Denspressure vs Reality

  • 1394 Replies
  • 305548 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1140 on: December 06, 2017, 11:52:37 PM »
It matches reality perfectly well for those that can grasp it, which you can't.
You mean it matches reality perfectly well for those that will ignore any part of reality which doesn't match with it.

You keep believing you can but it's clear you do not understand what I'm saying.
Then why are you completely unable to point out any issue?
All you can do is repeat the same lies about reality.

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.
Again, that is what your model predicts.
That you start with no void and without letting any air it, it remains as no void.
But that does not match reality.

You aren't trying to explain a hypothetic situation. You are trying to explain what happens in reality.

Until you can do that, it shows your model does not match reality.

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?
To show your model does not match reality.
Only in your model does it serve no purpose. In reality, it still does.
It shows clearly that no air is at the top.

Coming out with mercury vapour and what not as if it changes anything, doesn't change anything no matter how its dressed up.
Bitching about it having a tiny amount of gas doesn't change anything.
It is not enough pressure to push the mercury down. This is clear from the fact that it was unable to push the mercury up to begin with.

Now again:
YOU START WITH NO VOID!
YOU INVERT THE TUBE!
YOU END UP WITH A VOID WITH NO GAS COMING FROM OUTSIDE TO INSIDE!
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS??

If not, stop claiming your model can explain reality.

And stop saying I don't understand.
I'm not objecting to your explanations, I am objecting to your baseless claims about reality.

?

kikael

  • 35
  • +0/-0
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1141 on: December 07, 2017, 12:08:24 AM »
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?
I hope you're not expecting any kind of specifics. If you are I'm afraid you are shit out of luck, as you probably know yourself, because that's not how scepti operates..
His very thought process seems to pretty much depend on being as vague as possible and dealing with fringe areas and conditions. Which is understandable because it leaves him the most room to wiggle his way about and around anything. It just makes me wonder if that means that he himself actually knows that his idea doesn't really make sense in regard to reality or at the VERY least makes nowhere near as much sense as what mainstream science has to offer.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1142 on: December 07, 2017, 12:13:12 AM »
In denspressure what is the mechanism that allows atoms and molecules to change size?
Pressure, vibration/friction and frequency of it.


Does temperature have any effect?
Temperature is simple vibration and frequency of it. That's all it is, in pressure.


What is the maximum and minimum six that can be reached?
I don't know because it's only what can be realistically measured in the conditions we can measure them in.
The Earth holds a lot more extremities than what we can physically test out but we can all play guessing games.

?

kikael

  • 35
  • +0/-0
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1143 on: December 07, 2017, 12:15:20 AM »
In denspressure what is the mechanism that allows atoms and molecules to change size?
Pressure, vibration/friction and frequency of it.


Does temperature have any effect?
Temperature is simple vibration and frequency of it. That's all it is, in pressure.


What is the maximum and minimum six that can be reached?
I don't know because it's only what can be realistically measured in the conditions we can measure them in.
The Earth holds a lot more extremities than what we can physically test out but we can all play guessing games.
I rest my case! :D

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1144 on: December 07, 2017, 12:27:38 AM »


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?



Do you recall me ever telling you about porosity?
Do you also recall me telling people that the reason things are more dense and weigh more than others is because of what they can displace of atmosphere and what they absorb of it?

Mercury is a very dense liquid but it is not a full atmospheric displacement of its entire dense mass...but close enough as to not allow any atmosphere into it that is not already trapped.
That trapped atmosphere (some call it mercury vapour) is naturally squeezed UP and out of the mercury because it is being crushed by the dense mass of matter making up the mercury structure.

This is why I keep telling people to try and grasp it and to stop going into vacuum mode when seeing a gap.
By all means believe it's a vacuum and inside the tube is absolutely nothing but all you're doing is following fantasy and not reality.

Just remember one thing. Understand what denpressure actually is and you'll seriously start to understand real life. I'm serious.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1145 on: December 07, 2017, 12:37:29 AM »

Bitching about it having a tiny amount of gas doesn't change anything.
It is not enough pressure to push the mercury down. This is clear from the fact that it was unable to push the mercury up to begin with.

You're right, there isn't enough pressure to push the mercury down.
There can only ever be enough pressure if the external atmosphere allows it.
The external atmosphere is the key to this not the internal piddly amount inside the tube...but that piddly pressure still has to be inside that tube for any of it to work.

That pressure (molecules) (gap) will be compressed more or decompressed as and when the external pressure is applied to or released from the dish of mercury, respectively.





Now again:
YOU START WITH NO VOID!
YOU INVERT THE TUBE!
YOU END UP WITH A VOID WITH NO GAS COMING FROM OUTSIDE TO INSIDE!
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS??

If not, stop claiming your model can explain reality.

And stop saying I don't understand.
I'm not objecting to your explanations, I am objecting to your baseless claims about reality.
If you end up with a gap it's because there's gas.
There's always trapped atmosphere, gas or mercury vapour or whatever you want to call it.
Your barometer would not work without it.

Now get this.

IT IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE A VACUUM and if it's not a vacuum it has to be something, just like an empty room is not empty but it appears empty...but we all know it's full of atmosphere or gas or whatever you want to call it.

How people refuse to understand this is as baffling as hell but this is mainstream science for you.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1146 on: December 07, 2017, 12:41:06 AM »
In denspressure what is the mechanism that allows atoms and molecules to change size?
Pressure, vibration/friction and frequency of it.


Does temperature have any effect?
Temperature is simple vibration and frequency of it. That's all it is, in pressure.


What is the maximum and minimum six that can be reached?
I don't know because it's only what can be realistically measured in the conditions we can measure them in.
The Earth holds a lot more extremities than what we can physically test out but we can all play guessing games.
I rest my case! :D
Good, one less to waste space.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1147 on: December 07, 2017, 12:57:12 AM »
Do you recall me ever telling you about porosity?
I recall you telling lots of people about it.
Do you recall me telling you what that means?
It means that nothing could be air-tight.

That trapped atmosphere (some call it mercury vapour) is naturally squeezed UP and out of the mercury because it is being crushed by the dense mass of matter making up the mercury structure.
No. Mercury vapour is composed of mercury, not trapped atmosphere.

This is why I keep telling people to try and grasp it and to stop going into vacuum mode when seeing a gap.
Again, it not being a perfect vacuum is irrelevant.
The pressure of the mercury vapour is not high enough to push the mercury down.
If it was it would be high enough to push the mercury up when the tube was inverted.

Remember, that was the entire point of the inverted tube, to show that it isn't just due to pressure differentials.

Just remember one thing. Understand what denpressure actually is and you'll seriously start to understand real life. I'm serious.
Except you have just shown that isn't the case.
You clearly demonstrated that you need to deny reality to pretend denspressure works.

You're right, there isn't enough pressure to push the mercury down.
Yet it goes down. That is what you need to explain.
Stop trying to avoid the issue.

That pressure (molecules) (gap) will be compressed more or decompressed as and when the external pressure is applied to or released from the dish of mercury, respectively.
Again, that is not how vapour pressure works.
The only way to compress it is to heat the substance above its boiling point.
The only way to decompress it is to boil it all or lower the temperature.
If you try changing the volume, you just have more mercury go to the vapour or liquid phase.

Again, this is clearly shown by the inversion.
If the pressure difference between the inside and outside was key, the same void would exist regardless of orientation.
It doesn't.
This shows there is some force (real or apparent) which is only acting on it in one direction.


If you end up with a gap it's because there's gas.
Irrelavent.
The gas is not a high enough pressure to create the void.
The gas only exists because of the void.

Your barometer would not work without it.
Yes it would.

IT IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE A VACUUM
No. By definition it is a vacuum. Sure, it isn't a perfect vacuum, but it still is a vacuum.

just like an empty room is not empty but it appears empty...but we all know it's full of atmosphere or gas or whatever you want to call it.
No, it is mostly empty space.

It is like saying this bowl is full of marbles:

Sure, it has some in it, but it isn't full.

If the void was full of air, it would have liquid or solid air in it.

*

Copper Knickers

  • 904
  • +0/-0
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1148 on: December 07, 2017, 01:30:57 AM »
If you end up with a gap it's because there's gas.
There's always trapped atmosphere, gas or mercury vapour or whatever you want to call it.

Why does the gap always appear at around the same height?

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • +0/-0
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1149 on: December 07, 2017, 02:12:17 AM »

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.


What is space then, and how do you "know it's not what we're told"?
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1150 on: December 07, 2017, 02:17:46 AM »

No. By definition it is a vacuum. Sure, it isn't a perfect vacuum, but it still is a vacuum.
It's not a perfect vacuum because it's not a vacuum at all and never will be.

just like an empty room is not empty but it appears empty...but we all know it's full of atmosphere or gas or whatever you want to call it.
No, it is mostly empty space.
What does m mostly empty space mean?
Describe it.


It is like saying this bowl is full of marbles:

Sure, it has some in it, but it isn't full.
It's full of something other than marbles, can you guess what?


If the void was full of air, it would have liquid or solid air in it.
I have no clue how in the hell you came to this thought.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 02:24:57 AM by sceptimatic »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1151 on: December 07, 2017, 02:19:53 AM »
If you end up with a gap it's because there's gas.
There's always trapped atmosphere, gas or mercury vapour or whatever you want to call it.

Why does the gap always appear at around the same height?
Because that's how much atmosphere is crushed up from the porosity of the mercury.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1152 on: December 07, 2017, 02:24:00 AM »

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.


What is space then, and how do you "know it's not what we're told"?
Stacked atmosphere tells me all I need to know. Evacuation chambers are a clear example of how I know what we are under.
I've explained it all so look it up.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1153 on: December 07, 2017, 03:42:39 AM »
It's not a perfect vacuum because it's not a vacuum at all and never will be.
Again, by definition it is.
You ignoring that fact does not change that fact.
It is significantly below atmospheric pressure and thus a vacuum.

What does m mostly empty space mean?
Describe it.
The picture below describes it quite well.
But it can be described in two simple ways (maybe more).
1 - space which is mostly empty. It has a small number of particles in it with large distances between these particles (i.e. must larger than the particle size).
2 - Space which can have a lot more put into it without removing anything, or alternatively, which can be compressed to a much smaller volume without removing anything.

The second one removes any ambiguity due to your magic air piece nonsense.
You cannot compress liquids or solids to any appreciable extent. You would need to provide enough pressure to start nuclear fusion to make it denser.
However, you can easily compress gasses.
In fact, gasses follow the relation PV=C, i.e. the pressure times the volume is a constant, assuming you keep the temperature constant and don't have issues with vapour pressure.
Liquids and solids more closely approximate V=C, i.e. regardless of the pressure the volume is constant.
This forms a simple discontinuity where by continually pressurising something selling it in converting to a liquid indicates that it is full.

This is another problem with your denspressure nonsense.
Your magic air pieces should continue compressing even as a liquid, but they don't.

This is more evidence in favour of mainstream science, where molecules have a real physical size and gasses are molecules flying around.

It's full of something other than marbles, can you guess what?
No it isn't.
The fact that the marbles are there taking up space shows it can't be full of any one thing.
Regardless, a large potion is empty space.

If the void was full of air, it would have liquid or solid air in it.
I have no clue how in the hell you came to this thought.
That was explained before. If you were paying attention you would easily understand.
If I take a container, that is "full" of air, it isn't full, because it can easily have more in there.

Here I'll explain some more.
Instead of it being full I can compress the air either by putting more air in or reducing the volume.
While it is a gas, I can continue to do this.
If I do it enough, the gas liquefies, i.e. becomes a liquid. At this point, I can no longer compress it any more.

Because that's how much atmosphere is crushed up from the porosity of the mercury.
But you can start with different volumes of mercury which would thus have a different amount of air.
Meanwhile, (again doing something you hate) if you compare it to another substance, like water, which would have a much larger amount of trapped air, the void is smaller.

So that clearly isn't the case.
If you wish to disagree, provide an explanation that is consistent with these facts.

Stacked atmosphere tells me all I need to know. Evacuation chambers are a clear example of how I know what we are under.
I've explained it all so look it up.
You "explained" it based upon how they would allegedly work under your model. That doesn't show your model is correct.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1154 on: December 07, 2017, 05:14:56 AM »

If I take a container, that is "full" of air, it isn't full, because it can easily have more in there.

And to think after all of this and this is the stage you are at and yet you don't even know why.
It's a little baffling as to why you cannot get to grips with simplicity.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1155 on: December 07, 2017, 11:33:51 AM »
And to think after all of this and this is the stage you are at and yet you don't even know why.
It's a little baffling as to why you cannot get to grips with simplicity.
I do know why.
It is because I understand reality and your model.
I realise your makes no sense and does not match reality.

Again, can you explain how the void appears when it is upright, but not when it is upside down, why the height of the mercury is always the same and why it doesn't appear in a 1m tube of water?

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1156 on: December 07, 2017, 11:39:58 AM »
Mercury will have more momentum than water.

*

Mainframes

  • 2088
  • +0/-0
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1157 on: December 07, 2017, 11:56:00 AM »
In denspressure what is the mechanism that allows atoms and molecules to change size?
Pressure, vibration/friction and frequency of it.

How does pressure, frequency and vibration change the size of a molecule? And if a molecule changes size what structural change takes place given that the density will be different.

Quote
Does temperature have any effect?
Temperature is simple vibration and frequency of it. That's all it is, in pressure.

That’s not what I asked. What effect does temperature have? If we increase temperature what is happening and why?

Quote
What is the maximum and minimum six that can be reached?
I don't know because it's only what can be realistically measured in the conditions we can measure them in.
The Earth holds a lot more extremities than what we can physically test out but we can all play guessing games.

Ok. So what measurements have you made so far and across what range of conditions?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1158 on: December 07, 2017, 12:42:26 PM »
Mercury will have more momentum than water.
He doesn't believe in momentum, nor Earth accelerating. If you wish to discuss that, do so in another thread.
This one is for the failings of denspressure.

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1159 on: December 07, 2017, 12:45:25 PM »
Mercury will have more momentum than water.
He doesn't believe in momentum, nor Earth accelerating. If you wish to discuss that, do so in another thread.
This one is for the failings of denspressure.

I was answering your question. If you don't want to encounter answers to your questions - don't ask them.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1160 on: December 07, 2017, 01:17:58 PM »
I was answering your question. If you don't want to encounter answers to your questions - don't ask them.
No you weren't.
This entire thread has been about denspressure.
The questions (which are the same as have been repeated before) are in the context of denspressure and asking for an explanation based upon denspressure.
As such, explaining with a different model is not answering the question.

Do I need to write out the question in full such that a moron that doesn't understand context can clearly understand it?

Here it is:
Can you use denspressure to explain why there is not a void when the 1 m long tube filled with mercury is upside down (i.e. the sealed part at the bottom, as per prior diagram), yet it appears/forms when the tube is inverted without any air getting in. As further questions, can you explain, using denspressure, why the same void does not appear with water in a 1 m tube, but does appear in water with a tube over 10 m and why the height of the mercury column remains constant regardless of the length of the tube (until the tube goes below the height of the column in other tubes)?

Is that simple enough for you?

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1161 on: December 07, 2017, 01:20:41 PM »
I was answering your question. If you don't want to encounter answers to your questions - don't ask them.
No you weren't.
This entire thread has been about denspressure.
The questions (which are the same as have been repeated before) are in the context of denspressure and asking for an explanation based upon denspressure.
As such, explaining with a different model is not answering the question.

Do I need to write out the question in full such that a moron that doesn't understand context can clearly understand it?

Here it is:
Can you use denspressure to explain why there is not a void when the 1 m long tube filled with mercury is upside down (i.e. the sealed part at the bottom, as per prior diagram), yet it appears/forms when the tube is inverted without any air getting in. As further questions, can you explain, using denspressure, why the same void does not appear with water in a 1 m tube, but does appear in water with a tube over 10 m and why the height of the mercury column remains constant regardless of the length of the tube (until the tube goes below the height of the column in other tubes)?

Is that simple enough for you?

Thanks for clearing up your question. I find it useful to have a question written out so that others can answer it. But it's very simple.

Mercury will have more momentum than water.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1162 on: December 07, 2017, 01:44:40 PM »
Thanks for clearing up your question. I find it useful to have a question written out so that others can answer it. But it's very simple.

Mercury will have more momentum than water.
So you completely ignore the question.
In denspressure Earth is not accelerating, it is stationary, so momentum would have nothing to do with it.
Also, in denspressure momentum and inertia do not exist, so they CAN'T explain it.

Do you have an explanation based upon denspressure?

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1163 on: December 07, 2017, 01:51:38 PM »
Stationary is just another way to partially describe momentum

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1164 on: December 07, 2017, 02:10:21 PM »
Stationary is just another way to partially describe momentum
Can you answer the question asked?

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1165 on: December 07, 2017, 02:13:53 PM »
Can you answer the question asked?

Not if it requires me to accept that objects don't have momentum

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1166 on: December 07, 2017, 11:09:28 PM »
And to think after all of this and this is the stage you are at and yet you don't even know why.
It's a little baffling as to why you cannot get to grips with simplicity.
I do know why.
It is because I understand reality and your model.
I realise your makes no sense and does not match reality.

Again, can you explain how the void appears when it is upright, but not when it is upside down, why the height of the mercury is always the same and why it doesn't appear in a 1m tube of water?
You've just been explained to and you simply cannot grasp it, or refuse to.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1167 on: December 07, 2017, 11:19:15 PM »
How does pressure, frequency and vibration change the size of a molecule? And if a molecule changes size what structural change takes place given that the density will be different.

Go back to the gobstopper analogy and think about what I said.



Does temperature have any effect?
Temperature is simple vibration and frequency of it. That's all it is, in pressure.[/quote]

That’s not what I asked. What effect does temperature have? If we increase temperature what is happening and why?

If you increase temperature you're increasing vibration and pressures and frequencies of the vibration.

Rub your hands together in all different ways and feel the change in all ways.
That's as simple as it gets but that's what's happening in life, everywhere and it can only happen because all matter is attached with absolutely no free space.

What is the maximum and minimum six that can be reached?
I don't know because it's only what can be realistically measured in the conditions we can measure them in.
The Earth holds a lot more extremities than what we can physically test out but we can all play guessing games.

Ok. So what measurements have you made so far and across what range of conditions?
Enough to be confident in what I'm saying. That's all you need to know.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 11:24:07 PM by sceptimatic »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1168 on: December 07, 2017, 11:31:34 PM »
Ok Jack, I've copied your 3 barometer diagrams, one inverted and one normal way up but full and one leaving a gap.

I'm going to shrink them and then explain them all and I want everyone to take note of this for when I get told I don;t explain anything.

I won't be too long.

*

Mainframes

  • 2088
  • +0/-0
Re: Denspressure vs Reality
« Reply #1169 on: December 07, 2017, 11:39:33 PM »
Please provide some evidence of these measurements and the relationship between molecular size and pressure and temperature.

And I’ll start getting to the crux of the argument. If we cool a substance, what is happening within a molecule to cause it to shrink?
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 11:42:52 PM by Mainframes »
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.