A debate will remain so until someone destroys the other side of it with undisputable facts.
As we have destroyed you. Yet you keep going.
You need to think about a change in volume means a few things.
It changes the compression from one part to another or from outside in or inside out.
Understand this and you'll understand why a sponge and a equal sized block of wood will measure a different weight by absorbing or repelling atmosphere.
Notice how rather than address the actual argument made, you resort to the same pathetic strawman?
Deal with what has been said, not what you want to have been said.
I have explained how a fluid barometer (or several) show that denspressure is false, where depending upon the exact interpretation of denspressure, they would all read the same as the weight is the same, or they would all be filled to the top due to the pressure differential.
I don't even know what you're even trying to say here.
Maybe you can explain this in one post only.
I have explained it all before, but rather than address it, you just say it has been explained, yet you are completely unable to provide that explanation.
The closest you have come is claiming that it would work based upon a pressure differential.
But if that was the case then a water and mercury filled barometer would behave the same, and it would behave the same regardless of if the tube was upright, at an angle, sideways or even upside down.
Instead, all the evidence shows it is dependent upon the height of the column of fluid above the water surface and thus the weight of the fluid. This also means the weight can't be proportional to pressure.
You do not expect a football to fit through a chainlink fence but a ping pong ball could be squeezed through and even a tennis ball could squeeze through of enough pressure was applied.
Now think about your structures with a bit more thought.
Again not addressing the argument.
Also, according to your claims of magic expanding and contracting molecules it should be fine.
In fact, if enough pressure was applied, you could get almost anything through a chain link fence (as long as it didn't destroy the fence), it just wont be the same on the other side.
The issue is that we aren't comparing footballs and ping-pong balls (at least I'm not).
I'm comparing air and air.
You have your air capable of magically permeating all "solid" objects (without even reacting with it), meaning it can squeeze through it, yet it magically can't allow it to keep squeezing through to just go through the material and come out the other side.
If structures are identical in every way down to the very top and bottom of the molecular make up then there would be no difference.
No, that is the key difference.
Their atomic makeup is different.
They have different atoms, but the same pattern.
This means the portion of voids is the same. Thus by your reasoning they would have identical densities.
Have a serious think about it or give me an example of you so called proof..
I already have, and you repeatedly ignroed it.
Numerous pure metals have an FCC crystal structure.
This has a packing factor of roughly 75%. That means that 25% of the structure is empty for your magic air to fill up.
This is the same with all materials with an FCC structure.
Yet aluminium has a density of around 3-5 g/ml, silver has a density of around 10 and iridium has a density of around 20.
This is impossible in your model.
I have shown how your explanations for why people feel like they are forced back into their seat are wrong as the same should happen with wind blowing on the car.
Would you like to explain why people's faces distort under acceleration?
Would that be the seats pushing back into their faces? 
Again, you don't address the issue raised, instead you completely ignore it and try to distract with other things.
Their faces distort because the contact between their skull and face is not strong and rigid enough to accelerate their face without distortion.
The acceleration is not even across the face (initially) and thus it distorts until the acceleration is equal.
It is the same reason as to why if you hold a ball on a string (by the string) and move your hand, the ball doesn't come straight away.
I have shown how your claim regarding the slinky disproving gravity is wrong due to the various forces acting on the parts of the slinky.
No you haven't.
You absolutely seriously have not.
Yes I have. You ignoring it and refusing to answer simple questions doesn't magically mean I haven't.
As a reminder, the bottom doesn't magically start moving after the top is released as the bottom still has the same forces acting on it. There is the spring from above pulling it up and gravity pulling it down.
It is only when the spring collapses that gravity wins and it starts falling.
Again, you've shown nothing to prove your side against mine other than telling me I'm wrong and you're right because mainstream scientists say you are.
Except I don't appeal to mainstream science at all.
Instead I appeal to simple observation and what you have said to use your own arguments against you.
A sphere cannot hold an atmosphere against a so called vacuum. It would require a foundation for that atmosphere to stack.
That foundation is the sphere itself.
Remember what you used as analogy to try and explain it?
A gobstopper.
Is a gobstopper flat or round?
A globe can provide no foundation to hold a stable dome and especially a so called spinning globe.
Sure it can, the air itself.
Remember what your excuse is for the dome, it gets too far away from the sun and freezes?
Everything must have a foundation and that foundation to is 100% required to hold a roof or any shape let alone a dome.
So what is the foundation for the foundation?
i.e. what is below your FE?
Then what is below that?
And what's below that?
Notice a problem?
What is the first thing supported on, or do you just have an infinite series of things?
Light is very simply friction of matter and the frequency of it and the compression of that matter by energy applied.
It's basically ramped up sound or vibrations at the basic end of the scale.
No, it is nothing like sound vibrations.
If it was, it would have the same limitations, being unable to pass through a near vacuum.
It would also travel at the same speed as sound.
And I know this will likely be a pointless question, but do you have anything to prove that baseless claim of yours?
Go and find the biggest rock you can find and then set up a small rock on a line attached to a swivel on top of a set in the ground pole.
Set it up just 2 feet away if you want and I'll guarantee you that the large rock is not going to attract the smaller rock, unless the wind blows a certain way or that air pressure changes slightly.
Except this and things similar to it have been done repeatedly and you just repeatedly ignore it.
Perhaps you should try it.
the only way for the debates to stop is for 100% proof to be shown, either way.
The provision of proof is not the important part.
It is the defeated side accepting it, and you have made it clear that you have no interest in doing that and that you will never back down (regardless of how many times you are proven to be wrong).
Mainstream science experts (so called) can not show these proofs.
Except they have been shown, repeatedly.
Again, you ignoring them doesn't mean they haven't been shown.
You would have no chance of having the energy you require from the Earth centre, because your ball could not hold an energy that is centralised to cater for the movement we see.
Why not?
Obviously going by my self sustained cell.
i.e. rejecting anything that goes against it because it goes against it rather than for any rational reason.
The thing is on mine there is no need to stop anything from going into space or a supposed vacuum.
The end of expansion at the top of the stack is just that. It's a natural sort of dormant state or basically unable to agitate/vibrate in any real sense unless it can be ever so slightly altered by the passing reflective agitator of molecules (centralised sun) which can sort of create a super fluid sort of thing as it passes but then an immediate return to an almost super light (to us dense gits down here) solid.
So what you are saying is that your previous response was pure bullshit and there is actually no need for any dome or any foundation and thus there is nothing wrong with your model working with a spherical Earth.
In this day and age with the technology we have and the supposed feats of space and such that we are supposed to have achieved, you can bet your bottom dollar that, if gravity was real we would be shown it in a very clear way
As it has been.
This is also why stuff freezes inside an evacuation chamber because the pressure inside loses it's ability to agitate because of decompression of the once crammed molecules that are now being allowed to ALL push against each other as the pump pushed back the every increasing atmospheric pressure outside of the container to allow the expansion of the molecules to be allowed to push into the lower pressure created by the p;umps push against that external pressure.
This has already been explained to you.
It is evaporative cooling.
Just like boiling water takes energy, having water sit there and evaporate takes energy and it takes that energy from the substance in question.
This is why a bowl of water will typically be cooler than the surrounding environment.
If you bother measuring the temperature you will actually note that it gets quite cold when it freezes.
This is because the evaporative cooling results in a low enough temperature for it to freeze.
In reality for most things pressure helps them freeze.
The pressure pushes on it and prevents motion resulting in it solidifying, while reduced pressure means there is less holding the molecules back so they can go join the gas phase.
Observation and my thought process.
Yeah I know, I'm not entitled to it but the scientists are allowed to make anything up to suit.
No, the scientists aren't allowed to just make up anything.
They need to back it up in a rational manner with evidence and deal with evidence to the contrary.
Similarly, if you wish to claim something, you need to back it up in a rational manner with evidence and deal with evidence to the contrary.
But you don't do this. Instead you just assert nonsense and insult those that question it.
No scientist can come along and say X is a bunch of crap, it should really be Y; without providing any justification.
Instead they would need to say something more along the lines of:
According to X, this is the result you would expect to see. Instead you see this other result. Y explains this other result. Additionally, Y is still capable of explaining these other bits of evidence that support X.
You haven't done that.
A flint.
Friction welding.
I could go on but you should be able to see how the supposed complicated isn't as complicated as it appears.
And these are incompatible with the current model how?
Both of these are primarily examples of black body radiation. You heat something up and it glows.
But heating things up doesn't result in sound.
It can be glowing red hot (or white hot or even blue hot) and not give off any sound at all. This indicates it isn't like sound at all, instead there is a fundamentally different mechanism.
You have no clue what's happening.
No, that would be you.
I know how light works, yes.
I know how it all works but you have to descend into the very basics before you descend into the variations of it all that becomes more complicated the more it's deliberately skewed and lied about and even misinterpreted.
Good, then explain:
Black body radiation.
The double slit experiment.
Refraction.
Diffraction.
The photoelectric effect.
Cherenkov radiation.
Polarisation, both linear and circular as well as polarisers.