Sea and air pressure

Yes there is but you refuse to actually grasp it.

Maybe once you provide something to actually grasp (rather than just bascially saying down is down), people will start to grasp it.

Each molecule pushes against their own resistance foundation below.

Again, WHY?
Why doesn't it push against the dome above? Or the left or the right?
Why does it magically push against DOWN?

For simplicity consider a simple cube, air tight and full of air.
Why does the air stack in any particular direction inside this box?

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.

It makes no sense at all in your model.
If you had actually bothered paying attention and honestly engaging with what I have explained you would realise that.
You claim that displacement of atmosphere causes weight.
The box displaces more atmosphere when it is evacuated, but it weighs less.
That directly contradicts your model.

With your model, when it displaces more atmosphere it should weigh more.
And as it would displace basically all the atmosphere it should behave in a similar manner as filling it up with the densest possible material, with the exact density depending on just how good a vacuum it gets.
If it gets down to .1 atm, that means it is displacing 90% of the air, and thus it should be the same as filling it with a substance 90% as dense as the densest possible material.

Yet inexplicable, it weighs less, in complete defiance of your model, but 100% consistent with the model of mainstream science.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 23, 2020, 02:19:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 22, 2020, 09:58:53 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.

No, it isn't what we overlook.
Discussing what is placed in the stack makes no sense to explain what causes the stack in the first place.
As for the foundation, again, there is no justification at all for why it picks any foundation over any other.
Once more, you lack an explanation for the directionality.

So once more, why does it stack from the bottom up?
Why not from the top, down?
Why not from left, right?
Why not from outside, in?

Do you have an explanation, or just more avoidance?

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.

Ok
If we are in a contained dome, meaning the dome is solid all around and holds all things inside, then why is the ground the foundation vs the top?
If all are equally solid?

And just to point it out for the 10000th time - you insist down is down because things go down.
There is no explanation of a mechanism for down except your claim it already being down by nature.

Let me give you an example:
Hot is hot because it is hot.

- So you believe that the guy evacuated the chamber down to .1 atmosphere?
- So you believe that can be done?

The person has a gauge. The gauge has a reading. The reading states a number.
That's it.
What counts in evacuation of atmosphere from the container. The container can never ever be completely evacuated because the molecules inside of it will become too expanded and too weak to push each other, even if allowed to by a strong pump pushing against the external atmosphere.


 

- 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?

The chamber will never ever be evacuated of any stack. The stack will always be there...but it will be extremely weak for any mass within it.

Understand the stacking system.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 23, 2020, 10:38:45 PM

Yes there is but you refuse to actually grasp it.

Maybe once you provide something to actually grasp (rather than just bascially saying down is down), people will start to grasp it.

It's been explained plenty and in depth. If you refuse to grasp it, then, fair enough.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 23, 2020, 10:38:45 PM

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.

Ok
If we are in a contained dome, meaning the dome is solid all around and holds all things inside, then why is the ground the foundation vs the top?
If all are equally solid?

Nothing is equally solid.
I've explained the Earth and stacking system all the way up to the dome. Each stack is more densely packed than the next one above, all the way up to the dome.

And just to point it out for the 10000th time - you insist down is down because things go down.

No, I don't.
I say down is down because we are bottom feeders and our down is our foundation we walk upon.
I also mention we are up when compared to being on a water foundation, such as being on a ship.
You could argue, in water we are neither up nor down (Duke of York).
Absorb that and it may help you.

There is no explanation of a mechanism for down except your claim it already being down by nature.

There is and it really has been explained.

Let me give you an example:
Hot is hot because it is hot.

If I'd said something like that I'd expect you not to grasp it...but then again you know I have explained. By all means keep asking and I'll keep giving you other explanations that I think may better fit. It may help those who want to actually think deeper.

Each stack is more densely packed than the next one above, all the way up to the dome.

But why? I think that this is where we are struggling to understand your model. What mechanism causes the molecules to stack more densely at the base?

It's been explained plenty and in depth. If you refuse to grasp it, then, fair enough.

If you actually had explained it I wouldn't still be here asking about it.

Repeatedly deflecting and asserting it has been explained is not actually explaining it.
Repeatedly saying it stacks from the bottom because it stacks from the bottom is not explaining it.

If you actually had an explanation you would provide it rather than continually deflecting and you would address the issues raised.

I've explained the Earth and stacking system all the way up to the dome. Each stack is more densely packed than the next one above, all the way up to the dome.

What you haven't explained is the directionality.
WHY FROM THE BOTTOM UP?
Why not from the top down, or from any other direction.

I say down is down because we are bottom feeders and our down is our foundation we walk upon.
I also mention we are up when compared to being on a water foundation, such as being on a ship.

That is still saying down is down because it is down.
It is still not providing an explanation of the directionality.
Even saying we are above water is still saying down is down.

Once more, why doesn't the stack stack from the dome (the top) down towards Earth, with the stack being more dense at the dome than at the surface of Earth?

In order to actually explain it you actually need to address this question.
You need to explain why it is more dense at the bottom rather than at the top or the left or the right or any other direction or being uniform throughout.
You need to explain why the ones at the bottom need to resist the ones above them, but the ones above don't need to resist the ones below.

And appealing to an analogy of objects which fall do not help you explain it at all, as that is the very thing you are trying to explain and thus is no better than saying things fall because things fall.
In order for your stack to be the cause of why things fall, rather than being a consequence of why things fall, you need to explain what causes them to stack this way without a downwards force acting on them to push them down.
You need to explain why your gas defies all known laws of physics to remain with a very significant pressure gradient across it.

Now stop just asserting that you have explained it and actually try to explain it, directly addressing the issue of the cause of directionality.

Lets try changing our words in hopes we can communicate

It is OBSERVED and agreed by all that pressure increases as we go down.
Very measruable fact in water and in air.
- Why is it that this happens?


The foundation is a different material from the dome.
Yet they both hold in the air.
If not because then the air would escape like out an untied balloon.
- Is there some sort of physical attraction that makes the foundation pull things down towards it?

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

You claim that air stacks above the object and presses that object down.
In reality, when you pull lot of air out of a vacuum chamber the object inside weighs more.
So, the claim that "less air presses the object harder" is direct consequence of your own "theory".

Not only that, but your "stack system" should also give this:
"Putting glass plate above an object, and pulling that plate up, should disrupt the stacks and reduce the weight of the object."

But in reality it doesn't happen that way at all.

I push a sealed cube filled with atmosphere out of a plane.  It is tumbling through the atmosphere in free fall. 

As it tumbles is the stack inside always vertical?


If not, when it stops tumbling while still in freefall, how does it know what direction is down?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 27, 2020, 12:47:55 AM

Each stack is more densely packed than the next one above, all the way up to the dome.

But why? I think that this is where we are struggling to understand your model. What mechanism causes the molecules to stack more densely at the base?

The amount stacked on top of them.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 27, 2020, 12:40:26 AM

It's been explained plenty and in depth. If you refuse to grasp it, then, fair enough.

If you actually had explained it I wouldn't still be here asking about it.

Of course you would. You do it with every person on every subject, no matter what.
Your goal is to keep the global nonsense alive. I get that.
It still doesn't mean I haven't explained. It just means that another billion explanations will never suit you....and I get that. I'm happy with that.....but.....it still doesn't mean I'm not explaining.


And so on and so on and so on.

Lets try changing our words in hopes we can communicate

It is OBSERVED and agreed by all that pressure increases as we go down.
Very measruable fact in water and in air.
- Why is it that this happens?


The foundation is a different material from the dome.
Yet they both hold in the air.
If not because then the air would escape like out an untied balloon.
- Is there some sort of physical attraction that makes the foundation pull things down towards it?

The air doesn't hold like you think it does in a balloon in the stack of the dome.
In a balloon you are creating a barrier that is unnatural. You're trapping air inside a skin and pressurising it.
It still stacks but it is under unnatural stacking pressure.
The dome works differently. It's a natural stacking system.

The pressure is kept inside by a natural skin. A sort of freeze at the top of the dome and around. A moveable skin determined by energy movement around and over it, as i  mentioned....but the stack is where were at.

Don't think of the stacked dome as cramming air into a container, think of it as stacking up sponge balls on top of each other or......if you want to understand it better (like I've explained before) think of it like you're underground and pushing up spoingeball after sponge ball and the only resistance to each is themselves and what is pushing into them (you as an energy).

Don't think of the dome as if you're stood inside some kind of pressurised gas container with a strong skin or it's no wonder you're skidding off track all the time.

It's been well explained but you seem to forget it for some reason.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 22, 2020, 10:03:59 PM

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

You claim that air stacks above the object and presses that object down.

No, I'm not...not entirely. I'm claiming that any dense mass pushing into the stacking system is acted on by that very same displacement of its own dense mass, plus the absolute direct portion of atmosphere above the object.

In reality, when you pull lot of air out of a vacuum chamber the object inside weighs more.

You don't pull air out of anything. You allow it to expand by pushing air away from the source to allow that air to expand into the lower pressure area you created by your push or by the push of a pumping system.

So, the claim that "less air presses the object harder" is direct consequence of your own "theory".

I never claimed this so get your facts right.

Not only that, but your "stack system" should also give this:
"Putting glass plate above an object, and pulling that plate up, should disrupt the stacks and reduce the weight of the object."

But in reality it doesn't happen that way at all.

Understand dense mass displacement and you'll maybe have a chance of understanding what's happening in this scenario.

I push a sealed cube filled with atmosphere out of a plane.  It is tumbling through the atmosphere in free fall. 

As it tumbles is the stack inside always vertical?


If not, when it stops tumbling while still in freefall, how does it know what direction is down?

The stack will be in all configurations.

Quote from: Psychomech on October 27, 2020, 02:08:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 27, 2020, 12:47:55 AM

Each stack is more densely packed than the next one above, all the way up to the dome.

But why? I think that this is where we are struggling to understand your model. What mechanism causes the molecules to stack more densely at the base?

The amount stacked on top of them.

Again, this is just saying they are stacked.
Why is it the bottom that is compressed?
Why don't the molecules in the stack below instead compress the molecules above making the molecules above more compressed?

Of course you would. You do it with every person on every subject, no matter what.

No, I do it to those spouting BS, or unsubstantiated claims. That includes those on both sides.

Your goal is to keep the global nonsense alive. I get that.

Do you mean the global reality?
The reality you are yet to present a viable alternative to?
The reality you are yet to refute in any way?
My goal is to support the truth and challenge BS.

This is shown by me also objecting to what some REers have said, including the arguments they present which are fundamentally flawed.

It still doesn't mean I haven't explained.

No, the fact you continually deflect rather than provide an explanation means you haven't provided an explanation.
Me pointing it out is just pointing it out.

Now care to actually try an explanation other than down is down because it is down?

if you want to understand it better (like I've explained before) think of it like you're underground and pushing up spoingeball after sponge ball and the only resistance to each is themselves and what is pushing into them

Why not think of it as digging down, pushing down into those balls?
Again, why the directionality?

It's been well explained but you seem to forget it for some reason.

It has NEVER been explained.
You just continually assert it stacks and appeal to it stacking to try to explain why it stacks. That is not explaining it.
You have never provided a justification for your directionality.

Quote from: Macarios

So, the claim that "less air presses the object harder" is direct consequence of your own "theory".

I never claimed this so get your facts right.

It doesn't matter if you claim it or not.
As he said, and as I have said many times, it is a direct consequence of your model.
The fact that it doesn't happen like that should indicate there is something very wrong with your model.

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 27, 2020, 05:28:21 AM

Lets try changing our words in hopes we can communicate

It is OBSERVED and agreed by all that pressure increases as we go down.
Very measruable fact in water and in air.
- Why is it that this happens?


The foundation is a different material from the dome.
Yet they both hold in the air.
If not because then the air would escape like out an untied balloon.
- Is there some sort of physical attraction that makes the foundation pull things down towards it?

The air doesn't hold like you think it does in a balloon in the stack of the dome.
In a balloon you are creating a barrier that is unnatural. You're trapping air inside a skin and pressurising it.
It still stacks but it is under unnatural stacking pressure.
The dome works differently. It's a natural stacking system.

The pressure is kept inside by a natural skin. A sort of freeze at the top of the dome and around. A moveable skin determined by energy movement around and over it, as i  mentioned....but the stack is where were at.

Don't think of the stacked dome as cramming air into a container, think of it as stacking up sponge balls on top of each other or......if you want to understand it better (like I've explained before) think of it like you're underground and pushing up spoingeball after sponge ball and the only resistance to each is themselves and what is pushing into them (you as an energy).

Don't think of the dome as if you're stood inside some kind of pressurised gas container with a strong skin or it's no wonder you're skidding off track all the time.

It's been well explained but you seem to forget it for some reason.

Aah more informarion is revealed.
However
Your claim the dome is soft and flexible doesnt fit with you narative.
Air sponges stack because they are under crush effect.
The only way for an force on force or resistance to occur is that the dome be solid and impenetrable.
Say you were indiana jones and two walls were crushing you in.
You would feel the crush because it is stacking.
Or
If there is only one wall and a flexible other side then any density displacement would be absorbed by the flexible wall.
There would be no crush.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 28, 2020, 11:20:13 AM

I push a sealed cube filled with atmosphere out of a plane.  It is tumbling through the atmosphere in free fall. 

As it tumbles is the stack inside always vertical?


If not, when it stops tumbling while still in freefall, how does it know what direction is down?

The stack will be in all configurations.

What do you mean by "in all configurations"?  Please explain.  Use a diagram if need be.

And you didn't really answer the question.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:24:13 AM

Quote from: Psychomech on October 27, 2020, 02:08:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 27, 2020, 12:47:55 AM

Each stack is more densely packed than the next one above, all the way up to the dome.

But why? I think that this is where we are struggling to understand your model. What mechanism causes the molecules to stack more densely at the base?

The amount stacked on top of them.

Again, this is just saying they are stacked.
Why is it the bottom that is compressed?
Why don't the molecules in the stack below instead compress the molecules above making the molecules above more compressed?

Because each molecule is using another as resistance/leverage.

Aah more informarion is revealed.
However
Your claim the dome is soft and flexible doesnt fit with you narative.
Air sponges stack because they are under crush effect.
The only way for an force on force or resistance to occur is that the dome be solid and impenetrable.

The dome is sort of solid at points where energy does not reach but it becomes a mix when energy does. It can expand and contract due to agitation of molecules by energy ( internal sun reflection waves)
The stacking becomes less dense as each stack rises. The molecules become more expanded because they are not under the same pressure as those below which are more densely packed due to the amount above which they have to resist, making them much smaller and compressed, so more of them than much higher above which are not under that severe compression, so there is less (more expanded).
Closer to the top and edges they become so expanded they cannot agitate. they cannot push/resist with anything like the strength, meaning the friction is almost dormant, meaning the skin/freeze happens.

Say you were indiana jones and two walls were crushing you in.
You would feel the crush because it is stacking.

It's not stacking, it would simply be compressing you from both sides.

Or
If there is only one wall and a flexible other side then any density displacement would be absorbed by the flexible wall.
There would be no crush.

You're totally missing the point. One minute you appear to get somewhere and then go and destroy it by writing this.
If it's games then carry on.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:46:19 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 28, 2020, 11:20:13 AM

I push a sealed cube filled with atmosphere out of a plane.  It is tumbling through the atmosphere in free fall. 

As it tumbles is the stack inside always vertical?


If not, when it stops tumbling while still in freefall, how does it know what direction is down?

The stack will be in all configurations.

What do you mean by "in all configurations"?  Please explain.  Use a diagram if need be.

And you didn't really answer the question.

You've trapped air in a box and tumbled it out of a plane.
What do you expect inside the box?
The box will have almost equal air inside it until it it thrown from the plane which means it is in the stack of atmosphere, externally.
Some part of the box will always be in a lower stack than the other, so there will always be a slight different in pressure, externally to it.

All this stuff will do, is muddle you up.

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 29, 2020, 09:25:02 AM

Aah more informarion is revealed.
However
Your claim the dome is soft and flexible doesnt fit with you narative.
Air sponges stack because they are under crush effect.
The only way for an force on force or resistance to occur is that the dome be solid and impenetrable.

The dome is sort of solid at points where energy does not reach but it becomes a mix when energy does. It can expand and contract due to agitation of molecules by energy ( internal sun reflection waves)
The stacking becomes less dense as each stack rises. The molecules become more expanded because they are not under the same pressure as those below which are more densely packed due to the amount above which they have to resist, making them much smaller and compressed, so more of them than much higher above which are not under that severe compression, so there is less (more expanded).
Closer to the top and edges they become so expanded they cannot agitate. they cannot push/resist with anything like the strength, meaning the friction is almost dormant, meaning the skin/freeze happens.

Quote from: Themightykabool

Say you were indiana jones and two walls were crushing you in.
You would feel the crush because it is stacking.

It's not stacking, it would simply be compressing you from both sides.

Quote from: Themightykabool

Or
If there is only one wall and a flexible other side then any density displacement would be absorbed by the flexible wall.
There would be no crush.

You're totally missing the point. One minute you appear to get somewhere and then go and destroy it by writing this.
If it's games then carry on.

1.
So air sponges become so undense that there is no energy or agitation.
It becomes cold and low on pressure.
That is the observed so we can agree on that.
But there is still no mechanism to push down on the sponges below which is what we re asking.
Your claim is our body displace air sponges which stack all the way up to the dome causing a compression effect.
This compressed sponge acts like a spring to oush us down into the ground.
As observed, there is no pressure from the upper most sponges so there is no crushing from above.

2.
Indiana jones is being pushed by 1 wall.
On his feet.
Which is why our hair doesnt get flattened.
It is directional only from the bottom.

3.
Keep whining to me about missing the point but never adressing the point and neither of us will get anywhere.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 29, 2020, 03:10:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:24:13 AM

Quote from: Psychomech on October 27, 2020, 02:08:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 27, 2020, 12:47:55 AM

Each stack is more densely packed than the next one above, all the way up to the dome.

But why? I think that this is where we are struggling to understand your model. What mechanism causes the molecules to stack more densely at the base?

The amount stacked on top of them.

Again, this is just saying they are stacked.
Why is it the bottom that is compressed?
Why don't the molecules in the stack below instead compress the molecules above making the molecules above more compressed?

Because each molecule is using another as resistance/leverage.

Again, WHY DOWN!!!
Why don't the molecules below use the molecules above for resistance/leverage, causing the molecules to compress and the air to get denser and higher pressure as you go up?

You are still not providing any justification for the directionality.

more densely packed due to the amount above which they have to resist

Again, WHY THAT DIRECTIONALITY?
Why do they need to resist the ones above?
Why don't they need to resist the ones below?

Why isn't it a case of:
The stacking becomes less dense as each stack lowers. The molecules become more expanded because they are not above the same pressure as those above which are more densely packed due to the amount below which they have to resist, making them much smaller and compressed, so more of them than much lower below which are not above that severe compression, so there is less (more expanded).

Again, just asserting the bottom is under more pressure because it has to resist those above is NOT PROVIDING A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DIRECTIONALITY!

You need to explain why these air molecules magically push down to need to be resisted by those below, rather than pushing in all directions.

Even with your analogy to sponge balls, you aren't claiming these magically go down. Instead you claim the air pushes them down.
This means they are useless to explain the stacking of air.
In order for them to be a valid analogy you need something to replace the air pushing these balls down.
So just what is pushing the air down?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 29, 2020, 04:12:00 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:46:19 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 28, 2020, 11:20:13 AM

I push a sealed cube filled with atmosphere out of a plane.  It is tumbling through the atmosphere in free fall. 

As it tumbles is the stack inside always vertical?


If not, when it stops tumbling while still in freefall, how does it know what direction is down?

The stack will be in all configurations.

What do you mean by "in all configurations"?  Please explain.  Use a diagram if need be.

And you didn't really answer the question.

You've trapped air in a box and tumbled it out of a plane.
What do you expect inside the box?
The box will have almost equal air inside it until it it thrown from the plane which means it is in the stack of atmosphere, externally.
Some part of the box will always be in a lower stack than the other, so there will always be a slight different in pressure, externally to it.

All this stuff will do, is muddle you up.

Why would the amount of air in the sealed box change when I toss it out of the plane?

Quote from: Macarios on October 27, 2020, 06:49:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 22, 2020, 10:03:59 PM

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

You claim that air stacks above the object and presses that object down.

No, I'm not...not entirely. I'm claiming that any dense mass pushing into the stacking system is acted on by that very same displacement of its own dense mass, plus the absolute direct portion of atmosphere above the object.

In other words, you claim that the column of the air above the object presses it down.
While doing that you avoid the fact that the pressure of air column also presses the object from below and from sides.
And since the column is taller at the bottom, it presses up a bit harder than down.

Quote from: Macarios

In reality, when you pull lot of air out of a vacuum chamber the object inside weighs more.

You don't pull air out of anything. You allow it to expand by pushing air away from the source to allow that air to expand into the lower pressure area you created by your push or by the push of a pumping system.

Here you are trying to distract reader using semantics.
In reality you DO reduce pressure of the external air, allowing some internal air molecules to exit, and allowing the remaining air inside to expand.
Technically, your action allowed some air to exit and you can say that "you pulled it out".

Quote from: Macarios

So, the claim that "less air presses the object harder" is direct consequence of your own "theory".

I never claimed this so get your facts right.

My facts are not that you said it, my facts are that your theory "says it" (has it as the direct consequence).

Quote from: Macarios

Not only that, but your "stack system" should also give this:
"Putting glass plate above an object, and pulling that plate up, should disrupt the stacks and reduce the weight of the object."

But in reality it doesn't happen that way at all.

Understand dense mass displacement and you'll maybe have a chance of understanding what's happening in this scenario.

You might not like it, but looks like I understand it better than you do.
That's because you are hiding the flaws from yourself, and expect others to do the same in order to "understand".

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 30, 2020, 01:40:12 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 29, 2020, 09:25:02 AM

Aah more informarion is revealed.
However
Your claim the dome is soft and flexible doesnt fit with you narative.
Air sponges stack because they are under crush effect.
The only way for an force on force or resistance to occur is that the dome be solid and impenetrable.

The dome is sort of solid at points where energy does not reach but it becomes a mix when energy does. It can expand and contract due to agitation of molecules by energy ( internal sun reflection waves)
The stacking becomes less dense as each stack rises. The molecules become more expanded because they are not under the same pressure as those below which are more densely packed due to the amount above which they have to resist, making them much smaller and compressed, so more of them than much higher above which are not under that severe compression, so there is less (more expanded).
Closer to the top and edges they become so expanded they cannot agitate. they cannot push/resist with anything like the strength, meaning the friction is almost dormant, meaning the skin/freeze happens.

Quote from: Themightykabool

Say you were indiana jones and two walls were crushing you in.
You would feel the crush because it is stacking.

It's not stacking, it would simply be compressing you from both sides.

Quote from: Themightykabool

Or
If there is only one wall and a flexible other side then any density displacement would be absorbed by the flexible wall.
There would be no crush.

You're totally missing the point. One minute you appear to get somewhere and then go and destroy it by writing this.
If it's games then carry on.

1.
So air sponges become so undense that there is no energy or agitation.
It becomes cold and low on pressure.
That is the observed so we can agree on that.
But there is still no mechanism to push down on the sponges below which is what we re asking.
Your claim is our body displace air sponges which stack all the way up to the dome causing a compression effect.
This compressed sponge acts like a spring to oush us down into the ground.
As observed, there is no pressure from the upper most sponges so there is no crushing from above.

2.
Indiana jones is being pushed by 1 wall.
On his feet.
Which is why our hair doesnt get flattened.
It is directional only from the bottom.

3.
Keep whining to me about missing the point but never adressing the point and neither of us will get anywhere.

The truth is, you are missing the point and I find it hard to accept you're doing it by accident...but maybe I'm wrong.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 30, 2020, 01:44:07 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 29, 2020, 04:12:00 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:46:19 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 28, 2020, 11:20:13 AM

I push a sealed cube filled with atmosphere out of a plane.  It is tumbling through the atmosphere in free fall. 

As it tumbles is the stack inside always vertical?


If not, when it stops tumbling while still in freefall, how does it know what direction is down?

The stack will be in all configurations.

What do you mean by "in all configurations"?  Please explain.  Use a diagram if need be.

And you didn't really answer the question.

You've trapped air in a box and tumbled it out of a plane.
What do you expect inside the box?
The box will have almost equal air inside it until it it thrown from the plane which means it is in the stack of atmosphere, externally.
Some part of the box will always be in a lower stack than the other, so there will always be a slight different in pressure, externally to it.

All this stuff will do, is muddle you up.

Why would the amount of air in the sealed box change when I toss it out of the plane?

Because you are tossing it out into a different part of the stack at all times.
Each part of that box sits in its own part of a stacking atmospheric system.

Meaning: The bottom part, or the part closest to the ground will always be under more pressure than every other part farther up that box towards to top.
This is assuming it is dropped perfectly level, which obviously it wouldn't...and in this case it would fluctuate as it is pushed through the stacking system.

To make this a bit easier fore you to grasp, think of the box immersed in water with the top of the box just under the water.
You can appreciate that each part of the box under the water is under different pressures of water crushing against it but also knowing that you are pushing that box under to create it.

The same thing is happening in atmosphere, except the atmosphere can compress much easier around the box and the air inside the box is also compressing against the atmosphere along with the dense mass of the box.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:44:12 AM

Quote from: Macarios on October 27, 2020, 06:49:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 22, 2020, 10:03:59 PM

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

You claim that air stacks above the object and presses that object down.

No, I'm not...not entirely. I'm claiming that any dense mass pushing into the stacking system is acted on by that very same displacement of its own dense mass, plus the absolute direct portion of atmosphere above the object.

In other words, you claim that the column of the air above the object presses it down.

No...not as the main. The stack above does lay on the dense mass acting against it but only that direct line above the top of the dense mass.
As an instance, if you placed a stick in the ground, plumb, the atmospheric stacking directly above the top of that stick would be exerting reactionary pressure back onto that top and the actual stick itself, the whole dense mass of it would be compressing the atmosphere from all sides, all by its very own displacement by it's very own density, excluding any volume it holds, or to be more to the point, the porosity of the dense mass.

While doing that you avoid the fact that the pressure of air column also presses the object from below and from sides.
And since the column is taller at the bottom, it presses up a bit harder than down.

Nothing is pressing from below, unless the object is hung up and even then it's simply riding on the stack the absolute bottom sits on, just like a board would be sitting on top of water.
The rest is a resistant crush to the sides and below to keep that balance.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:44:12 AM

Quote from: Macarios

In reality, when you pull lot of air out of a vacuum chamber the object inside weighs more.

You don't pull air out of anything. You allow it to expand by pushing air away from the source to allow that air to expand into the lower pressure area you created by your push or by the push of a pumping system.

Here you are trying to distract reader using semantics.
In reality you DO reduce pressure of the external air, allowing some internal air molecules to exit, and allowing the remaining air inside to expand.
Technically, your action allowed some air to exit and you can say that "you pulled it out".

No, not at all. You cannot pull anything out. The air itself naturally decompresses, meaning all the molecules are allowed to expand and push into each other, meaning the closest to the exit where the pump is, will be the first to expand into that allowed lower pressure created by the pump PUSHING the external atmosphere away from the entry hole of the container.

This is why you can never evacuate a container, fully. You can only evacuate as much as the molecules inside can expand to push others out. Once that weakens, your container still holds plenty but in extreme weakened state due to much less of them and much more expanded.

Basically you have dormancy.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:44:12 AM

Quote from: Macarios

So, the claim that "less air presses the object harder" is direct consequence of your own "theory".

I never claimed this so get your facts right.

My facts are not that you said it, my facts are that your theory "says it" (has it as the direct consequence).

My theory does not say it, so get your facts right on my theory.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:44:12 AM

Quote from: Macarios

Not only that, but your "stack system" should also give this:
"Putting glass plate above an object, and pulling that plate up, should disrupt the stacks and reduce the weight of the object."

But in reality it doesn't happen that way at all.

Understand dense mass displacement and you'll maybe have a chance of understanding what's happening in this scenario.

You might not like it, but looks like I understand it better than you do.
That's because you are hiding the flaws from yourself, and expect others to do the same in order to "understand".

Clearly you do not understand it.

No...not as the main. The stack above does lay on the dense mass acting against it but only that direct line above the top of the dense mass.

By "direct line" do you mean a direct line straight up?
If so, then putting something in to block that line should reduce the weight, just like he said.
It also fails for the simple fact that cannot explain pressure gradients, as already covered.

Nothing is pressing from below

Which would mean helium balloons cannot rise, water cannot push objects to the surface or have them float and suction cups cannot cling to a ceiling.
That means your model is garbage and does not match reality at all.
Back in reality, it is quite clear that air does push from below.

How about dealing with reality rather than making a bald assertion so clearly contradicted by reality?
And no, special pleading doesn't get you out of it. If you want to assert the air is pure magic and only pushes up sometimes, you need to explain why.
But as you can't even explain why it pushes things down or why it even stacks in the fist place I doubt that will be coming any time soon.

My theory does not say it, so get your facts right on my theory.

It is a direct logical consequence of your theory.
You claim the air is what is pushing down. With less air, there is less push down, and thus the weight should be reduced, but it isn't.

Clearly you do not understand it.

He seems to understand it and the logical consequences of it far better than you.

Now care to explain what magic is causing your air to stack from the bottom up, rather than the top down?
Or the multitude of other problems you ignore.

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 30, 2020, 03:17:32 AM

1.
So air sponges become so undense that there is no energy or agitation.
It becomes cold and low on pressure.
That is the observed so we can agree on that.
But there is still no mechanism to push down on the sponges below which is what we re asking.
Your claim is our body displace air sponges which stack all the way up to the dome causing a compression effect.
This compressed sponge acts like a spring to oush us down into the ground.
As observed, there is no pressure from the upper most sponges so there is no crushing from above.

2.
Indiana jones is being pushed by 1 wall.
On his feet.
Which is why our hair doesnt get flattened.
It is directional only from the bottom.

3.
Keep whining to me about missing the point but never adressing the point and neither of us will get anywhere.

The truth is, you are missing the point and I find it hard to accept you're doing it by accident...but maybe I'm wrong.

as per point 3, we've reached the maximum point where sceppy is willing to participate.
he's thrown his hands up and refuses to cooperate.