Denspressure vs Reality

Also, in Denspressure, unless I am being ignorant of how the balls of matter press into each other under applied energy compares to measured air pressure in a Barometer, shouldn't there be a fluctuation in weight slightly with changes in air pressure? My barometer changes throughout time by conditions, pressure isn't constant, and if it is pressing you into the ground by displacing the pressurized air, then it makes logical sense that weight will change. Also, in a pressurized cabin in a plane, wouldn't the ratios of mass to weight be different for the plane since it is in lower pressure and the people and objects in the plane under higher pressure? But then, under a pressurized local system, air would settle and so people would be weightless in the cabin. Unless you claim somehow the pressure penetrates through all matter.

But of course, this goes back to the weight in a vacuum that I have yet to hear a response to from Sceptimatic.

Let’s use a skateboarders ramp as a better example.

Kid jumps on his skateboard and drops down one side of the ramp and is able to go up the other side. He gathers momentum on the way down and his momentum is able to carry up the other side.

Inertia.

Acceleration, which is not what I'm arguing with I'm arguing against it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 20, 2017, 10:28:33 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on November 20, 2017, 11:59:20 AM

And your speed.  If you are in a car or truck on a very steep hill letting off the gas you will slow to a stop not instantly stop.  I've done it and it isn't a question of perception.
Try it and try adding your body weight in weights to your body and tell me you don't feel a difference.

Letting of the gas is not what I'm arguing, is it?

How come after all I've said do you come to this?

If you mean letting off the gas as meaning an immediate engine stop then I apologise, because letting of the gas implies that you're meaning reducing the pressure on the gas pedal.

Let's assume you mean a stop dead engine.
If that's the case on a really steep hill at constant speed until cut off, then your car stops dead before rolling back down the hill.

The only time it will carry on forward is if the hill is not as steep.

And this is demonstrably not true. Again get on a bicycle and ride up the steepest hill you can. You are standing on the pedals in order to ride up the hill. Stop pedaling and you do not immediately stop and roll backwards, or since you are on a bicycle, fall over. You coast up the hill for some short amount of time slowing down until you stop.

You don't coast up any hill unless it's a very small gradient.

If you go at a constant speed up a very steep gradient, then you will not advance any further up it if you immediately cut the power. You will stop dead and then fall back.

If you're accelerating up a steep gradient, then yes, you will advance for a little bit after immediate cut of power.

Acceleration, which is not what I'm arguing with I'm arguing against it.

But they slow down as they go up, so it clearly isn't acceleration.
Or to you have a magic BS definition for that as well?

You don't coast up any hill unless it's a very small gradient.

No, you coast up every hill I have ever seen, even if it is straight up.
Sure, you typically stop after a bit and then roll back down (but not always), but you still coast for a bit.

If you go at a constant speed up a very steep gradient, then you will not advance any further up it if you immediately cut the power. You will stop dead and then fall back.

BULLSHIT!!!
You will keep moving forward, at least for a bit.

If you're accelerating up a steep gradient, then yes, you will advance for a little bit after immediate cut of power.

Again, WHY???
Why should it matter if you are going at constant speed or accelerating?

And thanks for proving, yet again, that you are a blatant liar that has no interest on honest debate, even if people do meet your demands of one issue at a time.

Also, in Denspressure, unless I am being ignorant of how the balls of matter press into each other under applied energy compares to measured air pressure in a Barometer, shouldn't there be a fluctuation in weight slightly with changes in air pressure? My barometer changes throughout time by conditions, pressure isn't constant, and if it is pressing you into the ground by displacing the pressurized air, then it makes logical sense that weight will change. Also, in a pressurized cabin in a plane, wouldn't the ratios of mass to weight be different for the plane since it is in lower pressure and the people and objects in the plane under higher pressure? But then, under a pressurized local system, air would settle and so people would be weightless in the cabin. Unless you claim somehow the pressure penetrates through all matter.

But of course, this goes back to the weight in a vacuum that I have yet to hear a response to from Sceptimatic.

I'm debating whether I should just go right back to square one or not so you get a real grasp but I get this horrible feeling that the same thing will happen and you people will not bother to grasp it.
However I will try and explain and see where you go from here.

Ok let's take the basic barometer with the dish and mercury up the tube stance.

Ok, as you know Mercury is used because it's a very dense liquid metal and it is very good at displacing atmosphere.
This is crucial to grasp under denpressure.

We absolutely know we cannot get a complete vacuum, regardless of people arguing that we can....on Earth.

Ok, so when the tube is filled with mercury and tipped upside down to sit in the mercury filled dish, we can see that there is a void in the tube after the mercury drops, right?
We know this void is not a true vacuum, ok?


Ok, so now we have to figure out what's happening from this point on and this is where your air pressure changes come into play.

The mercury dish is displacing its own dense mass of atmosphere and that atmosphere is resisting that displacement by squeezing back or crushing back or resisting the push in to that atmosphere. Whichever way you want to look at it.

If that atmospheric pressure changes slightly be expansion or contraction of matter/molecules, then that dense Mercury will have to resist the extra pressure or it will have pressure released from what it was resisting.
This dictates whether that line of Mercury inside that tube gets pushed up or squeezed up, or whether it gets pushed back down by the release of the pressure on the dish which also allows the expansion of the small amount of atmosphere trapped inside the tube which is still under compression but can only compress back against whatever is released under it in an equal reaction  to action.

That's the basics and if you want to ask more questions on this alone so we get somewhere then fair enough but let's not sidetrack from it and get muddled up.

Am I being fair here?

Quote from: Mainframes on November 21, 2017, 10:12:32 AM

Let’s use a skateboarders ramp as a better example.

Kid jumps on his skateboard and drops down one side of the ramp and is able to go up the other side. He gathers momentum on the way down and his momentum is able to carry up the other side.

Inertia.

Acceleration, which is not what I'm arguing with I'm arguing against it.

He accelerates down the ramp but is not accelerating as soon as he is at the bottom of the ramp. It is his inertia that carries him back up the other side of the ramp, which gets to near vertical at the top.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 21, 2017, 11:03:33 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on November 21, 2017, 10:12:32 AM

Let’s use a skateboarders ramp as a better example.

Kid jumps on his skateboard and drops down one side of the ramp and is able to go up the other side. He gathers momentum on the way down and his momentum is able to carry up the other side.

Inertia.

Acceleration, which is not what I'm arguing with I'm arguing against it.

He accelerates down the ramp but is not accelerating as soon as he is at the bottom of the ramp. It is his inertia that carries him back up the other side of the ramp, which gets to near vertical at the top.

For every action there is and equal and opposite reaction. It works for my theory as well you know.

You want to call it inertia without any real reason for it.

The skateboarder accelerates down the ramp and then hits a spot where acceleration ceases and then becomes deceleration to match the effort of the mass displacing the atmosphere downwards.

This is not what I'm talking about.
I repeat, this is not what I'm talking about.

How come you can't grasp that I'm talking about holding a constant velocity under POWER/ENERGY.

I'm debating whether I should just go right back to square one or not so you get a real grasp but I get this horrible feeling that the same thing will happen and you people will not bother to grasp it.

I do bother to grasp it, I just won't necessarily accept your explanations as adequate or accept a contradiction of your previous statement or ideas.

We absolutely know we cannot get a complete vacuum, regardless of people arguing that we can....on Earth.

We can decrease pressure in a space by a high amount though, enough to be able to realize some predictions of Denspressure.

The mercury dish is displacing its own dense mass of atmosphere and that atmosphere is resisting that displacement by squeezing back or crushing back or resisting the push in to that atmosphere. Whichever way you want to look at it.

You mean it's inertia against the push of the pressure stack? Resisting the pressure of the atmolayer?

If that atmospheric pressure changes slightly be expansion or contraction of matter/molecules, then that dense Mercury will have to resist the extra pressure or it will have pressure released from what it was resisting.

Why? If it has the same density, wouldn't that not matter?

This dictates whether that line of Mercury inside that tube gets pushed up or squeezed up, or whether it gets pushed back down by the release of the pressure on the dish which also allows the expansion of the small amount of atmosphere trapped inside the tube which is still under compression but can only compress back against whatever is released under it in an equal reaction  to action.

So, how does the expansion of the atmosphere inside the tube affect the height of the mercury?
I get mixed up on the order of it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 21, 2017, 11:27:47 PM

I'm debating whether I should just go right back to square one or not so you get a real grasp but I get this horrible feeling that the same thing will happen and you people will not bother to grasp it.

I do bother to grasp it, I just won't necessarily accept your explanations as adequate or accept a contradiction of your previous statement or ideas.

I'm not expecting anyone to accept the theory. I just try to get people to understand it from my side, in its basic form without the need for needless equations to give people the gist.
Deny it as much as you want to but understand what you are denying.
I mean, I'm quite sure people who are severely global indoctrinated won't change their minds on the mainstream storylines in favour of my thoughts when they've got everything on a plate for them regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

Quote

We absolutely know we cannot get a complete vacuum, regardless of people arguing that we can....on Earth.

We can decrease pressure in a space by a high amount though, enough to be able to realize some predictions of Denspressure.

Decrease pressure is exactly that and decreasing pressure will still leave pressure which is absolute key to everything working as it does in any way shape of form.

Quote

The mercury dish is displacing its own dense mass of atmosphere and that atmosphere is resisting that displacement by squeezing back or crushing back or resisting the push in to that atmosphere. Whichever way you want to look at it.

You mean it's inertia against the push of the pressure stack? Resisting the pressure of the atmolayer?

No I don't mean inertia so don't use it unless you want to deliberately set yourself back.
Inertia means nothing. It is a nothing. It explains nothing, so let's leave it out.

Quote

If that atmospheric pressure changes slightly be expansion or contraction of matter/molecules, then that dense Mercury will have to resist the extra pressure or it will have pressure released from what it was resisting.

Why? If it has the same density, wouldn't that not matter?

Of course it matters, that's what makes barometers work.

Quote

This dictates whether that line of Mercury inside that tube gets pushed up or squeezed up, or whether it gets pushed back down by the release of the pressure on the dish which also allows the expansion of the small amount of atmosphere trapped inside the tube which is still under compression but can only compress back against whatever is released under it in an equal reaction  to action.

So, how does the expansion of the atmosphere inside the tube affect the height of the mercury?
I get mixed up on the order of it.

It's the mercury in the dish and the lower atmospheric pressure the mercury in the dish is pushing against which allows the lower pressure atmosphere inside the tube to expand more back against the mercury up that tube.

I'm debating whether I should just go right back to square one

You should. Do it one point at a time, making sure each point is clear and doesn't contradict prior points.

Ok let's take the basic barometer with the dish and mercury up the tube stance.

Oh goody. Lets see if you can provide a rational explanation this time...

Ok, as you know Mercury is used because it's a very dense liquid metal and it is very good at displacing atmosphere.

Displacing atmosphere has nothing to do with it. It is used because it is dense.
Under denspressure that should be irrelavent.

We absolutely know we cannot get a complete vacuum, regardless of people arguing that we can....on Earth.

Who is arguing we can?
We can't get a perfect vacuum, but we can get pretty darn close.

Ok, so when the tube is filled with mercury and tipped upside down to sit in the mercury filled dish, we can see that there is a void in the tube after the mercury drops, right?
We know this void is not a true vacuum, ok?

No, it isn't, but it is pretty darn close.
We know this because the tube was filled with mercury before being inverted. No air could go into the void, so that void is basically empty.

Ok, so now we have to figure out what's happening from this point on and this is where your air pressure changes come into play.

No, not just from this point on, also from before.
We need to understand what is changing between the tube being upright and the tube being inverted. If pressure was all there was to it the tube would remain the same.
Remember your water glass example, where the atmospheric pressure causes the water to remain in the glass?
The same thing should be happening here, with the atmospheric pressure forcing the mercury all the way up to the top of the glass.
If there was enough air pressure at the top, that would have been there before the tube was inverted and thus the mercury should be pushed out of the tube right from the start.

The mercury dish is displacing its own dense mass of atmosphere and that atmosphere is resisting that displacement by squeezing back or crushing back or resisting the push in to that atmosphere. Whichever way you want to look at it.

Which should thus push the mercury all the way up the tube, unless there is some force other than air pressure acting.
You need some force on the other side of the tube pushing the mercury down, which wasn't pushing the mercury up when the tube was right side up.

If that atmospheric pressure changes slightly be expansion or contraction of matter/molecules

Deal with the inital inversion before moving on.
Make sure people understand what happens there first.

which also allows the expansion of the small amount of atmosphere trapped inside the tube which is still under compression

Again, no it isn't.
The void was tiny, so small you couldn't even see it. The tube was then inverted and it became quite large. That means it is under reduced pressure, not compression.

Am I being fair here?

Only if you actually respond to arguments raised.
As you have ignored numerous objections already raised when you made this post and instead just repeated the same refuted BS; I would say no, you are not being fair.

For every action there is and equal and opposite reaction. It works for my theory as well you know.

Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing at the moment.

We are discussing why the person/car/object keeps moving.

You want to call it inertia without any real reason for it.

Because that is the word that was chosen to describe it. It is effectively the mass of the object, its tendency to stay in motion or at rest unless acted upon by an external force.

You want to say it isn't real, then tell us why things don't just stop and instead keep moving, at least for a bit.

The skateboarder accelerates down the ramp and then hits a spot where acceleration ceases and then becomes deceleration to match the effort of the mass displacing the atmosphere downwards.
This is not what I'm talking about.
I repeat, this is not what I'm talking about.

Good, it isn't what we were either.
We were talking about the skateboarder/car/whatever going up the ramp. They are going up, without applying any force to do so, yet keep going up.
WHY?
Why don't they stop instantly?

How come you can't grasp that I'm talking about holding a constant velocity under POWER/ENERGY.

Because you are yet to explain why that is important.
How are we meant to grasp something when you just continually assert it without any explanation or justification?

Decrease pressure is exactly that and decreasing pressure will still leave pressure which is absolute key to everything working as it does in any way shape of form.

A significant enough decrease in pressure is far closer to a vacuum than a simple "decrease".
The pressure at this level is insignificant and is incapable of explaining so many things.

so let's leave it out.

Then why is it pushing into the air?

Of course it matters, that's what makes barometers work.

Stop assuming barometers work under your theory.
I have explained why it works.
It works because of the density of the mercury and the force of gravity associated with it.
You are yet to explain it in your model.

It's the mercury in the dish and the lower atmospheric pressure the mercury in the dish is pushing against which allows the lower pressure atmosphere inside the tube to expand more back against the mercury up that tube.

The pressure inside the tube (in the void) is nothing compared to the atmosphere outside.
If it was as simple as that the mercury would go right to the top.

I mean, I'm quite sure people who are severely global indoctrinated won't change their minds on the mainstream storylines in favour of my thoughts when they've got everything on a plate for them regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

Well, I don't rely on mainstream story-lines fortunately, I don't accept your idea, but I was quite sure it couldn't answer my objections. Regardless, I will try harder to understand it.

Decrease pressure is exactly that and decreasing pressure will still leave pressure which is absolute key to everything working as it does in any way shape of form.

But can't the pressure in a closed system give equilibrium and so not work like the atmolayer stack that pushes to the ground?
Like in a plane, it will maintain pressure independent of the lower pressure of it's altitude, so it can settle and have them weightless since they lack the push of the atmolayer. Otherwise, the atmolayer would have to somehow interact with these systems, but how would they? This would apply to numerous scenarios.

No I don't mean inertia so don't use it unless you want to deliberately set yourself back.

Is it the the solid density of the mass resisting the air pressure push which acts like a pressure pushing against the gases? Like gravity where you have two masses exerting force on each other, but instead gases and a solid pushing against each other?

Inertia means nothing. It is a nothing. It explains nothing, so let's leave it out.

It clearly is something in today's world, like our resistance to changing velocity, so I thought it may have something to do with that.

Of course it matters, that's what makes barometers work.
It's the mercury in the dish and the lower atmospheric pressure the mercury in the dish is pushing against which allows the lower pressure atmosphere inside the tube to expand more back against the mercury up that tube.

So I'll try to get this straight.

You have the mercury:


The blue pressure arrow would be the stack of the atmolayer which presses against densities to give weight, it presses against the mercury of course, and it's up at 760 mm, and that mercury with lower pressure would expand less (how Torricellian barometers work). The temperatures would impact the density of the mercury of course, but is accounted for in barometer measurements, but with this, measuring the press of the atmolayer, this should mean that we can reference our weight to this in the air, and if it drops, we should slightly weigh less than before, correct?
You say that the mercury presses against the atmospheric pressure, but I'm not sure why this matters in the Barometer, as it is set to correlate to specific values at adjusted temperatures and an average 1 atmosphere.

So is "1 atmosphere" equivalent to the standard 1G for you?

For Facebook marketing and other social media marketing visit our website now. boost media digital marketing

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 22, 2017, 12:29:19 AM

I mean, I'm quite sure people who are severely global indoctrinated won't change their minds on the mainstream storylines in favour of my thoughts when they've got everything on a plate for them regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

Well, I don't rely on mainstream story-lines fortunately, I don't accept your idea, but I was quite sure it couldn't answer my objections. Regardless, I will try harder to understand it.

That's all I'm asking you to do, nothing more.

Quote

Decrease pressure is exactly that and decreasing pressure will still leave pressure which is absolute key to everything working as it does in any way shape of form.

But can't the pressure in a closed system give equilibrium and so not work like the atmolayer stack that pushes to the ground?

Yep. That's almost exactly what it would do in a closed system of a spherical container.
Put you inside of it and you become part of that pressure change and you would change by compressive force in that equilibrium.

The atmospheric stack is a pressure stack that is a constant action to reaction in equal measures from bottom to top by equal push on equal resistance to push all the way up.
In this case, this is where it differs because it leaves the dense bottom of Earth to the almost pressure less dome top, but we don't need to go that route yet.

Like in a plane, it will maintain pressure independent of the lower pressure of it's altitude, so it can settle and have them weightless since they lack the push of the atmolayer. Otherwise, the atmolayer would have to somehow interact with these systems, but how would they? This would apply to numerous scenarios.

They are under equilibrium, horizontally but that would change if the plane alters course to become less than horizontal, either nose up or down.
I think we're going to get off track here, quite quick, so let's get to a point at a time if you don't get what I'm saying.

No I don't mean inertia so don't use it unless you want to deliberately set yourself back.

Is it the the solid density of the mass resisting the air pressure push which acts like a pressure pushing against the gases? Like gravity where you have two masses exerting force on each other, but instead gases and a solid pushing against each other?
[/quote] In a nutshell, yes, if I'm getting what you're meaning.

Quote

Inertia means nothing. It is a nothing. It explains nothing, so let's leave it out.

It clearly is something in today's world, like our resistance to changing velocity, so I thought it may have something to do with that.

There is an obvious resistance to pressure change as we are discussing.
Inertia goes way further than the reality. It goes into the fantasy of setting something in motion and it will continue in motion unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.
This is where space comes in to set off the fantasy of a mass in movement will simply continue forever and it's crap.

Quote

Of course it matters, that's what makes barometers work.
It's the mercury in the dish and the lower atmospheric pressure the mercury in the dish is pushing against which allows the lower pressure atmosphere inside the tube to expand more back against the mercury up that tube.

So I'll try to get this straight.

You have the mercury:


The blue pressure arrow would be the stack of the atmolayer which presses against densities to give weight

And also the atmosphere that the mercury in the container has taken up and is also resisting that pressure of it's own dense mass.

it presses against the mercury of course, and it's up at 760 mm, and that mercury with lower pressure would expand less (how Torricellian barometers work).

It's not the mercury that expands less, it's what expanded against it's dense mass.

The temperatures would impact the density of the mercury of course, but is accounted for in barometer measurements, but with this, measuring the press of the atmolayer, this should mean that we can reference our weight to this in the air, and if it drops, we should slightly weigh less than before, correct?

Not as straight forward as you may think.
I'll explain this as we go on as a singular piece to answer to.

You say that the mercury presses against the atmospheric pressure, but I'm not sure why this matters in the Barometer, as it is set to correlate to specific values at adjusted temperatures and an average 1 atmosphere.

The mercury takes up it's own dense mass of atmosphere and it's that dense mass that is resisting its own displacement of that atmosphere and if that atmosphere becomes more expanded or condensed due to the suns movement, etc or raining, then the mercury will still be resisting more or less of this atmospheric pressure change, which will show in the tube.

Quote from: Horhang on November 21, 2017, 11:09:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 20, 2017, 10:28:33 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on November 20, 2017, 11:59:20 AM

And your speed.  If you are in a car or truck on a very steep hill letting off the gas you will slow to a stop not instantly stop.  I've done it and it isn't a question of perception.
Try it and try adding your body weight in weights to your body and tell me you don't feel a difference.

Letting of the gas is not what I'm arguing, is it?

How come after all I've said do you come to this?

If you mean letting off the gas as meaning an immediate engine stop then I apologise, because letting of the gas implies that you're meaning reducing the pressure on the gas pedal.

Let's assume you mean a stop dead engine.
If that's the case on a really steep hill at constant speed until cut off, then your car stops dead before rolling back down the hill.

The only time it will carry on forward is if the hill is not as steep.

And this is demonstrably not true. Again get on a bicycle and ride up the steepest hill you can. You are standing on the pedals in order to ride up the hill. Stop pedaling and you do not immediately stop and roll backwards, or since you are on a bicycle, fall over. You coast up the hill for some short amount of time slowing down until you stop.

You don't coast up any hill unless it's a very small gradient.

If you go at a constant speed up a very steep gradient, then you will not advance any further up it if you immediately cut the power. You will stop dead and then fall back.

If you're accelerating up a steep gradient, then yes, you will advance for a little bit after immediate cut of power.

So, again, what is that exact angle that is the tipping point because I think I have done this and you don't stop dead.  What is the angle of this very steep hill?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 21, 2017, 11:08:56 PM

Quote from: Horhang on November 21, 2017, 11:09:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 20, 2017, 10:28:33 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on November 20, 2017, 11:59:20 AM

And your speed.  If you are in a car or truck on a very steep hill letting off the gas you will slow to a stop not instantly stop.  I've done it and it isn't a question of perception.
Try it and try adding your body weight in weights to your body and tell me you don't feel a difference.

Letting of the gas is not what I'm arguing, is it?

How come after all I've said do you come to this?

If you mean letting off the gas as meaning an immediate engine stop then I apologise, because letting of the gas implies that you're meaning reducing the pressure on the gas pedal.

Let's assume you mean a stop dead engine.
If that's the case on a really steep hill at constant speed until cut off, then your car stops dead before rolling back down the hill.

The only time it will carry on forward is if the hill is not as steep.

And this is demonstrably not true. Again get on a bicycle and ride up the steepest hill you can. You are standing on the pedals in order to ride up the hill. Stop pedaling and you do not immediately stop and roll backwards, or since you are on a bicycle, fall over. You coast up the hill for some short amount of time slowing down until you stop.

You don't coast up any hill unless it's a very small gradient.

If you go at a constant speed up a very steep gradient, then you will not advance any further up it if you immediately cut the power. You will stop dead and then fall back.

If you're accelerating up a steep gradient, then yes, you will advance for a little bit after immediate cut of power.

So, again, what is that exact angle that is the tipping point because I think I have done this and you don't stop dead.  What is the angle of this very steep hill?

Whatever angle stops you moving forward once you are not accelerating and are constant in speed.

Quote from: Badxtoss on November 22, 2017, 06:08:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 21, 2017, 11:08:56 PM

Quote from: Horhang on November 21, 2017, 11:09:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 20, 2017, 10:28:33 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on November 20, 2017, 11:59:20 AM

And your speed.  If you are in a car or truck on a very steep hill letting off the gas you will slow to a stop not instantly stop.  I've done it and it isn't a question of perception.
Try it and try adding your body weight in weights to your body and tell me you don't feel a difference.

Letting of the gas is not what I'm arguing, is it?

How come after all I've said do you come to this?

If you mean letting off the gas as meaning an immediate engine stop then I apologise, because letting of the gas implies that you're meaning reducing the pressure on the gas pedal.

Let's assume you mean a stop dead engine.
If that's the case on a really steep hill at constant speed until cut off, then your car stops dead before rolling back down the hill.

The only time it will carry on forward is if the hill is not as steep.

And this is demonstrably not true. Again get on a bicycle and ride up the steepest hill you can. You are standing on the pedals in order to ride up the hill. Stop pedaling and you do not immediately stop and roll backwards, or since you are on a bicycle, fall over. You coast up the hill for some short amount of time slowing down until you stop.

You don't coast up any hill unless it's a very small gradient.

If you go at a constant speed up a very steep gradient, then you will not advance any further up it if you immediately cut the power. You will stop dead and then fall back.

If you're accelerating up a steep gradient, then yes, you will advance for a little bit after immediate cut of power.

So, again, what is that exact angle that is the tipping point because I think I have done this and you don't stop dead.  What is the angle of this very steep hill?

Whatever angle stops you moving forward once you are not accelerating and are constant in speed.

So I'm back to, I have driven up very steep hills at a constant speed and what you are saying should happen never happens.

Quote from: Jane on November 02, 2017, 04:37:57 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on November 02, 2017, 04:10:18 PM

So any "ammo" against Denpressure is useful.

To be fair, denpressure is just one specific variety of the 'air pressure as gravity,' models, I think Scepti's the main one that believes in the alternate model of molecules leading to that variation; not all arguments against denpressure would apply to those other models.
Useful isn't really a word that applies to 99% of this site.

This site is 100% effective at proving the earth isn't flat.

What is the phrase? If you don't want to be a Christian, read the bible? If you want to convince yourself FE is silly... come here

So I'm back to, I have driven up very steep hills at a constant speed and what you are saying should happen never happens.

That's because you've never done it at a constant speed and up a very steep hill at a constant speed.
If you did you would know what I'm telling you.

Quote from: Badxtoss on November 22, 2017, 07:01:47 AM

So I'm back to, I have driven up very steep hills at a constant speed and what you are saying should happen never happens.

That's because you've never done it at a constant speed and up a very steep hill at a constant speed.
If you did you would know what I'm telling you.

But I have, many times.  Unless you can give me an exact angle where the cut off point is that I can test against I have to say you are incorrect on this one.

Scepti, have you ever ridden a roller coaster that goes in a loop?

Let’s try another example.

A long flat surface which then curves upwards towards vertical. A bit like a ‘j’ on its side.

Set a ball rolling along the flat heading towards the curve. All the way along the flat surface the ball is not accelerating. When it hits the curved incline it will roll up the incline for a distance dependant on how fast the ball was travelling. The balls momentum/inertia causes the ball to travel up the incline for a distance.

The hall is travelling at constant velocity when it hits the ramp and it doesn’t stop instantly.

I like the way scepti is not only taking on forum members, but reality itself.

That's all I'm asking you to do, nothing more.

Except what you really want people to do is either discard all rational thought and just accept your bullshit, or only ever present questions/arguments in isolation so you can make up whatever excuse you want, even if it contradict other excuses.

Yep. That's almost exactly what it would do in a closed system of a spherical container.

Why?
It is a closed system so you no longer have your magic atmosphere stack to push you down.

The atmospheric stack is a pressure stack that is a constant action to reaction in equal measures from bottom to top by equal push on equal resistance to push all the way up.
In this case, this is where it differs because it leaves the dense bottom of Earth to the almost pressure less dome top, but we don't need to go that route yet.

Is that because you know you can't explain it in any honest, rational manner?

They are under equilibrium, horizontally but that would change if the plane alters course to become less than horizontal, either nose up or down.
I think we're going to get off track here, quite quick, so let's get to a point at a time if you don't get what I'm saying.

Which should mean there is no force inside to push you down.

Quote from: AltSpace on November 22, 2017, 01:12:15 AM

Is it the the solid density of the mass resisting the air pressure push which acts like a pressure pushing against the gases? Like gravity where you have two masses exerting force on each other, but instead gases and a solid pushing against each other?

In a nutshell, yes, if I'm getting what you're meaning.

And without gravity or inertia, what is causing the mass to resist the push of the atmosphere?

There is an obvious resistance to pressure change as we are discussing.

It is more a resistance to force, or a resistance to change in motion.

Inertia goes way further than the reality. It goes into the fantasy of setting something in motion and it will continue in motion unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.

You mean it goes into the reality, explaining how objects keep moving unless a force acts on them to stop them.
And that you need to reject it as fantasy or else space could be real?

Inertia was figured out long before space travel.

And also the atmosphere that the mercury in the container has taken up and is also resisting that pressure of it's own dense mass.

Again, HOW?
What is magically causing it to resist that pressure?

and it's that dense mass that is resisting its own displacement of that atmosphere

Again, WHY???

Whatever angle stops you moving forward once you are not accelerating and are constant in speed.

No angle achieves that.
Even going vertically doesn't achieve that.

That's because you've never done it at a constant speed and up a very steep hill at a constant speed.
If you did you would know what I'm telling you.

Or it is because your claims are pure bullshit, based upon delusional nonsense rather than reality.

Regardless, as I have asked several times, WHY DOES IT MATTER?
Who cares if he is going at a constant speed, was accelerating before or was slowing down before?
Why does it matter how steep the hill is?
If inertia is wrong, he should stop dead as soon as he stops applying force to move forward, regardless of his prior state and regardless of how steep the hill is.
Why doesn't he?

This is the reason why no one accepts your BS.
You need to make up excuse after excuse after excuse to explain why your BS claims don't match reality and you are completely unable to defend any of those excuses. All you can ever do is baselessly assert them, ignoring them contradicting other explanation.

The really pathetic part is that your model with its massive rejection of reality doesn't even help you claim Earth is flat.
All your BS works equally well on a RE.
The satellites in space (or space probes or whatever), by virtue of not going up a steep enough hill are now allowed to continue thanks to your excuses.
Your pathetic excuses to avoid admitting your lies about inertia are wrong have effectively led to inertia anyway and achieve the same result.

Similarly, your BS about magic atmosphere stacking works equally well on a round Earth with the atmosphere stacking in layers around Earth.
Until you can provide a justification for why down is down, it will continue to do so.
So far the closest you have come to a reason is the ground is that way, but that works on a RE.

So even with your blatant rejection of reality, you are still no closer to showing a RE is wrong or a FE is right.

Yep. That's almost exactly what it would do in a closed system of a spherical container.
Put you inside of it and you become part of that pressure change and you would change by compressive force in that equilibrium.

So then, wouldn't that make passengers on a commercial flight weightless? Which doesn't happen of course, they only do when the plane stops accelerating against the ground with it's lift and thrust and drops (zero-G plane). But if pressure equalizes in a closed system, the stack that pushes us to the surface doesn't exist, so then what gives us weight on a plane?

They are under equilibrium, horizontally but that would change if the plane alters course to become less than horizontal, either nose up or down.

Yeah, because from my understanding, if the plane changes position, our weight would be affected, an extreme scenario would be a nose-diving plane with passengers weightless, but if pressure is equalized in the cabin, then there is no reason for them to have similar weight on the plane as they do against the pressure stack on the ground.

There is an obvious resistance to pressure change as we are discussing.
Inertia goes way further than the reality. It goes into the fantasy of setting something in motion and it will continue in motion unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.
This is where space comes in to set off the fantasy of a mass in movement will simply continue forever and it's crap.

Newton's laws of motion have been well known for awhile, but I see, your model doesn't include them, a different understanding it seems. So, when we turn a tight corner on a car, I feel a g-force that pushes me the other way, what is that? Also, if I accelerate, I feel a push, and if I slow suddenly by pressing the brakes, I push forwards (those are examples of acceleration, a change in velocity, whether changing direction, speeding up, or slowing down) but not if I keep constant speed. How does that work in your model?

And also the atmosphere that the mercury in the container has taken up and is also resisting that pressure of it's own dense mass.

Of course, that is why when the pressure presses against the mercury, it resists it, it's density resists the push, that is quite clear and obvious, but how is this important?

It's not the mercury that expands less, it's what expanded against it's dense mass.

Which pushes it up the tube less.

Not as straight forward as you may think.
I'll explain this as we go on as a singular piece to answer to.

I'd be interested to know how measured air pressure correlates to weight in your model then.

The mercury takes up it's own dense mass of atmosphere and it's that dense mass that is resisting its own displacement of that atmosphere

You mean it's density/mass resisting the pressure push.

and if that atmosphere becomes more expanded or condensed due to the suns movement, etc or raining, then the mercury will still be resisting more or less of this atmospheric pressure change, which will show in the tube.

From what I know, mercury barometers are simply set up to measure the push of air pressure, temperature and such impacting the mercury is accounted for. So, what exactly other than pressure impacts the drop and rise of mercury in the tube?

Thought of another.  Air bubbles traveling to the top of the water disproves denpressure.

Thought of another.  Air bubbles traveling to the top of the water disproves denpressure.

How so? Is there something unique to the Denspressure logic on density and buoyancy?

Quote from: Mikey T. on November 22, 2017, 04:42:54 PM

Thought of another.  Air bubbles traveling to the top of the water disproves denpressure.

How so? Is there something unique to the Denspressure logic on density and buoyancy?

Yes. The "explanations" for density and buoyancy are mutually contradictory.
In reality a pressure differential is responsible for buoyancy.

The closest thing to denspressure in reality is buoyancy.
This is where the displacement of a fluid results in an upwards force.
This force is proportional to the volume of fluid displaced.
This force is based upon the "stacking" of this fluid.

If you move to a denser fluid, as you are displacing more mass (and the effect of stacking is greater) the force is greater.
If you lower the pressure (for air) you lower the mass of air displaced and thus lower the force.

All the various predictions made by denspressure match this buoyant force with 1 exception, the directionality which Scepti is completely unable to explain.

Scepti, have you ever ridden a roller coaster that goes in a loop?

Yes I have.

Quote from: defender_of_truth on November 22, 2017, 10:00:52 AM

Scepti, have you ever ridden a roller coaster that goes in a loop?

Yes I have.

And why doesn't it stop as soon as it starts going up the loop?
What keeps it going?

Let’s try another example.

A long flat surface which then curves upwards towards vertical. A bit like a ‘j’ on its side.

Set a ball rolling along the flat heading towards the curve. All the way along the flat surface the ball is not accelerating. When it hits the curved incline it will roll up the incline for a distance dependant on how fast the ball was travelling. The balls momentum/inertia causes the ball to travel up the incline for a distance.

The hall is travelling at constant velocity when it hits the ramp and it doesn’t stop instantly.

Correct but that's not what I'm arguing against.

I am not talking about anything moving at a constant velocity on a flat until it hits a gradient.
Once the flat to gradient comes into play you are carrying on an effect of level motion by apllied energy pushing onto a gradient. It's almost like the spring board for that incline, if you like.
It may be sort of constant on the flat but once that flat ends, it changes velocity and it'[s that immediate point where we can call it a springboard start at the incline or an immediate acceleration just for that incline which also immediately reverts to deceleration for however long it carries the applied energy from that flat surface.

I am talking about a constant velocity at full thrust and then an immediate fuel cut off .
So basically, if we get back to a car, it's like the car is in first gear with the pedal keeping a set speed MPH.

Anyone knows that going up a hill in a car they have to change down a gear to keep a constant speed (assuming a steep hill) and anyone knows that the higher you go up that hill the more you have to drop down a gear until you are at first gear. All to keep a certain constant speed.

To carry on keeping a constant speed as you go even higher in the lowest gear, you have to keep adding more gas from the pedal. All this just to keep you pushing that particular piece of road each inch.
The very instant you cut power, you stop dead and start to roll back.
You do not carry on rolling up hill.