Sea and air pressure

  • 1282 Replies
  • 129536 Views
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #780 on: October 18, 2020, 10:01:07 AM »

The diagram shows air up high is less desne.
Doesnt show why.
And you dotn nor have ever explained why.
I explained why in so many ways which you absolutely refused to grasp...which is fine....but....don;t make out I haven't explained.

If you care to put your mind on it then understand the stacking of sponge balls as an analogy. It may not cover the whole thing but it will give you an insight of you put your mind to it.

If you stack one sponge ball onto another and then another and so on and so on, you will see the bottom sponge ball becomes compressed much more than the top one's.


Right?

If you don't think so then you need to explain why.

So things fall down because things fall down...

That is not an explanation nor a theory.

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #781 on: October 18, 2020, 01:59:09 PM »
Mainstream science can easily explain it due to gravity providing a downwards force which acts on the balls/air and is countered by an upwards force from the balls/air below due to them begin compressed.
Clearly not.
That isn't clear at all.
What is clear is that your model is pure nonsense and you are unable to demonstrate a single issue with the explanations and model provided by mainstream science.

This is just yet another example of it. You have been asked to provide an explanation of how your air stacks (to then get onto why things fall) and you continually deflect. You claim a diagram that just shows air stacking somehow magically explains how it stacks. You repeatedly appeal to that diagram. And then you appeal to an analogy which relies upon things falling. Then when this is pointed out and a simplified explanation of why this occurs according to reality (mainstream science), you just dismiss it as "clearly not".

Once more, what is abundantly clear is that your model is incapable of explaining anything, while mainstream science can easily explain so many things, including why air "stacks".

If you want to disagree, in any way even remotely resembling an honest and rational attempt at disagreement, you need to provide an actual explanation as to why/how the air stacks in your model and provide a justification for why the mainstream explanation is wrong.
That means an actual explanation, not just a diagram showing it stacking (or other baseless assertion), not just an analogy that appeals to things falling, but an actual explanation of what magic causes air to stack in the absence of any force making things fall.
That also means not just dismissing mainstream science but actually clearly explaining why you think it is wrong.

Once more, with mainstream science, that observation is trivial.
Gravity acts on all objects near Earth to pull them towards the centre of mass of Earth. (If you wan to reject gravity you can replace it with whatever nonsense you want to use to explain why things fall).
This explains both why things fall and the directionality, and why it is proportional to mass.
Now that we have things falling, we can consider why they sponges below are compressed.

There is a force acting on all the sponges to pull them down.
Consider the sponges on the top (the 1st layer). They are being pulled down with a force of 1 U (unit).
They fall, and then hit the sponges below (the 2nd layer). They try to push the 2nd layer down which causes (as explained below) the 2nd layer to push up with a force of 1 U to cause no net force on the 1st layer.

Now consider the 2nd layer.
It has gravity pulling it down with a force of 1 U.
It also has the 1st layer pushing it down with a force of 1 U, meaning there is a total force of 2 U pushing it down.
It tries to push the 3rd layer down, which causes it to push up with a force of 2 U.
That means this layer has a force acting on the top and bottom to compress it. This compression, akin to springs, results in a force acting outwards to stop the compression. It is this force acting outwards that transfers the force through the layer, transferring the 1 U of force from the top to the bottom, and the reactionary force from the bottom to the top.

Now consider the kth layer.
It has gravity pulling it down with a force of 1 U.
It also has the k-1th layer pushing it down with a force of k-1 U, meaning there is a total force of k U pushing it down.
It tries to push the k+1th layer down, which causes it to push up with a force of k U.
That means this layer has a force acting on the top and bottom to compress it. This compression, akin to springs, results in a force acting outwards to stop the compression. It is this force acting outwards that transfers the force through the layer, transferring the k-1 U of force from the top to the bottom, and the reactionary force from the bottom to the top.

This continues to the nth layer.
The only difference is that the nth layer is on the ground, and thus it is the ground pushing up to keep the entire stack up.

The same kind of argument applies to air and other fluids. Except instead of layers of sponges, you have layers of molecules, and as it acts hydro-statically, it is based upon pressure not just force, and with air, as it is compressed, each layer get thinner, such that at ground level the layers of air are much thinner than much higher up, corresponding to an increased density and pressure.

See how this falling down explains why there is compression.
But you can't use any of that explanation.
That is because you are claiming this stacking is what causes things to fall.

Without that force causing things to fall, there is no reason for the air to stack.

So again, mainstream science can explain it, your nonsense can't.

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #782 on: October 18, 2020, 07:05:22 PM »
Not understanding the stacking system is a big problem for you all.

Sorry to disappoint you, we do understand your stacking system.
But we have to point out the differences between your stacking system and the reality.

Bodies immersed in the air will lose part of their weight equal to the weight of the displaced air.

One cubic meter of air is 1.293 kg, which is 1.293 grams per cubic decimeter.
So, if some object has the volume of one cubic decimeter, it will displace 1.293 grams of air and lose 1.293 grams of own weight.
(Buoyant force in air is much weaker than in water, but still exists.)

In vacuum the object with volume of one cubic decimeter will be heavier for 1.293 grams.
I don't see how you can stack vacuum.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #783 on: October 18, 2020, 10:15:33 PM »


So things fall down because things fall down...

That is not an explanation nor a theory.
If I'd only given that explanation over time I understand this post.
Clearly you have zero intention of trying to understand what's been said...and fair enough if that's your case.

If you're only at "So things fall down because things fall down"... then there's not a lot I can help you with.
Just sit back and see if (in time) something clicks as I carry on with the topic.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #784 on: October 18, 2020, 10:16:33 PM »
That isn't clear at all.

I think I've made it clear enough.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #785 on: October 18, 2020, 10:28:16 PM »
Not understanding the stacking system is a big problem for you all.

Sorry to disappoint you, we do understand your stacking system.
But we have to point out the differences between your stacking system and the reality.
Clearly you do not understand my stacking system or you wouldn't be arguing it, wrongly. But let's see.

Quote from: Macarios
Bodies immersed in the air will lose part of their weight equal to the weight of the displaced air.

One cubic meter of air is 1.293 kg, which is 1.293 grams per cubic decimeter.
So, if some object has the volume of one cubic decimeter, it will displace 1.293 grams of air and lose 1.293 grams of own weight.
(Buoyant force in air is much weaker than in water, but still exists.)
Course it's much weaker. atmosphere against water is one thing. The dense mass in between it is the crux of the matter, in terms of what and why we deal with displacement of it against a foundation of ( in this case) water.
That's how we deal with displacement of atmosphere and use a scale as our foundation to get a man made weight measurement of it.
I told you you don't understand it.

Quote from: Macarios
In vacuum the object with volume of one cubic decimeter will be heavier for 1.293 grams.
I don't see how you can stack vacuum.
There is no vacuum, so yeah, you couldn't stack a vacuum because a vacuum is zero existence of anything.

Unless you want to change it to extreme low pressure compared to what we're accustomed to.
If that's the case then, yes there is always a stacking system.

Something has to rest on something and there's no getting away from that, whether its water molecules or atmospheric, to sand, to mud, to.................you get the point.

You're still trying to argue my stance by using the one you bought into and then trying to tell me you understand my set up. You clearly do not.

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #786 on: October 19, 2020, 01:05:17 AM »
That isn't clear at all.

I think I've made it clear enough.
You haven't made your baseless assertions clear at all.
All you have made clear is that you have no intention of engaging in any form of honest, rational debate; that you have no intention of ever dealing with the multitude of issues plaguing your complete failure of a model; that you have no intention of actually providing an explanation for how things work in your model; that you have no intention of admitting you have no explanation or that your model doesn't work, and so on.

What you have failed to make clear is any problem in the mainstream model or any explanation of how your model works.

So things fall down because things fall down...
That is not an explanation nor a theory.
If I'd only given that explanation over time I understand this post.
But you effectively have.
You appeal to the air stacking to explain why things fall, and the closest you have gotten to an explanation (which is still not an explanation), is that sponge balls get compressed in a stack, and they do so because things fall.
That means your explanation is effectively things fall because things fall.

Clearly you have zero intention of trying to understand what's been said...and fair enough if that's your case.
Again, that isn't clear at all, it is just another of your baseless assertions.
The problem is not a lack of understanding on our part, it is a lack of explanation on your part.

then there's not a lot I can help you with.
Only if you don't have any explanations. If you do have explanations you can help us all by providing them.

Quote from: Macarios
Bodies immersed in the air will lose part of their weight equal to the weight of the displaced air.
One cubic meter of air is 1.293 kg, which is 1.293 grams per cubic decimeter.
So, if some object has the volume of one cubic decimeter, it will displace 1.293 grams of air and lose 1.293 grams of own weight.
(Buoyant force in air is much weaker than in water, but still exists.)
Course it's much weaker. atmosphere against water is one thing. The dense mass in between it is the crux of the matter, in terms of what and why we deal with displacement of it against a foundation of ( in this case) water.
That's how we deal with displacement of atmosphere and use a scale as our foundation to get a man made weight measurement of it.
I told you you don't understand it.
This in no way addresses the issue raised.
It is the same issue I have raised many times.

Any object immersed in any fluid will have its weight reduced by the mass of fluid displaced.
This is easily observable with the effects of buoyancy in water.
This even applies to objects more dense than the fluid they displace.
What is abundantly clear is that this displacement of fluid does not create weight, instead it apparently reduces it.

A simple air-tight container with a valve, an accurate scale, and a vacuum pump are all that is required to show this.
Weigh the airtight container.
Hook up the vacuum pump and evacuate the container, causing it to displace more air.
Weigh the container again and notice that this extra displacement of air has caused it to weigh less.
Now let the air back in.
Weigh the container again and notice that it is back to its original weight.

This shows beyond any doubt that displacing is not what causes weight.

Again, this has nothing to do with what people have been indoctrinated into or what they have bought into or anything like that. It is simply what the evidence shows.
A massive problem with your model, and just one of many.

Now going to try explaining why things fall, or how your air magically stacks?
Or will you continue ignoring basically ignoring everything and just respond to your strawmen?

Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #787 on: October 19, 2020, 03:52:13 AM »


So things fall down because things fall down...

That is not an explanation nor a theory.
If I'd only given that explanation over time I understand this post.
Clearly you have zero intention of trying to understand what's been said...and fair enough if that's your case.

If you're only at "So things fall down because things fall down"... then there's not a lot I can help you with.
Just sit back and see if (in time) something clicks as I carry on with the topic.

To reiterate your explanation

Sponges at bottom of stack are compressed because they are at the bottom.

Now - Why?

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #788 on: October 19, 2020, 04:27:51 PM »
I'm still waiting on how when a suction cup is stuck to the ceiling, its foundation changes from the ground to the ceiling, but I can't place myself against the ceiling and the ceiling be my foundation.
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #789 on: October 19, 2020, 11:29:20 PM »
Any object immersed in any fluid will have its weight reduced by the mass of fluid displaced.
This is easily observable with the effects of buoyancy in water.
Any object immersed in water will be resisted by that denser water against what the object is pushing against of atmosphere by the objects entire dense mass.
The object either sinks or becomes buoyant which is solely dependent on how much volume is inside the actual dense mass.
No gravity or anything involved, just atmospheric pressure and water as the foundation/resistance.


Quote from: JackBlack
This even applies to objects more dense than the fluid they displace.
What is abundantly clear is that this displacement of fluid does not create weight, instead it apparently reduces it.
Correct and for reasons I gave, above.
Just remember your weight is a man made measurement of atmospheric pressure against a moveable scale plate.
To measure the weight of  something in the way you portray it would mean hanging the object from a scale , meaning your scale is already using whatever foundation it is on to hang over the water, plus the resistance of the spring and bowl/hook and object...etc.
This is your weight measurement, as is, at that point.

If you place your hand under it and lightly push it up...just a little, you will see a weight reduction because you have added resistance under it.
Water does the same if you lowered the object to the water and immersed it a little.

It works perfectly with denpressure and does not work at all with fictional gravity.



Quote from: JackBlack
A simple air-tight container with a valve, an accurate scale, and a vacuum pump are all that is required to show this.
Weigh the airtight container.
Hook up the vacuum pump and evacuate the container, causing it to displace more air.
Weigh the container again and notice that this extra displacement of air has caused it to weigh less.
Now let the air back in.
Weigh the container again and notice that it is back to its original weight.
This shows beyond any doubt that displacing is not what causes weight.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.


*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #790 on: October 20, 2020, 02:30:06 AM »
Any object immersed in any fluid will have its weight reduced by the mass of fluid displaced.
This is easily observable with the effects of buoyancy in water.
Any object immersed in water will be resisted by that denser water against what the object is pushing against of atmosphere by the objects entire dense mass.
The object either sinks or becomes buoyant which is solely dependent on how much volume is inside the actual dense mass.
No gravity or anything involved, just atmospheric pressure and water as the foundation/resistance.


Quote from: JackBlack
This even applies to objects more dense than the fluid they displace.
What is abundantly clear is that this displacement of fluid does not create weight, instead it apparently reduces it.
Correct and for reasons I gave, above.
Just remember your weight is a man made measurement of atmospheric pressure against a moveable scale plate.
To measure the weight of  something in the way you portray it would mean hanging the object from a scale , meaning your scale is already using whatever foundation it is on to hang over the water, plus the resistance of the spring and bowl/hook and object...etc.
This is your weight measurement, as is, at that point.

If you place your hand under it and lightly push it up...just a little, you will see a weight reduction because you have added resistance under it.
Water does the same if you lowered the object to the water and immersed it a little.

It works perfectly with denpressure and does not work at all with fictional gravity.
None of that provides an explanation for the key point:
The reduction in weight is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid.
That makes no sense at all in your model.
Water resisting the motion is based upon velocity and viscosity.
You have no justification for why the water should be applying an upwards force, just like you have no explanation for why the air provides a downwards force.
And as you have no justification at all for why this should be applying an upwards force in the first place, you have no justification for why it should be proportional to mass.

As was already explained to you, it clearly isn't the water just resisting due to needing to push the water out of the way. That is a dynamic effect which would produce a force based upon viscosity and velocity. It would apply no force to a stationary object, as a stationary object is not pushing the water out of the way.

We also aren't talking about boats floating at the surface of water, but objects completely immersed, so we know it isn't a case of air vs water, as the air is not touching it.

And we know it is nothing like a hand. A hand can easily apply a force in any direction, depending on where you press on the object. With flowing water you can do that, but with stationary water, that the object is immersed in, it pushes up, only up. Nothing like a hand.

So no, it doesn't work with denpressure at all; nothing works with denpressure.

Meanwhile, gravity explains it just fine. When I provided the explanation of how you were unable to provide a single fault with it.
But don't bother asking for it. This thread is not to discuss gravity, we are discussing your failed model.

And as has been pointed out repeatedly, WEIGHT IS NOT SIMPLY A MEASUREMENT!
Weight is very real and is the force which acts on an object to try to move it down.
It exists entirely independent of any measurement.
Even without measuring, objects still fall, heavy objects are still heavy and require force to lift.

Quote from: JackBlack
A simple air-tight container with a valve, an accurate scale, and a vacuum pump are all that is required to show this.
Weigh the airtight container.
Hook up the vacuum pump and evacuate the container, causing it to displace more air.
Weigh the container again and notice that this extra displacement of air has caused it to weigh less.
Now let the air back in.
Weigh the container again and notice that it is back to its original weight.
This shows beyond any doubt that displacing is not what causes weight.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
This literally explains nothing and in no way addresses the issue I raised.
That in no way explains why displacing more atmosphere causes the weight to drop, especially when your model claims that displacing atmosphere is what causes weight.

Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #791 on: October 20, 2020, 10:27:03 AM »
Well lets just try to sort out why the balls at the bottom are squished - as we re getting to the root question that all other question hinge on.

So yes the diagram is jnderstood.
The ones on top are pushing down on the bottom ones.
Bottom ones are squished from the pressure above.

So why down?
Where is the downness coming from?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #792 on: October 21, 2020, 12:09:48 AM »
Well lets just try to sort out why the balls at the bottom are squished - as we re getting to the root question that all other question hinge on.

So yes the diagram is jnderstood.
The ones on top are pushing down on the bottom ones.
No....not exactly like you think.

It's important to understand how it works.
It's about the below molecule/matter pushing against the above all the way to the top.



Quote from: Themightykabool
Bottom ones are squished from the pressure above.
They're all squished but the bottom one's are taking the biggest squishing and so on and so on, all the way up where the squishing becomes less and less due to less amount of stacking as opposed to the bottom stacks.
Quote from: Themightykabool
So why down?
Where is the downness coming from?
We are bottom feeders of our atmosphere and our dense mass pushes into it by using a ground resistance. This down to us.
If you want to compare us to solid ground then we are up.

Feel free to play on it if you want but the question is answered.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #793 on: October 21, 2020, 12:11:43 AM »
Mainstream science can easily explain it due to gravity providing a downwards force which acts on the balls/air and is countered by an upwards force from the balls/air below due to them begin compressed.
Clearly not.
That isn't clear at all.
What is clear is that your model is pure nonsense and you are unable to demonstrate a single issue with the explanations and model provided by mainstream science.


If you think that then feel free.

Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #794 on: October 21, 2020, 12:35:45 AM »
Well lets just try to sort out why the balls at the bottom are squished - as we re getting to the root question that all other question hinge on.

So yes the diagram is jnderstood.
The ones on top are pushing down on the bottom ones.
No....not exactly like you think.

It's important to understand how it works.
It's about the below molecule/matter pushing against the above all the way to the top.



Quote from: Themightykabool
Bottom ones are squished from the pressure above.
They're all squished but the bottom one's are taking the biggest squishing and so on and so on, all the way up where the squishing becomes less and less due to less amount of stacking as opposed to the bottom stacks.
Quote from: Themightykabool
So why down?
Where is the downness coming from?
We are bottom feeders of our atmosphere and our dense mass pushes into it by using a ground resistance. This down to us.
If you want to compare us to solid ground then we are up.

Feel free to play on it if you want but the question is answered.

The question is not answered.
Why are the bottom ones under more pressure - and your answer better not be because theyre on the bottom.


*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #795 on: October 21, 2020, 01:52:11 AM »
It's important to understand how it works.
It's about the below molecule/matter pushing against the above all the way to the top.
So why do you continually refuse to tell us HOW it works, and instead just appeal to diagrams which show nothing and analogies which rely upon things already falling.

They're all squished but the bottom one's are taking the biggest squishing and so on and so on, all the way up where the squishing becomes less and less due to less amount of stacking as opposed to the bottom stacks.
And the question is WHY?
What causes them to get squished?
What causes the bottom ones to be squished more?

If you think that then feel free.
And more pathetic dismissal.
When are you going to get around to dealing with the massive issues in your model or justifying any of your baseless attacks against mainstream science?

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #796 on: October 21, 2020, 01:59:04 AM »

Like I said, . . .

Could you please be more condescending?

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #797 on: October 21, 2020, 12:43:59 PM »
Not understanding the stacking system is a big problem for you all.

Sorry to disappoint you, we do understand your stacking system.
But we have to point out the differences between your stacking system and the reality.
Clearly you do not understand my stacking system or you wouldn't be arguing it, wrongly. But let's see.

Clearly you don't understand it either.
Otherwise you wouldn't try to use it as an explanation where reality clearly works in the opposite way.

Less air (nearly vacuum) presses the object harder down? LOL
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #798 on: October 22, 2020, 09:58:53 PM »
Well lets just try to sort out why the balls at the bottom are squished - as we re getting to the root question that all other question hinge on.

So yes the diagram is jnderstood.
The ones on top are pushing down on the bottom ones.
No....not exactly like you think.

It's important to understand how it works.
It's about the below molecule/matter pushing against the above all the way to the top.



Quote from: Themightykabool
Bottom ones are squished from the pressure above.
They're all squished but the bottom one's are taking the biggest squishing and so on and so on, all the way up where the squishing becomes less and less due to less amount of stacking as opposed to the bottom stacks.
Quote from: Themightykabool
So why down?
Where is the downness coming from?
We are bottom feeders of our atmosphere and our dense mass pushes into it by using a ground resistance. This down to us.
If you want to compare us to solid ground then we are up.

Feel free to play on it if you want but the question is answered.

The question is not answered.
Why are the bottom ones under more pressure - and your answer better not be because theyre on the bottom.
They're all under pressure from each other. How can't you get this?
The bottom one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those above.
The one's at the top will be under much less pressure because they have less to resist above them in their stack.

You explain to me why you can't understand that?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #799 on: October 22, 2020, 10:00:30 PM »
It's important to understand how it works.
It's about the below molecule/matter pushing against the above all the way to the top.

I think I do a good job in explaining how it works........but, if people like yourself refuse to take the time to grasp it, that's your issue....not mine.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #800 on: October 22, 2020, 10:03:59 PM »
Not understanding the stacking system is a big problem for you all.

Sorry to disappoint you, we do understand your stacking system.
But we have to point out the differences between your stacking system and the reality.
Clearly you do not understand my stacking system or you wouldn't be arguing it, wrongly. But let's see.

Clearly you don't understand it either.
Otherwise you wouldn't try to use it as an explanation where reality clearly works in the opposite way.

Less air (nearly vacuum) presses the object harder down? LOL
I understand it very well.
You people do not or refuse to, which is absolutely fine.
I'll still be finding ways to better explain to anyone, even people like you, because it helps those who may want to see an alternate view to the  supposed global world, they start to question.

The bit in bold shows exactly how much you take notice. Not at all.

And you blab on about understanding it.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2020, 10:08:18 PM by sceptimatic »

Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #801 on: October 22, 2020, 11:10:04 PM »


The question is not answered.
Why are the bottom ones under more pressure - and your answer better not be because theyre on the bottom.
They're all under pressure from each other. How can't you get this?
The bottom one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those above.
The one's at the top will be under much less pressure because they have less to resist above them in their stack.

You explain to me why you can't understand that?

You essentially said the bottom is the bottom because its the bottom.
You "cleverly" worded it as the bottom is the bottom because the top is the top.

Heres what is understood so that we re perfectly clear what is at question here.

Understood:
Things at the bottom of the stack are under more pressure than things at the top.
By being under higher pressure, the sponges are more compressed and denser and packed together.

Not answered by you:
Why down?
There is no mechanism that orients things down.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2020, 11:14:03 PM by Themightykabool »

*

JackBlack

  • 21984
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #802 on: October 23, 2020, 02:19:35 AM »
They're all under pressure from each other. How can't you get this?
The bottom one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those above.
No, it wont.
That is because if they are all under pressure from each other, there is no directionality there.
You could likewise say:
The top one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those below.
The left one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those to the right.
The right one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those to the left.
The back one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those in front.
The front one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those behind.
The central one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those around.
The outside one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those inside.

It works equally well in any direction.

You are yet to provide a justification for the directionality.
The actual justification for it is whatever force acts to make objects fall, which acts directly on each object rather than on the bulk medium.
This force means the ones at the bottom need to support the ones at the top, while the ones at the top only need to support themselves.

But you have no justification for that at all as that is what you are trying to explain with this stack.

Without this force acting on them they should be pushing each other and reaching an equilibrium where they all "stack" equally and are all compressed equally.

You explain to me why you can't understand that?

Explain why they only care about the ones above rather than in any other direction.
Explain what causes this directionality.
Appealing to the above balls does not provide such a justification as you could just as easily appeal to those in any other direction, without breaking any symmetry of the setup (other than the stack itself).

That is why no one can "understand" your claims. Because you have no justification for this directionality.

It's important to understand how it works.
It's about the below molecule/matter pushing against the above all the way to the top.
So why do you continually refuse to tell us HOW it works, and instead just appeal to diagrams which show nothing and analogies which rely upon things already falling.
I think I do a good job in explaining how it works........but, if people like yourself refuse to take the time to grasp it, that's your issue....not mine.
You thinking something doesn't magically make it true.
Again, the fact you continually deflect from providing an explanation for the multitude of issues (including by pretending to by "explaining" a situation which clearly didn't match what was asked for, such as by appealing to an object sitting on the ground to explain why an object in mid-air would fall) or directly answering the questions asked of you shows you are not.

The problem is not me refusing to grasp your nonsense, it is you not being able to explain your nonsense.

Clearly you don't understand it either.
Otherwise you wouldn't try to use it as an explanation where reality clearly works in the opposite way.
Less air (nearly vacuum) presses the object harder down? LOL
I understand it very well.
Then why are you unable to provide any explanation as to why?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2020, 02:23:36 AM by JackBlack »

Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #803 on: October 23, 2020, 12:54:51 PM »
Any object immersed in any fluid will have its weight reduced by the mass of fluid displaced.
This is easily observable with the effects of buoyancy in water.
Any object immersed in water will be resisted by that denser water against what the object is pushing against of atmosphere by the objects entire dense mass.
The object either sinks or becomes buoyant which is solely dependent on how much volume is inside the actual dense mass.
No gravity or anything involved, just atmospheric pressure and water as the foundation/resistance.


Quote from: JackBlack
This even applies to objects more dense than the fluid they displace.
What is abundantly clear is that this displacement of fluid does not create weight, instead it apparently reduces it.
Correct and for reasons I gave, above.
Just remember your weight is a man made measurement of atmospheric pressure against a moveable scale plate.
To measure the weight of  something in the way you portray it would mean hanging the object from a scale , meaning your scale is already using whatever foundation it is on to hang over the water, plus the resistance of the spring and bowl/hook and object...etc.
This is your weight measurement, as is, at that point.

If you place your hand under it and lightly push it up...just a little, you will see a weight reduction because you have added resistance under it.
Water does the same if you lowered the object to the water and immersed it a little.

It works perfectly with denpressure and does not work at all with fictional gravity.



Quote from: JackBlack
A simple air-tight container with a valve, an accurate scale, and a vacuum pump are all that is required to show this.
Weigh the airtight container.
Hook up the vacuum pump and evacuate the container, causing it to displace more air.
Weigh the container again and notice that this extra displacement of air has caused it to weigh less.
Now let the air back in.
Weigh the container again and notice that it is back to its original weight.
This shows beyond any doubt that displacing is not what causes weight.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

 There is no denpressure, there is no water pressure, without gravity; gravity comes first.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #804 on: October 23, 2020, 01:39:38 PM »
Scepti, I'm curious to see if denpressure plays well with this demonstration. Starting at about :20, ending at 3:00, the Action Lab guy shows whether his vacuum chamber will weigh less once he starts to evacuate most of the air out of it. The chamber weighs 3428 grams. Then he zeros out the scale. Begins to evacuate the air to see if the scale goes negative - It does. At .1 atmospheres, the scale shows -25 grams. Does that make sense with your theory?


*

Heavenly Breeze

  • 447
  • Pegasus from Gaul
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #805 on: October 23, 2020, 07:45:00 PM »
Hello. Reading recent threads with sandokhan, he ofter brought pressire of water/air in it.

(Pharaphasing)

For example, why doesn's bathroom scale measure tons of atmosphere above it, or why doesn't water crush down life inside it? This, as far as I see,it has goal to debunk gravity.


Form google Search i found this:

"So the pressure of the atmosphere is the same as lying under 10 m of water. However, we don't feel the weight of atmosphere. This is because the pressure pushes in all directions."

http://resources.schoolscience.co.uk/BAMA/11-14/aerosch4pg1.html




I wonder how Sandohan can explain this.
I saw it myself, it happened a kilometer from my house.

The earth believes, because magic exists!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #806 on: October 23, 2020, 10:38:45 PM »


The question is not answered.
Why are the bottom ones under more pressure - and your answer better not be because theyre on the bottom.
They're all under pressure from each other. How can't you get this?
The bottom one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those above.
The one's at the top will be under much less pressure because they have less to resist above them in their stack.

You explain to me why you can't understand that?

You essentially said the bottom is the bottom because its the bottom.
You "cleverly" worded it as the bottom is the bottom because the top is the top.

Heres what is understood so that we re perfectly clear what is at question here.

Understood:
Things at the bottom of the stack are under more pressure than things at the top.
By being under higher pressure, the sponges are more compressed and denser and packed together.

Not answered by you:
Why down?
There is no mechanism that orients things down.
Yes there is but you refuse to actually grasp it.
Down is created by a resistance to each stack by each molecule/matter, (sponge ball) or whatever it needs to be called.
Each molecule pushes against their own resistance foundation below. It simply creates a down to how we view up and down.
By all means keep asking why down but you're going to have to keep adding stuff to cater for your own understanding if you can't grasp what I'm saying.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #807 on: October 23, 2020, 10:47:48 PM »
Scepti, I'm curious to see if denpressure plays well with this demonstration. Starting at about :20, ending at 3:00, the Action Lab guy shows whether his vacuum chamber will weigh less once he starts to evacuate most of the air out of it. The chamber weighs 3428 grams. Then he zeros out the scale. Begins to evacuate the air to see if the scale goes negative - It does. At .1 atmospheres, the scale shows -25 grams. Does that make sense with your theory?


It all makes perfect sense and as expected.
If you took notice of my explanations over time you'd see that this just verifies what I've been saying.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #808 on: October 23, 2020, 10:51:16 PM »
They're all under pressure from each other. How can't you get this?
The bottom one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those above.
No, it wont.
That is because if they are all under pressure from each other, there is no directionality there.
You could likewise say:
The top one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those below.
The left one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those to the right.
The right one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those to the left.
The back one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those in front.
The front one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those behind.
The central one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those around.
The outside one's in the stacking system will naturally be under the most pressure due to resisting those inside.

It works equally well in any direction.

You are yet to provide a justification for the directionality.

It's about what is placed within the stack and what foundation is used that creates the directionality. This is what you and others seem to continually overlook.


*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Sea and air pressure
« Reply #809 on: October 24, 2020, 12:03:57 AM »
Scepti, I'm curious to see if denpressure plays well with this demonstration. Starting at about :20, ending at 3:00, the Action Lab guy shows whether his vacuum chamber will weigh less once he starts to evacuate most of the air out of it. The chamber weighs 3428 grams. Then he zeros out the scale. Begins to evacuate the air to see if the scale goes negative - It does. At .1 atmospheres, the scale shows -25 grams. Does that make sense with your theory?


It all makes perfect sense and as expected.
If you took notice of my explanations over time you'd see that this just verifies what I've been saying.

- So you believe that the guy evacuated the chamber down to .1 atmosphere?
- So you believe that can be done?
- And that the chamber is evacuated of most of the 'stack' and that the chamber is so absent of such that it weighs less than when the 'stack' was inside it?