Sea and air pressure

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 10:51:06 PM

They all get pushed down.

Which means the scale should record a significant increase in weight.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 10:51:06 PM

A scale is set to zero in atmospheric conditions. The scale plate now relies on any mass displacing atmosphere upon that scale plate to resist it by spring (as an instance) and that resistance is shown on the measuring readout, as weight.
The diaphragm works similar , except it resists atmospheric pressure build up against that membrane.

At a basic level, the 2 work in the same way.
A scale plate has some force push it down, with a spring resisting this force. The spring provides a counter force depending upon how much it is compressed, until the 2 forces are balanced, with the amount of compression in the spring (and thus displacement of the plate) used to measure the force, which is scaled to a mass reading based upon g.
The pressure gauge works the same, but instead of just having a scale plate in the atmosphere, it has an air-tight diaphragm which separates 2 regions, and the air pushes down, and the measured force scaled to pressure based upon the size of the diaphragm.

If the atmosphere is causing the force on both, then both should be affected the same.
Introducing the additional 1 kg weight into the chamber, even when supported by the floor of the chamber rather than the pressure gauge, should result in more atmosphere being displaced and thus a greater push on both the scale and the pressure gauge, with both recording a similar, significant increase.
Conversely, if the new weight using the floor of the container for resistance means it doesn't cause the air to push other things down more then neither should record an increase.

Your justification for why the pressure gauge is affected also applies to the scale meaning it should be affected as well.
Your 2 separate justifications for why the scale is not affected has one apply to the scale not being affected by the air pressure at all and weight not being the result of air pressure/displacement of air, while the other applies equally to the pressure gauge indicating neither should be affected.

With the atmosphere causing the reading on the scale, there is no justification for why one should be affected and not the other.

I've explained and you seem to know but then go right back ion yourself.It's bizarre, unless it's deliberate....and if so....fair enough.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 23, 2020, 10:11:18 PM

And why does it compress above, but merely sit on the stack below?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 23, 2020, 07:24:05 AM

Let's start really simple. Tell me what you would like to understand that you can't grasp..

How bout how the air pushes down a stack of objects.

The diagram is there. Look at it and absorb it.

Quote from: JJA on September 23, 2020, 11:06:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 10:25:29 PM

Quote from: JJA on September 21, 2020, 04:38:31 PM

Quote from: Stash on September 21, 2020, 08:02:13 AM

So the literally imperceptible immeasurable amount that the canisters expand and contract have that much of an impact on the atmosphere of the entire earth as to cause the stack to push down on one and let up on the other until they balance out? How does the atmosphere know which one to push down on? How does the atmosphere choose?

What's worse is even that explanation wouldn't make sense.  Because if you had a container with a gas that you heated, it would expand and get lighter. The opposite of what's being claimed here, that it expands and gets heavier.

Maybe atmosphere stacks are sentient.

Understand the stacking system and why pressures increase and decrease within it and why displacement of it is relevant.....then you may start to understand.
All I see is brush off without even bothering....which is fine but it doesn't help you.

I've read pages and pages and pages of your posts, it's not me, it's you. 

You still can't explain how gas moving between two containers on a sea-saw would cause it to even out. The containers don't expand or contract, so how does the 'air stack' know what's in each of them?

You have yet to explain this.  Maybe you need to understand your own theory first.

I know my own theory. It's been explained. You simply do not know it but think you do.

Your belief that nothing contracts and expands with containers is your issue. You know they do but you just can't comprehend the pressures that are changing to make this happen.

I could go from the very basic up to the steel containers like those on the see saw but I just know it'll be lost....as simple as it is.

I'll give a it a go and trust me I'm not expecting anything back of acceptance.

Let's go right back down to the basic containers and how atmosphere acts.
We will start off with a balloon.
We fill the balloon with a gas and the balloon expands due to the gas being compressed inside and pushing against the external atmosphere but only by the amount it's already taken from it in order to inflate/expand that balloon.
The skin of that balloon is not stretched to the point of exploding due to the atmosphere inside of it being compressed much more into a smaller space with balloon walls resisting the internal compression/crush aided by the external atmospheric crush.
Take away that external crush and the balloon is already breached because it expands with little resistance.
However, this would only be happening in atmosphere where there is much less resistance...which is higher up....so we'll leave this bit as it's just there for clarity if we need to get to it.


Ok, so how do we hold  more gas in a container?
Let's use a rubber water bottle, the one you use for bed.
Fill that with gas and you find it can hold more compressed gas than the balloon...but what it hold is only taken from the atmosphere/Earth.
The skin once again will stretch. It will expand due to internal compression but it will hold much more atmosphere due to it's higher skin resistance.


We could go on with clear to see expansion of rubbers and such.

However, let's more rigid plastic.
Pressurise it and you will notic it bulge slightly.
Same with thinner metals.

However, if you use more rigid resistance like thicker steel and even thicker plastic, you can massively pressurise it and even condense it into liquid without visually seeing any expansion....but it's there.
The difference is, we are talking super compression within and normal atmospheric 14/15 pounds per square inch of pressure externally, which is a massive aid in stopping the expansion of the gases/liquid, just as the smaller internal make up of the container is for holding that pressure.
You see, the container is being kept from expanding by the much denser make up and that much denser make up is already displacing it's own dense structure of atmosphere, as is, with it's material.

However, it still expands and contracts, depending on circumstances....but you can't see it, yet you can certainly hearit at times.
I know, I know.....but it can't expand enough to cater for change.

It does. It does this with the aid of atmosphere. It has to do this in equal terms, just like the balloon....etc....all within the atmospheric stack any object finds itself in.

What if you had a steel tank filled with propane and an empty balloon. The tank with the pressurized propane is heavier than the empty balloon. They are connected by a hose. You open the valve on the hose and the pressurized propane in the tank flows to the balloon and starts filling it up and expanding it. Does the contraction of the steel tank equal the expansion and displacement of the expanding balloon?

What if you had a steel tank filled with propane and an empty balloon. The tank with the pressurized propane is heavier than the empty balloon. They are connected by a hose. You open the valve on the hose and the pressurized propane in the tank flows to the balloon and starts filling it up and expanding it. Does the contraction of the steel tank equal the expansion and displacement of the expanding balloon?

The dense mass is massively different, of both containers.
I've explained this.
The more dense mass container holding the compression will naturally expand out into that balloon under minimal resistance compared to the  steel container and compression within.

Quote from: Stash on September 23, 2020, 11:35:49 PM

What if you had a steel tank filled with propane and an empty balloon. The tank with the pressurized propane is heavier than the empty balloon. They are connected by a hose. You open the valve on the hose and the pressurized propane in the tank flows to the balloon and starts filling it up and expanding it. Does the contraction of the steel tank equal the expansion and displacement of the expanding balloon?

The dense mass is massively different, of both containers.
I've explained this.
The more dense mass container holding the compression will naturally expand out into that balloon under minimal resistance compared to the  steel container and compression within.

But it’s not an equal reaction right? Because the volume of the balloon expands way more and displaces way more atmosphere. And the tank imperceptibly contracts. Therefore the balloon when filled would weigh more than the tank ever did.

But it’s not an equal reaction right? Because the volume of the balloon expands way more and displaces way more atmosphere. And the tank imperceptibly contracts. Therefore the balloon when filled would weigh more than the tank ever did.

Absolutely.

What you aren't grasping is,on the whole.
You seem to be using one set thing and not taking into account of the whole process.

The balloon does not have the dense structural integrity of the steel container and cannot hold a massive compression like a steel container....hence why a balloon, if filled by compression of air/liquid from the inside of a steel container, would have it's own skin expanded and breached in short order.

Don't get yourself mixed up.

Quote from: Stash on September 24, 2020, 12:28:16 AM

But it’s not an equal reaction right? Because the volume of the balloon expands way more and displaces way more atmosphere. And the tank imperceptibly contracts. Therefore the balloon when filled would weigh more than the tank ever did.

Absolutely.

What you aren't grasping is,on the whole.
You seem to be using one set thing and not taking into account of the whole process.

The balloon does not have the dense structural integrity of the steel container and cannot hold a massive compression like a steel container....hence why a balloon, if filled by compression of air/liquid from the inside of a steel container, would have it's own skin expanded and breached in short order.

Don't get yourself mixed up.

I should have been clearer. In my scenario, the balloon does not get breached. It expands just like a balloon would to many times it's size and say twice the size of the tank. It's now displacing twice the atmosphere of the tank. So it should be heavier than the tank. But it' not. Because the tank itself, being steel in all, weighs many times more than the balloon itself. So in this scenario, atmospheric displacement of the balloon has no bearing. It matters not, right?

Your belief that nothing contracts and expands with containers is your issue.

No, it is fundamentally an issue with your model.
The expansion/contraction is insignificant, and if that was going to be an issue then an inflated balloon would weigh vastly more than a deflated one.

The other issue is that you reach a point where that expansion stops.
See, it is called LPG for a reason, it has been liquefied.
As soon as it has been liquefied, the pressure in the tank is the vapour pressure of the liquid.
More liquid can be added to it, with the weight increasing, without the pressure increasing and thus without the container expanding.

It is just one of the many examples of problems of trying to pretend air pressure causes weight.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 23, 2020, 03:02:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 10:51:06 PM

They all get pushed down.

Which means the scale should record a significant increase in weight.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 10:51:06 PM

A scale is set to zero in atmospheric conditions. The scale plate now relies on any mass displacing atmosphere upon that scale plate to resist it by spring (as an instance) and that resistance is shown on the measuring readout, as weight.
The diaphragm works similar , except it resists atmospheric pressure build up against that membrane.

At a basic level, the 2 work in the same way.
A scale plate has some force push it down, with a spring resisting this force. The spring provides a counter force depending upon how much it is compressed, until the 2 forces are balanced, with the amount of compression in the spring (and thus displacement of the plate) used to measure the force, which is scaled to a mass reading based upon g.
The pressure gauge works the same, but instead of just having a scale plate in the atmosphere, it has an air-tight diaphragm which separates 2 regions, and the air pushes down, and the measured force scaled to pressure based upon the size of the diaphragm.

If the atmosphere is causing the force on both, then both should be affected the same.
Introducing the additional 1 kg weight into the chamber, even when supported by the floor of the chamber rather than the pressure gauge, should result in more atmosphere being displaced and thus a greater push on both the scale and the pressure gauge, with both recording a similar, significant increase.
Conversely, if the new weight using the floor of the container for resistance means it doesn't cause the air to push other things down more then neither should record an increase.

Your justification for why the pressure gauge is affected also applies to the scale meaning it should be affected as well.
Your 2 separate justifications for why the scale is not affected has one apply to the scale not being affected by the air pressure at all and weight not being the result of air pressure/displacement of air, while the other applies equally to the pressure gauge indicating neither should be affected.

With the atmosphere causing the reading on the scale, there is no justification for why one should be affected and not the other.

I've explained and you seem to know but then go right back ion yourself.It's bizarre, unless it's deliberate....and if so....fair enough.

You mean you have tried to explain it, trying to keep it compartmentalised because the explanation for one contradicts the other, and I know and understand it enough to expose this contradiction.

Try to explain both together, without any contradiction, and that means without contradicting between the scale and the pressure gauge changing, and without contradicting air pressure causing weight. i.e. explain how introducing this 1 kg weight, which is placed on the floor of the container, not the scale nor the pressure gauge, increases the reading on the pressure gauge but not the scale, even though the scale and pressure gauge use the same principle.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 23, 2020, 10:29:40 PM

How bout how the air pushes down a stack of objects.

The diagram is there. Look at it and absorb it.

The diagram doesn't show how.
The closest I would be able to get from that is that the air pushes down from the very top, with a force for all of the objects in the stack.
Is that what you think happens?

The diagram also doesn't indicate why the air is pushed away to the sides and above, but it just sits on the stack below.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 12:45:18 AM

Quote from: Stash on September 24, 2020, 12:28:16 AM

But it’s not an equal reaction right? Because the volume of the balloon expands way more and displaces way more atmosphere. And the tank imperceptibly contracts. Therefore the balloon when filled would weigh more than the tank ever did.

Absolutely.

What you aren't grasping is,on the whole.
You seem to be using one set thing and not taking into account of the whole process.

The balloon does not have the dense structural integrity of the steel container and cannot hold a massive compression like a steel container....hence why a balloon, if filled by compression of air/liquid from the inside of a steel container, would have it's own skin expanded and breached in short order.

Don't get yourself mixed up.

I should have been clearer. In my scenario, the balloon does not get breached. It expands just like a balloon would to many times it's size and say twice the size of the tank. It's now displacing twice the atmosphere of the tank. So it should be heavier than the tank. But it' not. Because the tank itself, being steel in all, weighs many times more than the balloon itself. So in this scenario, atmospheric displacement of the balloon has no bearing. It matters not, right?

It's all about atmospheric volume verses compressed atmosphere/gas/liquid...etc....all within the stack they take up and what is directly above the container/object.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 23, 2020, 11:17:16 PM

Your belief that nothing contracts and expands with containers is your issue.

No, it is fundamentally an issue with your model.
The expansion/contraction is insignificant, and if that was going to be an issue then an inflated balloon would weigh vastly more than a deflated one.

Nope. It's been explained.

Does that mean if I have an air balloon and a water balloon the air balloon weighs more because it displaces more?

Does that mean if I have an air balloon and a water balloon the air balloon weighs more because it displaces more?

Nope. The air balloon is volume and the other balloon is mostly dense mass (water) against atmosphere.

Quote from: Stash on September 24, 2020, 01:41:00 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 12:45:18 AM

Quote from: Stash on September 24, 2020, 12:28:16 AM

But it’s not an equal reaction right? Because the volume of the balloon expands way more and displaces way more atmosphere. And the tank imperceptibly contracts. Therefore the balloon when filled would weigh more than the tank ever did.

Absolutely.

What you aren't grasping is,on the whole.
You seem to be using one set thing and not taking into account of the whole process.

The balloon does not have the dense structural integrity of the steel container and cannot hold a massive compression like a steel container....hence why a balloon, if filled by compression of air/liquid from the inside of a steel container, would have it's own skin expanded and breached in short order.

Don't get yourself mixed up.

I should have been clearer. In my scenario, the balloon does not get breached. It expands just like a balloon would to many times it's size and say twice the size of the tank. It's now displacing twice the atmosphere of the tank. So it should be heavier than the tank. But it' not. Because the tank itself, being steel in all, weighs many times more than the balloon itself. So in this scenario, atmospheric displacement of the balloon has no bearing. It matters not, right?

It's all about atmospheric volume verses compressed atmosphere/gas/liquid...etc....all within the stack they take up and what is directly above the container/object.

Why only directly above? What properties exist that create sort of a wall around an object? Your diagram seemed to show pressure pushing in horizontally as well. And we all know pressure pushes in on an object from all sides. It seems like each and every object has it's own assigned stack or something like that. What about when objects overlap? Do these assigned stacks overlap too?

Why only directly above? What properties exist that create sort of a wall around an object?

The object itself creates it's own displacement of atmosphere....plus the atmosphere directly above the object in the stacking system it is already immersed in.

 Your diagram seemed to show pressure pushing in horizontally as well.

Yep, by the displacement of the objects dense mass of atmosphere in that stack.

 And we all know pressure pushes in on an object from all sides.

Yep, apart from underneath, which is resistance to mass against the pressure around and above..

 It seems like each and every object has it's own assigned stack or something like that.

It does. Each object displaces the atmospheric stack it is immersed in...and what is directly above the object.

 What about when objects overlap?
Do these assigned stacks overlap too?

Give me a scenario.

Scenario
The hair on my head isnt pushed down by the entire force of the stack which pushes my body down.

Scenario
The hair on my head isnt pushed down by the entire force of the stack which pushes my body down.

Each individual hair displaces it's own dense mass of atmosphere. How much do you think each hair will displace?
Very little for each.
Your head, shoulders and body displace quite a lot.

It shocks me how far back you end up going, in trying to understand what I'm saying. I hope you're doing it deliberately, to be fair.

Quote from: Stash on September 24, 2020, 07:51:41 AM

Why only directly above? What properties exist that create sort of a wall around an object?

The object itself creates it's own displacement of atmosphere....plus the atmosphere directly above the object in the stacking system it is already immersed in.

Quote from: Stash

 Your diagram seemed to show pressure pushing in horizontally as well.

Yep, by the displacement of the objects dense mass of atmosphere in that stack.

How is an individual stack defined and created? How does the atmosphere know to create a stack over object A and a seperate stack right next to it over object B?

Quote from: Stash

 And we all know pressure pushes in on an object from all sides.

Yep, apart from underneath, which is resistance to mass against the pressure around and above..

Why apart from underneath? We know that submerged in water, pressure is even on an object from all directions, including from below. Why is the atmosphere different?

Quote from: Stash

 It seems like each and every object has it's own assigned stack or something like that.

It does. Each object displaces the atmospheric stack it is immersed in...and what is directly above the object.

How does the stack know to confine itself to only directly above an object?

Quote from: Stash

 What about when objects overlap?
Do these assigned stacks overlap too?

Give me a scenario.

Here's an overlap scenario:



Are there two separate stacks, one for the Blue KG and one for the Orange KG? If so, how does the atmosphere know to create two distinct and separate stacks?
Or is it one stack for both? And if so, what if you were to place a 2x4 leaning against the side of the Orange KG, would it now be part of the both the Blue and Orange stack?

The mystery here is how does the atmosphere know to only create a stack column directly above an object? What is telling the atmosphere to make that very specific and finite delineation? How does it know when to combine stacks and when not to? It's almost like the the atmosphere knows something we don't.

Quote from: JJA on September 23, 2020, 11:06:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 10:25:29 PM

Quote from: JJA on September 21, 2020, 04:38:31 PM

Quote from: Stash on September 21, 2020, 08:02:13 AM

So the literally imperceptible immeasurable amount that the canisters expand and contract have that much of an impact on the atmosphere of the entire earth as to cause the stack to push down on one and let up on the other until they balance out? How does the atmosphere know which one to push down on? How does the atmosphere choose?

What's worse is even that explanation wouldn't make sense.  Because if you had a container with a gas that you heated, it would expand and get lighter. The opposite of what's being claimed here, that it expands and gets heavier.

Maybe atmosphere stacks are sentient.

Understand the stacking system and why pressures increase and decrease within it and why displacement of it is relevant.....then you may start to understand.
All I see is brush off without even bothering....which is fine but it doesn't help you.

I've read pages and pages and pages of your posts, it's not me, it's you. 

You still can't explain how gas moving between two containers on a sea-saw would cause it to even out. The containers don't expand or contract, so how does the 'air stack' know what's in each of them?

You have yet to explain this.  Maybe you need to understand your own theory first.

I know my own theory. It's been explained. You simply do not know it but think you do.

Your belief that nothing contracts and expands with containers is your issue. You know they do but you just can't comprehend the pressures that are changing to make this happen.

I could go from the very basic up to the steel containers like those on the see saw but I just know it'll be lost....as simple as it is.

You're going wrong right at the start, it's that simple.  I challenge you to measure the expansion and contraction of a pair of natural gas canisters as pictured in that seesaw as they equalize pression. Use any equipment you want, but you are not going to measure any change at all. If you see a pressure container visibly expanding you better run like hell! 

I'm not saying containers can't contract or expand, I'm saying that in the sea-saw example there is no noticeable change, so nothing for the 'atmosphere stack' above to detect, however that would work.

I'll give a it a go and trust me I'm not expecting anything back of acceptance.

Let's go right back down to the basic containers and how atmosphere acts.
We will start off with a balloon.
We fill the balloon with a gas and the balloon expands due to the gas being compressed inside and pushing against the external atmosphere but only by the amount it's already taken from it in order to inflate/expand that balloon.
The skin of that balloon is not stretched to the point of exploding due to the atmosphere inside of it being compressed much more into a smaller space with balloon walls resisting the internal compression/crush aided by the external atmospheric crush.
Take away that external crush and the balloon is already breached because it expands with little resistance.
However, this would only be happening in atmosphere where there is much less resistance...which is higher up....so we'll leave this bit as it's just there for clarity if we need to get to it.


Ok, so how do we hold  more gas in a container?
Let's use a rubber water bottle, the one you use for bed.
Fill that with gas and you find it can hold more compressed gas than the balloon...but what it hold is only taken from the atmosphere/Earth.
The skin once again will stretch. It will expand due to internal compression but it will hold much more atmosphere due to it's higher skin resistance.


We could go on with clear to see expansion of rubbers and such.

However, let's more rigid plastic.
Pressurise it and you will notic it bulge slightly.
Same with thinner metals.

However, if you use more rigid resistance like thicker steel and even thicker plastic, you can massively pressurise it and even condense it into liquid without visually seeing any expansion....but it's there.
The difference is, we are talking super compression within and normal atmospheric 14/15 pounds per square inch of pressure externally, which is a massive aid in stopping the expansion of the gases/liquid, just as the smaller internal make up of the container is for holding that pressure.
You see, the container is being kept from expanding by the much denser make up and that much denser make up is already displacing it's own dense structure of atmosphere, as is, with it's material.

However, it still expands and contracts, depending on circumstances....but you can't see it, yet you can certainly hearit at times.
I know, I know.....but it can't expand enough to cater for change.

It does. It does this with the aid of atmosphere. It has to do this in equal terms, just like the balloon....etc....all within the atmospheric stack any object finds itself in.

Denser material displace more atmosphere?  How does this work?

If I have a 1 meter sphere, how does the atmosphere know if the inside is solid metal or a vacuum?

And it still doesn't explain how gas moving from one container to another on that sea-saw works.  How does the atmosphere above it know the gas has moved? You keep saying the containers will expand and contract but that movement is going to be so tiny you would have trouble measuring it at all.  And a weaker container will expand MORE than one that has thicker walls, and the atmosphere somehow knows that more movement on one means less gas in there? It just can't magickly know if expansion is due to high pressure or thin walls.

Nope. It's been explained.

No, it hasn't.
You can claim it has all you want, but it wont magically make all the problems with your model vanish.
Yet again you have ignored the contradiction between the scale and the pressure gauge, and between the scale with the 1 kg weight and the newly introduced 1 kg weight.

Quote from: Stash

 And we all know pressure pushes in on an object from all sides.

Yep, apart from underneath, which is resistance to mass against the pressure around and above.

No, we (as in the vast majority of the world) know that air pushes objects from all directions, including from below.
This is how a suction cup attached to the ceiling works, with air pressure pushing the suction cup up to hold it in place.
It is also how a suction cup used to lift something works, with the air pressure pushing on the object below, keeping it attached to the suction cup.
It is also how buoyancy works, with the air (or liquid) pressure below the object, which is greater than that above, pushing the object up.

So no, we know it pushes up from below.
On the other hand, you reject it because it means your model is nonsense, except when you are confronted by something which requires it to do so at which point you contradict yourself and claim that air now does push up.

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 24, 2020, 09:13:02 AM

Scenario
The hair on my head isnt pushed down by the entire force of the stack which pushes my body down.

Each individual hair displaces it's own dense mass of atmosphere. How much do you think each hair will displace?
Very little for each.
Your head, shoulders and body displace quite a lot.
It shocks me how far back you end up going, in trying to understand what I'm saying. I hope you're doing it deliberately, to be fair.

See, this is why you should have provided a diagram.
From your diagram, the only place the air pushes the object down is the top.
That means the air, at a the top of a person, or the top of a stack of objects, needs to push down with all the force.

In your model, it isn't a case of how much that 1 hair displaces, it is a case of how much that 1 hair and everything below it displaces.

This is the same problem you have avoided many times.
So no, it isn't us going so far back, it is your model going so far back.
The problem isn't with us, it is with you and your model.
You start with a basic "explanation", but then up pops a problem which destroys your model as it doesn't match the "explanation" provided and requires you to contradict yourself, putting it back to square 1.

So like I asked, care to provide a diagram of how the air acts on a stack of objects? Clearly indicating where the force is applied by the air to the stack/each object in the stack?

Because in order to match reality, the air needs to penetrate every object and apply force to each little bit of matter in the stack, proportional to its mass.
i.e. it needs to behave in a manner completely inconsistent with how air behaves.

Ok we seem to be stuck yet again.

Lets try reversong this to a more displacement oriented direction.

Water.
If you were imersed in water you have water pressure pushing all around you equally?
Well not really.
Minutely the water a depth of your feet would be an ever so slightly higher pressure than at your head.
That difference would push your body upwards in a "buoyancy" force.
Your weight pushes down.
The net force (weight minus buyancy) wiuld determine which direction you move.
In this example the water, a fluid, takes the displsced density of the object and acts independtly to whatever surface its pushing on.

Lets say the obect was a boat with an anchor on a rope.
The rope hangs below the boat, pushed up by the water.
The boat is floating, pushed up by the same water.
But the stacked water below the rope is not pushes on the rope and the boat togethers, so that you would seee the rope buckle.
It is not a linearly transferred force line.

This is in a sense opppsite to the "hair on head pushed down" question.

Now note
The buoyancy force is "up" - opposite to the weight.
Fluid pressure decreases the higher you go.
Air pressure decreases the higher you go.
Hot air and helium balloons float in air just like the boat in water.

So unfortunately you need to answer jackBs never answrred question - why down?!!!

How is an individual stack defined and created?

By a build from bottom to top, with each stack creating it's own resistance to the next stack.

 How does the atmosphere know to create a stack over object A and a seperate stack right next to it over object B?

It doesn't know. The object has to be placed within it to displace that atmosphere in that stack.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 09:00:11 AM

Quote from: Stash

 And we all know pressure pushes in on an object from all sides.

Yep, apart from underneath, which is resistance to mass against the pressure around and above..

Why apart from underneath? We know that submerged in water, pressure is even on an object from all directions, including from below. Why is the atmosphere different?

The atmosphere is not different. It performs in the same way....it's just understanding why it performs like it does, which comes back to the stacking system.

I I asked you to stack blocks full of air up to 50 foot high, for instance, you can appreciate the bottom block is using the ground as its foundation to resist the blocks above....right?
The block directly above the foundation block is using that block as resistance to the blocks above that....and so on.
That's a basic stack but if we were to do that along a mass horizontal and then up and used air balls, for instance and you were to come up from the ground and push those air balls out of the way....you've displaced them by using the ground to allow you to do it and not have them crush you back into it from all angles.

Here's an overlap scenario:



Are there two separate stacks, one for the Blue KG and one for the Orange KG? If so, how does the atmosphere know to create two distinct and separate stacks?

In that scenario the top block becomes part of the bottom.It's a stack in  itself within the stacking system of the atmosphere....so,if you were to measure that displacement on a scale plate,you have two dense masses using that scale plate to push into that stack and above that stack.

Or is it one stack for both? And if so, what if you were to place a 2x4 leaning against the side of the Orange KG, would it now be part of the both the Blue and Orange stack?

If you were to lean something against one mass then you would create a small amount of extra mass displacement of atmosphere along with it but most of it would be channelled down to the foundation that 4x2 is using for that lean.

If you don't get what I'm saying, make the scenario a bit different so I can explain it better

The mystery here is how does the atmosphere know to only create a stack column directly above an object?

The stacking system is throughout from bottom to top.
The mass of any object placed within it...let's say a square box submerged up to its top. This would be known as sitting in the stack and displacing the atmosphere around it.This displaced atmosphere has to go somewhere, just like the displaced water in a pool an object is in, has to go somewhere.
Where?
Naturally you can say, it rises....it goes up.
So, not only do you have that excess push up, you also has that atmosphere directly above the object, anyway, right up to the point of where the stacking system, ends...which is in extreme low pressure at that top...which we don't need to delve into, yet. (dome).

What is telling the atmosphere to make that very specific and finite delineation? How does it know when to combine stacks and when not to? It's almost like the the atmosphere knows something we don't.

No its not. If you seriously pay attention you won't need to keep saying this.

You're going wrong right at the start, it's that simple.  I challenge you to measure the expansion and contraction of a pair of natural gas canisters as pictured in that seesaw as they equalize pression. Use any equipment you want, but you are not going to measure any change at all. If you see a pressure container visibly expanding you better run like hell! 

Do you run when you see a balloon expanding?
A football?
They're all pressure containers.
But then again you're referring to steel containers and such like....right?
And you'll understand that I said you would not visually see expansion and contraction.....right...if you've paid attention, which, it seems, you have not..

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 06:00:02 AM

Nope. It's been explained.

No, it hasn't.
You can claim it has all you want, but it wont magically make all the problems with your model vanish.
Yet again you have ignored the contradiction between the scale and the pressure gauge, and between the scale with the 1 kg weight and the newly introduced 1 kg weight.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 09:00:11 AM

Quote from: Stash

 And we all know pressure pushes in on an object from all sides.

Yep, apart from underneath, which is resistance to mass against the pressure around and above.

No, we (as in the vast majority of the world) know that air pushes objects from all directions, including from below.
This is how a suction cup attached to the ceiling works, with air pressure pushing the suction cup up to hold it in place.
It is also how a suction cup used to lift something works, with the air pressure pushing on the object below, keeping it attached to the suction cup.
It is also how buoyancy works, with the air (or liquid) pressure below the object, which is greater than that above, pushing the object up.

So no, we know it pushes up from below.
On the other hand, you reject it because it means your model is nonsense, except when you are confronted by something which requires it to do so at which point you contradict yourself and claim that air now does push up.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 24, 2020, 09:32:03 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 24, 2020, 09:13:02 AM

Scenario
The hair on my head isnt pushed down by the entire force of the stack which pushes my body down.

Each individual hair displaces it's own dense mass of atmosphere. How much do you think each hair will displace?
Very little for each.
Your head, shoulders and body displace quite a lot.
It shocks me how far back you end up going, in trying to understand what I'm saying. I hope you're doing it deliberately, to be fair.

See, this is why you should have provided a diagram.
From your diagram, the only place the air pushes the object down is the top.
That means the air, at a the top of a person, or the top of a stack of objects, needs to push down with all the force.

In your model, it isn't a case of how much that 1 hair displaces, it is a case of how much that 1 hair and everything below it displaces.

This is the same problem you have avoided many times.
So no, it isn't us going so far back, it is your model going so far back.
The problem isn't with us, it is with you and your model.
You start with a basic "explanation", but then up pops a problem which destroys your model as it doesn't match the "explanation" provided and requires you to contradict yourself, putting it back to square 1.

So like I asked, care to provide a diagram of how the air acts on a stack of objects? Clearly indicating where the force is applied by the air to the stack/each object in the stack?

Because in order to match reality, the air needs to penetrate every object and apply force to each little bit of matter in the stack, proportional to its mass.
i.e. it needs to behave in a manner completely inconsistent with how air behaves.

Get back to me when you want to understand.

Ok we seem to be stuck yet again.

Lets try reversong this to a more displacement oriented direction.

Water.
If you were imersed in water you have water pressure pushing all around you equally?
Well not really.
Minutely the water a depth of your feet would be an ever so slightly higher pressure than at your head.
That difference would push your body upwards in a "buoyancy" force.

Nope. The water you displace is pushed above and it's the crush all around you compressing your body to try to equalise the density of that water mass to your body but only manages to crush you, up...and the  more you get crushed up, the more stacked the water is below and the more expanded your body becomes.

Your weight pushes down.
The net force (weight minus buyancy) wiuld determine which direction you move.
In this example the water, a fluid, takes the displsced density of the object and acts independtly to whatever surface its pushing on.

Lets say the obect was a boat with an anchor on a rope.
The rope hangs below the boat, pushed up by the water.
The boat is floating, pushed up by the same water.
But the stacked water below the rope is not pushes on the rope and the boat togethers, so that you would seee the rope buckle.
It is not a linearly transferred force line.

This is in a sense opppsite to the "hair on head pushed down" question.

Now note
The buoyancy force is "up" - opposite to the weight.
Fluid pressure decreases the higher you go.
Air pressure decreases the higher you go.
Hot air and helium balloons float in air just like the boat in water.

So unfortunately you need to answer jackBs never answrred question - why down?!!!

You've just answered the question of why down, in bold.

You are already a bottom feeder. You are at ground level against upper atmosphere. You are under the biggest pressure at ground level.
That's what keeps your mass down....by displacement.
The question has more than been answered but if you want to carry on asking then feel free but you'll get the same answers.
You and others are the one's that take this stuff around in circles because you seriously fail to understand and you do it because you revert to your own accepted model...which is fine for you but it doesn't help you understand mine.

Quote from: Stash on September 24, 2020, 10:20:26 AM

How is an individual stack defined and created?

By a build from bottom to top, with each stack creating it's own resistance to the next stack.

Quote from: Stash

 How does the atmosphere know to create a stack over object A and a seperate stack right next to it over object B?

It doesn't know. The object has to be placed within it to displace that atmosphere in that stack.

The entire body of the atmosphere is one big glob of a 'stack' inside the cell (under the dome). How does it create individual stacks assigned to each and every object on earth? And all objects are already in the atmosphere. Already displacing. Objects just get moved around and the assigned stack to that object follows it. You said before nothing new gets introduced into the atmosphere. Everything is already in it. When we were talking about organic growth of objects. If I smash a boulder into a pile of individual rocks, a stack is created for each rock, but the displacement of the boulder prior to being smashed is the same as the pile of rocks after being smashed?