Sea and air pressure

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 24, 2020, 12:33:39 AM

Impossible
The sponges at the top are not under compression.

They are but to us it's so minimal as to merit a back seat in order to explain.
If you want to take that pyramid as it is, then we deal with it as it is.
We don't need to deal with what is above the pyramid or dome.
Learn to deal with analogies and try not to set yourself back, every time.

Quote from: Themightykabool

There is nothing pushing on the top sponges as per his diagram.

Anything attached will be used as  leverage or resistance...and so on and so on and so on, whether it's super dense....bottom to super expanded at the top.

Quote from: Themightykabool

As per his own admittance - you cant push a spring (or a stack of sponges) down into the foundation without a hand or "something" on top pushing down.

Without a foundation.
Try not to set yourself back all of the time.

Quote from: Themightykabool

Also
We seem to have gotten away from the foam-weight analogy video.
If the weight were furry, the fur between the weight and the foam would be compressed.

What weight?
It's displacement at this point.
If you want to play with weight then you have to measure each object that displaces atmosphere. Meaning each strand of fur or hair or any object.

Quote from: Themightykabool

Flipping this image around - it goes to show my hair, sticking up, reasons that air is not pushing me down.

Foundation. Think about it.

Fine
The "dense mass" on the foam.
If the dense mass thing was hairy, the hair betwee  the foam and rhe dense mass would be squished.

You know what is meant
You playing semantics is not helping yourself.

Again
As observed you have to admit the sponges at the top are low "resistance" but you still have no reason for the sponges at the bottom to be pressured more "resostance".

Your only reason is "they are on the bottom".
Youve reached the limit of your ability to elaborate and your obvious refusal to work with us to discuss any further.

Then clearly explain what is acting on each layer of air to push it down, such that the force increases.

The layer/stack above pushing the layer/stack above that and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 24, 2020, 01:05:56 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 24, 2020, 12:33:39 AM

Impossible
The sponges at the top are not under compression.

They are but to us it's so minimal as to merit a back seat in order to explain.
If you want to take that pyramid as it is, then we deal with it as it is.
We don't need to deal with what is above the pyramid or dome.
Learn to deal with analogies and try not to set yourself back, every time.

Quote from: Themightykabool

There is nothing pushing on the top sponges as per his diagram.

Anything attached will be used as  leverage or resistance...and so on and so on and so on, whether it's super dense....bottom to super expanded at the top.

Quote from: Themightykabool

As per his own admittance - you cant push a spring (or a stack of sponges) down into the foundation without a hand or "something" on top pushing down.

Without a foundation.
Try not to set yourself back all of the time.

Quote from: Themightykabool

Also
We seem to have gotten away from the foam-weight analogy video.
If the weight were furry, the fur between the weight and the foam would be compressed.

What weight?
It's displacement at this point.
If you want to play with weight then you have to measure each object that displaces atmosphere. Meaning each strand of fur or hair or any object.

Quote from: Themightykabool

Flipping this image around - it goes to show my hair, sticking up, reasons that air is not pushing me down.

Foundation. Think about it.

Fine
The "dense mass" on the foam.
If the dense mass thing was hairy, the hair betwee  the foam and rhe dense mass would be squished.

You know what is meant
You playing semantics is not helping yourself.

I've explained it to you. If you can't grasp it, still then try and make your point much better.

Quote from: Stash on November 23, 2020, 11:38:23 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2020, 11:11:30 PM

Quote from: Stash on November 23, 2020, 10:58:10 PM

Something has to be pushing down the top of the stack. Otherwise the stack would just sit there not moving in any direction. That's why I asked what's above the stack. So is the membrane pushing down on the stack, whether it's the membrane itself or something above the membrane pushing down on it which, in turn, pushes down on the stack?

I would imagine there will be more resistance to outside Earth fluid of some description, or even ice in whatever form.
Everything is attached so we will not be just floating about in nothingness as you people believe.

So the secret to was causes the stack to push down is that there is something unknown outside of the membrane that is pushing the membrane down and the membrane is then pushing down on the stack?

Let's deal with inside to the membrane/dome/ice.

Well, it's a problem because there's nothing pushing down on the top of the stack. And that is the crux of the entire bit about "down". How else do you get a downward force without a downward force? There seems to be a massive hole in the membrane of your theory.

Again
As observed you have to admit the sponges at the top are low "resistance" but you still have no reason for the sponges at the bottom to be pressured more "resostance".

Your only reason is "they are on the bottom".
Youve reached the limit of your ability to elaborate and your obvious refusal to work with us to discuss any further.

The reason they are on the bottom is because every stack is above then.
The more stack above means more mass, meaning more stacks of those masses to resist.

You keep trying to hang onto fictional gravity because this is the only reason you're game playing.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 24, 2020, 01:10:01 AM

Then clearly explain what is acting on each layer of air to push it down, such that the force increases.

The layer/stack above pushing the layer/stack above that and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on.

Again, as has been explained countless times before, THIS WILL NOT CREATE A PRESSURE GRADIENT!!!
Just what part of that don't you understand?

Like I said, consider any layer of the stack in this case. What is there to cause it to push down? The stack above which pushes down with a force of F, so what does this layer push down with? A force of F.
No increase in pressure.

So I ask again:
What is acting on each layer of air to push it down, such that the force increases?

That is the key part you keep ignoring, that the force increases.

If you want to claim it is just the air above, you will need to explain how the force magically increases.

I've explained it to you.

You mean you have repeatedly avoiding the issue, as you know addressing it will require admitting your model is wrong. Just like so many other things.

The more stack above means more mass, meaning more stacks of those masses to resist.

But that extra mass only causes extra force with something like GRAVITY, which you continually reject because it doesn't suit your fantasy.
If you are appealing to the mass causing the extra force then you are appealing to a force which acts on mass, i.e. gravity.
Without gravity, mass is irrelevant.

In your model, you have the same downwards force regardless of how much mass is above.
That is because all the layers above are just transferring the force from above.

You keep trying to hang onto fictional gravity because this is the only reason you're game playing.

There is nothing fictional about it. We "hang onto" it because it is what can actually explain reality, unlike your nonsense.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 24, 2020, 01:10:01 AM

Then clearly explain what is acting on each layer of air to push it down, such that the force increases.

The layer/stack above pushing the layer/stack above that and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on.

This is the problem, guys.
He thinks hes being very clear.
We cant just ask a basic question because we get this broken record.

The hair is understood to resist its own (key word OWN) but in your analogy of spongss stacked on sponges, as the sponge pushed down, the hair would be pushed down too!

Take your hand and push down on your head.
Do you feel hair (assuming you have hair)?
Is said hair getting squished?

And you "expertly" dodged my foam and "dense mass" example by playing schemantics followed by a hand wave.

Put some effort.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 24, 2020, 01:30:42 AM

Again
As observed you have to admit the sponges at the top are low "resistance" but you still have no reason for the sponges at the bottom to be pressured more "resostance".

Your only reason is "they are on the bottom".
Youve reached the limit of your ability to elaborate and your obvious refusal to work with us to discuss any further.

The reason they are on the bottom is because every stack is above then.
The more stack above means more mass, meaning more stacks of those masses to resist.

You keep trying to hang onto fictional gravity because this is the only reason you're game playing.

Yes but whats to resist?
Those masses have to alrwady be moving dow n for bottom to resist anything.
And if theyre already moving down, they are not the cause of "down".

Lets try this.
A river is flowing.
You stand at one end and we ask you "why are you being pushed downstream."
And you say "because there is water up stream."
And we say "why is the water flpwing down stream."
And you answer "because water is pushing in each ohter".
"But why down stream"
"Because its down".
"Yes but why is the water moving in the first place".
"Because of the water above it".
"But whats moving that water?"
"Water".

Does this sound right to you as an answer?

So I ask again:
What is acting on each layer of air to push it down, such that the force increases?

That is the key part you keep ignoring, that the force increases.

If you want to claim it is just the air above, you will need to explain how the force magically increases.

Each layer resisting ever more layers and becoming more compressed with every layer added, so every layer/stack has a different resisting pressure and ultimately,mass.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 24, 2020, 01:33:12 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 24, 2020, 01:10:01 AM

Then clearly explain what is acting on each layer of air to push it down, such that the force increases.

The layer/stack above pushing the layer/stack above that and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on.

This is the problem, guys.
He thinks hes being very clear.
We cant just ask a basic question because we get this broken record.

The hair is understood to resist its own (key word OWN) but in your analogy of spongss stacked on sponges, as the sponge pushed down, the hair would be pushed down too!

Take your hand and push down on your head.
Do you feel hair (assuming you have hair)?
Is said hair getting squished?

And you "expertly" dodged my foam and "dense mass" example by playing schemantics followed by a hand wave.

Put some effort.

Explain yourself properly because I've totally explained what you asked, yet you never grasp any of it, or you appear to grasp a small part and then go right back to square one. This can't be accidental, surely.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 24, 2020, 01:46:14 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 24, 2020, 01:30:42 AM

Again
As observed you have to admit the sponges at the top are low "resistance" but you still have no reason for the sponges at the bottom to be pressured more "resostance".

Your only reason is "they are on the bottom".
Youve reached the limit of your ability to elaborate and your obvious refusal to work with us to discuss any further.

The reason they are on the bottom is because every stack is above then.
The more stack above means more mass, meaning more stacks of those masses to resist.

You keep trying to hang onto fictional gravity because this is the only reason you're game playing.

Yes but whats to resist?
Those masses have to alrwady be moving dow n for bottom to resist anything.
And if theyre already moving down, they are not the cause of "down".

They can only push down by pushing up.
 Leverage.

Lets try this.
A river is flowing.
You stand at one end and we ask you "why are you being pushed downstream."
And you say "because there is water up stream."
And we say "why is the water flpwing down stream."
And you answer "because water is pushing in each ohter".
"But why down stream"
"Because its down".
"Yes but why is the water moving in the first place".
"Because of the water above it".
"But whats moving that water?"
"Water".

Does this sound right to you as an answer?

Atmosphere would be moving the water, not the water itself.
Atmospheric pressure uses the water as leverage.

Try and get your head around it and you won;t frustrate yourself.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 24, 2020, 04:36:19 AM

So I ask again:
What is acting on each layer of air to push it down, such that the force increases?

That is the key part you keep ignoring, that the force increases.

If you want to claim it is just the air above, you will need to explain how the force magically increases.

Each layer resisting ever more layers and becoming more compressed with every layer added, so every layer/stack has a different resisting pressure and ultimately,mass.

Once more, this doesn't explain WHY.
Saying it gets compressed with each layer added is not explaining why, it just restates the observation.
If it is ultimately mass, you are appealing to gravity.
If not, why does extra mass to "resist" cause extra weight?

Again, consider any layer, it is resisting the force of F from above, by applying that force of F to the layer below. The mass is irrelevant.
Why should the force pushing down on the stack below be larger?
What is the origin of this force?
This is why we know it cannot simply be the air above. If it is just the air above you are still left with that force of F and no increase.

Explain yourself properly because I've totally explained what you asked, yet you never grasp any of it, or you appear to grasp a small part and then go right back to square one. This can't be accidental, surely.

No, you haven't explained what is asked. Instead you just repeatedly deflect, such as by repeatedly trying to remove the hair from the object.
The problem is the hair with that object.

Again, the issue is the same as the one I brought up earlier, with a tower of objects, and similar to the issue of the pressure gradient in the air.

If it is just the air pushing it down, it needs to act on the top of the object to push it down. This means the force to push the entire column down needs to act above the hair.
This means that all bar the lightest object would crush the hair, simply be being below it.
If not, how does the force push through the hair and onto the object?

But you are right that I highly doubt it is an accident.

Why should the force pushing down on the stack below be larger?

It isn't larger.
The force below is always larger, in the stack.

Pay more attention.

It isn't larger.
The force below is always larger, in the stack.

Good job directly contradicting yourself in the same post, one line after another.

Which is it? Should it be larger, or should it not?

Once more, consider any layer, the layer above pushes this layer down with a force of F.
This layer pushes the layer below down with a force of G.
Assuming there is no extra force involved, and no net force on the layer, F=G, and thus there is no increase in force and thus no increase in pressure, meaning the stack would be the same pressure throughout.

In order to have the pressure greater the lower you are, you need G>F, but that means you need another force.

Pay more attention instead of just repeatedly dismissing or ignoring everything that shows you are wrong.

I have not been following this thread, but is it so that sceptimatic claims pressure comes from just stacking things on top of each other, and that then somehow creates a force?

Sceptimatic does not quite understand that stacking things does not, by itself, provide a force? Something like that?

I have not been following this thread, but is it so that sceptimatic claims pressure comes from just stacking things on top of each other, and that then somehow creates a force?

Sceptimatic does not quite understand that stacking things does not, by itself, provide a force? Something like that?

Not just things. Specifically air. Only air has the magic sauce to magically stack without cause. Everything else needs the air.

Air somehow stacks all by itself, with no force at all, but then that pushes the air below down for no reason at all, which causes it to compress, with that force and pressure increasing the further down you go, again for no reason at all and no origin for any of these forces.
Then that air acts on objects to push them down, except in the cases where it inexplicably pushes objects up.

And that it pushes things down from top-down linearly while at same time being able to go around objects without loss of "displacement"

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 24, 2020, 11:54:55 PM

It isn't larger.
The force below is always larger, in the stack.

Good job directly contradicting yourself in the same post, one line after another.

Which is it? Should it be larger, or should it not?

There's no contradiction. Your problem is, you can't grasp the simplicity of it, or you're playing games. Which is it?
Pay attention to this:
Each stack below is more dense than the stack above and each stack below has to resist more than the stack above....and....each stack below the stack above has more molecules per area than the stack above....all the way up.

Keep this as reference, or carry on playing your games.

Once more, consider any layer, the layer above pushes this layer down with a force of F.
This layer pushes the layer below down with a force of G.
Assuming there is no extra force involved, and no net force on the layer, F=G, and thus there is no increase in force and thus no increase in pressure, meaning the stack would be the same pressure throughout.

In order to have the pressure greater the lower you are, you need G>F, but that means you need another force.

Pay more attention instead of just repeatedly dismissing or ignoring everything that shows you are wrong.

Forget your force and F and force and G.
You have no need to spew this nonsense. Just say force.

And that it pushes things down from top-down linearly while at same time being able to go around objects without loss of "displacement"

It doesn't push from the top down.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 25, 2020, 12:29:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 24, 2020, 11:54:55 PM

It isn't larger.
The force below is always larger, in the stack.

Good job directly contradicting yourself in the same post, one line after another.

Which is it? Should it be larger, or should it not?

There's no contradiction.

Really?
So you think saying it isn't larger, followed by immediately saying it is larger is not a contradiction?


Is that why you weren't able to answer the question of if it is larger or not?
It sure seems like there is a massive contradiction and you realise that your model simply cannot work.

Once more, if there isn't any extra force, the the force needs to be the same for each layer. Each layer would push down the next layer with the exact same force. There would be no increase.
But if there is no increase, that means the force is the same throughout and you don't get the pressure increase you need.

Your problem is, you can't grasp the simplicity of it, or you're playing games. Which is it?

Neither. Your problem is that I can grasp it. I can understand it. I can realise it does not work, that it does not make sense and requires you to outright contradict yourself.

The question is if you realise that and are just trolling, or if you actually don't understand such a simple issue.

Pay attention to this:
Each stack below is more dense than the stack above and each stack below has to resist more than the stack above....and....each stack below the stack above has more molecules per area than the stack above....all the way up.

No, you pay attention. I have been paying attention the whole time, which is why I am able to continually show what is wrong with your model.
That is an observation, not an explanation.
You need to explain WHY each stack is more dense.
You need to explain why it has to resist and why it has to resist more.

Again, simple physics shows that the force must be the same unless you have an additional force.

Again, consider a horizontal system with the exact same laws of physics.
When you compress it between 2 ends, there is no pressure gradient. It is the same pressure throughout.
The air doesn't just magically resist to the left, it resists to the left and the right.
That is because each layer is squashed between 2 other layers (or the very end), such that it pushes the layer to its left to the left while the layer to the left pushes it to the right, and it pushes the layer to its right to the right while the layer to the right pushes it to the left.

Nice and balanced forces, with no magical increase.
The same would apply in your vertical stack in the absense of an extra force.
Each layer pushes the layer above up and pushes the layer below down. Each layer would be pushed in equal amounts by the layer above and the layer below to cause it to be compressed.
And that compression would be the same throughout.

Once more, no extra force, no pressure gradient.

Once more, consider any layer, the layer above pushes this layer down with a force of F.
This layer pushes the layer below down with a force of G.
Assuming there is no extra force involved, and no net force on the layer, F=G, and thus there is no increase in force and thus no increase in pressure, meaning the stack would be the same pressure throughout.

In order to have the pressure greater the lower you are, you need G>F, but that means you need another force.

Pay more attention instead of just repeatedly dismissing or ignoring everything that shows you are wrong.

Forget your force and F and force and G.
You have no need to spew this nonsense. Just say force.
[/quote]
Why forget it?
It clearly gets to the point.
Forces aren't just magical things which push. They have a magnitude.
And that is the big part where your model fails, you can't explain why the magnitude is different.
You can't explain why force F is different to force G.

If there is no extra force pushing the layer of air down then F=G, and you have no pressure gradient.

Once more, without a force pushing down each layer, in addition to the air above, you will have the same force acting on each layer and thus the same pressure throughout.

Keep this as reference or carry on with your trolling.

So I'll ask again, what force is acting on each layer of air in addition to the air above to cause the force each layer applies to the layer below to increase?

Once more, no increase, no pressure gradient.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 25, 2020, 02:23:49 PM

And that it pushes things down from top-down linearly while at same time being able to go around objects without loss of "displacement"

It doesn't push from the top down.

Ohooo what say you now?!?!

NEW INFORMATION EVERYONE!!!!

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 26, 2020, 02:31:37 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 25, 2020, 12:29:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 24, 2020, 11:54:55 PM

It isn't larger.
The force below is always larger, in the stack.

Good job directly contradicting yourself in the same post, one line after another.

Which is it? Should it be larger, or should it not?

There's no contradiction.

Really?
So you think saying it isn't larger, followed by immediately saying it is larger is not a contradiction?

How about you show me where I mentioned it. If you can't then don't waste your time with this nonsense.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 26, 2020, 02:34:49 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 25, 2020, 02:23:49 PM

And that it pushes things down from top-down linearly while at same time being able to go around objects without loss of "displacement"

It doesn't push from the top down.

Ohooo what say you now?!?!

NEW INFORMATION EVERYONE!!!!

It's not new information it's just information that you people refuse to grasp, time and time and time again.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 26, 2020, 03:07:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 26, 2020, 02:34:49 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 25, 2020, 02:23:49 PM

And that it pushes things down from top-down linearly while at same time being able to go around objects without loss of "displacement"

It doesn't push from the top down.

Ohooo what say you now?!?!

NEW INFORMATION EVERYONE!!!!

It's not new information it's just information that you people refuse to grasp, time and time and time again.

It seems that so far you have been unable to explain your concepts so that the readers here can understand them clearly and fully.  From what you have provided here, everyone who looks at your words seems to think that the logic of your model is inconsistent and circular.   

You say this is not the case, so therefore, you have failed to convey the information to others.  Blaming them for not understanding is in poor form if your arguments are inscrutable.

You shouldn't blame others for your failings.  Instead, try harder and learn from your failures instead of just repeating them. 

Probably because he refuses to draw pictures (workable diagrams) or use common definitions of commo n words.


But!
This is amazing.
New development (finally) after yrs of asking the same thing over and over.
What does this mean?

Can we get a picture of something being pushed down by a vertical srack of sponges without it being pushed down?

Yes. It is similar to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging

By creating the picture and/or diagrams helps it to make it clearer to yourself, and everyone else, too.

Yes. It is similar to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging

By creating the picture and/or diagrams helps it to make it clearer to yourself, and everyone else, too.

Unfortunately line by line he continues on without any acknowledgement of the previous line.
Lines are not the solution.
He doesnt speak english.
Diagrams are the answer.

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 26, 2020, 03:07:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 26, 2020, 02:34:49 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on November 25, 2020, 02:23:49 PM

And that it pushes things down from top-down linearly while at same time being able to go around objects without loss of "displacement"

It doesn't push from the top down.

Ohooo what say you now?!?!

NEW INFORMATION EVERYONE!!!!

It's not new information it's just information that you people refuse to grasp, time and time and time again.

Isn't everything a "push" and there is no "pull". And don't you have to have a "push" down to well, you know, have a downward force...even if you don't know where the downward force comes from at the top of the stack?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 26, 2020, 04:54:51 AM

It's not new information it's just information that you people refuse to grasp, time and time and time again.

It seems that so far you have been unable to explain your concepts so that the readers here can understand them clearly and fully.  From what you have provided here, everyone who looks at your words seems to think that the logic of your model is inconsistent and circular.   

You say this is not the case, so therefore, you have failed to convey the information to others.  Blaming them for not understanding is in poor form if your arguments are inscrutable.

You shouldn't blame others for your failings.  Instead, try harder and learn from your failures instead of just repeating them.

Are you sure the problem isn’t that Scepti’s ideas are a load of nonsense that demonstrably don’t match what we see in the real world?

Whatever he comes up with claiming to explain any particular aspect of it it is just a bunch of words.