Surface tension explains how oceans can curve doesn't it?

The pane is not in the way of pressure. It's not directly touching you. It has its own foundation, which means it has no pressure bearing upon you.

Again, not saying it is providing a pressure, but shielding you from the pressure above, just like with a suction cup in reality, and how an object near a roof should work. But that is mainly for the other thread.
For this thread you should be explaining how the world works without a pull.

As for your rope. Just think of molecular chain linking.

As I pointed out before, that requires a pull. The way that works is I grab the rope and apply a force to it to move one end away from the rest.
This end applies a pulling force to the next bit of the rope to pull it along, which in turn applies a pulling force to the next bit and so on and so on, with these pulling or tensile forces acting along the rope.

See with pulling forces it is trivial to explain.
But if all you have are pushing forces, it is impossible.
If all you have are pushing forces then the only spot the force can come from is the side of the rope or the other end.
If it comes from the side of the rope that would just act to break it faster.
If it came from the other end, that would cause it to crumple.

This is why I will continue to ask you how a rope works, how it is held together and how pulling one end moves the entire rope.
That is because it is a simple demonstration which shows the world is not all pushing and that there is pulling as well.

So again, what holds the rope together and causes it to move?
Where does the "pushing" force come from and why doesn't it naturally crumple ropes?

Don't just provide vague ideas like molecular chains, provide an explicit location that the pushing force is acting on the rope.

Quote from: Timeisup on June 16, 2020, 08:53:39 PM

Read your post, you wrote them after all. Every statement you make on the behaviour of gasses, materials, magnetism, you name it is in direct opposition to the known laws. If you want to find out what exactly what these laws are go attend a course in physics.

You remind me of someone who has lived in a remote jungle and just recently stumbled on civilisation and has tried to make sense of the world around them by dreaming up their very own explanations of how things work.

So, you can't explain the laws and what's actually happening then?

You touch on so many aspects of science and in doing so get everything wrong. You fail to grasp this simple concepts:-
The technological world appears to work pretty well. Our understanding of structures, electricity, magnetism, and how to work with various gasses at different temperatures and pressures all appears to show that the various laws that govern all these areas are pretty solid.

You and your ideas violate all these known laws. If you were correct in your assertions all our various technologies would not work as designed. For example your denial that tension exists is at odds with the whole of mechanical engineering and structural design. Suspension bridges work through tension, various  steels are characterised by their tensile strength.

Even in music, every stringed instrument is only able to produce notes because the strings are in a state of tension, while the neck, as in a violin or guitar is in compression.

Your understanding of pretty basic physics is so far of the mark as to be laughable. You really should read a book on physics, the choice is yours, learn something or for ever live in ignorance.

Answer the question and you yourself will take your theory to the next level.
But no, you are happy to live in "crush on crush" and "own dense displacement".

Maybe try to understand it and you'll move onto the next level.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 17, 2020, 09:23:35 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 17, 2020, 01:29:37 AM

Quote from: Shifter on June 16, 2020, 04:41:34 PM

I'm not doing your homework for you.

You mean you are just being antagonistic.

I have clearly explained what is wrong with his claims.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 16, 2020, 09:54:05 PM

The glass pane would still need to be held up above your head by some structure and that pane and structure would still displace their own dense mass of atmosphere.
You being under that pane is still you displacing your own dense mass of atmosphere.
It's still compressed by your own dense mass, back onto you.

As pointed out in the other thread, the problem is the glass pane getting in the way.

Now again, care to explain how a rope works?
That is quite key to this thread as you claim surface tension can't be a pull as nothing can be a pull.

The problem is that without that pull, ropes don't work.

Again, where is this magical push coming from to keep the rope together when it is "pulled"?
Why does this push not just crumple the rope?

The pane is not in the way of pressure. It's not directly touching you. It has its own foundation, which means it has no pressure bearing upon you.

As for your rope. Just think of molecular chain linking.

Own foundation.
Once again resorting to foundation with no bearing on displacement.
By this very example, the displaced air needs to stack up, right where the pane would be.
But if theres no effect then there is no stacking.

I'll try and help you along. See if you can grasp it and if not then there's not a lot more I can do with you.

Let's use water as an analogy to what I've been saying but only use the water from an atmospheric point of view in my explanation to give you a grasp on what I've been saying.#The minute you use it for water purpose puts us back into another realm, so I'm making this bit clear.


Think of the sky as a large pool and we live on the bottom of it.
If you are standing on the bottom of that pool, do you accept that your body displaces the water it is stood in?

Do you agree that this water would be crushing you from all directions, including the water directly above your head?

Do you also agree, if a pane of glass on a four leg (for instance) frame just above your head will also displace the water it is stood in, with the pane mass itself and also the frame it is on?

Do you also agree that you are still stood in that same water with no water taken out and displacing that very same water?

Do you agree that your feet on the deck are merely stopping all that water your body displaces from pushing you down.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 17, 2020, 09:23:35 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 17, 2020, 01:29:37 AM

Quote from: Shifter on June 16, 2020, 04:41:34 PM

I'm not doing your homework for you.

You mean you are just being antagonistic.

I have clearly explained what is wrong with his claims.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 16, 2020, 09:54:05 PM

The glass pane would still need to be held up above your head by some structure and that pane and structure would still displace their own dense mass of atmosphere.
You being under that pane is still you displacing your own dense mass of atmosphere.
It's still compressed by your own dense mass, back onto you.

As pointed out in the other thread, the problem is the glass pane getting in the way.

Now again, care to explain how a rope works?
That is quite key to this thread as you claim surface tension can't be a pull as nothing can be a pull.

The problem is that without that pull, ropes don't work.

Again, where is this magical push coming from to keep the rope together when it is "pulled"?
Why does this push not just crumple the rope?

The pane is not in the way of pressure. It's not directly touching you. It has its own foundation, which means it has no pressure bearing upon you.

As for your rope. Just think of molecular chain linking.

The pane is preventing the stack from pushing down on my head and shoulders keeping my feet pressed to the deck. You said in another response that the stack above my head is stronger than that pressing from the sides by some unknown factor. With the pane above my head, I no longer have a stack above my head, just the weaker horizontal. So if it's not the stack pressing down on me, what is keeping me on the ground?

See above explanation, see if that helps.

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 17, 2020, 09:55:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 17, 2020, 09:23:35 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 17, 2020, 01:29:37 AM

Quote from: Shifter on June 16, 2020, 04:41:34 PM

I'm not doing your homework for you.

You mean you are just being antagonistic.

I have clearly explained what is wrong with his claims.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 16, 2020, 09:54:05 PM

The glass pane would still need to be held up above your head by some structure and that pane and structure would still displace their own dense mass of atmosphere.
You being under that pane is still you displacing your own dense mass of atmosphere.
It's still compressed by your own dense mass, back onto you.

As pointed out in the other thread, the problem is the glass pane getting in the way.

Now again, care to explain how a rope works?
That is quite key to this thread as you claim surface tension can't be a pull as nothing can be a pull.

The problem is that without that pull, ropes don't work.

Again, where is this magical push coming from to keep the rope together when it is "pulled"?
Why does this push not just crumple the rope?

The pane is not in the way of pressure. It's not directly touching you. It has its own foundation, which means it has no pressure bearing upon you.

As for your rope. Just think of molecular chain linking.

Own foundation.
Once again resorting to foundation with no bearing on displacement.
By this very example, the displaced air needs to stack up, right where the pane would be.
But if theres no effect then there is no stacking.

I'll try and help you along. See if you can grasp it and if not then there's not a lot more I can do with you.

Let's use water as an analogy to what I've been saying but only use the water from an atmospheric point of view in my explanation to give you a grasp on what I've been saying.#The minute you use it for water purpose puts us back into another realm, so I'm making this bit clear.


Think of the sky as a large pool and we live on the bottom of it.
If you are standing on the bottom of that pool, do you accept that your body displaces the water it is stood in?

Do you agree that this water would be crushing you from all directions, including the water directly above your head?

Do you also agree, if a pane of glass on a four leg (for instance) frame just above your head will also displace the water it is stood in, with the pane mass itself and also the frame it is on?

Do you also agree that you are still stood in that same water with no water taken out and displacing that very same water?

Do you agree that your feet on the deck are merely stopping all that water your body displaces from pushing you down.

What happened to all of the stuff that it's the vertical stack pushing you down on the head and shoulders and the pressure isn't even all around, horizontal is weaker, according to you? That's why I asked how much weaker the horizontal is and you refused to answer. Told me not to get bogged down in numbers.

Now we have a situation where the vertical stack is impeded by the pane of glass over my head, but somehow sneaks around in through the side, horizontally, weaker, then slips upward, redirects downward on my head and shoulders as strong as the vertical stack above the pane. Unless you reverse your stance and agree that pressure is equal in all directions, you're going to have to explain how the vertical stack can be sentient and choose to navigate on its own.

You touch on so many aspects of science and in doing so get everything wrong. You fail to grasp this simple concepts:-
The technological world appears to work pretty well. Our understanding of structures, electricity, magnetism, and how to work with various gasses at different temperatures and pressures all appears to show that the various laws that govern all these areas are pretty solid.

They do work well. I have no issue with it.
What I do have issue with is in how we are told they all work.
One such thing told is, gravity and how they measure it with a meter.
Explain this to me how engineering and such works using this principle and if you can prove gravity is real, then I have no case.
Over to you.

You and your ideas violate all these known laws. If you were correct in your assertions all our various technologies would not work as designed. For example your denial that tension exists is at odds with the whole of mechanical engineering and structural design. Suspension bridges work through tension, various  steels are characterised by their tensile strength.

I can explain it all using what I've been explaining.
It's all pressures, vibration and frequencies and molecular linking to determine the make up and strengths of matter/objects. In my opinion.
No fictional stuff like gravity and such, needed.

Even in music, every stringed instrument is only able to produce notes because the strings are in a state of tension, while the neck, as in a violin or guitar is in compression.

The tension is molecular linkage, which is all push.
It's just a case of looking a bit deeper.

Your understanding of pretty basic physics is so far of the mark as to be laughable. You really should read a book on physics, the choice is yours, learn something or for ever live in ignorance.

That's fine if you think that.
I do my own thing and I am not guided by what you think, so feel free.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 17, 2020, 11:00:19 PM

Let's use water as an analogy to what I've been saying but only use the water from an atmospheric point of view in my explanation to give you a grasp on what I've been saying.The minute you use it for water purpose puts us back into another realm, so I'm making this bit clear.


Think of the sky as a large pool and we live on the bottom of it.
If you are standing on the bottom of that pool, do you accept that your body displaces the water it is stood in?

Do you agree that this water would be crushing you from all directions, including the water directly above your head?

Do you also agree, if a pane of glass on a four leg (for instance) frame just above your head will also displace the water it is stood in, with the pane mass itself and also the frame it is on?

Do you also agree that you are still stood in that same water with no water taken out and displacing that very same water?

Do you agree that your feet on the deck are merely stopping all that water your body displaces from pushing you down.

What happened to all of the stuff that it's the vertical stack pushing you down on the head and shoulders and the pressure isn't even all around, horizontal is weaker, according to you? That's why I asked how much weaker the horizontal is and you refused to answer. Told me not to get bogged down in numbers.

You aren't doing yourself any favours here.
I feel like I need to go back to the sponge ball analogy but even that was lost on you.
I think you need to go right back to square one and understand each bit before you move on.

Now we have a situation where the vertical stack is impeded by the pane of glass over my head, but somehow sneaks around in through the side, horizontally, weaker, then slips upward, redirects downward on my head and shoulders as strong as the vertical stack above the pane. Unless you reverse your stance and agree that pressure is equal in all directions, you're going to have to explain how the vertical stack can be sentient and choose to navigate on its own.

The mere fact you mention sentient makes me believe you have grasped absolutely nothing.

Quote from: Stash on June 17, 2020, 11:11:08 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 17, 2020, 11:00:19 PM

Let's use water as an analogy to what I've been saying but only use the water from an atmospheric point of view in my explanation to give you a grasp on what I've been saying.The minute you use it for water purpose puts us back into another realm, so I'm making this bit clear.


Think of the sky as a large pool and we live on the bottom of it.
If you are standing on the bottom of that pool, do you accept that your body displaces the water it is stood in?

Do you agree that this water would be crushing you from all directions, including the water directly above your head?

Do you also agree, if a pane of glass on a four leg (for instance) frame just above your head will also displace the water it is stood in, with the pane mass itself and also the frame it is on?

Do you also agree that you are still stood in that same water with no water taken out and displacing that very same water?

Do you agree that your feet on the deck are merely stopping all that water your body displaces from pushing you down.

What happened to all of the stuff that it's the vertical stack pushing you down on the head and shoulders and the pressure isn't even all around, horizontal is weaker, according to you? That's why I asked how much weaker the horizontal is and you refused to answer. Told me not to get bogged down in numbers.

You aren't doing yourself any favours here.
I feel like I need to go back to the sponge ball analogy but even that was lost on you.
I think you need to go right back to square one and understand each bit before you move on.

Quote from: Stash

Now we have a situation where the vertical stack is impeded by the pane of glass over my head, but somehow sneaks around in through the side, horizontally, weaker, then slips upward, redirects downward on my head and shoulders as strong as the vertical stack above the pane. Unless you reverse your stance and agree that pressure is equal in all directions, you're going to have to explain how the vertical stack can be sentient and choose to navigate on its own.

The mere fact you mention sentient makes me believe you have grasped absolutely nothing.

Displacement may have some relevance in a bathtub or even a pool. But in reality, we are talking about an atmospheric ocean that covers the entire earth. My body isn't going to displace anything even remotely measurable or of import or of effect.

Is the pressure equal in all directions or not? Yes or No

Is the pressure equal in all directions or not? Yes or No

No.

Quote from: Stash on June 18, 2020, 12:19:39 AM

Is the pressure equal in all directions or not? Yes or No

No.

Then how does the vertical stack get around the pane of glass, pass along the weaker horizontal stack and become the stronger vertical stack again pushing down on my head and shoulders? And it has nothing to do with me displacing the atmosphere when the atmospheric ocean is 10's of thousands of feet high and covers the surface of the entire world.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 18, 2020, 12:44:21 AM

Quote from: Stash on June 18, 2020, 12:19:39 AM

Is the pressure equal in all directions or not? Yes or No

No.

Then how does the vertical stack get around the pane of glass, pass along the weaker horizontal stack and become the stronger vertical stack again pushing down on my head and shoulders? And it has nothing to do with me displacing the atmosphere when the atmospheric ocean is 10's of thousands of feet high and covers the surface of the entire world.

The same way water does.
The glass is only above your head, not on it, so it's not displacing its own mass of atmosphere onto your head.
The water would simply be over around and under that pane of glass and it's supports.
You would be under the same pressure but that above pressure would be channelled around and under that pane onto your head and shoulders in those stacking points.

Quote from: Stash on June 18, 2020, 01:00:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 18, 2020, 12:44:21 AM

Quote from: Stash on June 18, 2020, 12:19:39 AM

Is the pressure equal in all directions or not? Yes or No

No.

Then how does the vertical stack get around the pane of glass, pass along the weaker horizontal stack and become the stronger vertical stack again pushing down on my head and shoulders? And it has nothing to do with me displacing the atmosphere when the atmospheric ocean is 10's of thousands of feet high and covers the surface of the entire world.

The same way water does.
The glass is only above your head, not on it, so it's not displacing its own mass of atmosphere onto your head.
The water would simply be over around and under that pane of glass and it's supports.
You would be under the same pressure but that above pressure would be channelled around and under that pane onto your head and shoulders in those stacking points.

In order for the vertical stack to get around the pane, it would go horizontal and according to you, become weaker. What makes it become vertical again and stronger?

Quote from: Stash on June 18, 2020, 01:00:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 18, 2020, 12:44:21 AM

Quote from: Stash on June 18, 2020, 12:19:39 AM

Is the pressure equal in all directions or not? Yes or No

No.

Then how does the vertical stack get around the pane of glass, pass along the weaker horizontal stack and become the stronger vertical stack again pushing down on my head and shoulders? And it has nothing to do with me displacing the atmosphere when the atmospheric ocean is 10's of thousands of feet high and covers the surface of the entire world.

The same way water does.
The glass is only above your head, not on it, so it's not displacing its own mass of atmosphere onto your head.
The water would simply be over around and under that pane of glass and it's supports.
You would be under the same pressure but that above pressure would be channelled around and under that pane onto your head and shoulders in those stacking points.

Once again you are elluding to foundation being the source.
The stack has nothing to do with it as you claim the glass is not foundationing itself on the head.
If the stack were pressing down, everything between it and the foundation would be squished.
Address this.

I can explain it all using what I've been explaining.

Is that why you repeatedly avoid explaining very simple things?
Even now you still refuse to explain what holds a rope together.

It's all pressures, vibration and frequencies and molecular linking

As pointed out before, molecular linking requires the exact opposite of what you claim, some kind of pull, such that if you move one molecule, it can pull the next one along.
Without that pull, you have no linkage.

It's just a case of looking a bit deeper.

Then look deeper. Clearly explain how such molecular linkage works to hold together a rope or any other material while only relying upon pushing and no reliance upon pull. Make sure you address materials like ropes, which are easily crumpled by applying a force on each end towards the centre, clearly ruling out any possibility of a push from one end moving the entire rope.

Let's use water as an analogy to what I've been saying but only use the water from an atmospheric point of view in my explanation to give you a grasp on what I've been saying.#The minute you use it for water purpose puts us back into another realm, so I'm making this bit clear.

Then why use it at all when you are admitting it makes no sense at all?

If you are standing on the bottom of that pool, do you accept that your body displaces the water it is stood in?

Instead of directly on the bottom, lets have it just above, comparable to an object in mid air.
But yes, it displaces water.

Do you agree that this water would be crushing you from all directions, including the water directly above your head?

Yes, and that is important ALL DIRECTIONS.
That includes from below.
In fact, if you measure the pressure you will see that the pressure increases with depth and that means the fluid (which can be air or water) actually pushes on you more from below than from above.

Do you agree that your feet on the deck are merely stopping all that water your body displaces from pushing you down.

Again, if you need to appeal to your feet being on the deck, you have no chance at all.
If he was going to be floating, his feet wouldn't be on the deck.
Instead he would be in mid air.
That means he has the water below pushing him up as well.
And in fact, he could even be up against the glass. In that case, there is negligible water to push him down.

The same way water does.

So by pushing equally in all directions, exactly as it is observed to?
A direct contradiction of your claim?
In order for your claim to work, you need to have the water just push down, and not magically go around objects, just like the wind does.
That means if you have a significant object above your head and close enough to it, you would be protected from the downwards force and float.
Otherwise you have it push equally in all directions to go around the object and thus it doesn't just push you down, but equally in all directions.

Just think of being under a glass dome, (or inside a building), you have the fluid go down, below you, then go through some opening, then go back up above you yet magically push you down, even though it had to push you up?
That makes no sense at all.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 18, 2020, 01:10:23 AM

Quote from: Stash on June 18, 2020, 01:00:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 18, 2020, 12:44:21 AM

Quote from: Stash on June 18, 2020, 12:19:39 AM

Is the pressure equal in all directions or not? Yes or No

No.

Then how does the vertical stack get around the pane of glass, pass along the weaker horizontal stack and become the stronger vertical stack again pushing down on my head and shoulders? And it has nothing to do with me displacing the atmosphere when the atmospheric ocean is 10's of thousands of feet high and covers the surface of the entire world.

The same way water does.
The glass is only above your head, not on it, so it's not displacing its own mass of atmosphere onto your head.
The water would simply be over around and under that pane of glass and it's supports.
You would be under the same pressure but that above pressure would be channelled around and under that pane onto your head and shoulders in those stacking points.

In order for the vertical stack to get around the pane, it would go horizontal and according to you, become weaker. What makes it become vertical again and stronger?

Go back to the water analogy and you should easily understand what I've been saying.

Once again you are elluding to foundation being the source.
The stack has nothing to do with it as you claim the glass is not foundationing itself on the head.
If the stack were pressing down, everything between it and the foundation would be squished.
Address this.

Evert object requires a foundation to resist the pressure of it's very own dense make up, of matter/atmosphere, whether that's a solid/liquid or gas.

Just think of being under a glass dome, (or inside a building), you have the fluid go down, below you, then go through some opening, then go back up above you yet magically push you down, even though it had to push you up?
That makes no sense at all.

Are your feet on the deck?

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 18, 2020, 01:57:50 AM

Once again you are elluding to foundation being the source.
The stack has nothing to do with it as you claim the glass is not foundationing itself on the head.
If the stack were pressing down, everything between it and the foundation would be squished.
Address this.

Evert object requires a foundation to resist the pressure of it's very own dense make up, of matter/atmosphere, whether that's a solid/liquid or gas.

Wheres the stack?
The stack in this description is irrelevant because the density of the matter is what causes weight.
No mention of a stack of air pressing down.

Quote from: Stash on June 18, 2020, 01:32:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 18, 2020, 01:10:23 AM

Quote from: Stash on June 18, 2020, 01:00:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 18, 2020, 12:44:21 AM

Quote from: Stash on June 18, 2020, 12:19:39 AM

Is the pressure equal in all directions or not? Yes or No

No.

Then how does the vertical stack get around the pane of glass, pass along the weaker horizontal stack and become the stronger vertical stack again pushing down on my head and shoulders? And it has nothing to do with me displacing the atmosphere when the atmospheric ocean is 10's of thousands of feet high and covers the surface of the entire world.

The same way water does.
The glass is only above your head, not on it, so it's not displacing its own mass of atmosphere onto your head.
The water would simply be over around and under that pane of glass and it's supports.
You would be under the same pressure but that above pressure would be channelled around and under that pane onto your head and shoulders in those stacking points.

In order for the vertical stack to get around the pane, it would go horizontal and according to you, become weaker. What makes it become vertical again and stronger?

Go back to the water analogy and you should easily understand what I've been saying.

The water analogy is equal pressure from all directions, but you claim that is not the case. You say the vertical stack is stronger than the horizontal stack. Water doesn't work that way. In actuality, the pressure below you is stronger than the pressure above you. So why are you using the water analogy when it doesn't apply to your own claim?

Low content, trolling post.
Pull it or recieve a warning. Thanks.
Please refrain from such postings in the future and contribute your posts constructively as relating to the OP

Please stick to the topic of the thread.

Quote from: Amoranemix 176

Ia) Why do you think it is you are unable to support your claims ?
b) You forgot to answer my question.

[no response]

a) Come on, think !

Quote from: Amoranemix 176

I'll give you a hint : Which claims are easiest to support ? True ones of false ones ?

[no response]

It is not that difficult. Evidence is more likely to point to a true claim than to a false one. Hence …

Quote from: Amoranemix 176

Should sceptics take unsupported claims seriously ?

[no response]

Skeptics want to believe in reality. Is there good reason to believe unsupported claims comport with reality ?

Quote from: Amoranemix 176

So, in your worldview, there is no magnetism in (near) vacuum. Is that correct ?

[no response]

You forgot to answer my question.

Quote from: Amoranemix 176

Stop being evasive and explain how magnetism works. Rational people are beginning to think you are stalling to hide your ignorance.

[no response]

if you don't understand how magnetism works, it is understandable you don't explain it.

Quote from: Amoranemix 176

Quote from: sceptimatic

It has everything to do with it, otherwise there would be zero tension.

So you claim, but can you prove it ?

[No]

I suspectedosition seems to be not too z as much.

Pick one query/question at a time.

You seem to make little effort to convince these people of your position. Why is that ?

That doesn't mean you need to accept anything I say in any way shape or form but don't expect me to just accept stuff based on something of which I question.

Agreed. Your evaluation of your position does not seem to be too reasonable, as you realise there is no good reason adopt your beliefs.

That doesn't mean you need to accept anything I say in any way shape or form but don't expect me to just accept stuff based on something of which I question.

These points seem to have escaped me. Where has sceptimatic made them ?

They do work well. I have no issue with it.
What I do have issue with is in how we are told they all work.
One such thing told is, gravity and how they measure it with a meter.
Explain this to me how engineering and such works using this principle and if you can prove gravity is real, then I have no case.

The only explanation we were able to come up with the for the curvature of the oceans is gravity. It is another case of TINA.

I can explain it all using what I've been explaining.
It's all pressures, vibration and frequencies and molecular linking to determine the make up and strengths of matter/objects. In my opinion.

That seems to explain the confusion : you are talking about your opinion, while everyone else is talking about reality.

And yet again you avoid explaining the very simple phenomenon which destroys your idea of there being no such thing as a pull.

Again, what magic do you have that holds a rope together?
You claim it is molecular linking, which you provide no details of because you KNOW it would require pulling forces.

Again, you have a rope, the right side is grabbed and moved to the right? What force acts to move the left side along?
Without any pulling force the rope should just fall apart, with the left side remaining where it is as the ride side is pushed by whatever grabs it.
Yet instead we observe the rope move to the rope, in its entirety.
Again, we know it cannot be the left side pushing it. This is easily demonstrated by doing that very thing, grabbing the left side of the rope and pushing it.
In this case the rope is observed to crumple, not move to the right as a basically straight line.

The only way to explain it is to have a pulling interaction, where the right side of the rope applies a force to the left side to make it move to the right. That is pulling.

And it is a similar kind of pulling force which results in surface tension.

Go back to the water analogy and you should easily understand what I've been saying.

The problem is the water works nothing like what you need, just like the air works nothing like what you need.

It doesn't exist in a magical stack which just pushes down.
Instead, as you have said yourself, it pushes in all directions.

Are your feet on the deck?

No. I have made that clear many times.
You have an object in MID AIR! You have no foundation to rely upon.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 18, 2020, 09:15:46 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 18, 2020, 01:57:50 AM

Once again you are elluding to foundation being the source.
The stack has nothing to do with it as you claim the glass is not foundationing itself on the head.
If the stack were pressing down, everything between it and the foundation would be squished.
Address this.

Evert object requires a foundation to resist the pressure of it's very own dense make up, of matter/atmosphere, whether that's a solid/liquid or gas.

Wheres the stack?
The stack in this description is irrelevant because the density of the matter is what causes weight.
No mention of a stack of air pressing down.

The stack is the entirety of Earth.
But since we're talking about the above solid ground/water, gases, then it's all stacked gases right to the top of the dome.

The water analogy is equal pressure from all directions, but you claim that is not the case.

I asked you not to use water in its usual form with objects. I merely used it as an analogy to make you understand our submergence in atmosphere so feel free to create your very own mix up to set you back....once again.

You say the vertical stack is stronger than the horizontal stack.

Where do I say that?

Water doesn't work that way. In actuality, the pressure below you is stronger than the pressure above you.

The pressure below you would be a solid deck/floor/bed/ground. You would be stood on it as a resistance to the pressure above and around you.

So why are you using the water analogy when it doesn't apply to your own claim?

If you use water as the analogy I told you about, as in, think of it as atmosphere, then you would understand....but clearly you want to place obstacles in your own way, for some weird reason.

The only explanation we were able to come up with the for the curvature of the oceans is gravity.

And yet you have absolutely no clue what it is and why it supposedly works but you were told it was gravity and you accept it as a truth.

Quote from: Stash

You say the vertical stack is stronger than the horizontal stack.

Where do I say that?

So if they are equal, then what pushes you down?

Again, what magic do you have that holds a rope together?
You claim it is molecular linking, which you provide no details of because you KNOW it would require pulling forces.

Just think of a chain.
Now look at a chain and look at the links PUSHING into each other, not pulling.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 18, 2020, 09:17:08 AM

Are your feet on the deck?

No. I have made that clear many times.
You have an object in MID AIR! You have no foundation to rely upon.

You still have a foundation to hold you there.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 19, 2020, 01:37:21 AM

Quote from: Stash

You say the vertical stack is stronger than the horizontal stack.

Where do I say that?

So if they are equal, then what pushes you down?

Where does sit say, equal?

Quote from: Psychomech on June 19, 2020, 01:40:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 19, 2020, 01:37:21 AM

Quote from: Stash

You say the vertical stack is stronger than the horizontal stack.

Where do I say that?

So if they are equal, then what pushes you down?

Where does sit say, equal?

So is the vertical stack stronger than the horizontal stack or not?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 19, 2020, 02:26:38 AM

Quote from: Psychomech on June 19, 2020, 01:40:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 19, 2020, 01:37:21 AM

Quote from: Stash

You say the vertical stack is stronger than the horizontal stack.

Where do I say that?

So if they are equal, then what pushes you down?

Where does sit say, equal?

So is the vertical stack stronger than the horizontal stack or not?

There is no horizontal stack.