free space" in the crystal structure but the air molecules nitrogen and oxygen do not fit into that space. Everything can be looked at multiple ways, so let's look at just one single crystal. There's not room for air molecules in that single crystal.

This is critical for you to understand, that air cannot dissolve or hide in a single steel crystal. In other words, there will not always be porosity. You cannot have a pore in a single crystal.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #105 on: November 05, 2017, 01:40:44 PM »
I remember a discussion we had a while ago about equal and opposite forces in vacuum, so for the mountain pass question would it be right to say that someone who tries to jump wouldn't be able to jump as high as one might think in your model precisely because there's less downwards force, and thus less to brace against the ground with?
That would only work if you were relying upon the normal force from your weight to push you up.

In reality, when people jump it is typically via extending their legs at speed.
This no longer relies upon your weight for the force it relies upon your muscles.

Your weight will determine to some extent the maximum acceleration and thus velocity as you need to oppose it, the greater the weight, the less acceleration. However, the dominant factor will likely be your inertia. This means at the start of the jump, once you are actually off the ground, you will likely be going up at basically the same speed regardless of altitude.

It is the stage after this which refutes denspressure.
According to denspressure (ignoring the fact it makes no sense), the downwards force and acceleration is dependent upon air pressure.
As the air pressure is much lower, you should be getting forced down a lot less and thus your downwards acceleration would be significantly reduced.
This means instead of accelerating at -9.8 m/s^2 it will be reduced to something like (assuming a simple linear relationship) -3.332 m/s^2 (34% of atmospheric pressure).
For a jump which reaches 0.5 m, under normal conditions that would mean v0=3.130495168 m/s, and the peak will be at 0.32 s.
Under reduced gravity (34% due to 34% air pressure), your initial velocity will be the same, you will reach the peak at 0.94 s, and will have reached a height of 1.47 m, or roughly 300% of your original height.

This would be quite noticeable.

It also shows that the initial jumping part is quite irrelevant.
What we need to look at is the parabolic path.

And there are plenty of vacuum chamber tests showing that things still fall at 9.8 m/s^2 in a vacuum when instead according to denpressure their acceleration should be effectively 0.

And again, another simple test is a mercury barometer (or a fluid based barometer).
The height of the column is such that its weight is balanced by the atmospheric pressure.
Under denspressure (at least for a given substance) this should remain constant. As the pressure changes, so does the weight.
This means the column of mercury should remain the same height and thus a mercury barometer is an impossibility under denspressure.

Logically, the force due to denpressure, F, may be found by
F=dpv
Where d is some constant to be calculated. I think d=9.8m/s/s is a good value.
Assuming p and v are calculated as they would normally be, no.
It lacks the pressure term.
You would need to convert d into some function of pressure.
So a simple one would be:
F=k*P*p*v, where P is pressure and k is some constant, which equates to roughly 9.8 m / s^2 atm.

You're both using slightly different meanings of the word volume. For you, if you had a hollow sphere of radius 1 it would have the same volume as a solid sphere of radius 1 because the object basically occupies that much space. For Scepti that's not the case, he's just focusing on the amount of an object that's solid and excluding the parts that are gaps.
You're both right, just using different definitions, and if you tried thinking about it rather than posting irritating and useless questions maybe you'd have realised that.
No. Scepti seems to be using mass as a measure of volume.

A simple comparison is 2 FCC structures, like aluminium and iridium.
These are both FCC. They have the same packing fraction. That is, the atoms of aluminium take up the some fraction of the total volume as the atoms of iridium.
As such, the volume is the same regardless of if you consider the total volume, or just the volume occupied by the atoms.
But the density of aluminium is roughly 2.7 g/ml, while iridium is 22.6 g/ml.

The only way they have the same density is if you use mass as a measure of volume, which makes no sense at all.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #106 on: November 05, 2017, 01:41:35 PM »
I'm confident that I gave a solid explanation of why a solid steel ball is actually solid. Sure, there's "free space" in the crystal structure but the air molecules nitrogen and oxygen do not fit into that space. Everything can be looked at multiple ways, so let's look at just one single crystal. There's not room for air molecules in that single crystal.
He tries to use magic molecules for air which can expand and contract as he needs them to.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #107 on: November 05, 2017, 01:47:46 PM »
I'm confident that I gave a solid explanation of why a solid steel ball is actually solid. Sure, there's "free space" in the crystal structure but the air molecules nitrogen and oxygen do not fit into that space. Everything can be looked at multiple ways, so let's look at just one single crystal. There's not room for air molecules in that single crystal.
He tries to use magic molecules for air which can expand and contract as he needs them to.

Or maybe he just doesn't understand because nobody ever showed it to him (her?). I'm trying to

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #108 on: November 05, 2017, 01:54:08 PM »
You are pushing to the atmosphere and resisting the push back with your feet and body.
Why are you pushing to the atmosphere, and why are you only pushing up?
You're not only pushing up. Your body is pushing in every way it's shaped against all of the atmosphere that envelopes it and trying to crush it.



Dig the hole and the hole fills with atmosphere...but from where and how does it work?
From the atmosphere above, as it is pulled down by gravity, and pumped into the chamber to prevent the water flooding in.
There's no such thing as pull in the grand scheme of things, so no cigar for your gravity.

When you dig the hole you transfer each Earth dig away from the hole. This compresses into the atmosphere just as the atmosphere is pushed into the hole and so on and so on until the dig stops.
Nope. More air is pumped in (by volume) than dirt is removed.
Have a serious think about what you're saying.
If you dig a hole by taking out one spade full of soil and place that soil that was in that hole to the side of it, that soil pushes the exact same amount of atmosphere as what gets pushed into the hole it came out of.

If you scoop a cup of water from your sink full of water and place it on your work top, that sink will now have one cup of air extra on it whilst your cup of water displaces that same amount on the worktop.
Surely to hell you can grasp this.
Someone please help him.


If the weight of these workers depended on the atmospheric pressure they would weigh 4.4 times their normal weight.
Were that true, they would have no chance of even walking, let alone doing hard work!
Yes they would but also they suffered death and health problems due to it.
How would they be able to walk and work?
With difficulty and is why they do it in small shifts.


Scales also suffer the same change. Think about it.
No they don't.
It all depends upon what type of scale you are using.
If you are using a simple beam balance with a reference mass, then yes, it suffers from the same change.

If you are using a spring, with a specific spring constant, it does not suffer the same change.
If you are using an electronic balance based upon emf, it does not suffer the same change.

We can measure weight independently of gravity.

The mere fact we can measure pressure by using weight, such as with a mercury barometer, shows that the weight does not change, but the pressure does.

The weights are already calculated but they factor in gravity as cause and effect and people just accept it.
No. People accept it because it is what works. It is what all the evidence points to.
Denspressure doesn't work at all.
It works fine when you get rid of the nonsense and the duping.


If his jump was ever real he'd be dead.
Why?
He didn't jump from space, just really high up.
Nowhere near what we were told.


It proves it rather than destroys it.
How does it prove it?
It shows that the weight of an object does not depend upon its volume, as you would expect if it was due to displacing air.

That sure sounds like it is DISPROVING it.
It depends on what the object displaces in atmosphere.
The volume is what makes the difference between density and the atmosphere it displaces against a scale plate.


You can  never have the same volume and different mass/density. Understand what volume means and then understand denpressure to see why.
But we do, frequently.
Understand what volume and mass mean.
And there you go with your circular garbage again.

You are assuming denspressure is true to dismiss anything which goes against denspressure.
Yes, according to denspressure a specific volume would only every have 1 weight. But reality shows that is not the case, refuting denspressure.
Nothing refutes it. It is what it is and works just fine .


Theoretically you could jump higher at a higher altitude but as we all know, the body would expand all of it's cells to equalise the lower pressure at altitude, meaning massive loss of ability to function the muscles.
Nope.
There would be equalisation of pressure, but your muscles will still function basically the same. So no, there is no inability to sustain the energy required.
Have a serious think about what you're saying.


But, like we know, it's not possible in how we actually are built
No, it would be possible based upon how we are "built".
What makes it impossible is that your weight doesn't change with pressure.
So, if I was to place you inside a tube on a scale plate and you were sat at the bottom of it and I pushed down on a plunger from the top....are you saying that your weight reading would not change?



The same thing is happening inside the car, except inside of it it's closed so acts like a internal compression tank which holds a compression as long as a speed is attained but sill immediately slosh once brakes are applied, which is why you see the actions of what you see with a person in that car.
That makes no sense at all.
What compression is it holding? Why is it holding it?
Imagine driving down the road in your new syringe on wheels with the plunger facing the front.
You set off against the atmosphere and push into it, right?
What happens to the plunger?
What happens to the air pressure on you inside that syringe?
Just think on those lines and you'll hopefully get there.


The issue is in not being able to push a vacuum to measure anything.
Yet we can still measure the weight, even in a vacuum.
Yes and it will show in some things but not in others depending on how dense, due to not being able to push a real vacuum.


You also have to remember that scales would have to function in this impossible environment.
There is nothing impossible about this environment, and the scales do function.
There's plenty of skewing of stuff regarding this.

Now I've heard many arguments about, " yeah but we can get so close to a vacuum as to be one."
You mean you have made many "arguments" ignoring the fact that a vacuum doesn't need to be perfect.
It depends on what's being tested that can verify low pressure.
The centrifugal/centripetal force is a classic clear cut experiment that proves it doesn't work in a very low pressure.

We can get to a very low pressure and understanding why will also ensure you understand why the density of any object still has atmosphere in, whether it's clearly understandable or in the metal ball scenario, not accepted as having any.
No it wont.
Appealing to pure fantasy doesn't help.
I'm not appealing to fantasy. You are adhering to pure fantasy.


jane understand my atmospheric evacuation from a container and knows how the atmosphere can never be fully released.
No. She understood it. She knows it is wrong.
Just because your model says something, and people understand that, doesn't mean it is true.
No, she doesn't know it's wrong. She disagrees with it but cannot ever say it's wrong.
Also I'm not saying that all of what I say is the entire 100% truth but I'm arguing for it in favour of the lies we are told.
I believe it's closer to the truth in some aspects and others require fine tuning.
That's my arrogance and I'll keep it like that when up against the sheer arrogance of a nonsensical globe and all of it's nonsensical trimmings.


Sometimes you have to look a bit deeper into answers.
Try it.
We do look deeper. That is why we realise your nonsense is nonsense.

Inertia explains it. Denspressure does not.
We've been through this. Inertia is meaningless.

You do feel it. You just don't register it as anything like that.
No, we don't.
We know what wind feels like. We know what the air pushing us feels like.
This is not what happens in a car when you stop.
There is no push from behind as the air pushes us forwards.
Back to the tube and plunger.

Now imagine that plunger moving towards you a little bit faster.
If you weren't secured into your seat your body would start to be pushed further back until that plunger stops but more pressure would be on you and you would feel it and know it because of that environment.
If it was moving fast enough to do that we would feel the air moving past us as wind and pushing on us.

So no, that is not what is happening.
Not in a near sealed vehicle you wouldn't.
You would feel a pressure build not a wind.
A wind can flow around you and create a friction on you that you feel.
A near sealed vehicle pushing into friction will act like the plunger and compress you a little which changes your environment inside that vehicle compared to outside.



The balloons in a vehicle should be more than enough to tell you what I'm telling you but you just don't see it and most don't.
No. They don't.
They tell the opposite.
When travelling at a constant speed, a helium filled balloon will go straight up. If there was some magic atmospheric compression, you would expect it to be pushed from vertical, but it isn't. Then when you stop, the balloon moves backwards, due to a pressure gradient formed due to the inertia of the air resulting in a force akin to the buoyant force.
Due to a pressure gradient.
You're answering your own queries then denying explanations.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #109 on: November 05, 2017, 01:59:08 PM »
Ok then #2: "There is not enough room for atmospheric elements in the steel's crystal structure."
When the steel is a liquid, these gasses DO dissolve into the molten steel. The steel is not a crystal structure when it is a liquid, and that's why they can dissolve. When the steel solidifies in the mold, it crystallizes. This crystallization process rejects the dissolved gasses, and the bubbles either escape or get trapped in the metal. If you were to cut it open, you'd see the porosity created by these bubbles. It's not good for a few reasons. First, the bubbles create weak spots in the steel leading to an overall decrease in strength. Second, steel is oxidized by the oxygen, also reducing the strength. So, if you need to, you can buy "killed" steel that is fully deoxidized and degassed. But the point is still valid for the steel with trapped gasses, because those gasses do not fit into the crystal structure. Instead, they combine together and form visible porosities that are not part of the steel crystal structure.

So, can we agree that the steel ball is "killed steel" and there are zero oxygen or nitrogen molecules inside the steel ball?
No we can't agree, because there's levels beyond levels that we as humans cannot eradicate from the steel, etc.

There will always be porosity.
Take gold for instance. It's super dense but still porous after solidification.
However, it does manage to do an excellent job of squeezing out more atmospheric gases from it than a lot of other metals to leave a much more tighter super minute dense structure to it.
This enables it to displace more atmosphere as a shaped object and why it transfers that extra dense displacement of atmosphere onto a man made scale to read a higher weight.

It's pretty simple when you think about it.

I'm confident that I gave a solid explanation of why a solid steel ball is actually solid. Sure, there's "free space" in the crystal structure but the air molecules nitrogen and oxygen do not fit into that space. Everything can be looked at multiple ways, so let's look at just one single crystal. There's not room for air molecules in that single crystal.

This is critical for you to understand, that air cannot dissolve or hide in a single steel crystal. In other words, there will not always be porosity. You cannot have a pore in a single crystal.
If its porous it holds a gas. It holds an atmospheric gas of whatever description you want but it is not a vacuum so it is not empty, so therefore the structure of it dictates whether it is more dense than another similar structure that by eye can look to be the same but can be much more or less porous, which means one will displace more or less atmosphere and therefore show that on a man made scale.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #110 on: November 05, 2017, 02:01:22 PM »
I'm confident that I gave a solid explanation of why a solid steel ball is actually solid. Sure, there's "free space" in the crystal structure but the air molecules nitrogen and oxygen do not fit into that space. Everything can be looked at multiple ways, so let's look at just one single crystal. There's not room for air molecules in that single crystal.
He tries to use magic molecules for air which can expand and contract as he needs them to.
It's not magic it's common sense and the mere fact that air can be compressed and expand should give you a massive clue to that.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #111 on: November 05, 2017, 02:02:30 PM »
I'm confident that I gave a solid explanation of why a solid steel ball is actually solid. Sure, there's "free space" in the crystal structure but the air molecules nitrogen and oxygen do not fit into that space. Everything can be looked at multiple ways, so let's look at just one single crystal. There's not room for air molecules in that single crystal.
He tries to use magic molecules for air which can expand and contract as he needs them to.

Or maybe he just doesn't understand because nobody ever showed it to him (her?). I'm trying to
Or maybe you don't understand the entirety of it all.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #112 on: November 05, 2017, 02:13:36 PM »
You're not only pushing up. Your body is pushing in every way it's shaped against all of the atmosphere that envelopes it and trying to crush it.
So why do we only get pushed down?

There's no such thing as pull in the grand scheme of things, so no cigar for your gravity.
You are yet to justify that at all. You couldn't even explain how a rope holds itself together without appealing to pulling.

Have a serious think about what you're saying.
If you dig a hole by taking out one spade full of soil and place that soil that was in that hole to the side of it, that soil pushes the exact same amount of atmosphere as what gets pushed into the hole it came out of.
Perhaps you should start reading what I have said.
The air isn't just allowed to float in. It is pumped in to keep it pressurised.
You need to pump in more air than that spade full of soil to keep it pressurised.
Air is compressible.

You take 1 cup (better unit of measure) of soil and place it in air at 1 atm.
Which displaces 1 cup of air at 1 atm.
But taking the soil's place is 1 cup of air at 4.4 atm.
That equates to 4.4 cups of air at 1 atm.

As such, you have 4.4. cups of air to replace the 1 cup of soil.

Someone please help him.
Again, I'm not the one that needs help.

How would they be able to walk and work?
With difficulty and is why they do it in small shifts.
Not with difficulty.
It would be impossible.
Try carrying 3 people your own weight. See if you can do anything.

No they don't.
It all depends upon what type of scale you are using.
If you are using a simple beam balance with a reference mass, then yes, it suffers from the same change.

If you are using a spring, with a specific spring constant, it does not suffer the same change.
If you are using an electronic balance based upon emf, it does not suffer the same change.

We can measure weight independently of gravity.

The mere fact we can measure pressure by using weight, such as with a mercury barometer, shows that the weight does not change, but the pressure does.

The weights are already calculated but they factor in gravity as cause and effect and people just accept it.
No. People accept it because it is what works. It is what all the evidence points to.
Denspressure doesn't work at all.
It works fine when you get rid of the nonsense and the duping.
No it doesn't.
If it could you would addressed those issues rather than just ignoring them and saying it works fine.


Nowhere near what we were told.
And what makes you say that?
Because it doesn't fit in with your delusions?

It proves it rather than destroys it.
How does it prove it?
It shows that the weight of an object does not depend upon its volume, as you would expect if it was due to displacing air.

That sure sounds like it is DISPROVING it.
It depends on what the object displaces in atmosphere.
The volume is what makes the difference between density and the atmosphere it displaces against a scale plate.
The volume is the atmosphere it displaces, which has nothing to do with the weight unless related by the density.
You can have 2 objects with the same volume, yet weigh completely different amounts.

You can  never have the same volume and different mass/density. Understand what volume means and then understand denpressure to see why.
But we do, frequently.
Understand what volume and mass mean.
And there you go with your circular garbage again.

You are assuming denspressure is true to dismiss anything which goes against denspressure.
Yes, according to denspressure a specific volume would only every have 1 weight. But reality shows that is not the case, refuting denspressure.
Nothing refutes it. It is what it is and works just fine .
Again, that does refute it.
You ignoring the refutation doesn't magically mean it isn't refuted.

It does not work.
Numerous problems have been pointed out to you which you are unable to provide a rational answer to.
This shows it doesn't work.

Theoretically you could jump higher at a higher altitude but as we all know, the body would expand all of it's cells to equalise the lower pressure at altitude, meaning massive loss of ability to function the muscles.
Nope.
There would be equalisation of pressure, but your muscles will still function basically the same. So no, there is no inability to sustain the energy required.
Have a serious think about what you're saying.
I have. Perhaps you should come up with a better dismissal tactic.

So, if I was to place you inside a tube on a scale plate and you were sat at the bottom of it and I pushed down on a plunger from the top....are you saying that your weight reading would not change?
Not by any significant amount.
It would be slightly reduced due to the increase in buoyant force.
The reading on the scale may change depending upon how you push on the plunger and if it records that, but that wont be my weight.

Imagine driving down the road in your new syringe on wheels with the plunger facing the front.
How about we seal it first, as the windscreen does with the car.
The plunger does not move.
Or to make the comparison valid, remove the windscreen of the car.
Now you can feel the air against you.

The issue is in not being able to push a vacuum to measure anything.
Yet we can still measure the weight, even in a vacuum.
Yes and it will show in some things but not in others depending on how dense, due to not being able to push a real vacuum.
Nope. Things still weigh basically the same. There is a slight increase due to the lack of buoyant force.

There is nothing impossible about this environment, and the scales do function.
There's plenty of skewing of stuff regarding this.
Yes, by you, to try and ignore things which refute your model.

It depends on what's being tested that can verify low pressure.
The centrifugal/centripetal force is a classic clear cut experiment that proves it doesn't work in a very low pressure.
Nope. The centrifugal force still works in low pressure as does inertia in general.

We can get to a very low pressure and understanding why will also ensure you understand why the density of any object still has atmosphere in, whether it's clearly understandable or in the metal ball scenario, not accepted as having any.
No it wont.
Appealing to pure fantasy doesn't help.
I'm not appealing to fantasy. You are adhering to pure fantasy.
No, I'm adhering to reality. You are the one stuck in fantasy, not me.

jane understand my atmospheric evacuation from a container and knows how the atmosphere can never be fully released.
No. She understood it. She knows it is wrong.
Just because your model says something, and people understand that, doesn't mean it is true.
No, she doesn't know it's wrong. She disagrees with it but cannot ever say it's wrong.
That is enough to show you were lying. She doesn't know that ic can never be fully released.
So thanks for showing you to be wrong regardless.

Also I'm not saying that all of what I say is the entire 100% truth but I'm arguing for it in favour of the lies we are told.
You are the one telling us lies.

I believe it's closer to the truth in some aspects and others require fine tuning.
You are yet to present a single aspect in which it is closer to the truth than current understanding.
Meanwhile people have presented numerous flaws in your model, which you cannot explain which current understanding can.

That's my arrogance and I'll keep it like that when up against the sheer arrogance of a nonsensical globe and all of it's nonsensical trimmings.
You are the one with nonsensical arrogance. Your model has been shown to be nonsense. You are yet to show a single problem with the globe.

Sometimes you have to look a bit deeper into answers.
Try it.
We do look deeper. That is why we realise your nonsense is nonsense.
Inertia explains it. Denspressure does not.
We've been through this. Inertia is meaningless.
Yes, we've been through this.
Inertia is resistance to change in motion. You were unable to provide any rational objection to this.

You do feel it. You just don't register it as anything like that.
No, we don't.
We know what wind feels like. We know what the air pushing us feels like.
This is not what happens in a car when you stop.
There is no push from behind as the air pushes us forwards.
Back to the tube and plunger.
Which fails to account for it.

Now imagine that plunger moving towards you a little bit faster.
If you weren't secured into your seat your body would start to be pushed further back until that plunger stops but more pressure would be on you and you would feel it and know it because of that environment.
If it was moving fast enough to do that we would feel the air moving past us as wind and pushing on us.

So no, that is not what is happening.
Not in a near sealed vehicle you wouldn't.
You would feel a pressure build not a wind.
And pressure building would not result in us being pushed forward as it would push from all directions.

The balloons in a vehicle should be more than enough to tell you what I'm telling you but you just don't see it and most don't.
No. They don't.
They tell the opposite.
When travelling at a constant speed, a helium filled balloon will go straight up. If there was some magic atmospheric compression, you would expect it to be pushed from vertical, but it isn't. Then when you stop, the balloon moves backwards, due to a pressure gradient formed due to the inertia of the air resulting in a force akin to the buoyant force.
Due to a pressure gradient.
You're answering your own queries then denying explanations.
Nope. A pressure gradient forms when you change speed.
This is due to the inertia of the air.
This pressure gradient pushes thing against it.
The helium balloon and us are both pushed back by the pressure gradient that forms when the car slows down.
But we move forwards, so this pressure gradient doesn't explain it.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #113 on: November 05, 2017, 02:20:06 PM »
If its porous it holds a gas. It holds an atmospheric gas of whatever description you want but it is not a vacuum so it is not empty, so therefore the structure of it dictates whether it is more dense than another similar structure that by eye can look to be the same but can be much more or less porous, which means one will displace more or less atmosphere and therefore show that on a man made scale.
No. The pores need to be large enough to accommodate the gas. If they aren't, then it cannot hold it.

Regardless, iridium and aluminium. 2 FCC structures with the same packing fraction (same porosity), yet iridium is almost 10 times the density of aluminium. WHY?
It clearly isn't just air filling the voids as it should have the same effect on both.

It's not magic it's common sense and the mere fact that air can be compressed and expand should give you a massive clue to that.
No. It is pure magic.
The fact that air can expand and compress while other things can not, not even liquified air, indicates that air is likely composed of numerous tiny molecules and predominately empty space.
There is no indication that the molecules of air can expand or contract.

The fact that when you compress them enough they liquify shows that they aren't special, they are made up of similar stuff to other materials.
It also shows you can't compress air enough to fit it into crystal structures.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #114 on: November 05, 2017, 02:32:56 PM »
Ok then #2: "There is not enough room for atmospheric elements in the steel's crystal structure."
When the steel is a liquid, these gasses DO dissolve into the molten steel. The steel is not a crystal structure when it is a liquid, and that's why they can dissolve. When the steel solidifies in the mold, it crystallizes. This crystallization process rejects the dissolved gasses, and the bubbles either escape or get trapped in the metal. If you were to cut it open, you'd see the porosity created by these bubbles. It's not good for a few reasons. First, the bubbles create weak spots in the steel leading to an overall decrease in strength. Second, steel is oxidized by the oxygen, also reducing the strength. So, if you need to, you can buy "killed" steel that is fully deoxidized and degassed. But the point is still valid for the steel with trapped gasses, because those gasses do not fit into the crystal structure. Instead, they combine together and form visible porosities that are not part of the steel crystal structure.

So, can we agree that the steel ball is "killed steel" and there are zero oxygen or nitrogen molecules inside the steel ball?
No we can't agree, because there's levels beyond levels that we as humans cannot eradicate from the steel, etc.

There will always be porosity.
Take gold for instance. It's super dense but still porous after solidification.
However, it does manage to do an excellent job of squeezing out more atmospheric gases from it than a lot of other metals to leave a much more tighter super minute dense structure to it.
This enables it to displace more atmosphere as a shaped object and why it transfers that extra dense displacement of atmosphere onto a man made scale to read a higher weight.

It's pretty simple when you think about it.

I'm confident that I gave a solid explanation of why a solid steel ball is actually solid. Sure, there's "free space" in the crystal structure but the air molecules nitrogen and oxygen do not fit into that space. Everything can be looked at multiple ways, so let's look at just one single crystal. There's not room for air molecules in that single crystal.

This is critical for you to understand, that air cannot dissolve or hide in a single steel crystal. In other words, there will not always be porosity. You cannot have a pore in a single crystal.
If its porous it holds a gas. It holds an atmospheric gas of whatever description you want but it is not a vacuum so it is not empty, so therefore the structure of it dictates whether it is more dense than another similar structure that by eye can look to be the same but can be much more or less porous, which means one will displace more or less atmosphere and therefore show that on a man made scale.

A single crystal of steel cannot contain any atmospheric gas. If you can have a single crystal of steel without gas, you can have two, three, and so forth. I have shown you exactly where your idea does not match reality, at the molecular level. Oxygen and Nitrogen atoms/molecules are not small enough to fit into the steel crystal structure.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #115 on: November 05, 2017, 02:37:58 PM »
A single crystal of steel cannot contain any atmospheric gas. If you can have a single crystal of steel without gas, you can have two, three, and so forth. I have shown you exactly where your idea does not match reality, at the molecular level. Oxygen and Nitrogen atoms/molecules are not small enough to fit into the steel crystal structure.
Scepti's model of molecules is fundamentally different to the usual, you can't apply the typical model to disprove it.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #116 on: November 05, 2017, 02:43:54 PM »
A single crystal of steel cannot contain any atmospheric gas. If you can have a single crystal of steel without gas, you can have two, three, and so forth. I have shown you exactly where your idea does not match reality, at the molecular level. Oxygen and Nitrogen atoms/molecules are not small enough to fit into the steel crystal structure.
Scepti's model of molecules is fundamentally different to the usual, you can't apply the typical model to disprove it.

Then we are making progress! The alternate idea only works with an alternate model of atoms and molecules. In that case, we can limit the discussion to the atoms themselves.

*

rabinoz

  • 26337
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #117 on: November 05, 2017, 02:49:43 PM »
the air molecules nitrogen and oxygen do not fit into that space.
;D ;D Don't bring up molecules! You definitely do not want to hear Sceppy's ideas on molecules. ;D ;D
A little introduction:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Because it's expanded due to energy it squeezes through the denser molecules which react by crushing back by smaller but denser numbers.
As this molecule takes it's place in the atmospheric layer, it displaces molecules in that layer until some will reach the top as they expand due to not having to have any more or very little matter to push through. Because of this they become really expanded meaning less can occupy the space above, not to mention the dome is channeling the matter around it like an arch, leaving less at the top.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not quite on this topic, but:
There's no such thing as nuclear reactors or power or bombs. That's discussed in another topic so we won't go into that here.

You, like the rest of us, have been conned. We've all been duped and it's time we started to look at reality instead of the fantasy we've been given.
You'll really have to brush up on your Sceptomanic Theory:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The dome covering is different in that it's a mere stacking all the way to the top. It's an energy push of matter through matter until some of the matter has to be at the top. If no more matter can be stacked, the matter at the top is under no strain. It's not compressed and pushing back against any matter above it, unlike the matter at sea level which has all the rest stacked above it and is so compressed it is like a fight for each molecule to try and EXPAND itself. Imagine trillions to the power x doing this. It would appear like a mass of, moving fish eggs and we can see this when we look down a road on a hot day.

Up in the sky at the dome, none of this happens because the molecules are fully expanded and dormant. Basically frozen, or turned to clear ice of hydrogen and helium against a true vacuum.

In the centre of Earth it would be stronger but that's where the energy of the sun is that you see as the dome reflection. It's making hydrogen at the centre plus helium, etc.
The ocean is abundant in these elements because these elements cannot be expanded as simply as we want but can when feeding the energy that we see as the sun.

It's like a massive arcing electricity power station in the centre of Earth that is fed by elements pushing in to it by release of compression.
;) :D I do hope this goes a little way towards helping you understand the mysteries of life! :D ;)
Who needs science fiction when we have entertainment like this?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #118 on: November 05, 2017, 03:01:35 PM »
the air molecules nitrogen and oxygen do not fit into that space.
;D ;D Don't bring up molecules! You definitely do not want to hear Sceppy's ideas on molecules. ;D ;D
It's not that hard  :P
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921462#msg1921462

*

rabinoz

  • 26337
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #119 on: November 05, 2017, 03:06:57 PM »
the air molecules nitrogen and oxygen do not fit into that space.
;D ;D Don't bring up molecules! You definitely do not want to hear Sceppy's ideas on molecules. ;D ;D
It's not that hard  :P
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921462#msg1921462
Sure, but I would prefer something backup by expermental evidence and not dragged up simply from someone's imagination.