Denspressure vs Reality

Quote from: Jane on December 05, 2017, 07:07:55 AM

He's not going for an informed response, he's going for an ego trip.

Presumably you're talking about scepti here?  He's the one claiming every single engineer and scientists on the planet is completely wrong about basic physics and he's literally the only person to have ever worked how things really work.  He's the one saying all the greatest minds of the last 300 years, from Newton through to Einstein are wrong and he's right.  I'm not really sure you can get much more egotistical than that.


You won't debate Jack because he hands your ass to you every time, that's why.

You realise it's possible to argue badly for a correct point of view, right? I don't debate Jack because he is thoroughly unpleasant, favours steamrollering over discussion, and will ignore it even if you provide sources to multiple scientific publications and scientists.

The amount of time Jack must put in to dissecting every individual phrase from an argument and putting his two cents in... is nauseating. I mean yes, I guess it is better than Sudoku copy and pasting 20 links and 10 entire wikipedia pages, because it is still an attempt at original thought... but Jesus H. Christ swinging from the Trapeze... if it says Jack infront of it, and it is longer than a quarter of my screen.... Mouse Wheel Roll ACTIVATE!!!!

(or I use my new found love of Space bar, and Shift Space bar!)

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2017, 04:32:33 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 05, 2017, 02:54:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2017, 01:32:14 AM

You only get a void at the top if you allow it. If you do not allow it you will never get a void.

Nope. You get the void at the top as long as the tube is long enough.
I have done it several times, and a flexible tube can make it a lot easier.
When done properly, the only thing in the tube is that mercury. There is no time that any air bubble goes in the tube which can rise to the top. Yet the void still appears.

It's got nothing to do with being long enough. It's all to do with the tube having atmosphere trapped in it for it to even work at all.

So according to denpressure the atmosphere could support a column of mercury of any height? Over one metre, say? Is that correct?

Have you ever seen this happen?

It's not about atmosphere supporting a column of mercury it's about what the mercury in itself displaces by its OWN dense mass.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2017, 01:19:19 AM

Keep your mind back on the swimming pool analogy and if anyone else (Jane?) can grasp what I'm saying then feel free to chirp in.

I'd help but I've given up talking to Jackblack, you can tell by the way he formulates his argument he's just trying to look smart. It's basically an identical principle to filling a glass with water and turning it upside down, or putting a glass in a sink full of water, turning it upside down and lifting it out while noticing water doesn't stay inside it. He's not going for an informed response, he's going for an ego trip.

Basically, you're right.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on December 05, 2017, 05:53:24 AM

So according to denpressure the atmosphere could support a column of mercury of any height? Over one metre, say? Is that correct?

Have you ever seen this happen?

It's not about atmosphere supporting a column of mercury it's about what the mercury in itself displaces by its OWN dense mass.

I'll rephrase.

According to denpressure, can you have a column of mercury such as that described above, surrounded by air at atmospheric pressure, which has a height greater than one metre and no void?

And if so, have you ever seen such a column?

The problem here is not Jack Black, the problem rather is Sponge-ball no pants, ignoring proven scientific principles while offering an alternative that has no basis in reality. While he preaches about only believing what he can see, he constantly puts forward ideas that have no physical basis and are unseen and unproven analogies.
Both the existance of vacuums and the way barometers work are totally beyond dispute. Many many industries worldwide use both on a daily basis. Some people here use the excuse of “having an open mind” while choosing to ignore scientific fact, it’s a lame argument that has no merit. If one is going to be sceptical, which I think is a good thing, then be sceptical about things for which there is a decent claim. Vacuums and how barometers function don’t fall into that category.

The mercury cannot drop if there's nothing to make it drop.
This is the entire point of atmosphere inside the tube.

But you have already said there is no atmosphere inside the tube.
So why does the mercury drop when there is nothing to make it drop in your model?

Yes but in indicating there was no air there I was also indicating why there would be no barometer to work to measure anything.
All you're doing is mixing yourself up.

No I'm not.
There is no air in there. Yet the barometer still works.
As such, your explanation does not hold. You do not need air in the top of the tube of a barometer for it to work.
(In fact, air makes it work a lot worse).

The weight of the mercury cannot pull anything down in your full scenario. There's no pull for starters but there's also no decompression inside the tube to create any movement, at all.

This was an explanation using mainstream science, not your model.
With mainstream science, lots of things are pulls.
But if you like you can consider it as a field which pushes or curved spacetime which pushes.
Regardless, that weight of the mercury (unless it is balanced) results in a motion of the mercury.
This causes the mercury to fall.
This leaves a void behind it resulting in a pressure differential which acts to push the mercury back up the tube.
The column equilibrates at a height which the pressure differential balances the weight.

So rather than just dismissing it, do you need anything explained?

It's got nothing to do with being long enough. It's all to do with the tube having atmosphere trapped in it for it to even work at all.

Again, all the evidence shows that to be wrong.
If you tube is short enough the mercury stays put.
Even without any air in there you can still get a void.

If there's no atmosphere in the void then there's no void.

No, it's still there.
The void is clearly observable and you have admitted that the air isn't there to begin with and no air went in.
So how does the air magically make its way to the void?

You can do that but then you lose the whole point of having a barometer.

No you don't.
It still works.
It still measures pressure.

This is what I'm trying to tell you because the barometer works of displacement of atmosphere by whatever pressure it displaces at any given time, measureable on a printed gauge on the tube.

And what I have been trying to explain to you repeatedly is that is not how they work.
A fluid filled barometer works based upon a pressure differential (usually at least approximately as some pressure outside, 0 inside) balancing the pressure due to the height of the column due to its weight.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 05, 2017, 02:54:12 AM

I don't want you to just keep on asserting things. I want you to explain what occurs in reality using your model.

That's what I'm doing but you're trying to scupper it.

No you aren't. You are ignoring reality.
You can't just ignore reality to have me accept your explanation.

You need to provide an explanation of how the mercury filled barometer works based upon that inversion of the tube in which no air is at the bottom to begin with, no air appears to get in, there is no way for the air to get in (or else the void at the top would just fill with atmosphere and the mercury would drop all the way), and thus there is almost certainly no significant amount of air in the top.
And that is just to start.
Once you have an explanation for that, we then move on to other size tubes (where the mercury goes to the same height) and using other fluids (which have a different height).

So if you want it to be nice and simple, you start with the original setup, tube down, filled with mercury, no air.
You turn it upright.
No air gets in (at least not visibly), yet the mercury drops leaving behind a void.
Can you explain it?

I'd help but I've given up talking to Jackblack, you can tell by the way he formulates his argument he's just trying to look smart.

Have you ever considered that I might formulate my arguments that way because I AM smart?
Considering I am capable of formulating rational arguments which are yet to be refuted, it sure seems like I just am smart (like plenty of other people here).

It's basically an identical principle to filling a glass with water and turning it upside down, or putting a glass in a sink full of water, turning it upside down and lifting it out while noticing water doesn't stay inside it. He's not going for an informed response, he's going for an ego trip.

No, I am going for an informed response, one which shows the flaws of desnspressure and shows quite clearly that weight is not due to the air pressure.
It is fundamentally different to filling a glass with water and turning it upside down.
That happens because air gets in.

If you like, you can fill up a tube with water, seal the end, then turn it upside down, except the end (so the air isn't directly below the surface).
See if the water falls then.
If you do, you will find you need a height of roughly 10 m to have the water start falling a significant amount.

You realise it's possible to argue badly for a correct point of view, right? I don't debate Jack because he is thoroughly unpleasant, favours steamrollering over discussion, and will ignore it even if you provide sources to multiple scientific publications and scientists.

People typically find being refuted unpleasant.
Yes, I do typically refute lots of things at once, which can be considered steamrolling, so what?
If they didn't want to be steamrolled, perhaps they shouldn't have asserted such nonsense.

I don't ignore it when people provide scientific publications.
I ignore it when people try to use these to avoid answering questions as you did repeatedly.

I asked simple questions. Rather than answer them you instead decided to appeal to the publication to claim that you must be right, even though it did not address my question at all.
It makes your entire argument a baseless appeal to authority.

As you say, there are very bad ways to argue for a correct point. I'm not saying that is what you were doing, but you certainly were arguing in a very bad way.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2017, 04:32:33 AM

The mercury cannot drop if there's nothing to make it drop.
This is the entire point of atmosphere inside the tube.

But you have already said there is no atmosphere inside the tube.
So why does the mercury drop when there is nothing to make it drop in your model?

If there was no atmosphere inside the tube then the tube cannot operate as a barometer. It doesn't matter how you dress it up. No atmosphere and no barometer.
A full tube with no atmosphere inside of it cannot operate for measurement reading, at all.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2017, 04:32:33 AM

Yes but in indicating there was no air there I was also indicating why there would be no barometer to work to measure anything.
All you're doing is mixing yourself up.

No I'm not.
There is no air in there. Yet the barometer still works.
As such, your explanation does not hold. You do not need air in the top of the tube of a barometer for it to work.
(In fact, air makes it work a lot worse).

No....no....no it does not.
Air is the very reason why it works, both inside and obviously outside. It's just the the air inside is extremely minor in pressure but enough to always create reaction to action.
Take that away and your barometer cannot do anything.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2017, 04:32:33 AM

The weight of the mercury cannot pull anything down in your full scenario. There's no pull for starters but there's also no decompression inside the tube to create any movement, at all.

This was an explanation using mainstream science, not your model.
With mainstream science, lots of things are pulls.
But if you like you can consider it as a field which pushes or curved spacetime which pushes.
Regardless, that weight of the mercury (unless it is balanced) results in a motion of the mercury.
This causes the mercury to fall.
This leaves a void behind it resulting in a pressure differential which acts to push the mercury back up the tube.
The column equilibrates at a height which the pressure differential balances the weight.

So rather than just dismissing it, do you need anything explained?

It doesn't. It's a dupe. Any void left behind is an atmospheric void. It can never ever be a vacuum as in nothingness.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2017, 04:32:33 AM

It's got nothing to do with being long enough. It's all to do with the tube having atmosphere trapped in it for it to even work at all.

Again, all the evidence shows that to be wrong.
If you tube is short enough the mercury stays put.
Even without any air in there you can still get a void.

No atmosphere in and no void. It's really as simple as that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2017, 04:32:33 AM

If there's no atmosphere in the void then there's no void.

No, it's still there.
The void is clearly observable and you have admitted that the air isn't there to begin with and no air went in.
So how does the air magically make its way to the void?

There's only two ways air can make it into the tube.
1. By leaving a measure of it inside the tube for the correct operation of the barometer.

2. Trapped air in any fluid that makes up one.

In terms of liquid mercury, it is used because it does not allow the atmosphere to push is as it's displacing it, because it's super dense and obviously liquid which naturally makes it ideal for barometers.

Think about it.
If you filled up your barometer like you showed me, inverted or not, then how in the hell can you expect it to work as a barometer?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2017, 04:32:33 AM

You can do that but then you lose the whole point of having a barometer.

No you don't.
It still works.
It still measures pressure.

It can't measure anything unless there's a gap and the gap cannot be a gap without there being ATMOSPHERE.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2017, 04:32:33 AM

This is what I'm trying to tell you because the barometer works of displacement of atmosphere by whatever pressure it displaces at any given time, measureable on a printed gauge on the tube.

And what I have been trying to explain to you repeatedly is that is not how they work.
A fluid filled barometer works based upon a pressure differential (usually at least approximately as some pressure outside, 0 inside) balancing the pressure due to the height of the column due to its weight.

It doesn't matter what height anything can be pushed. The issue is the gap allowing that push, at all and it can only do that if what's being pushed has enough density to dispalce the atmosphere it's in. Mercury as a liquid is much better at it than just about all other dense fluids.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2017, 04:32:33 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 05, 2017, 02:54:12 AM

I don't want you to just keep on asserting things. I want you to explain what occurs in reality using your model.

That's what I'm doing but you're trying to scupper it.

No you aren't. You are ignoring reality.
You can't just ignore reality to have me accept your explanation.

You need to provide an explanation of how the mercury filled barometer works based upon that inversion of the tube in which no air is at the bottom to begin with, no air appears to get in, there is no way for the air to get in (or else the void at the top would just fill with atmosphere and the mercury would drop all the way), and thus there is almost certainly no significant amount of air in the top.
And that is just to start.
Once you have an explanation for that, we then move on to other size tubes (where the mercury goes to the same height) and using other fluids (which have a different height).

It's as simple as this.
If there was no atmosphere in the gap then there would be no gap and that gap would be filled with whatever. Mercury in this case.
Your best bet would be to think of the gap as a small spring because that's essentially its purpose as in atmosphere in terms of expansion and compression.
Action and reaction in equal terms.
Remember?

So if you want it to be nice and simple, you start with the original setup, tube down, filled with mercury, no air.
You turn it upright.
No air gets in (at least not visibly), yet the mercury drops leaving behind a void.
Can you explain it?

The only time anything will drop is if there's atmosphere trapped within it or allowed in it. It's as simple as that.

This isn't as complicated as it gets made out.

If there was no atmosphere inside the tube then the tube cannot operate as a barometer. It doesn't matter how you dress it up. No atmosphere and no barometer.
A full tube with no atmosphere inside of it cannot operate for measurement reading, at all.

No, it doesn't matter how you dress it up.
Repeatedly asserting this doesn't magically make it true.
The simple fact is that it works without any atmosphere getting in. That is what you need to explain.
If you can't explain it, your model is incapable of explaining how barometers actually work.

If you get atmosphere in there you get an inaccurate reading, and it becomes based upon the height of the tube.

It doesn't. It's a dupe.

What is the point in asking me if you are just going to dismiss it?

Any void left behind is an atmospheric void. It can never ever be a vacuum as in nothingness.

There is no way for the atmosphere to get in, so it can't be an atmospheric void. But there is still the void.
Instead, you get a void which has a small amount of vapour of whatever substance the barometer is filled with. But that is still quite a low pressure.

There's only two ways air can make it into the tube.
1. By leaving a measure of it inside the tube for the correct operation of the barometer.
2. Trapped air in any fluid that makes up one.

And you have admitted that there is no air in there. So no way for the air to get in.

Think about it.
If you filled up your barometer like you showed me, inverted or not, then how in the hell can you expect it to work as a barometer?

Already explained that, based upon physics which actually match reality.
The mercury in the tube has a weight, given by F=p*g*h*A. This weight exerts a pressure on the mercury in the dish, P=F/A=p*g*h
This is opposed by the atmosphere outside the dish. If the pressure from the mercury inside the tube is greater, it will displace the mercury and the air, and thus it drops to a lower height.
If the pressure outside the dish is greater, it will force the mercury back up the tube.
This results in a balance where P=p*g*h, where h is the height of the column of mercury and P is the pressure outside.
This is what matches reality.


Now then, can you explain what is observed in reality.
That is you start with the tube upside down, filled with mercury. You then invert it without letting any air in, and there is a void.

If you can't denspressure can't explain reality.
Don't just deny it happening. It happens. It is repeatable and testable and verifiable.
Either explain how the void forms without air getting in, or admit you can't.

There is no way for the atmosphere to get in, so it can't be an atmospheric void. But there is still the void.
Instead, you get a void which has a small amount of vapour of whatever substance the barometer is filled with. But that is still quite a low pressure.

Bingo, now think about what you're saying.

It's not filled with your fictional vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2017, 11:18:59 PM

There's only two ways air can make it into the tube.
1. By leaving a measure of it inside the tube for the correct operation of the barometer.
2. Trapped air in any fluid that makes up one.

And you have admitted that there is no air in there. So no way for the air to get in.

No I haven't admitted anything.
You put it to me about having the dish and tube full without any gap. I merely told you that you lose the entire point of having a barometer if this is the case because it cannot work to measure.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2017, 11:18:59 PM

Think about it.
If you filled up your barometer like you showed me, inverted or not, then how in the hell can you expect it to work as a barometer?

Already explained that, based upon physics which actually match reality.
The mercury in the tube has a weight, given by F=p*g*h*A. This weight exerts a pressure on the mercury in the dish, P=F/A=p*g*h
This is opposed by the atmosphere outside the dish. If the pressure from the mercury inside the tube is greater, it will displace the mercury and the air, and thus it drops to a lower height.
If the pressure outside the dish is greater, it will force the mercury back up the tube.
This results in a balance where P=p*g*h, where h is the height of the column of mercury and P is the pressure outside.
This is what matches reality.

Now then, can you explain what is observed in reality.
That is you start with the tube upside down, filled with mercury. You then invert it without letting any air in, and there is a void.

There isn't a void at all.
There's only a gap if you allow it.

If you can't denspressure can't explain reality.
Don't just deny it happening. It happens. It is repeatable and testable and verifiable.
Either explain how the void forms without air getting in, or admit you can't.

I've explained perfectly well what happens and it's not only logical, it's what really happens.


You rely on using gravity as a PULL mechanism to somehow pull down mercury or whatever but your sense should tell you that this is impossible in a sealed tube, so obviously something else is happening.
It's happening because I explained what's really going on.

You can add as much zero point one's and all kinds of names you like but the truth is exactly what I'm telling you.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 05, 2017, 12:19:18 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2017, 04:32:33 AM

The mercury cannot drop if there's nothing to make it drop.
This is the entire point of atmosphere inside the tube.

But you have already said there is no atmosphere inside the tube.
So why does the mercury drop when there is nothing to make it drop in your model?

If there was no atmosphere inside the tube then the tube cannot operate as a barometer. It doesn't matter how you dress it up. No atmosphere and no barometer.
A full tube with no atmosphere inside of it cannot operate for measurement reading, at all.

There is no atmosphere (oxygen, nitrogen, etc) in the space at the top of a barometer tube.
All there is above the mercury is a trace of mercury vapour at a pressure of roughly 1 Pa, where normal air pressure is about 101,000 Pa.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2017, 11:18:59 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 05, 2017, 12:19:18 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2017, 04:32:33 AM

The mercury cannot drop if there's nothing to make it drop.
This is the entire point of atmosphere inside the tube.

But you have already said there is no atmosphere inside the tube.
So why does the mercury drop when there is nothing to make it drop in your model?

If there was no atmosphere inside the tube then the tube cannot operate as a barometer. It doesn't matter how you dress it up. No atmosphere and no barometer.
A full tube with no atmosphere inside of it cannot operate for measurement reading, at all.

There is no atmosphere (oxygen, nitrogen, etc) in the space at the top of a barometer tube.
All there is above the mercury is a trace of mercury vapour at a pressure of roughly 1 Pa, where normal air pressure is about 101,000 Pa.

Mercury vapour? What the hell is mercury vapour?

Have a word with yourself will you.
The vapour is atmosphere.
Mercury vapour like water vapour like any vapour is atmosphere, whatever name you want to attach to it.

No wonder people just blindly follow or get confused.

All you genuine inquisitives and questioners to the global fiction and it's trimmings, have a try to understand what I'm saying and you just might honestly get enlightened.

Nobody's asking you to accept it but at least have a try to see what I'm telling you.
Naturally rab, this isn't aimed at you. I know your stance and all those like you, including JB.

Mercury vapour? What the hell is mercury vapour?

Have a word with yourself will you.
The vapour is atmosphere.
Mercury vapour like water vapour like any vapour is atmosphere, whatever name you want to attach to it.

If "Mercury vapour . . . . .  is atmosphere" then I suggest that you try to live by breathing it.

Mercury vapour is a gas.
Oxygen, Nitrogen etc at NTP is are gasses.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 06, 2017, 12:29:36 AM

There is no way for the atmosphere to get in, so it can't be an atmospheric void. But there is still the void.
Instead, you get a void which has a small amount of vapour of whatever substance the barometer is filled with. But that is still quite a low pressure.

Bingo, now think about what you're saying.

I have been continually.
Perhaps you should start?

It is not filled with air.
The pressure is constant regardless of the height of the column. Thus it cannot explain the void.

No I haven't admitted anything.

Really, so what was this:

The mercury in the dish and in the tube is more dense than the atmosphere it displaces so  if you haven't trapped any in the tube it will be displaced.

The atmosphere that's displaced by the mercury takes its place in the entire stack and compresses it a little more against a lot less because it's now unequal pressure back onto the air displaced at the bottom of the tube until that air is squeezed out by compression of upper atmosphere back onto the mercury that squeezes the atmosphere from the tube because it's less dense than  the mercury and atmosphere above.
[snip]
Ok before you fill the tube and the dish with mercury you see that it's filled with water (atmosphere for instance) so now you pour in your mercury and as you do so you see that the water (air) is being forced out.
The reason this is happening is because not only is the mercury dense in forcing it out but the water in the actual pool is also being displaced by the mercury itself and that water is compressing back onto that mercury and displacing the water inside the tube and dish by the mercury's own dense displacement of that water.
Once that water is all squeezed out and replaced by the mercury then that water is dispersed into the entire pool and is merely added to that pools mass whilst all that pools mass is overall sitting on the dense mass in that water but the mercury itself is only displacing it's own dense mass of it.

You sure seemed to be indicating all the air was removed, that there is no air in the tube.
So no air to get in to fill the void.

Try again.

You put it to me about having the dish and tube full without any gap. I merely told you that you lose the entire point of having a barometer if this is the case because it cannot work to measure.

Yes, that is right, you merely told me, meanwhile reality contradicts you.
You fill the tube without a gap, then invert it and you get a void at the top which does not have atmosphere in it.
This is how a barometer works.
This is what you need to explain.
You can't appeal to any fictional air gap inside the tube, not without an explanation of how it got there.

There isn't a void at all.
There's only a gap if you allow it.

Again, THAT DOES NOT MATCH REALITY!
Can you explain what happens in reality?
No air gets in, yet there is a void.

I've explained perfectly well what happens and it's not only logical, it's what really happens.

No you haven't. You have repeatedly denied what happens.
However, like I did before, you have explained what your model predicts, that without letting air in, there will be no void. Yet in reality, no air is let in and there is a void.
This shows your model is wrong.
Meanwhile, my explanation actually matches what happens.

You rely on using gravity as a PULL mechanism to somehow pull down mercury or whatever but your sense should tell you that this is impossible in a sealed tube, so obviously something else is happening.

And how do my senses tell me that is impossible in a sealed tube?
Why does sealing the tube magically stop gravity?

It's happening because I explained what's really going on.

But you haven't explained what actually happens. You repeatedly deny it.

You need to explain how the void gets there without any atmosphere getting in.
Until you do, you have failed to explain what actually happens.

Mercury vapour? What the hell is mercury vapour?
Have a word with yourself will you.
The vapour is atmosphere.
Mercury vapour like water vapour like any vapour is atmosphere, whatever name you want to attach to it.
No wonder people just blindly follow or get confused.

Because they understand the distinction between things?
The atmosphere is used to refer to a mixture of gasses composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen. Mercury vapour is not described as atmosphere.

All you genuine inquisitives and questioners to the global fiction and it's trimmings, have a try to understand what I'm saying and you just might honestly get enlightened.
Nobody's asking you to accept it but at least have a try to see what I'm telling you.

What global fiction? You are yet to point out (and justify) any actual problem with the globe model. Your model still works on the globe.

But more importantly, that is what we have been doing. We do try and understand what you are saying and I would say I do understand.
Quite a while ago I explained what your model should predicting regarding mercury barometers (and water filled ones); that the absence of air inside the tube would result in the fluid being pushed to the top of the tube, that there would not be a gap, regardless of how high the tube was.
You now seem to be agreeing with me.
This sure seems like I understand.

The issue is now your claims (and the predictions of your model) vs reality.
We see that no air goes into the tube, yet there is still the void at the top.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice; listen to what we are saying. Ask genuine questions. Try to understand. Maybe you might get enlightened and find out this denspressure of yours is wrong.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 06, 2017, 12:53:32 AM

Mercury vapour? What the hell is mercury vapour?

Have a word with yourself will you.
The vapour is atmosphere.
Mercury vapour like water vapour like any vapour is atmosphere, whatever name you want to attach to it.

If "Mercury vapour . . . . .  is atmosphere" then I suggest that you try to live by breathing it.

Mercury vapour is a gas.
Oxygen, Nitrogen etc at NTP is are gasses.

It's got nothing to do with breathing it. We can't live by breathing hydrogen or helium on their own.
We can't live by breathing carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide or any vapours you care to mention.
They all have one thing is common. They are all part of the atmosphere and all have positive or negative effects depending on which way you want to view them.

Gases are just expansions of dense matter in whatever form.

Let me tell you what gases are NOT.
They are NOT vacuums.
This is all you need to know when you see a gap in that tube.
Once you understand that you will also under stand that the very same gap holds atmosphere or if you prefer...a  gaseous environment.


Once you understand this then you'll also understand that this gase will have the ability to compress and expand by energy applied to it and it's reaction to that applied energy.
Or to put it more simpler, it's acting like a sealed spring (analogy) whereas if you compress it by pushing something like mercury or something against it, it will compress.

This compression is now potential energy and it will decompress just as soon as the energy applied to push the mercury up the tube, reduces and in exactly the same way as reduction of that energy, the compressed gas will decompress because it's allowed to, because it's now creating a reaction to the opposite action.



If has your imaginary vacuum in that tube then there would be no reactive force. Nothing could push back, or decompress.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice; listen to what we are saying. Ask genuine questions. Try to understand. Maybe you might get enlightened and find out this denspressure of yours is wrong.

Let me know when you want to start.

This is all you need to know when you see a gap in that tube.
Once you understand that you will also under stand that the very same gap holds atmosphere or if you prefer...a  gaseous environment.

The pressure of mercury vapour in the tube is not enough to force the mercury down.

Once you understand this then you'll also understand that this gase will have the ability to compress and expand by energy applied to it and it's reaction to that applied energy.

Not in the same way as a normal gas.
This is mercury vapour. It is at the same pressure regardless of what volume you have.
If you try to compress it it just goes back into the mercury.
If you try to decompress it, more mercury comes out.

It will only start behaving like a normal gas if you go above the boiling point of mercury or if you go below the vapour pressure.

As such, it cannot act like your magic spring.

The simplest way to see this is to consider what happens when the tube is upright vs inverted.
When the gap would be at the bottom it collapses as the attempted compression just forces it to go back into the mercury.

Regardless of what excuses you want to make, this void is not at atmospheric pressure. It is significantly below. As such, it it cannot resist the pressure of the atmosphere outside, and thus the mercury should still be pushed right to the top.

One simple way to visualise this is using a very flexible tube which can then be crushed by the atmosphere outside, either as the entirety of the tube, or just a small part.

If has your imaginary vacuum in that tube then there would be no reactive force. Nothing could push back, or decompress.

No, you still have gravity, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't real.
Gravity is the explanation that works. desnpressure is not.

Let me know when you want to start.

I have been from the moment you brought up denspressure.
Let me know when you want to start defending your ideas adequately or trying to actually understand mainstream science.

Let me know when you want to start defending your ideas adequately or trying to actually understand mainstream science.

Likewise. Let me know when you have the ability to grasp stuff.

Likewise. Let me know when you have the ability to grasp stuff.

From my posts, including the fact that I was able to say what your model predicts, it sure seems like I have that ability.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 06, 2017, 01:13:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 06, 2017, 12:53:32 AM

Mercury vapour? What the hell is mercury vapour?

Have a word with yourself will you.
The vapour is atmosphere.
Mercury vapour like water vapour like any vapour is atmosphere, whatever name you want to attach to it.

If "Mercury vapour . . . . .  is atmosphere" then I suggest that you try to live by breathing it.

Mercury vapour is a gas.
Oxygen, Nitrogen etc at NTP is are gasses.

It's got nothing to do with breathing it. We can't live by breathing hydrogen or helium on their own.
We can't live by breathing carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide or any vapours you care to mention.

YOU said that "Mercury vapour like water vapour like any vapour is atmosphere".
Mercury vapour is not "atmosphere". ,
On earth, the atmosphere is composed of Nitrogen 78%, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%, with carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone adding up to about 0.1%.
Carbon dioxide is not toxic till it gets to about 1% of the air we breathe.

Hopefully, mercury vapour forms no part of it because it is quite toxic when inhaled.

They all have one thing is common. They are all part of the atmosphere and all have positive or negative effects depending on which way you want to view them.

So, no they are NOT all part of the atmosphere - certainly not mercury vapour, though there is usually a trace of carbon monoxide.

Lets forget about the rest!

I realise that a true vacuum is impossible, but normal atmospheric pressure is about 101,000 Pa (Pascals) and:

"Outer space"		10−15 Pa
Lowest pressure obtained in laboratory conditions		10−12 Pa
Highest pressure still considered ultra-high vacuum		10−7 Pa
Upper limit of high vacuum		10−1 Pa

For most of the things being discussed here the difference between a "high vacuum" and a "perfect vacuum" would make no difference at all!

The change is pressure collapsing a can or whatever would hardly be measurable, so I fail to see why you rave on about a vacuum!
It's nothing magical or mysterious.
 

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 06, 2017, 02:22:45 AM

Likewise. Let me know when you have the ability to grasp stuff.

From my posts, including the fact that I was able to say what your model predicts, it sure seems like I have that ability.

You have no clue about my model, that much is blatantly clear.
The whole premise was for you to understand it and you've went back into your backward stance and back to your indoctrinated robotic one.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 06, 2017, 01:35:01 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 06, 2017, 01:13:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 06, 2017, 12:53:32 AM

Mercury vapour? What the hell is mercury vapour?

Have a word with yourself will you.
The vapour is atmosphere.
Mercury vapour like water vapour like any vapour is atmosphere, whatever name you want to attach to it.

If "Mercury vapour . . . . .  is atmosphere" then I suggest that you try to live by breathing it.

Mercury vapour is a gas.
Oxygen, Nitrogen etc at NTP is are gasses.

It's got nothing to do with breathing it. We can't live by breathing hydrogen or helium on their own.
We can't live by breathing carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide or any vapours you care to mention.

YOU said that "Mercury vapour like water vapour like any vapour is atmosphere".
Mercury vapour is not "atmosphere". ,
On earth, the atmosphere is composed of Nitrogen 78%, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%, with carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone adding up to about 0.1%.
Carbon dioxide is not toxic till it gets to about 1% of the air we breathe.

Hopefully, mercury vapour forms no part of it because it is quite toxic when inhaled.

Quote from: sceptimatic

They all have one thing is common. They are all part of the atmosphere and all have positive or negative effects depending on which way you want to view them.

So, no they are NOT all part of the atmosphere - certainly not mercury vapour, though there is usually a trace of carbon monoxide.

Lets forget about the rest!

I realise that a true vacuum is impossible, but normal atmospheric pressure is about 101,000 Pa (Pascals) and:

"Outer space"		10−15 Pa
Lowest pressure obtained in laboratory conditions		10−12 Pa
Highest pressure still considered ultra-high vacuum		10−7 Pa
Upper limit of high vacuum		10−1 Pa

For most of the things being discussed here the difference between a "high vacuum" and a "perfect vacuum" would make no difference at all!

The change is pressure collapsing a can or whatever would hardly be measurable, so I fail to see why you rave on about a vacuum!
It's nothing magical or mysterious.

As soon as you mentioned outer space, I gave up.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 06, 2017, 04:51:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 06, 2017, 01:35:01 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 06, 2017, 01:13:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 06, 2017, 12:53:32 AM

Mercury vapour? What the hell is mercury vapour?

Have a word with yourself will you.
The vapour is atmosphere.
Mercury vapour like water vapour like any vapour is atmosphere, whatever name you want to attach to it.

If "Mercury vapour . . . . .  is atmosphere" then I suggest that you try to live by breathing it.

Mercury vapour is a gas.
Oxygen, Nitrogen etc at NTP is are gasses.

It's got nothing to do with breathing it. We can't live by breathing hydrogen or helium on their own.
We can't live by breathing carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide or any vapours you care to mention.

YOU said that "Mercury vapour like water vapour like any vapour is atmosphere".
Mercury vapour is not "atmosphere". ,
On earth, the atmosphere is composed of Nitrogen 78%, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%, with carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone adding up to about 0.1%.
Carbon dioxide is not toxic till it gets to about 1% of the air we breathe.

Hopefully, mercury vapour forms no part of it because it is quite toxic when inhaled.

Quote from: sceptimatic

They all have one thing is common. They are all part of the atmosphere and all have positive or negative effects depending on which way you want to view them.

So, no they are NOT all part of the atmosphere - certainly not mercury vapour, though there is usually a trace of carbon monoxide.

Lets forget about the rest!

I realise that a true vacuum is impossible, but normal atmospheric pressure is about 101,000 Pa (Pascals) and:

"Outer space"		10−15 Pa
Lowest pressure obtained in laboratory conditions		10−12 Pa
Highest pressure still considered ultra-high vacuum		10−7 Pa
Upper limit of high vacuum		10−1 Pa

For most of the things being discussed here the difference between a "high vacuum" and a "perfect vacuum" would make no difference at all!

The change is pressure collapsing a can or whatever would hardly be measurable, so I fail to see why you rave on about a vacuum!
It's nothing magical or mysterious.

As soon as you mentioned outer space, I gave up.

Presumably because accepting outer space shreds your argument to pieces.

You have no clue about my model, that much is blatantly clear.

Then why was I able to make the same prediction based upon your model as you do now?
I provided 2 options. One of which was that which appeals to air pressure, where without letting any air into the tube, the air pressure outside the tube would keep the mercury filling the tube, all the way to the top; that there would be no void.

You have also said that is what would happen with your model.

So no, it is blatantly clear that I do understand your model.

It is also blatantly clear that your model DOES NOT MATCH REALITY!

The whole premise was for you to understand it and you've went back into your backward stance and back to your indoctrinated robotic one.

No. The whole premise was for you to explain a simple observation from reality.
You were unable to do so.
When pressed you have resorted to your backwards stance of simply rejecting reality that doesn't agree with your model.

And now you don't want to try to discuss it any more; with you just repeatedly rejecting reality.
The simple facts are this:
You can fill the tube as shown. There is no air gap.
You invert the tube, and the mercury falls, without any air getting in.
This produces a void and a column of mercury. No air has gotten in from outside so that can't be in the void.

This is what you need to explain.
Until you can do so, your model does not explain reality (or match it, as your explanation indicates that no void should form, while it does in fact form).

This is why the thread is denspressure vs reality, not denspressure vs fantasy.
Denspressure indicates no void should form and the mercury should go to the top of the tube.
Reality clearly has a void forming.

Presumably because accepting outer space shreds your argument to pieces.

Accepting outer space as in how we've been told, would turn me back into a global Earth indoctrinate.
Luckily for me I know it's not what we're told so I don't need to put any thought into that, hence why I said what I said.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 06, 2017, 05:37:57 AM

You have no clue about my model, that much is blatantly clear.

Then why was I able to make the same prediction based upon your model as you do now?
I provided 2 options. One of which was that which appeals to air pressure, where without letting any air into the tube, the air pressure outside the tube would keep the mercury filling the tube, all the way to the top; that there would be no void.

You have also said that is what would happen with your model.

So no, it is blatantly clear that I do understand your model.

It is also blatantly clear that your model DOES NOT MATCH REALITY!

It matches reality perfectly well for those that can grasp it, which you can't.
You keep believing you can but it's clear you do not understand what I'm saying. I find that strange in one sense but in another it sort of fits into how some people can sit and play with all kinds of equations and some of them lack the mind to go to simple basics and logic levels which is the building blocks of everything.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 06, 2017, 05:37:57 AM

The whole premise was for you to understand it and you've went back into your backward stance and back to your indoctrinated robotic one.

No. The whole premise was for you to explain a simple observation from reality.
You were unable to do so.
When pressed you have resorted to your backwards stance of simply rejecting reality that doesn't agree with your model.

And now you don't want to try to discuss it any more; with you just repeatedly rejecting reality.
The simple facts are this:
You can fill the tube as shown. There is no air gap.
You invert the tube, and the mercury falls, without any air getting in.
This produces a void and a column of mercury. No air has gotten in from outside so that can't be in the void.

This is what you need to explain.
Until you can do so, your model does not explain reality (or match it, as your explanation indicates that no void should form, while it does in fact form).

This is why the thread is denspressure vs reality, not denspressure vs fantasy.
Denspressure indicates no void should form and the mercury should go to the top of the tube.
Reality clearly has a void forming.

I'll tell you one last time.
If there's no void then it means the tube is full and absolutely no readings can take place because the tube is full and if the tube is full then the measurement lines on that tube will have no reference point....because the tube is full of mercury because you filled it up like that then asked me what would happen.
I told you nothing would happen because the tube was full of mercury and no atmosphere/air/gas or whatever you want to add to it.

So basically it was you that put forward an inverted set up that was full of mercury which serves no purpose. Can you guess why?
The clue is above.

So let me get this into your head.
If you out mercury in a dish and in a tube and there is a gap, it's because there is gas in that gap. You can name any gas you want but the simple reality is IT IS NOT A VACUUM and it is NOT A NEAR VACUUM, it's is a low pressure gas filled gap.

Coming out with mercury vapour and what not as if it changes anything, doesn't change anything no matter how its dressed up.

This is why I know for sure you have no clue about denpressure and you never will while you rely on gravity and space and fictional Earth vacuums.

In denspressure what is the mechanism that allows atoms and molecules to change size?

Does temperature have any effect?

What is the maximum and minimum six that can be reached?

Quote from: JackBlack on December 06, 2017, 12:25:31 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 06, 2017, 05:37:57 AM

You have no clue about my model, that much is blatantly clear.

Then why was I able to make the same prediction based upon your model as you do now?
I provided 2 options. One of which was that which appeals to air pressure, where without letting any air into the tube, the air pressure outside the tube would keep the mercury filling the tube, all the way to the top; that there would be no void.

You have also said that is what would happen with your model.

So no, it is blatantly clear that I do understand your model.

It is also blatantly clear that your model DOES NOT MATCH REALITY!

It matches reality perfectly well for those that can grasp it, which you can't.
You keep believing you can but it's clear you do not understand what I'm saying. I find that strange in one sense but in another it sort of fits into how some people can sit and play with all kinds of equations and some of them lack the mind to go to simple basics and logic levels which is the building blocks of everything.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 06, 2017, 12:25:31 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 06, 2017, 05:37:57 AM

The whole premise was for you to understand it and you've went back into your backward stance and back to your indoctrinated robotic one.

No. The whole premise was for you to explain a simple observation from reality.
You were unable to do so.
When pressed you have resorted to your backwards stance of simply rejecting reality that doesn't agree with your model.

And now you don't want to try to discuss it any more; with you just repeatedly rejecting reality.
The simple facts are this:
You can fill the tube as shown. There is no air gap.
You invert the tube, and the mercury falls, without any air getting in.
This produces a void and a column of mercury. No air has gotten in from outside so that can't be in the void.

This is what you need to explain.
Until you can do so, your model does not explain reality (or match it, as your explanation indicates that no void should form, while it does in fact form).

This is why the thread is denspressure vs reality, not denspressure vs fantasy.
Denspressure indicates no void should form and the mercury should go to the top of the tube.
Reality clearly has a void forming.

I'll tell you one last time.
If there's no void then it means the tube is full and absolutely no readings can take place because the tube is full and if the tube is full then the measurement lines on that tube will have no reference point....because the tube is full of mercury because you filled it up like that then asked me what would happen.
I told you nothing would happen because the tube was full of mercury and no atmosphere/air/gas or whatever you want to add to it.

So basically it was you that put forward an inverted set up that was full of mercury which serves no purpose. Can you guess why?
The clue is above.

So let me get this into your head.
If you out mercury in a dish and in a tube and there is a gap, it's because there is gas in that gap. You can name any gas you want but the simple reality is IT IS NOT A VACUUM and it is NOT A NEAR VACUUM, it's is a low pressure gas filled gap.

Coming out with mercury vapour and what not as if it changes anything, doesn't change anything no matter how its dressed up.

This is why I know for sure you have no clue about denpressure and you never will while you rely on gravity and space and fictional Earth vacuums.

You keep on saying you base your world view on what you can see. Well look. The tube is filled with mercury then inverted and the end placed in a mercury bath.
Look at the tube. There is now a gap with no air in it. What more evidence  do you need to show you are wrong. The level will change with changes in atmospheric pressure in reality, which is not what you are saying. This is reality rather than the imagined world of denpressure. How can you refuse the evidence of your eyes? Just like in the case with your magical molecules which even now you refuse to disclose how you seen them. Why are you keeping it a secret?