Denspressure vs Reality

  • 1394 Replies
  • 55770 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #120 on: November 05, 2017, 06:18:14 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.
Here's a poor quality, old fashioned, 18 minute, black and white video for anyone that wants to be bored still more:

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #121 on: November 06, 2017, 12:01:31 AM »
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.
It isn't applying a model. It is applying reality.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #122 on: November 06, 2017, 12:11:01 AM »
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.
The imaginations of mainstream so called scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity and such is what requires sifting through when it can be seen to be the nonsense it becomes after mildly thinking on it.
If more people questioned it they would start to see the duping.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #123 on: November 06, 2017, 12:30:02 AM »
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.
Here's a poor quality, old fashioned, 18 minute, black and white video for anyone that wants to be bored still more:
A very interesting video.
Is it supposed to prove anything against my denpressure explanations?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #124 on: November 06, 2017, 12:33:56 AM »
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.
It isn't applying a model. It is applying reality.
It's only applying reality because you've been schooled into accepting it as that by adhering to official sources of what you believe and accept as the whole truth.

You don't know for sure what you are arguing against and certainly what you are arguing for, but mass opinion gives you a false sense of belief's by mass ongoing peer pressure.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #125 on: November 06, 2017, 12:41:25 AM »
The imaginations of mainstream so called scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity and such is what requires sifting through when it can be seen to be the nonsense it becomes after mildly thinking on it.
If more people questioned it they would start to see the duping.
Except you are yet to show how it is nonsense at all.

It's only applying reality because you've been schooled into accepting it as that by adhering to official sources of what you believe and accept as the whole truth.
No, it is applying reality based upon what I have personally experienced.

You don't know for sure what you are arguing against and certainly what you are arguing for, but mass opinion gives you a false sense of belief's by mass ongoing peer pressure.
I have a pretty good idea of what I am arguing against. I have raised numerous objections which you are yet to adequately address.

I don't give a damn what people's opinions are. I care about reality, what the evidence supports.
It doesn't support your nonsense.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #126 on: November 06, 2017, 12:52:22 AM »
The imaginations of mainstream so called scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity and such is what requires sifting through when it can be seen to be the nonsense it becomes after mildly thinking on it.
If more people questioned it they would start to see the duping.
Except you are yet to show how it is nonsense at all.

It's only applying reality because you've been schooled into accepting it as that by adhering to official sources of what you believe and accept as the whole truth.
No, it is applying reality based upon what I have personally experienced.

You don't know for sure what you are arguing against and certainly what you are arguing for, but mass opinion gives you a false sense of belief's by mass ongoing peer pressure.
I have a pretty good idea of what I am arguing against. I have raised numerous objections which you are yet to adequately address.

I don't give a damn what people's opinions are. I care about reality, what the evidence supports.
It doesn't support your nonsense.
Then just go about your business and carry on accepting everything that suits you.
You have no need to converse with me on any of this to be fair. It's a pointless exercise unless your goal is to merely carry on just telling me I'm wrong for the sake of it.
If that's the case then you carry on quoting me for a 3 foot long post and I'll pick out any bits I feel is worth replying to, or not.

The more explaining I get pushed into doing, the more it gives other people a chance to maybe grasp what I'm saying, so in a way some of your continuous attempts to not grasp stuff which keeps making you ask again and again, only for me to keep on making analogies and such, actually can help the situation at times, so carry on.

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #127 on: November 06, 2017, 01:04:21 AM »
Sure, but I would prefer something backed up by expermental evidence and not dragged up simply from someone's imagination.
The imaginations of mainstream so called scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity and such is what requires sifting through when it can be seen to be the nonsense it becomes after mildly thinking on it.
If more people questioned it they would start to see the duping.
As I said, "I would prefer something backed up by expermental evidence and not dragged up simply from someone's imagination."

Show us the evidence! It takes more than "common sense" to find out how things work in the real world.

That video had nothing to do with "scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity", but showing simple circumstantial evidence that molecules and atoms really exist.

So, try again!

<< rather serious omission corrected, "nothing to do with" added >>
« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 02:08:42 AM by rabinoz »

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #128 on: November 06, 2017, 01:45:53 AM »
Then just go about your business and carry on accepting everything that suits you.
No. I will keep on calling out BS when I see it, rather than just accepting it.

It's a pointless exercise unless your goal is to merely carry on just telling me I'm wrong for the sake of it.
Only if you are wrong and unwilling to admit it.
If you are correct and can justify your claims, i will accept them.

your continuous attempts to not grasp stuff
Again, I do grasp things. It think about them. I realise there is a problem.

For example, can you explain a mercury barometer? It makes no sense in your model.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #129 on: November 06, 2017, 01:55:15 AM »
Sure, but I would prefer something backed up by expermental evidence and not dragged up simply from someone's imagination.
The imaginations of mainstream so called scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity and such is what requires sifting through when it can be seen to be the nonsense it becomes after mildly thinking on it.
If more people questioned it they would start to see the duping.
As I said, "I would prefer something backed up by expermental evidence and not dragged up simply from someone's imagination."

Show us the evidence! It takes more than "common sense" to find out how things work in the real world.

That video had "scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity", but showing simple circumstantial evidence that molecules and atoms really exist.

So, try again!
If it helped them explain the nonsense of gravity then it's been worthwhile.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #130 on: November 06, 2017, 01:56:50 AM »


For example, can you explain a mercury barometer? It makes no sense in your model.
Why doesn't it make sense in my model?

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #131 on: November 06, 2017, 02:06:09 AM »
Why doesn't it make sense in my model?
I already explained that above.

The height of the barometer is a result of the balance between pressure and weight.
If denspressure was correct and weight was based upon atmospheric pressure, then the mercury barometer will always read the same.
Instead, you have the weight remain the same while the pressure is reduced or increased resulting in a different height of the column.

The other issue is that your model requires all materials to be porous to allow air to magically penetrate them, preventing a vacuum from existing at the top of the barometer.

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #132 on: November 06, 2017, 02:19:18 AM »
Sure, but I would prefer something backed up by expermental evidence and not dragged up simply from someone's imagination.
The imaginations of mainstream so called scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity and such is what requires sifting through when it can be seen to be the nonsense it becomes after mildly thinking on it.
If more people questioned it they would start to see the duping.
As I said, "I would prefer something backed up by expermental evidence and not dragged up simply from someone's imagination."

Show us the evidence! It takes more than "common sense" to find out how things work in the real world.

That video had "scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity", but showing simple circumstantial evidence that molecules and atoms really exist.
That video had nothing to do with "scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity", but showing simple circumstantial evidence that molecules and atoms really exist.

So, try again!
If it helped them explain the nonsense of gravity then it's been worthwhile.
So sorry, my mistake,  my post had a rather serious omission.

But, obviously you did not watch the video, so why comment on it, with something as irrelevant as,
"The imaginations of mainstream so called scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity"?
You do seem to have an unhealthy obsession with gravitation.

By the way, whether you like it or not, the fact of gravitation is very well proven.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #133 on: November 06, 2017, 02:37:52 AM »
Why doesn't it make sense in my model?
I already explained that above.

The height of the barometer is a result of the balance between pressure and weight.
If denspressure was correct and weight was based upon atmospheric pressure, then the mercury barometer will always read the same.
It will only read the same if the same pressure is applied to the mercury but we know that pressure fluctuates  and is why a barometer works in the first place.
So tell me again how denpressure fails?
The barometer proves it rather than fails it.

Instead, you have the weight remain the same while the pressure is reduced or increased resulting in a different height of the column.
What weight?
There is no weight, it's just pressure upon density or density pushing into pressure, whatever way you want to look at it.
The fact that the mercury is pushing against that pressure stack is the reason why it registers on the barometer scale.
Try it with a home made one with a glass and piece of thin rubber over it and a straw taped to the middle of the rubber cover, then watch the straw go up and down depending on the change in pressure.

The other issue is that your model requires all materials to be porous to allow air to magically penetrate them, preventing a vacuum from existing at the top of the barometer.
No, not at all. Some already have atmosphere trapped inside of them so do not require penetration of the less dense external atmosphere. They are just less dense than other objects that hold less internal atmosphere than them.
Pretty simple stuff to think about, just not as simple sometimes to actually visualise in the mind or physically showing it due to our inability to go to severe magnifications.


Don't just think of a molecules or an atom and think that's it.

Just picture this.
From your naked visual a silver painted football will look exactly the same as a silver painted iron ball of the same dimensions.
On closer inspection you find that this is not the case and that one is much lighter than the other.
You attribute this to the football being filled with air and that's it for now.

However, if that ball was aluminium against the iron ball and you pick it up, you then start to wonder about the structure.
This is when your visual becomes impaired and you have to look deeper.


Imagine if you could be shrunk to a size 1000,000 times smaller than a speck of an iron filing.
I wonder what structure we would be standing in?
the key word would be standing , because that means we are taking up space or the atmosphere withing that structure.

That atmosphere would be regarded as super minute than the atmosphere at a dense sea level normality that we are in right now, which means that atmosphere would not allow the sea level atmosphere into it and would repel it by sheer mass of tiny compact size against what could be thought of as hugely expanded sea level atmosphere that in normal senses would be noted as dense to us.

However, this still means that this tiny speck of an iron filing still holds its own atmosphere or super tiny molecule like space.

Now imagine the same scenario but walking into a speck of gold similar to the iron filing speck.
instead of walking into the huge opening, it would be like walking into a small cittage. There would still be space but much less of it and more of a structure, meaning more overall repelling of all atmospheric pressures all around and upon it which is still displaces alternate to what it holds as part of it's strength.

You see, it's not just about air swishing hair ruffling atmosphere that is the entirety of it all. It's just much easier to grasp it from a certain point without going into the realms of the true unknown..

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #134 on: November 06, 2017, 02:46:36 AM »
Sure, but I would prefer something backed up by expermental evidence and not dragged up simply from someone's imagination.
The imaginations of mainstream so called scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity and such is what requires sifting through when it can be seen to be the nonsense it becomes after mildly thinking on it.
If more people questioned it they would start to see the duping.
As I said, "I would prefer something backed up by expermental evidence and not dragged up simply from someone's imagination."

Show us the evidence! It takes more than "common sense" to find out how things work in the real world.

That video had "scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity", but showing simple circumstantial evidence that molecules and atoms really exist.
That video had nothing to do with "scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity", but showing simple circumstantial evidence that molecules and atoms really exist.

So, try again!
If it helped them explain the nonsense of gravity then it's been worthwhile.
So sorry, my mistake,  my post had a rather serious omission.

But, obviously you did not watch the video, so why comment on it, with something as irrelevant as,
"The imaginations of mainstream so called scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity"?
You do seem to have an unhealthy obsession with gravitation.

By the way, whether you like it or not, the fact of gravitation is very well proven.
I watched the entire video and really did think it was interesting. I also think it explains my thoughts as well in certain aspects and with a bit more added to it could explain denpressure quite sufficiently.

We are all working with circumstantial evidence and no matter how it's portrayed, it doesn't make anything a truth, because we are just too big to know the entire truth of atoms and such but we do know there's something along those kind of lines.
It's just a case of how they're interpreted and set out for others to follow.

Gravity in how we are told about it is clearly absolute nonsense and no video showing balls attached to sticks is going to alter that.
Gravity has a reliance on being an invisible and unknowable force that we just have to accept as being a mass supposedly pulling mass, even from so called space which is supposedly empty and yet can produce all kinds of weird and wonderful happenings, apparently.

So as much as you like to tell me I'm barking up the wrong tree or ridiculing my theories or musings, you need to have a serious think about the clear and utter nonsense that you adhere to by following stuff that you really have no clue about other than to be told that it is what it is and it's official, so there.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #135 on: November 06, 2017, 06:16:04 AM »
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.
The imaginations of mainstream so called scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity and such is what requires sifting through when it can be seen to be the nonsense it becomes after mildly thinking on it.
If more people questioned it they would start to see the duping.

I ask you a question about your idea and you simply ignored that and not even try to explain it.

scientist have for almost all your questions an answer, you may not like it but there is a logical explanation that fits with the reality. they even can show experiments that supports their explanations.
you on the other hand only present claims and some of these claims you explain but you are not able to show us one little experiment that supports your claims.

you say people should question science, you are right with that, but they also should question your ideas.
and as they can expect evidence from science for their explanations, they also can expect evidence for your explanations, equal for both.

now I demand and explanation and evidence for your explanation: why does the atmosphere in a car sloshes?



Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #136 on: November 06, 2017, 06:49:00 AM »
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.
The imaginations of mainstream so called scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity and such is what requires sifting through when it can be seen to be the nonsense it becomes after mildly thinking on it.
If more people questioned it they would start to see the duping.

I ask you a question about your idea and you simply ignored that and not even try to explain it.

scientist have for almost all your questions an answer, you may not like it but there is a logical explanation that fits with the reality. they even can show experiments that supports their explanations.
you on the other hand only present claims and some of these claims you explain but you are not able to show us one little experiment that supports your claims.

you say people should question science, you are right with that, but they also should question your ideas.
and as they can expect evidence from science for their explanations, they also can expect evidence for your explanations, equal for both.

now I demand and explanation and evidence for your explanation: why does the atmosphere in a car sloshes?
compressive force of atmosphere due to applied energy and then quick release of that energy that creates a rebound back towards the front until equalisation.

If you want a quick visual analogy just think about water sloshing in a tank with you immersed in it and assuming that the water could compress. I have a massive feeling this will go right over your head and you'll come back with " water doesn't compress so your analogy fails" and what not.
Do it and you can eff off.

so you say that water act like gas as it sloshes in its containment.
than I say that solid bodies also "slosh" like water and gas do in a containment.
so the body get "slosh" in the car the same way as the atmosphere does.
so the body moves forward because of that sloshing, or we could call it inertia

you explanation does not support you denpressure is even more disprove it.


Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #137 on: November 06, 2017, 07:36:42 AM »

so you say that water act like gas as it sloshes in its containment.
than I say that solid bodies also "slosh" like water and gas do in a containment.
so the body get "slosh" in the car the same way as the atmosphere does.
so the body moves forward because of that sloshing, or we could call it inertia

you explanation does not support you denpressure is even more disprove it.
Ok no problem. You carry on.

thanks for confirming my conclusion that you explanation does not support your claim and is therefore useless for your claims.


Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #138 on: November 06, 2017, 12:50:04 PM »
It will only read the same if the same pressure is applied to the mercury but we know that pressure fluctuates  and is why a barometer works in the first place.
So tell me again how denpressure fails?
The barometer proves it rather than fails it.
What weight?
There is no weight, it's just pressure upon density or density pushing into pressure, whatever way you want to look at it.
See, this is why it disproves it.
You say there is no weight, that it is just pressure upon density or some nonsense like that.
That means the apparent weight of the mercury will depend upon the pressure.
The means mercury will weigh less at a lower pressure.

That means you will need less pressure to make it rise the same.

Mercury barometers rely upon the fact that weight is independent of pressure.

It functions by a column of mercury being supported by the ambient pressure.
The column of mercury, with a cross sectional area A and height h, density p, in the presence of gravitational acceleration g has a weight of:
F=A*h*p*g
This exerts a pressure on the cross sectional area A of:
P=F/A=h*p*g.
This is balanced by the atmospheric pressure.

Thus h=P / p g

But with denspressure you don't have gravity.
Instead you have pressure and some funciton of pressure.
The simplest is pressure and some constant of proportionality like so:
W=A*h*p*k*P, where k=9.8 m/s^2 atm.
This k P will take the place of g.

So when you try and figure out the height you end up with this:
h=P/ (p * k * P)
=1/(p*k)

As such, the height of the mercury barometer will remain constant.

So a mercury barometer disproves denspressure.


No, not at all. Some already have atmosphere trapped inside of them so do not require penetration of the less dense external atmosphere. They are just less dense than other objects that hold less internal atmosphere than them.
No, they need to have penetration of a more dense atmosphere, or allow the atmosphere inside to be removed such that they can equilibrate.

Otherwise, for example, if you took a steel ball made with one particular pressure, and compared it to one of the same volume made with another particular pressure they would weigh different amounts due to different amounts of atmosphere trapped inside.


Pretty simple stuff to think about, just not as simple sometimes to actually visualise in the mind or physically showing it due to our inability to go to severe magnifications.
We are capable of resolving individual atoms. So no, it isn't our inability to go to severe magnifications.
We can also solve crystal structures to see what atoms are inside an object. No air is trapped.

Don't just think of a molecules or an atom and think that's it.
I don't. I do look deeper and understand.

Imagine if you could be shrunk to a size 1000,000 times smaller than a speck of an iron filing.
Do you mean 0.0000001 times the size of0.1 mm?
So what, down to 0.1 nm?
If so, that would be impossible as you would be less than an atom, so it would no longer be you.

the key word would be standing , because that means we are taking up space or the atmosphere withing that structure.
Nope. Space becomes more complex at that level.
An electron, even though it is a point particle, takes up a large volume of space. It excludes other electrons from being in the same energy level as it. This forces the atoms apart effectively making them large spheres
The atmosphere, made up of elements and atoms with electrons cannot penetrate this.
Some things can, like neutrons, which either fly straight through or are absorbed by the nuclei and result in the atom changing.

Now imagine the same scenario but walking into a speck of gold similar to the iron filing speck.
instead of walking into the huge opening, it would be like walking into a small cittage. There would still be space but much less of it and more of a structure
Yes, iron, at least at equilibrium at room temperature is a BCC structure, not an FCC structure like gold.
This means the gold is more densely packed.
But don't worry, this is just a special case. There are plenty of other FCC structures you can compare with. These all have the same packing fraction.
That is, they all have the same ratio of "structure" and "void".
As such, the atmosphere, even if it did magically get inside (which it cant, the voids are not large enough), it would occupy the same fraction of space.
You have aluminium, copper, nickel, calcium, silver, iridium, lead, palladium, platinum and gold to name a few.

There are also plenty of BCC structures to compare with, including iron lithium, sodium, potassium, molybdenum chromium and manganese.

They all have different densities, that is, the same apparent volume has a different apparent weight. So that is clearly not the reason.

You see, it's not just about air swishing hair ruffling atmosphere that is the entirety of it all. It's just much easier to grasp it from a certain point without going into the realms of the true unknown..
But you aren't going into the realms of the true unknown. You are going into the realms of the well known and established and just pretending we have no idea.

Gravity in how we are told about it is clearly absolute nonsense
You continually assert this but you are yet to explain any reason why.

Gravity has a reliance on being an invisible and unknowable force that we just have to accept as being a mass supposedly pulling mass, even from so called space which is supposedly empty and yet can produce all kinds of weird and wonderful happenings, apparently.
Yes, like the other fundamental forces, like electromagnetism, which relies upon an invisible and unknowable force that we just have to accept as charge/magnetic dipoles pulling/pushing other charges/magnetic dipoles, even from empty space.

Gravity is not special in this regard.
On the simple level, it has been shown experimentally to be a force that is proportional to the product of 2 masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them squared.
It doesn't matter if we are capable of explaining it or not, that is what experiments show.
Just like electrostatics has been shown experimentally to be a force that is proportional to the product of 2 charges and inversely proportional to the distance between them squared.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #139 on: November 06, 2017, 12:57:15 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.
The imaginations of mainstream so called scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity and such is what requires sifting through when it can be seen to be the nonsense it becomes after mildly thinking on it.
If more people questioned it they would start to see the duping.

Scepti,
It is not my imagination that I have performed many tests myself. It is not my imagination that I have verified my calculations in test results. It is not my imagination that my calculation are sometimes proven wrong a test (and it's usually because I screwed up the calculation) Physical science is the same for everyone. If I tell you a truth or a lie, you can go and test it yourself to see if it's true. I'm telling you as 100% fact, that your denpressure idea is of no use to me in predicting test results with calculations, and that it cannot be used to accurately predict the same things I have calculated and tested myself. The rightness or wrongness of my calculations is defined by their ability to predict test results. Myself and others (some on this forum) use these calculations to enhance everyone's life, so if you don't trust us: don't use electricity, don't use a car, don't cook your food, don't build a hous, etc

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #140 on: November 07, 2017, 02:02:36 AM »
It will only read the same if the same pressure is applied to the mercury but we know that pressure fluctuates  and is why a barometer works in the first place.
So tell me again how denpressure fails?
The barometer proves it rather than fails it.
What weight?
There is no weight, it's just pressure upon density or density pushing into pressure, whatever way you want to look at it.
See, this is why it disproves it.
You say there is no weight, that it is just pressure upon density or some nonsense like that.
That means the apparent weight of the mercury will depend upon the pressure.
The means mercury will weigh less at a lower pressure.
We aren't measuring weight, we are measuring mercury resisting atmospheric pressure.

Ie we were measuring weight we would be placing the mercury on a scale plate for measurement as a weight reading.
Mercury may appear to show a lower reading depending on a change in pressure but the scales will also be subject to change as well.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #141 on: November 07, 2017, 02:19:42 AM »
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.
The imaginations of mainstream so called scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity and such is what requires sifting through when it can be seen to be the nonsense it becomes after mildly thinking on it.
If more people questioned it they would start to see the duping.

Scepti,
It is not my imagination that I have performed many tests myself. It is not my imagination that I have verified my calculations in test results. It is not my imagination that my calculation are sometimes proven wrong a test (and it's usually because I screwed up the calculation) Physical science is the same for everyone. If I tell you a truth or a lie, you can go and test it yourself to see if it's true. I'm telling you as 100% fact, that your denpressure idea is of no use to me in predicting test results with calculations, and that it cannot be used to accurately predict the same things I have calculated and tested myself. The rightness or wrongness of my calculations is defined by their ability to predict test results. Myself and others (some on this forum) use these calculations to enhance everyone's life, so if you don't trust us: don't use electricity, don't use a car, don't cook your food, don't build a hous, etc
I trust a lot of stuff in science and scientists as a rule, or engineers or builders and so on.
I'm an innovator myself and I know my stuff has to bes tested and passed.

This has nothing to do with arguing against the nonsense we get told to accept.
My arguments are perfectly fine for use in reality but people like you believe gravity is your key.
I disagree with how it's used and I've told you why.
Whether you dismiss it, it matters not to me.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #142 on: November 07, 2017, 03:00:54 AM »
It will only read the same if the same pressure is applied to the mercury but we know that pressure fluctuates  and is why a barometer works in the first place.
So tell me again how denpressure fails?
The barometer proves it rather than fails it.
What weight?
There is no weight, it's just pressure upon density or density pushing into pressure, whatever way you want to look at it.
See, this is why it disproves it.
You say there is no weight, that it is just pressure upon density or some nonsense like that.
That means the apparent weight of the mercury will depend upon the pressure.
The means mercury will weigh less at a lower pressure.
We aren't measuring weight, we are measuring mercury resisting atmospheric pressure.
That's right (and is effectively how you are defining weight), so unless the mercury magically changes, the height should remain the same.

My arguments are perfectly fine for use in reality
No they aren't. I have explained how it doesn't work repeatedly.

I disagree with how it's used and I've told you why.
But you haven't told us the real reason why.
You disagree with how it's used because it shows it doesn't work.
You have been unable to show a problem with how we have applied it.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #143 on: November 07, 2017, 03:55:48 AM »

We aren't measuring weight, we are measuring mercury resisting atmospheric pressure.
That's right (and is effectively how you are defining weight), so unless the mercury magically changes, the height should remain the same.

Yes I'm defining weight if a man made scale is used that reads it.
However, we are talking about a barometer that uses the same method but shows a measurement for atmospheric change rather than just simple immediate weight measurement.
Why can't you see that?

The mercury does change. It changes by being pushed down by it's own resistant density which pushes up a small tube or whatever is designed in this specific case.
Why you can't get your head around this, is baffling.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #144 on: November 07, 2017, 11:27:02 AM »
However, we are talking about a barometer that uses the same method but shows a measurement for atmospheric change rather than just simple immediate weight measurement.
Why can't you see that?
Because I understand how a barometer works. I understand the balance of forces involved.
In your model, it makes no sense why it should change.

The mercury does change. It changes by being pushed down by it's own resistant density which pushes up a small tube or whatever is designed in this specific case.
Why you can't get your head around this, is baffling.
It is the same mercury. It does not change.
All that changes is how much atmosphere is pressing against it, which according to your model would change how much it is pushing back.
It should produce the same net result, i.e. the height should remain the same.

The reason I "can't get my head around this" is because I CAN!! I understand it quite well and realise that a mercury barometer makes no sense in your model.


If you wish to disagree, the easiest way to show this is to provide a formula which allows you to determine what height the column would be for a given pressure or use a given height to calculate the pressure, explaining each term in the equation.
I have already done this for the current understanding of reality, which works.
I also provided one based upon your model, were the apparent weight is based upon pressure, which shows that the height remains constant.

So the real question is why you can't get your head around this.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #145 on: November 07, 2017, 12:56:28 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.
The imaginations of mainstream so called scientists explaining the nonsense of gravity and such is what requires sifting through when it can be seen to be the nonsense it becomes after mildly thinking on it.
If more people questioned it they would start to see the duping.

Scepti,
It is not my imagination that I have performed many tests myself. It is not my imagination that I have verified my calculations in test results. It is not my imagination that my calculation are sometimes proven wrong a test (and it's usually because I screwed up the calculation) Physical science is the same for everyone. If I tell you a truth or a lie, you can go and test it yourself to see if it's true. I'm telling you as 100% fact, that your denpressure idea is of no use to me in predicting test results with calculations, and that it cannot be used to accurately predict the same things I have calculated and tested myself. The rightness or wrongness of my calculations is defined by their ability to predict test results. Myself and others (some on this forum) use these calculations to enhance everyone's life, so if you don't trust us: don't use electricity, don't use a car, don't cook your food, don't build a hous, etc
I trust a lot of stuff in science and scientists as a rule, or engineers or builders and so on.
I'm an innovator myself and I know my stuff has to bes tested and passed.

This has nothing to do with arguing against the nonsense we get told to accept.
My arguments are perfectly fine for use in reality but people like you believe gravity is your key.
I disagree with how it's used and I've told you why.
Whether you dismiss it, it matters not to me.

It has everything to do with your argument. If scientists, engineers, and builders used formulas that are based on your model, a lot of things wouldn't function.

Your car wouldn't run.
You wouldn't have reliable electricity, if any.
Bridges would fall down, or never be built successfully.
You could only cook food you grew/found yourself over an open fire.
Buildings would crumble.
You'd have to weave your own clothes by hand.

All of these things would happen if they switched to your model. You'd be back in the stone age.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #146 on: November 08, 2017, 12:18:54 AM »
However, we are talking about a barometer that uses the same method but shows a measurement for atmospheric change rather than just simple immediate weight measurement.
Why can't you see that?
Because I understand how a barometer works. I understand the balance of forces involved.
In your model, it makes no sense why it should change.

The mercury does change. It changes by being pushed down by it's own resistant density which pushes up a small tube or whatever is designed in this specific case.
Why you can't get your head around this, is baffling.
It is the same mercury. It does not change.
All that changes is how much atmosphere is pressing against it, which according to your model would change how much it is pushing back.
It should produce the same net result, i.e. the height should remain the same.

The reason I "can't get my head around this" is because I CAN!! I understand it quite well and realise that a mercury barometer makes no sense in your model.


If you wish to disagree, the easiest way to show this is to provide a formula which allows you to determine what height the column would be for a given pressure or use a given height to calculate the pressure, explaining each term in the equation.
I have already done this for the current understanding of reality, which works.
I also provided one based upon your model, were the apparent weight is based upon pressure, which shows that the height remains constant.

So the real question is why you can't get your head around this.
I don't understand why you can't get your head around what's been said.
I've just explained bout the pressures and you do not have the ability to see it and how it works in different scenarios.

Have a try instead of going into denial.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #147 on: November 08, 2017, 12:21:50 AM »
It has everything to do with your argument. If scientists, engineers, and builders used formulas that are based on your model, a lot of things wouldn't function.


Your car wouldn't run.
You wouldn't have reliable electricity, if any.
Bridges would fall down, or never be built successfully.
You could only cook food you grew/found yourself over an open fire.
Buildings would crumble.
You'd have to weave your own clothes by hand.

All of these things would happen if they switched to your model. You'd be back in the stone age.
Explain to me why they wouldn't work under my denpressure.
Let's hope you understand denpressure for you to say it.

Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #148 on: November 08, 2017, 12:22:54 AM »
It will only read the same if the same pressure is applied to the mercury but we know that pressure fluctuates  and is why a barometer works in the first place.
So tell me again how denpressure fails?
The barometer proves it rather than fails it.
What weight?
There is no weight, it's just pressure upon density or density pushing into pressure, whatever way you want to look at it.
See, this is why it disproves it.
You say there is no weight, that it is just pressure upon density or some nonsense like that.
That means the apparent weight of the mercury will depend upon the pressure.
The means mercury will weigh less at a lower pressure.
We aren't measuring weight, we are measuring mercury resisting atmospheric pressure.

Ie we were measuring weight we would be placing the mercury on a scale plate for measurement as a weight reading.
Mercury may appear to show a lower reading depending on a change in pressure but the scales will also be subject to change as well.
'resisting atmospheric pressure' makes no sense.

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #149 on: November 08, 2017, 12:43:35 AM »
For those having trouble understanding Sceppy Dynamics these definitions might help in the translation.
He has added his definitions in bold to the words I listed:
You claim "I understand what they mean."
OK, please define:

"mass",.....The amount of material that makes up an object.
"weight",....The amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure.
"volume",...The amount of porosity in any object.
"density"....The structure of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure to create a scale reading. (Denpressure)
"speed",....The ability to go a distance in a certain time in any direction.
"velocity",..... The speed of something in one direction, only.
"acceleration",.....The continuous build up of movement.
 "force",..... Any energy push in any direction
"inertia",..... Something that cannot be explained as anything, to be fair.
"pressure",.....I think pressure can be lumped in with force. there's actually no difference to what they both mean in the grand scheme of things.
"pressure gradient",........ The difference in energy force that goes from low to high or high to low.
"power",....  Energy push.
"energy"......Vibration and friction, which basically are the same thing.

There you go. I took the time out to answer them in my own words. Sit and argue them all you want by looking in your, all knowing no wrong science book of mainstream answers to any questions that you follow without question.
Hope it helps.