Sea and air pressure

Quote from: Velocio on November 17, 2020, 05:01:28 AM

I'm terribly sorry for intervening in this nice dispute. But I couldn’t resist the temptation and I had to register in order to put my 2 cents in.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 16, 2020, 01:26:52 AM

Quote from: JackBlack

So perhaps that is a good place to start.
Consider the air right at the very top of the stack, with absolutely no air above it.
What pushes this air down?

Whatever that last part of our very own dome skin is against. Something that I can only guess at. It could be something of a liquid we are immersed in as a cell. I really don't know.

All I'm concerned with is what I believe is going on inside this cell I suspect we live in.

So, by his own admission, Sceptimatic doesn’t know what force is pushing the air so that it makes things to fall down. And he is equally ignorant about its nature. Fair enough. At least it is clear that even for him it is not the air/atmosphere that is the primary cause for things falling down. Great!

Maybe we can agree to call that unknown and mysterious (for him) force some name? Why not gravitation, Sceptimatic? Since it is of unknown nature for you, it shouldn’t matter how you call it. Agree?

I know that things are not that simple, but as an approximation of first order it may work for you. Next, you might be able to think over how that unknown force causes the air pressure to build up towards the foundation. Hint, when you press a balloon with both hands (the left hand representing the foundation and the right one representing the unknown force) the air pressure inside rises uniformly all over the entire volume of the balloon. The pressure doesn’t build up in the direction of the left hand/foundation.

I'm absolutely fine with the force. It seems you are not fine with your force because you have no clue what it is.

A new name will hardly change anything.

So, by your own words unknown force is acting by unknown means on the air/atmosphere so that it causes the things to fall down. Good. Then we are back to page 1 of this discussion. It took you 30 pages to admit that a force is causing the things to fall. Now we can ponder over the nature of this misterious force for some 30 pages more.

The name of this unknown force is of no matter. It was just a suggestion from my side. Feel free to choose a name that suits you best. But you failed to consider my second suggestion. How that force causes the air pressure to build up in the direction of the foundation? Any suggestions?

So, by your own words unknown force is acting by unknown means on the air/atmosphere so that it causes the things to fall down. Good. Then we are back to page 1 of this discussion. It took you 30 pages to admit that a force is causing the things to fall. Now we can ponder over the nature of this misterious force for some 30 pages more.

No need. It's denpressure. Maybe you should have took a bit of time to get to know it.

The name of this unknown force is of no matter. It was just a suggestion from my side. Feel free to choose a name that suits you best.

Already have. It's denpressure.
I'm just allowing it to sink in, if it hasn't already.

But you failed to consider my second suggestion. How that force causes the air pressure to build up in the direction of the foundation? Any suggestions?

It builds FROM the foundation by stacking.
I'm sure you've heard of stacking.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 17, 2020, 03:17:40 AM

You see the (well you dont see but we see) the problm is that yoy have two disjointed sratments here and your brain refuses to join them


1.
An object on earth displaces air causing a stack allllllll the way up to the dome.
This stack pushes that object down.

An object sits in the stacking system throughout its entire dense mass from bottom to top of that dense mass.
Above that are many many more stacks.
You saw the diagram, what's the issue?

Quote from: Themightykabool

2.
Air at the top of the stack feels little to no resistnace.

Air at the very top, yes. Like the very top of the dome.
There will be billions and billions (most likely) of atmospheric molecular stacking from bottom to top.

Quote from: Themightykabool

So leta combine them and show they are contradictory!
How can the admited spring push down when it is not being pushed down?
It cant.
So air is not pushing us down.

The spring is much stronger than the atmosphere it is immersed in, so how can the atmosphere push down on it when it's already immersed within it?

You're getting yourself into a right sticky mix. You keep setting yourself back every time. I honestly find it weird and bemusing.

Ugh
You must be purposefully mis representing the analogy.
The analogy is that the spring is the stack and the dome is the hand.
Air above is not pushing down with force which you admit.
So how can it push down through the stack if its not pushing down!?

Quote from: JackBlack on November 17, 2020, 01:29:41 AM

No, I have no problem with molecules pushing things.
The question is WHY?
Why does it push anything in the first place?

How long is a piece of string?

And again with the pathetic deflection.

Why not answer the simple questions or admit you have no idea and that your relies upon pure nonsense?
Again, why does the air push down?
If you want to appeal to it stacking or being pushed down itself, you need to tell us what pushes it down and you can't just resort to the air.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 17, 2020, 03:17:40 AM

You see the (well you dont see but we see) the problm is that yoy have two disjointed sratments here and your brain refuses to join them
1.
An object on earth displaces air causing a stack allllllll the way up to the dome.
This stack pushes that object down.

An object sits in the stacking system throughout its entire dense mass from bottom to top of that dense mass.
Above that are many many more stacks.
You saw the diagram, what's the issue?

The issue is the same one I have raised before.
You try to address everything piecemeal style, and do so in such a way that you repeatedly contradict yourself.
Rather than acknowledge these contradictions or try to resolve them, you instead try to keep it all separate.

The point is that you are contradicting yourself.
The point is that your air should be behaving like the spring. Without something pushing down on top of the air, the air should not be compressed, just like without something pushing down on the top of the spring, it isn't compressed.
As you said yourself, you can't push the spring down without pushing it down. It cannot push itself down.
The same applies to your air.

I'm absolutely fine with the force.

Then why don't you tell us what it is?
Just what force is acting on the air to push it down?
Once more, we know it can't be the air.

It builds FROM the foundation by stacking.
I'm sure you've heard of stacking.

Yes, and I am sure he, just like most of us here are aware that this ability to stack relies upon a force to push the objects down.
Without that force there is no reason for it to stack.
You can even stack things sideways by applying a force to cause it to stack, pushing each object against a wall.

So without a force to push the air down, there is no reason for it to stack.
Without that force acting individually on each piece of air there is no reason for the force to build in this stack, rather than being constant throughout.
And no, that force acting on each piece of air cannot simply be the air above.
If it was the air above, that produces a uniform pressure, there will be no gradient, and that still needs something to push the top of the air down.

So again, what is this force pushing the air down?
We know it can't be the air.

Ugh
You must be purposefully mis representing the analogy.
The analogy is that the spring is the stack and the dome is the hand.
Air above is not pushing down with force which you admit.
So how can it push down through the stack if its not pushing down!?

If you want to use a spring as the stack then you need to understand the sponge ball analogy.



Bottom of this stack is clearly more molecules.
Those molecules become less as they are resisted by those below.
Each layer is a stack.

As those molecules stack, they become less and each set of molecules in each stack resist their own dense mass, with those at the bottom doing the most resistance in terms of atmospheric and using denser mass as its foundation (ground/water) in order to resist the push on push or push and resistance to push of the atmosphere.

Right at the very top there would be near full expansion. A extreme low pressure due to those at or near the top only having to resist their own dense mass of the few, unlike those at the bottom which have to resist the whole lot above and the reason they're so compressed.

So again, what is this force pushing the air down?
We know it can't be the air.

I'm sure the diagram above will not appease you. I know nothing will unless I follow your protocol...which is not going to happen.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 17, 2020, 11:22:58 AM

Ugh
You must be purposefully mis representing the analogy.
The analogy is that the spring is the stack and the dome is the hand.
Air above is not pushing down with force which you admit.
So how can it push down through the stack if its not pushing down!?

If you want to use a spring as the stack then you need to understand the sponge ball analogy.



Bottom of this stack is clearly more molecules.
Those molecules become less as they are resisted by those below.
Each layer is a stack.

As those molecules stack, they become less and each set of molecules in each stack resist their own dense mass, with those at the bottom doing the most resistance in terms of atmospheric and using denser mass as its foundation (ground/water) in order to resist the push on push or push and resistance to push of the atmosphere.

Right at the very top there would be near full expansion. A extreme low pressure due to those at or near the top only having to resist their own dense mass of the few, unlike those at the bottom which have to resist the whole lot above and the reason they're so compressed.

Previously you said that in a perfectly symmetrical container, there would be no atmospheric stacking.  Have you changed your mind about about this aspect of your ideas? 

Bottom of this stack is clearly more molecules.

And the question is WHY?

Why is it like that?
Why isn't it like this:

Or just uniform throughout?

That is what you have continually refused to explain

Again, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND, not us.
Turn the entire system on its side and put the balls against a wall.
There is no compression unless you apply a force to the balls.
If you just apply this force to the right most balls (assuming the wall is to the left), then the pressure is constant throughout.
In order to have it "stack" like you do you need some force acting on each ball to push it to the left, such that as you move to the left you have more and more force from the combined push on all the balls to the right, and the push on itself.

The same applies to a vertical stack.

So again, WHAT IS PUSHING YOUR AIR DOWN?

Those molecules become less as they are resisted by those below.

Again, WHY?
Why isn't it that they becomes less as they are resisted by those above, with the above stack being more dense?
Without something pushing them, what is there to resist in the first place?

As those molecules stack, they become less and each set of molecules in each stack resist their own dense mass

Just what about their own dense mass do they need to resist?
Why should that make them go down?

with those at the bottom doing the most resistance

Again, why?

resist the push on push

What push?
You are yet to identify just what is pushing your air, so just what is there to resist?
That was the point of the spring, to show you need something to push your air.

Right at the very top there would be near full expansion. A extreme low pressure due to those at or near the top only having to resist their own dense mass of the few, unlike those at the bottom which have to resist the whole lot above and the reason they're so compressed.

Again, WHY?
Why do the ones at the top only need to resist themselves, while the ones at the bottom need to resist it all?

Just what is acting on the top to push the very top of the stack down?
What is acting on the layer below, in addition to the air above, to cause it to push down with a greater force?

You sure seem to be appealing to the mass, as if mass alone makes it fall, as if it is pulled (or pushed) down by GRAVITY!

If not, then just what is pushing it down?

Why can't you answer this extremely simple question?

I know nothing will unless I follow your protocol...which is not going to happen.

My "protocol" is actually addressing the issues that are raised, actually answering the question that show the massive problem with your model. What a novel concept.
Thanks for admitting you have interest in doing so, and thus no interest in rationally and honestly defending your model.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2020, 10:38:00 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 17, 2020, 11:22:58 AM

Ugh
You must be purposefully mis representing the analogy.
The analogy is that the spring is the stack and the dome is the hand.
Air above is not pushing down with force which you admit.
So how can it push down through the stack if its not pushing down!?

If you want to use a spring as the stack then you need to understand the sponge ball analogy.



Bottom of this stack is clearly more molecules.
Those molecules become less as they are resisted by those below.
Each layer is a stack.

As those molecules stack, they become less and each set of molecules in each stack resist their own dense mass, with those at the bottom doing the most resistance in terms of atmospheric and using denser mass as its foundation (ground/water) in order to resist the push on push or push and resistance to push of the atmosphere.

Right at the very top there would be near full expansion. A extreme low pressure due to those at or near the top only having to resist their own dense mass of the few, unlike those at the bottom which have to resist the whole lot above and the reason they're so compressed.

Previously you said that in a perfectly symmetrical container, there would be no atmospheric stacking.  Have you changed your mind about about this aspect of your ideas?

In a symmetrical container or balls, would there be a stacking of those balls?
Think about it carefully.
I'm sure the answer would be, yes.

But.....the stacking would gain no advantage in either part.

This is not symmetrical, if you've noticed.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2020, 10:38:00 PM

Bottom of this stack is clearly more molecules.

And the question is WHY?

Why is it like that?
Why isn't it like this:

Or just uniform throughout?

That is what you have continually refused to explain

Again, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND, not us.
Turn the entire system on its side and put the balls against a wall.
There is no compression unless you apply a force to the balls.
If you just apply this force to the right most balls (assuming the wall is to the left), then the pressure is constant throughout.
In order to have it "stack" like you do you need some force acting on each ball to push it to the left, such that as you move to the left you have more and more force from the combined push on all the balls to the right, and the push on itself.

The same applies to a vertical stack.

So again, WHAT IS PUSHING YOUR AIR DOWN?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2020, 10:38:00 PM

Those molecules become less as they are resisted by those below.

Again, WHY?
Why isn't it that they becomes less as they are resisted by those above, with the above stack being more dense?
Without something pushing them, what is there to resist in the first place?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2020, 10:38:00 PM

As those molecules stack, they become less and each set of molecules in each stack resist their own dense mass

Just what about their own dense mass do they need to resist?
Why should that make them go down?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2020, 10:38:00 PM

with those at the bottom doing the most resistance

Again, why?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2020, 10:38:00 PM

resist the push on push

What push?
You are yet to identify just what is pushing your air, so just what is there to resist?
That was the point of the spring, to show you need something to push your air.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2020, 10:38:00 PM

Right at the very top there would be near full expansion. A extreme low pressure due to those at or near the top only having to resist their own dense mass of the few, unlike those at the bottom which have to resist the whole lot above and the reason they're so compressed.

Again, WHY?
Why do the ones at the top only need to resist themselves, while the ones at the bottom need to resist it all?

Just what is acting on the top to push the very top of the stack down?
What is acting on the layer below, in addition to the air above, to cause it to push down with a greater force?

You sure seem to be appealing to the mass, as if mass alone makes it fall, as if it is pulled (or pushed) down by GRAVITY!

If not, then just what is pushing it down?

Why can't you answer this extremely simple question?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2020, 10:39:28 PM

I know nothing will unless I follow your protocol...which is not going to happen.

My "protocol" is actually addressing the issues that are raised, actually answering the question that show the massive problem with your model. What a novel concept.
Thanks for admitting you have interest in doing so, and thus no interest in rationally and honestly defending your model.

Sooooo, basically you are asking why isn't the sky upside down to us...right?

we are a very dense mass under a dense mass of atmosphere in the way I've described and you want to know why we are not walking on the sky with everything else under us.

You are beyond help if you can't figure that one out.

Quote from: sobchak on November 17, 2020, 11:56:03 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2020, 10:38:00 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 17, 2020, 11:22:58 AM

Ugh
You must be purposefully mis representing the analogy.
The analogy is that the spring is the stack and the dome is the hand.
Air above is not pushing down with force which you admit.
So how can it push down through the stack if its not pushing down!?

If you want to use a spring as the stack then you need to understand the sponge ball analogy.



Bottom of this stack is clearly more molecules.
Those molecules become less as they are resisted by those below.
Each layer is a stack.

As those molecules stack, they become less and each set of molecules in each stack resist their own dense mass, with those at the bottom doing the most resistance in terms of atmospheric and using denser mass as its foundation (ground/water) in order to resist the push on push or push and resistance to push of the atmosphere.

Right at the very top there would be near full expansion. A extreme low pressure due to those at or near the top only having to resist their own dense mass of the few, unlike those at the bottom which have to resist the whole lot above and the reason they're so compressed.

Previously you said that in a perfectly symmetrical container, there would be no atmospheric stacking.  Have you changed your mind about about this aspect of your ideas?

In a symmetrical container or balls, would there be a stacking of those balls?
Think about it carefully.
I'm sure the answer would be, yes.

But.....the stacking would gain no advantage in either part.

This is not symmetrical, if you've noticed.

So you have changed your mind, and in your model, there would be stacking in a symmetric container.  What led to the change, have you just thought about it more or something else?

This is not symmetrical, if you've noticed.

We have noticed. The question is why.
What is there pushing the air down to disrupt that symmetry?

Sooooo, basically you are asking why isn't the sky upside down to us...right?

No, I am asking the same thing I have been for quite some time, WHY DOWN?
Why is the air pushed down in the first place?
Just what is pushing it down?

we are a very dense mass under a dense mass of atmosphere in the way I've described

Again, this is an observation, not an explanation.
I know the mainstream explanation.
I want your explanation.

In your model, where you do not have gravity, what is acting on the air to keep the bottom layer so compressed, but allows the top to be so uncompressed.
You need to have something on each compressed layer to make it more compressed than the previous layer.
And by that I mean in addition to the above layer pushing down.
If it was just the above layer pushing down, the force would be the same on both layers and thus neither layer would be more compressed.

you want to know why we are not walking on the sky with everything else under us.

No, for 2 very big reasons.
1 - I am focusing on the air not us.
This is because you are appealing to this air to explain why we fall, but providing no reason for the air to fall.
If you are willing to admit that the air isn't what causes us to fall, and instead our own dense mass (possibly with some force) causes us to fall, and would do so even in the complete absence of air, then it isn't anywhere near as much as an issue.
But instead you claim it must be the air pushing us down. But as I pointed out, you have nothing to push your air down.
So I ask what is pushing your air down.

2 - I am arguing more for symmetry rather than merely inverting it.
Without a force to push the air down, it shouldn't be pushed up, but should uniform throughout, i.e. have the same pressure throughout, rather than a pressure that varies with altitude.
This would match what happens when you apply lateral forces to objects which can't move, where it has the same pressure or force throughout, rather than the pressure magically increasing in one direction.

To apply that to us, it would again be invoking symmetry, and be asking why we fall down instead of being able to fly around in 0 g, effectively swimming through the air.
i.e. what pushes us down.
Because without a force pushing us down (and assuming we don't get a force pushing in some other direction) we should be able to move just as easily in any direction. The only advantages would be if you were standing on the ground or against a wall or ceiling and pressed off that.

You are beyond help if you can't figure that one out.

Again, I can figure it out with mainstream science.
It is your model which lacks any explanation for this phenomenon.

So again, WHAT PUSHES THE AIR DOWN?

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 17, 2020, 11:22:58 AM

Ugh
You must be purposefully mis representing the analogy.
The analogy is that the spring is the stack and the dome is the hand.
Air above is not pushing down with force which you admit.
So how can it push down through the stack if its not pushing down!?

If you want to use a spring as the stack then you need to understand the sponge ball analogy.



Bottom of this stack is clearly more molecules.
Those molecules become less as they are resisted by those below.
Each layer is a stack.

As those molecules stack, they become less and each set of molecules in each stack resist their own dense mass, with those at the bottom doing the most resistance in terms of atmospheric and using denser mass as its foundation (ground/water) in order to resist the push on push or push and resistance to push of the atmosphere.

Right at the very top there would be near full expansion. A extreme low pressure due to those at or near the top only having to resist their own dense mass of the few, unlike those at the bottom which have to resist the whole lot above and the reason they're so compressed.

The picutred sponges are the observed.
You havent provided a mechanism for it.

And if a desne mass down below displaces the sponges, it shows there is no reuslting resistance at the top, only below.
So further shows it is not the air stack pushing us down.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2020, 12:37:57 AM

Quote from: sobchak on November 17, 2020, 11:56:03 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2020, 10:38:00 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 17, 2020, 11:22:58 AM

Ugh
You must be purposefully mis representing the analogy.
The analogy is that the spring is the stack and the dome is the hand.
Air above is not pushing down with force which you admit.
So how can it push down through the stack if its not pushing down!?

If you want to use a spring as the stack then you need to understand the sponge ball analogy.



Bottom of this stack is clearly more molecules.
Those molecules become less as they are resisted by those below.
Each layer is a stack.

As those molecules stack, they become less and each set of molecules in each stack resist their own dense mass, with those at the bottom doing the most resistance in terms of atmospheric and using denser mass as its foundation (ground/water) in order to resist the push on push or push and resistance to push of the atmosphere.

Right at the very top there would be near full expansion. A extreme low pressure due to those at or near the top only having to resist their own dense mass of the few, unlike those at the bottom which have to resist the whole lot above and the reason they're so compressed.

Previously you said that in a perfectly symmetrical container, there would be no atmospheric stacking.  Have you changed your mind about about this aspect of your ideas?

In a symmetrical container or balls, would there be a stacking of those balls?
Think about it carefully.
I'm sure the answer would be, yes.

But.....the stacking would gain no advantage in either part.

This is not symmetrical, if you've noticed.

So you have changed your mind, and in your model, there would be stacking in a symmetric container.  What led to the change, have you just thought about it more or something else?

No, i haven't changed my mind. Everything stacks.

The only difference is in the way they are stacked, which is the case we are talking about.
No changes; just you not grasping it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2020, 10:38:00 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 17, 2020, 11:22:58 AM

Ugh
You must be purposefully mis representing the analogy.
The analogy is that the spring is the stack and the dome is the hand.
Air above is not pushing down with force which you admit.
So how can it push down through the stack if its not pushing down!?

If you want to use a spring as the stack then you need to understand the sponge ball analogy.



Bottom of this stack is clearly more molecules.
Those molecules become less as they are resisted by those below.
Each layer is a stack.

As those molecules stack, they become less and each set of molecules in each stack resist their own dense mass, with those at the bottom doing the most resistance in terms of atmospheric and using denser mass as its foundation (ground/water) in order to resist the push on push or push and resistance to push of the atmosphere.

Right at the very top there would be near full expansion. A extreme low pressure due to those at or near the top only having to resist their own dense mass of the few, unlike those at the bottom which have to resist the whole lot above and the reason they're so compressed.

The picutred sponges are the observed.
You havent provided a mechanism for it.

And if a desne mass down below displaces the sponges, it shows there is no reuslting resistance at the top, only below.
So further shows it is not the air stack pushing us down.

Take a good look at that diagram and every stack of circles, representing atmospheric (crude and basic) molecules.
You can see that every stack has more than the stack above.
You can also understand that each stack is pushing against the next...and so on, all the way to the top.
It's pretty clear.

So again, WHAT PUSHES THE AIR DOWN?

The diagram shows you.

No changes; just you not grasping it.

What is more likely? You repeatedly contradicting yourself to avoid admitting your model is wrong, or literally everyone other than you not being able to grasp your broken model?

Take a good look at that diagram

Your diagram in no way provides an explanation.
Once more, do you understand the difference between an explanation and an observation?

Quote from: JackBlack on November 18, 2020, 01:43:52 AM

So again, WHAT PUSHES THE AIR DOWN?

The diagram shows you.

No it doesn't.
Your diagram has a bunch of circles with no indication of any force at all.

So again, WHAT PUSHES THE AIR DOWN?

And remember, we know this has to be something that pushes down on each layer of air, in addition to the air above pushing down.
Without that, if it was only the air above pushing down, there would be no pressure gradient.

Again, the closest you have come to providing an actual explanation is appealing to the mass as if that mass will be pushed down by some force (like gravity), but you didn't tell us what this force is or why it acts on air and air alone.

Quote from: sobchak on November 18, 2020, 12:58:48 AM

So you have changed your mind, and in your model, there would be stacking in a symmetric container.  What led to the change, have you just thought about it more or something else?

No, i haven't changed my mind. Everything stacks.

That depends on the container.

If you have a perfect sphere and pressurise it then you have no stacking. It's equal.

Anything perfectly symmetrical and pressurised would be the same.

No changes; just you not grasping it.

I'm defintely having trouble grasping your model of how things work.  Sometimes things stack, sometimes not. Things are pressed down from above because of the stacking, but the stacking exists because things are pushed down.  As described, even with an incredibly careful reading of what you are saying, it is vague, often circular, and never differentially predictive. 

Remember, all we have is access to the words you write, not to your thoughts, so even if it is perfectly clear in your own mind, if your ideas are presented in a confused and unclear manner, no one will ever understand it. 

Okokok 
To be fair and balanced
Possibly we can give sceppy 1 piece of credit.
Sort of



Near the end you see the on edge test, the weight is distributed and supoorted by the lower foam which does not appear to deform in a reverse of sceppys bubble pyramid.

However!
Two things to note

1.
If the air was pushing down, there would be pressure of the entire body, same as the video, where your head and hair would feel tthe down equal to the entire body.
It clearly does not.

2.
Pressing down of air sponges would still require a straight direct line so there would also be lateral compression
And still
The displacement is what causes the compression so why are lower level bubbles compressed?
"They are on the bottom"
Circular reasoning.
Wih no displacement the bubbles should be free to expand to an even size.
Clealry there are other mechanisms involved.
And sceppy has no answer

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2020, 10:33:52 PM

No changes; just you not grasping it.

What is more likely? You repeatedly contradicting yourself to avoid admitting your model is wrong, or literally everyone other than you not being able to grasp your broken model?

There's no contradiction with what I'm saying so it's down to you lot not grasping it but the issue you have is, you will not accept you don't understand it because you like to make out you know everything about everything, which is why you are in every thread pushing the global stuff.

Indoctrination books are your friend and you embrace them on a forum related onslaught, every day, almost.
That's fair enough with me but it gives you no credence, at all, with me.
But you carry on going backwards with my hypothesis..

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2020, 10:33:52 PM

Quote from: sobchak on November 18, 2020, 12:58:48 AM

So you have changed your mind, and in your model, there would be stacking in a symmetric container.  What led to the change, have you just thought about it more or something else?

No, i haven't changed my mind. Everything stacks.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 20, 2019, 03:23:31 AM

That depends on the container.

If you have a perfect sphere and pressurise it then you have no stacking. It's equal.

Anything perfectly symmetrical and pressurised would be the same.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2020, 10:33:52 PM

No changes; just you not grasping it.

I'm defintely having trouble grasping your model of how things work.  Sometimes things stack, sometimes not. Things are pressed down from above because of the stacking, but the stacking exists because things are pushed down.  As described, even with an incredibly careful reading of what you are saying, it is vague, often circular, and never differentially predictive. 

Remember, all we have is access to the words you write, not to your thoughts, so even if it is perfectly clear in your own mind, if your ideas are presented in a confused and unclear manner, no one will ever understand it.

If you're struggling that badly then find better ways for me to explain, because I believe I'm doing a good job from my side. However...like you say...you do not have access to my mind...so, fair enough.


It's all about wanting to understand it without creating your own global obstacles, also. Just remember that.

Okokok 
To be fair and balanced
Possibly we can give sceppy 1 piece of credit.
Sort of



Near the end you see the on edge test, the weight is distributed and supoorted by the lower foam which does not appear to deform in a reverse of sceppys bubble pyramid.

Does not appear to deform?

However!
Two things to note

1.
If the air was pushing down, there would be pressure of the entire body, same as the video, where your head and hair would feel tthe down equal to the entire body.
It clearly does not.

The hair has volume of its own. It is not clamped to the head like paint.
The reason it has volume is due to the atmosphere being all around it. Each hair, not as a solid unit.

2.
Pressing down of air sponges would still require a straight direct line so there would also be lateral compression
And still
The displacement is what causes the compression so why are lower level bubbles compressed?
"They are on the bottom"

Remember the stack. Now remember when I mentioned ships in water and that density of the ship creating its own displacement of that water.
Basically if you could freeze frame it and take out the ship, you'd see the delve in the water.
That delve is crushing/pushing against the ship. Resisting the dense mass of it and stopping it from being pushed down by the displacement of the dense mass of it's own make up of air it is also in.

Just like that dumbbell sitting on the sponge.
The resistance is there, throughout but it's seen much more in the higher, stacking than below because the resistance becomes strong and stronger with each stack adding to that resistance of that dense mass (dumbbell).

Circular reasoning.
Wih no displacement the bubbles should be free to expand to an even size.
Clealry there are other mechanisms involved.
And sceppy has no answer

Don't forget the displacement of the bubbles themselves, without added dense mass displacement of objects.
Just when I think there's some hope, you set yourself back..every time.

There's no contradiction with what I'm saying

You not liking there being a contradiction doesn't magically mean there is none.
You claim things need to be pushed down, but then magically have your air just go down without being pushed.

But of course, rather than admit you have no idea at all, and that your model does not work, instead you just repeatedly insult us, claiming we can't understand because we are indoctrinated.

Now why don't you stop with the pathetic deflections and clearly tell us what is pushing the air down?
No appeals to observations of things falling.
No just saying it is the air, as we know it can't be.
Tell us what, other than the air, is acting on every piece of air to push it down.

Sorry but it still doesnt add up.


Put hair on the dumbbell and it will be flattened by the crush between the foam and the weight.

Your theory does not stand up to observed reality.



Sponges have their own dense mass.
Then if they have their own dense mass it is not them that creates the downward.
Simply having dispalcement and no other form or mechanism of "down" wll not make the sponges go down nor make the bottom sponges compress.
Sponges if with equal property will not compress by their very equal nature.
Look at the video beofre weight is added.

Your theory still fails.

Sids note

Looks like you know how to watch a video.
Please repsond to the globe 3d sjmulation video


Or keeep dodign
We all know how pathetic you are.

Quote from: sobchak on November 20, 2020, 03:25:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2020, 10:33:52 PM

Quote from: sobchak on November 18, 2020, 12:58:48 AM

So you have changed your mind, and in your model, there would be stacking in a symmetric container.  What led to the change, have you just thought about it more or something else?

No, i haven't changed my mind. Everything stacks.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 20, 2019, 03:23:31 AM

That depends on the container.

If you have a perfect sphere and pressurise it then you have no stacking. It's equal.

Anything perfectly symmetrical and pressurised would be the same.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2020, 10:33:52 PM

No changes; just you not grasping it.

I'm defintely having trouble grasping your model of how things work.  Sometimes things stack, sometimes not. Things are pressed down from above because of the stacking, but the stacking exists because things are pushed down.  As described, even with an incredibly careful reading of what you are saying, it is vague, often circular, and never differentially predictive. 

Remember, all we have is access to the words you write, not to your thoughts, so even if it is perfectly clear in your own mind, if your ideas are presented in a confused and unclear manner, no one will ever understand it.

If you're struggling that badly then find better ways for me to explain, because I believe I'm doing a good job from my side.

Do you really think you are doing a "good job" of explaining?  This thread has been going on for dozens of pages with numerous people asking the same question - Why is there a down in your model?  No one understands your explanation for this at all as far as I can see.

You have in your mind some idea that you are trying to convey.   How can you say you are doing a good job explaining your model if NO one can get what you are saying?

It is not up to me to find better ways for you to organize your thoughts and try to explain your model more clearly, but my suggestion would be to listen more at what people are saying in response to you, really listen and try to understand what they are saying.  Yes, there are a lot of insults and snark (guilty at times myself, as you are as well), but there is validity as well.  Dont let your own preconceived notions blind you to interesting but challenging questions.

and more figures.  You are fundamentally trying to describe physical phenomena, every single thing you say should be able to be described with fairly simple figures. 

Sorry but it still doesnt add up.


Put hair on the dumbbell and it will be flattened by the crush between the foam and the weight.

Your theory does not stand up to observed reality.

A hair on the dumbbell just adds that much dense mass to the dumbbell...meaning the hair in itself is mostly volume and very little dense mass....meaning it's displacement of atmosphere is so minimal as to be unnoticable, unless you had some extremely fine pressure plate (scale) to show this extra displacement.

Sponges have their own dense mass.
Then if they have their own dense mass it is not them that creates the downward.

Yes they do have their own dense mass and using them as we are, for atmospheric molecules, they stack and each one resists the one above by pushing against the one below.
A push on push or push on resistance...whichever way you want to look at it.

Simply having dispalcement and no other form or mechanism of "down" wll not make the sponges go down nor make the bottom sponges compress.

The sponges will not go down on their own. They need to push against one above...as I mentioned, above.

Sponges if with equal property will not compress by their very equal nature.

They are not equal in a stack for reasons above.

Look at the video beofre weight is added.

Your theory still fails.

Weight means nothing. It's a man made concept to measure atmospheric pressure upon dense mass.
And yes its passed off as gravity, which cannot be explained yet argued as if it's real by people like yourself who will deny it.

Sids note

Looks like you know how to watch a video.
Please repsond to the globe 3d sjmulation video


Or keeep dodign
We all know how pathetic you are.

Pick a point.

Do you really think you are doing a "good job" of explaining?  This thread has been going on for dozens of pages with numerous people asking the same question - Why is there a down in your model?  No one understands your explanation for this at all as far as I can see.
You have in your mind some idea that you are trying to convey.   How can you say you are doing a good job explaining your model if NO one can get what you are saying?

If I'm not doing a good job of explaining, then find a way for me to explain it better.
Or is it you people just failing to grasp what I'm saying because your minds are saturated with global indoctrinated belief's?

It is not up to me to find better ways for you to organize your thoughts and try to explain your model more clearly, but my suggestion would be to listen more at what people are saying in response to you, really listen and try to understand what they are saying.

I think I'm doing more than that.
You lot are machine gunning me and I can only fire back with my one shot at a time reply....but I reload and reload, regardless.
Who's putting the effort in?

  Yes, there are a lot of insults and snark (guilty at times myself, as you are as well), but there is validity as well.  Dont let your own preconceived notions blind you to interesting but challenging questions.

If the questions are worth answering, I'll answer. If they don't suit the people asking them, then they need to up their game or deck out.
I've put plenty forward, so either try and grasp what I'm saying or try a better way to get me to convey an answer that may tick your boxes.
As for insults. It's wasted type.

and more figures.  You are fundamentally trying to describe physical phenomena, every single thing you say should be able to be described with fairly simple figures.

Why do I need figures?

There's physical proof's out there.
Figures prove nothing when something cannot be physically shown to have a purpose, in factuality.

Quote from: Themightykabool

Simply having dispalcement and no other form or mechanism of "down" wll not make the sponges go down nor make the bottom sponges compress.

The sponges will not go down on their own. They need to push against one above...as I mentioned, above.

What's at the very top of the stack? Above the sponges?