If you think gravity is a lie, how do you explain this?

As the tite says. Most of flat earthers think buoyancy is responsable for gravity, how would you explain this then?

Most of flat earthers think buoyancy is responsable for gravity

Not on this site, from what I've seen. It's mostly UA and infinite plane here.
The main buoyancy-esque model would be denpressure, but that functions with a different model of how  molecules work.

It's mostly UA and infinite plane here.

Please elaborate.

The main buoyancy-esque model would be denpressure, but that functions with a different model of how  molecules work.

Please elaborate.

Quote from: Jane on January 24, 2018, 04:36:39 AM

It's mostly UA and infinite plane here.

Please elaborate.

UA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921458#msg1921458
Infinite plane: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921468#msg1921468

Quote from: Jane on January 24, 2018, 04:36:39 AM

The main buoyancy-esque model would be denpressure, but that functions with a different model of how  molecules work.

Please elaborate.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921462#msg1921462
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921476#msg1921476
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1935684#msg1935684
(in that order)

Quote from: loucmachine on January 24, 2018, 06:59:08 AM

Quote from: Jane on January 24, 2018, 04:36:39 AM

It's mostly UA and infinite plane here.

Please elaborate.

UA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921458#msg1921458
Infinite plane: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921468#msg1921468

I can see how UA and the Infinite plane hypothesis do explain it, but how many models of the flat earth do we need?

Quote

Quote from: Jane on January 24, 2018, 04:36:39 AM

The main buoyancy-esque model would be denpressure, but that functions with a different model of how  molecules work.

Please elaborate.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921462#msg1921462
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921476#msg1921476
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1935684#msg1935684
(in that order)

But, please tell us how "denpressure" explains why a feather and a chunk of metal fall at different rates in air, but the same rates in a near vacuum.
I can't see how they can fall at all in the near vacuum - no air pressure, no falling?

I can see how UA and the Infinite plane hypothesis do explain it, but how many models of the flat earth do we need?

I'd suggest taking a look back at scientific history, everything started with multiple potential explanations.

But, please tell us how "denpressure" explains why a feather and a chunk of metal fall at different rates in air, but the same rates in a near vacuum.
I can't see how they can fall at all in the near vacuum - no air pressure, no falling?

Lack of air resistance, not a total lack of air pressure.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 24, 2018, 06:17:25 PM

I can see how UA and the Infinite plane hypothesis do explain it, but how many models of the flat earth do we need?

I'd suggest taking a look back at scientific history, everything started with multiple potential explanations.

Quote

But, please tell us how "denpressure" explains why a feather and a chunk of metal fall at different rates in air, but the same rates in a near vacuum.
I can't see how they can fall at all in the near vacuum - no air pressure, no falling?

Lack of air resistance, not a total lack of air pressure.

Not quite "a total lack of air pressure", so close hat it can hardly matter!

What is an Ultra-High Vacuum? [1]

Practical high vacuum levels (Table 1) range down to approximately 1.33 x 10^-4 Pa (1 x 10^-6 torr) while ultra-high vacuum (UHV) levels are in the vacuum range characterized by pressures of about 10^-7 Pa (7.5 x 10^-10 torr) and greater.

Table 1 - Classification of Vacuum Ranges [2]

Notes:
[a] The SI unit of pressure is the Pascal (1 Pa = 1 N m^-2)
[b] Normal atmospheric pressure of 1 atmosphere is 101,325 Pa or 1013 mbar (1 bar =10⁵ Pa)
[c] Normal atmospheric pressure of 1 atmosphere is 760 Torr (1 Torr = 133.3 Pa)
[d] Ultrahigh vacuum is defined as the pressure range between 10^-6 Pa (Europe) and/or 10^-7 Pa (USA) to 10^-10 Pa.

Things still fall down just the same in even the best quality vacuum. So exactly what causes this force when there is near enough to no air.

Things still fall down just the same in even the best quality vacuum. So exactly what causes this force when there is near enough to no air.

We'd have to be here all day going over the properties of air in the denpressure model, what happens when a vacuum is created, what a 'best quality vacuum' even is with this model of molecules...
Which is decently involved even with an understanding of the model, that I doubt you have given the general content of your posts, so thanks, but I'll pass.
Short version: there's always going to be pressure. That's what happens when the force is inherent to the molecules themselves rather than a consequence of a force acting on them. Less pressure? Sure, but also less resistance.

Quote from: Jane on January 24, 2018, 04:36:39 AM

The main buoyancy-esque model would be denpressure, but that functions with a different model of how  molecules work.

Please elaborate.

You may well regret that.

That's what happens when the force is inherent to the molecules themselves rather than a consequence of a force acting on them. Less pressure? Sure, but also less resistance.

What "force is inherent to the molecules"? Stop being utterly ridiculous!
I honestly can't work out why you try to prop up denpressure.
It's all from Sceppy's daydream and has no physical or theoretical basis just as the
      "non-Euclidean Earth" is no more than John Davis's "thought experiment" and
      "DET" is purely for JRoweSkeptic's mind and have no physical or theoretical basis.

The few molecules left in some of the best vacuum system could not cause any siginificant force on anything!
In case you and your mate Sceppy don't realise it pressure is a measure of how much force can be exerted per unit area.
1 Pascal is 1 newton per square metre - that's pretty small, but it is possible to achieve 1.30 x 10^-13 Pascals.
How can this pressure produce enough force to cause the weight of any object?

In that near-vacuum, there are only about 20 molecules per cc.

Of course, you are going to claim this is "Globe Physics" - NO, it's real physics.

Physical Chemistry Laboratory, School of Chemistry
Theoretical background
1. Introduction
The term vacuum refers to the condition of an enclosed space that is devoid of all gases or other material content. It is not experimentally feasible to achieve a “perfect” vacuum, although one can approach this condition extremely closely. It is possible routinely to obtain a vacuum of 10^-6 Torr and with more sophisticated techniques 10^-10 Torr (1.3 x 10^-13 bar or 1.3 x 10^-8 Pa); it is even possible by special techniques to obtain a vacuum of 10^-15 Torr, or about 30 molecules per cubic centimeter.

One Torr, the conventional unit of pressure in vacuum work, is the pressure equivalent of a manometer reading of 1 mm of liquid mercury; 1 Torr = 1/760 atm = 1.333 x 10^-3 bar = 133.3 Pa.

From: Physical Chemistry Laboratory, School of Chemistry, Vacuum Techniques

You might not be the slightest bit interested in reality, but I am. If FET (or denpressure) can't explain reality - tough cheese!

Still, you're Mathematician, so it's a bit much to expect any understanding of physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc
just as I have little real grasp of any higher maths.

I honestly can't work out why you try to prop up denpressure.

And, as ever, I don't. I just tend to prefer when people make honest, informed arguments. But as you've ignored it the countless times I've explained that to you, I expect you'll ignore it this time too, just like you ignore anything related to FET.
You have absolutely no understanding of anything any FEer says, and you apparently have a religious objection to gaining any degree of understanding. All you are doing is making REers look like morons with how often you have to resort to such idiocy. You don't make yourself look smart when you go off on those little tirades against denpressure and the like, you make anyone that knows the model ignore every word you have to say, because you are acting like an expert when you apparently don't grasp the simplest concept. (eg: treating denpressure, the explanation for gravity, as equivalent to the pressure per unit area caused by gravity).

Quote from: rabinoz on January 25, 2018, 05:13:20 PM

I honestly can't work out why you try to prop up denpressure.

And, as ever, I don't. I just tend to prefer when people make honest, informed arguments. But as you've ignored it the countless times I've explained that to you, I expect you'll ignore it this time too, just like you ignore anything related to FET.

I expect explanations to have some connection with reality - denpressure doesn't - end of story.

You have absolutely no understanding of anything any FEer says, and you apparently have a religious objection to gaining any degree of understanding.

That is completely untrue, but when it comes to denpressure or DET I can never get an answer, so what am I to do?

I simply cannot comprehend any of Sceppy's explanations of what could cause weight.
The name "denpressure" seems to imply that "pressure" causes "weight", but apparently it doesn't, so what does.

I have asked Sceppy about the change of weight when a person is
      under high pressure in a diving bell or working in a caisson or (in fact a person weight slightly less - due to buoyancy).
      under low pressure in a high aircraft or on say, Mt Everest.
I never get a straight answer. It's always som evasive crap about our man-made scales unable to make such measurements.
So to clarify things I ask for simple numerical answers, at which point he raves on about being indoctrinated.

All you are doing is making REers look like morons with how often you have to resort to such idiocy.

No, that would be you!

You don't make yourself look smart when you go off on those little tirades against denpressure and the like,

I'm not trying to "make myself look smart"! But where are these tirades?

you make anyone that knows the model

Just who "knows the model" except Sceppy and possibly you.

ignore every word you have to say, because you are acting like an expert when you apparently don't grasp the simplest concept.

Quote from: Jane

I have seen no "simplest concept" when it comes to denpressure - at least nothing that makes sense, or isn't that required?

(eg: treating denpressure, the explanation for gravity, as equivalent to the pressure per unit area caused by gravity).

Well, YOU TELL me how you calculate the weight of an object using denpressure under various conditions of pressure, etc.
And if pressure does not cause weight why on earth did Sceppy call it denpressure?

You are the expert so answer me these:
A person weighs 80 kg at sea level under normal pressure of about 14.7 psi:
Find the change of weight of that person when
      working in a caisson at 50 psi - does the higher pressure change the weight,
      on the top of Mt Everest at an altitude of 29,029 ft and an air pressure of 4.9 psi.
And find the weight (allowing for buoyancy) three 10 x 10 x 10 cm cubes,
      one of solid nylon (density 1,150 kg/m³),
      one of aluminium (density 2,700 kg/m³) and
      one of gold (density 19,300 kg/m³)
under normal air pressure and under a near perfect vacuum.

I do understand that you might be busy, so explain to me how to do this sort of calcilation.

If denpressure cannot be used to make real world calculations, it is worthless.
At least UA does permit calculations like this.
     

Just who "knows the model" except Sceppy and possibly you.

I've linked an explanation to the underlying theory of denpressure already in this thread, and I'm pretty sure you've seen it explained several times before. the problem is not with FEers, the problem is with you not willing to put in the effort to understand the thing you're making all these grand claims about.

And if pressure does not cause weight why on earth did Sceppy call it denpressure?

Because pressure is a key factor, but the cause of said pressure is pretty damn obviously going to be different because the origin of pressure under RET is gravity. Does that seriously need explaining? It's pressure, it isn't air pressure caused by gravity. It's pressure exerted by a fundamentally different model of molecules.
And regardless, it is beyond tedious to deal with people whose objections are semantic. Again, you are making RET look weak if that's what you need to resort to. You should be capable of actual arguments, they're not hard.

I do understand that you might be busy, so explain to me how to do this sort of calcilation.

It's always som evasive crap about our man-made scales unable to make such measurements.
So to clarify things I ask for simple numerical answers, at which point he raves on about being indoctrinated.

Density times volume times d, where d basically depends on pressure, but generally at sea level it'd be 9.8.
The problem however is measuring the effects of the lower pressure, which would be why Scepti often brings up issues with scales etc in low pressure, as under his model the effects of the lower pressure on the scale itself are significant. He answers your question, you just refuse to see it as an answer because it isn't the one you want. Look for the answer rather than assuming there isn't one and maybe it'll stop being so tedious talking to you.
Indoctrinated isn't the word I'd use. Idiotic maybe. By that point you aren't comparing observations of reality, you're comparing contents of a theory divorced from the world. You're objecting because it isn't in line with what you believe, rather than because it isn't in line with what we can observe.

I don't know how many ways this needs explaining, but one last try.
When Scepti talked about scales, he explains observations. he points out that, due to the effect of the lower pressure on the scales, an object will exert the same basic effect on them as it would in higher pressure, because the pressure affects the sensitivity of the scale. Thus the weight as measured by a scale would be similar. This is not inherently the same as the effect of pressure on the object; instruments don't give objective truths about their reality, they're as affected by environment as anything.
This is a direct answer to the question of what would happen if you way something at sea level, and weigh it up a mountain.
So when you press the question, rather than acknowledging this, you are demanding he explain something that he does not believe can be measured. That is fundamentally illogical, and you absolutely deserve whatever you got for that. You don't respond, you don't refute, you don't try to understand, you assume he is evading and continue doing a disservice to RET.

I don't know how many ways this needs explaining, but one last try.
When Scepti talked about scales, he explains observations.

Has he ever given meaningful observations about the effect of low pressure on scales?
The only one I can recall had the scale in a plastic bag that was evacuated. Of course the outside air pressure simply squeezed down on the scale-plate.

Can you show me better examples.

he points out that, due to the effect of the lower pressure on the scales, an object will exert the same basic effect on them as it would in higher pressure, because the pressure affects the sensitivity of the scale.

But suitable scales are not affected by pressure. Tests like this have been shown many times on YouTube.
Sceppy's "effect of the lower pressure on the scales" is purely in his mind to explain the his denpressure failing.

Thus the weight as measured by a scale would be similar. This is not inherently the same as the effect of pressure on the object; instruments don't give objective truths about their reality, they're as affected by environment as anything.

Do know anything at all about measurement or do you guess everything?
In reality, good instruments are little affected by the environment and any residual effects will be defined in the specification.

This is a direct answer to the question of what would happen if you way something at sea level, and weigh it up a mountain.

No, that's a cop out because denpressure does not work.

So when you press the question, rather than acknowledging this, you are demanding he explain something that he does not believe can be measured. That is fundamentally illogical, and you absolutely deserve whatever you got for that.

Quote

No, I expect that if denpressure is a valid hypothesis, it can explain these things, if it can't it can't be a valid hypothesis.

Quote from: Jane

You don't respond, you don't refute, you don't try to understand, you assume he is evading and continue doing a disservice to RET.

Quote

What do you mean by, "You don't respond, you don't refute, you don't try to understand"? There is a limit to what can be debated with Sceppy, because he literally dies no speak the same language.
All the usual terms  used in describing dynamics, etc have totally different meanings, I have presented a few.

But, yes, I assume he is evading, because because his hypothesis cannot explain simple occurrences in real life.
His next response is to call anyone that won't empty their mind and swallow what he says indoctrinated!

I might be wrong,  but I do not believe that Sceppy has ever given a numerical result and a hypothesis incapable of making predictions is totally useless.

There is a limit to what can be debated with Sceppy, because he literally dies no speak the same language.
All the usual terms  used in describing dynamics, etc have totally different meanings, I have presented a few.

So pay attention and figure it out, rather than complaining about semantics. he's using a fundamentally different model of even molecules, it's just silly to expect the exact same definitions to transfer across.
It's really not that hard if you just pay attention, and try to understand before you try to refute. Any other conversation and that would be the bare minimum.
If it's too complicated for you, fine, then shut up about it. Easy answer. If you don't understand it, don't make claims about it until you do. Another bit of bare minimum standards that you completely ignore.

Do know anything at all about measurement or do you guess everything?
In reality, good instruments are little affected by the environment and any residual effects will be defined in the specification.

It's not a matter of guessing, I'm talking about the model.
If you want to actually make a good point from this, here's how. Currently you might as well be making a circular argument, pointing out that the current theory doesn't predict instruments being affected, and using that to object to denpressure. However, you give no indication of how you know that. After all, if the instruments are affected that does rather make scientific analysis tricky.
So if you want to  make a good argument, find some way to actually demonstrate that instruments wouldn't be affected under denpressure, or that they aren't affected. I'd suggest the latter given your laziness when it comes to learning what you're talking about. But it's hardly a trivial problem, trying to measure how affected the means by which you measure are.
Currently all you've said is "Tests like this have been shown many times on YouTube." Which... great. That's meaningless. Searching for anything relating scales and pressure just nets a lot of irrelevancy, you're posturing. It looks cool to people who already believe you, and it looks hollow to anyone that doubts you when you don't even give an indication of what to search for. Again, bare minimum. "Proof exists," is a useless statement until you give it.

If you want to know why FEers call you indoctrinated, it's that. You're basing arguments on the insistence RET is true, rather than on independently verifiable facts. That would be why I call out bad REer arguments, all you're doing is convincing and turning people to FET when that's all they see for RET. The real deathblow is how you apparently refuse to see that. From the perspective of someone that doubts, indoctrination is absolutely the word for that; your refusal to think outside of the model.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 25, 2018, 09:17:08 PM

There is a limit to what can be debated with Sceppy, because he literally dies no speak the same language.
All the usual terms  used in describing dynamics, etc have totally different meanings, I have presented a few.

So pay attention and figure it out, rather than complaining about semantics. he's using a fundamentally different model of even molecules, it's just silly to expect the exact same definitions to transfer across.
It's really not that hard if you just pay attention, and try to understand before you try to refute. Any other conversation and that would be the bare minimum.
If it's too complicated for you, fine, then shut up about it. Easy answer. If you don't understand it, don't make claims about it until you do. Another bit of bare minimum standards that you completely ignore.

I tried to engage Scepi about denpressure once.  He was explaining that there is no gravity, that air pressure pushes down on things.  I asked what I consider the very reasonable question, "Why is there a downward bias in where the air pushes?"  His response was  basically because if you stack something it pushes toward the bottom.  That's not an answer.  We went round in circles a few times before I explained that his model denies the existence of gravity, and then subsequently utilizes the phenomenon of gravity to function.  I was then dismissed as indoctrinated.

I paid attention to what he wrote.  I considered the ramifications of his hypothesis.  I asked questions about the mechanics of the system.  I believe that satisfies your requirements of paying attention and trying to figure it out.  His inability to provide mechanical explanation for how the model works and the inability of the model to accurately explain observable situations without contradicting itself is not because I didn't try to understand.  Sometimes things are wrong, and all the trying to understand in the world won't make them right.  There's nothing inappropriate about identifying that something is wrong after examining it in detail. 

I tried to engage Scepi about denpressure once.  He was explaining that there is no gravity, that air pressure pushes down on things.  I asked what I consider the very reasonable question, "Why is there a downward bias in where the air pushes?"  His response was  basically because if you stack something it pushes toward the bottom.  That's not an answer.  We went round in circles a few times before I explained that his model denies the existence of gravity, and then subsequently utilizes the phenomenon of gravity to function.  I was then dismissed as indoctrinated.

I paid attention to what he wrote.  I considered the ramifications of his hypothesis.  I asked questions about the mechanics of the system.  I believe that satisfies your requirements of paying attention and trying to figure it out.  His inability to provide mechanical explanation for how the model works and the inability of the model to accurately explain observable situations without contradicting itself is not because I didn't try to understand.  Sometimes things are wrong, and all the trying to understand in the world won't make them right.  There's nothing inappropriate about identifying that something is wrong after examining it in detail.

Yep, I did that a few times. The problem being that you looked for the argument against it, before you looked for how it could work. You began by looking for a way to say it relies on gravity; I did the same, before. Instead, look for what makes the 'down' direction special; in this case it's the Earth, a solid surface pressure can actually be directed against. The reason behind that is more involved (linked to an outline of denpressure already in this thread), the question of where the pressure comes from etc, but he doesn't appeal to gravity at any stage.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with pointing out something being wrong, but there is when the flaw you point out doesn't exist. All that does would be to convince FEers that you don't have a good case.

I'll be first to admit Scepti doesn't always explain things perfectly, but equally he's been explaining the exact same things on and off for years, to users a majority of which are just trying to be insulting. Generally he rushes a little, avoids going in-depth until he's actually seen some reason to bother taking more time to talk to someone, and when the initial response he gets is an attempt at a refutation before an attempt to understand, that's when he doesn't bother.

Sceptitank doesn't explain the same thing for years. He changes as new arguments come up.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on January 26, 2018, 05:48:08 AM

I tried to engage Scepi about denpressure once.  He was explaining that there is no gravity, that air pressure pushes down on things.  I asked what I consider the very reasonable question, "Why is there a downward bias in where the air pushes?"  His response was  basically because if you stack something it pushes toward the bottom.  That's not an answer.  We went round in circles a few times before I explained that his model denies the existence of gravity, and then subsequently utilizes the phenomenon of gravity to function.  I was then dismissed as indoctrinated.

I paid attention to what he wrote.  I considered the ramifications of his hypothesis.  I asked questions about the mechanics of the system.  I believe that satisfies your requirements of paying attention and trying to figure it out.  His inability to provide mechanical explanation for how the model works and the inability of the model to accurately explain observable situations without contradicting itself is not because I didn't try to understand.  Sometimes things are wrong, and all the trying to understand in the world won't make them right.  There's nothing inappropriate about identifying that something is wrong after examining it in detail.

Yep, I did that a few times. The problem being that you looked for the argument against it, before you looked for how it could work. You began by looking for a way to say it relies on gravity;

That's just not accurate.  I read his explanations without looking for any arguments, for or against it.  What I observed in his explanation was a downward bias that was not explained.  I asked for an explanation and didn't receive one that didn't just leave it as an assumption.

In his model, there's no reason why someone jumping straight up would be pushed down by the air compression he's created above himself, but not pushed backwards by the air compression created in front by running somewhere.  Since we are, in fact, able to run without getting pushed back to our original starting position, but we do return to the ground after jumping, then there either needs to be a mechanic to explain why the situations are different or the model doesn't work in the real world. 

That's just not accurate.  I read his explanations without looking for any arguments, for or against it.  What I observed in his explanation was a downward bias that was not explained.  I asked for an explanation and didn't receive one that didn't just leave it as an assumption.

Linked it already and already given the gist as to what makes below us special. Again, instead of looking for why it wouldn't work, start by seeing how it could. You are just not doing that; that's not a matter of opinion, you just outright ignored any potential explanation in order to insist it wouldn't work.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on January 26, 2018, 09:02:48 AM

That's just not accurate.  I read his explanations without looking for any arguments, for or against it.  What I observed in his explanation was a downward bias that was not explained.  I asked for an explanation and didn't receive one that didn't just leave it as an assumption.

Linked it already and already given the gist as to what makes below us special. Again, instead of looking for why it wouldn't work, start by seeing how it could. You are just not doing that; that's not a matter of opinion, you just outright ignored any potential explanation in order to insist it wouldn't work.

I read the links.  The first one uses a jar analogy that depends on gravity to work, but at least acknowledges that it is incomplete and the answer will come later.  The second one is just describing the nature of the Earth and the Sun. 

The third one is the only one that attempts to explain the directionality.  There is an analogy about inflating a chamber and things inside being pinned to the metal disc at the bottom, but that's only when gravity has an object on the bottom to start.  Without gravity, there is no reason an object couldn't be pinned to any part of the membrane rather than the metal disc. 

If there is more information somewhere I'll look it over, but so far the model is still completely missing any reason for the downward bias that is observed every day in real life. 

I'd also be interested in seeing any kind of evidence at all that molecules behave in the manner described in the first post that would make the entire model more than just some fantasy.  I can create a model where things are held down by an invisible wizard who just prefers it that way, but without supplying any evidence, or example of how it explains or predicts real world observations better than other models, it would really be just a waste of time.  And don't misunderstand.  This isn't an out of hand dismissal of denpressure.  I'm just stating that I see a giant gap in the model and a lack of any evidence for the supporting structure.  If either or both are provided, I would read through them with an open mind. 

The third one is the only one that attempts to explain the directionality.  There is an analogy about inflating a chamber and things inside being pinned to the metal disc at the bottom, but that's only when gravity has an object on the bottom to start.  Without gravity, there is no reason an object couldn't be pinned to any part of the membrane rather than the metal disc. 

Details aside, so? The force'd still keep that object pinned to the metal disc, irrespective of what'd happen if it were at a different location.
This is the problem with your approach. You are looking for a way to insert gravity; but remove it from the equation, run the exact same thought experiment, the force still exists, the force would still keep an object against the disc. Notice that at no point did I specify the orientation of the disc; you're the one saying gravity would push towards it. It doesn't need to. It could act in the exact opposite direction, the force would still exist. Or, to make it more relevant to denpressure, gravity could just not be a factor. Force is still exerted by inflation. For all objects in the vicinity of the metal disc, there is a force. How does this not expain the downwards bias?

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on January 26, 2018, 10:41:57 AM

The third one is the only one that attempts to explain the directionality.  There is an analogy about inflating a chamber and things inside being pinned to the metal disc at the bottom, but that's only when gravity has an object on the bottom to start.  Without gravity, there is no reason an object couldn't be pinned to any part of the membrane rather than the metal disc. 

Details aside, so? The force'd still keep that object pinned to the metal disc, irrespective of what'd happen if it were at a different location.
This is the problem with your approach. You are looking for a way to insert gravity; but remove it from the equation, run the exact same thought experiment, the force still exists, the force would still keep an object against the disc. Notice that at no point did I specify the orientation of the disc; you're the one saying gravity would push towards it. It doesn't need to. It could act in the exact opposite direction, the force would still exist. Or, to make it more relevant to denpressure, gravity could just not be a factor. Force is still exerted by inflation. For all objects in the vicinity of the metal disc, there is a force. How does this not expain the downwards bias?

I'm not at all looking for a way to insert gravity.  I'm looking to remove the assumption of gravity from the analogy, which is necessary for denpressure to survive as an alternative to gravity. 

If the disc is not oriented on the bottom or there is no gravity initially holding things to it, then the force exerted by the inflation would not necessarily press an object to the disc.  It is just as likely to push an object into the membrane.  With no gravity in this scenario, there is no directional bias, which means denpressure is still lacking an explanation for the downward bias we observe daily. 

If the disc is not oriented on the bottom or there is no gravity initially holding things to it, then the force exerted by the inflation would not necessarily press an object to the disc.  It is just as likely to push an object into the membrane.

It's not random though, where objects would be pushed is based on specific factors, such as where in the environment they are. If they're near the disc, they wouldn't be flung over to the opposite side to hit the membrane.
Again, you need to think about how it could work rather than go in looking for all the interpretations where it wouldn't. The only model it is worth refuting is the one you have given every chance to.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on January 26, 2018, 01:55:41 PM

If the disc is not oriented on the bottom or there is no gravity initially holding things to it, then the force exerted by the inflation would not necessarily press an object to the disc.  It is just as likely to push an object into the membrane.

It's not random though, where objects would be pushed is based on specific factors, such as where in the environment they are. If they're near the disc, they wouldn't be flung over to the opposite side to hit the membrane.
Again, you need to think about how it could work rather than go in looking for all the interpretations where it wouldn't. The only model it is worth refuting is the one you have given every chance to.

Or I could think about it objectively without trying to force a conclusion one way or the other, like I do with absolutely everything.  And when I do that, I find that it is missing an explanation for down.  I give an equal chance to every model.   The models that are internally consistent and have evidence to support them are the ones that I find appealing. 

Maybe you should consider denpressure without overemphasizing how it could work and see if it still holds up if you let it try to stand on its own.

Or I could think about it objectively without trying to force a conclusion one way or the other, like I do with absolutely everything.  And when I do that, I find that it is missing an explanation for down.  I give an equal chance to every model.   The models that are internally consistent and have evidence to support them are the ones that I find appealing. 

Maybe you should consider denpressure without overemphasizing how it could work and see if it still holds up if you let it try to stand on its own.

...What?
You are openly ignoring the ways it could work to insist it couldn't. That achieves nothing except convincing FEers that REers have to be indoctrinated.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on January 26, 2018, 10:11:43 PM

Or I could think about it objectively without trying to force a conclusion one way or the other, like I do with absolutely everything.  And when I do that, I find that it is missing an explanation for down.  I give an equal chance to every model.   The models that are internally consistent and have evidence to support them are the ones that I find appealing. 

Maybe you should consider denpressure without overemphasizing how it could work and see if it still holds up if you let it try to stand on its own.

...What?
You are openly ignoring the ways it could work to insist it couldn't. That achieves nothing except convincing FEers that REers have to be indoctrinated.

Just no.  By your explanation, things could be pushed down sometimes.  But we observe things being pushed down always.  Also, if something got far enough from the disc, the inflation effect you describe should reverse and push things into the membrane.  That effect is never seen, so again, something is wrong in the model.

Just no.  By your explanation, things could be pushed down sometimes.  But we observe things being pushed down always.  Also, if something got far enough from the disc, the inflation effect you describe should reverse and push things into the membrane.  That effect is never seen, so again, something is wrong in the model.

You'd have to get away far enough first. Kinda a pretty crucial part of that whole objection, even if you want to ignore a few other details of the model but it's not worth getting onto those complexities when you're objecting to something this simple.
As for the rest, again. It is not random.

Let's break this down. Imagine the whole set-up, metal disc, rubber hemisphere being inflated etc. An object is in roughly the middle of the disc, and relatively close to it. That symbolises basically anything on the world map, and a fair altitude above.
What factors govern where it will be pushed during the inflation?

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on January 27, 2018, 10:56:13 AM

Just no.  By your explanation, things could be pushed down sometimes.  But we observe things being pushed down always.  Also, if something got far enough from the disc, the inflation effect you describe should reverse and push things into the membrane.  That effect is never seen, so again, something is wrong in the model.

You'd have to get away far enough first. Kinda a pretty crucial part of that whole objection, even if you want to ignore a few other details of the model but it's not worth getting onto those complexities when you're objecting to something this simple.
As for the rest, again. It is not random.

Let's break this down. Imagine the whole set-up, metal disc, rubber hemisphere being inflated etc. An object is in roughly the middle of the disc, and relatively close to it. That symbolises basically anything on the world map, and a fair altitude above.
What factors govern where it will be pushed during the inflation?

major factors: the place the air enters, the pressure of the entering air, the coefficient of friction of the disk, the shape of the object and the mass of the object.

Micro-factors that may introduce chaotic components: imperfections in the disk, object and hemisphere, particulates in the air and vibrations transferred from outside the structure.

major factors: the place the air enters, the pressure of the entering air, the coefficient of friction of the disk, the shape of the object and the mass of the object.

Micro-factors that may introduce chaotic components: imperfections in the disk, object and hemisphere, particulates in the air and vibrations transferred from outside the structure.

The place the air enters from, and the pressure it exerts, are basically fixed under denpressure.
The friction of the disc acts horizontally, the shape and mass of the object affect the degree of movement but away from the boundary will not alter vertical direction. The same can be said for those micro-factors; they might affect magnitude, but not direction save in an extreme boundary case.

Most important here is the first statement: "The place the air enters from, and the pressure it exerts, are basically fixed under denpressure." So simply create a set-up where they are designed to a) not be directly beneath the object, b) sufficient to actually impart force, you can adjust to create a distant border for the extreme boundary case, and you're done.

There is no randomness here, the factors are specific, predictable, and basically fixed. There is no situation where objects in that vicinity would go up sometimes and down others.