You seem to get very annoyed when people show how they can prove things very simply which go against your beliefs don't you. You also seem to dismiss any experiment that you haven't dictated to us how to do or what to do.
Nahhhhh, I really don't.
Oh yes you do, such as when you entirely ignore explanations which have been provided because you cannot find fault with them, and how you ignore logical arguments until you can think of some excuse to dismiss it, and how you dismiss so much evidence as fake merely because it shows you are wrong.
So you most certainly do. The only question is how annoyed you get.
How do you work out your weight? You talk about pressure. OK so what is pressure? Force/Area.
Weight is a man made concept. Understand that first.
Or, how about you understand reality first.
Weight is a very real thing, which exists completley independent on man.
Again, the fact things fall shows weight is very real.
It is not a man-made concept.
The fact we measure weight doesn't magically mean it is man made.
We are simply measuring something in reality.
Understand that first, before spouting so much BS about it.
You accept that atmosphere has mass, right?
You also accept that for that mass to build up to the sky it has to stack.
You also know that anything stacked onto another will make the below stacks more compacts than the above.
Due to gravity, which you dismiss and try to replace with something else.
Again, clearly explained by the simple diagram you hate as it shows the massive flaw in your argument.
Here is a simple schematic of a stack of anything, including air or any other fluid, or solid objects:
The green layer is being pushed down by the layer above, with a force of F.
In addition to that, it has gravity acting on it, applying a force of W.
This means the layer below which is supporting it has a force of F+W acting on it. This is greater than F and thus the force and pressure is greater at this lower layer.
Notice how this requires gravity, which you outright reject.
You need to explain what causes this extra force of W.
If it is just the air and you don't have gravity or anything like it, then there is no extra force and the mass of that layer is irrelevant.
Without this force of W, you have F=G, and there is no increase in pressure.
We can easily see this by turning the stack on its side.
If you take a simple spring and compress or stretch it between 2 objects horizontally, the force is constant throughout.
You can even try this yourself with a slinky.
Get a slinky, lie it on a table and pull the ends of the slinky to the sides of the table. Then measure how elongated any section is. You will find it is the same along the length (within measuring and manufacturing tolerances).
But now, suspend it by hanging it from the top.
Now you find that the top is stretched out far more than the bottom.
This is because the bottom only has to hold up its small weight, while the top has to hold up the weight of the entire slinky.
This is different to the above diagram as it is now under tension rather than compression, however technically when noting the sign of the force, it still applies as now F and G are now upwards, rather than downwards in the diagram.
Again, this is all explained perfectly with gravity providing weight to all mass.
But your nonsense rejects that.
If it is just air pushing it down, there is no increase in force at all and the atmosphere should have the same pressure throughout.
So in your attempt to explain and justify an alternative to gravity you are implicitly appealing to it.
So can you explain this pressure gradient, just using your system, rather than appeal to clear evidence of gravity?
will resist that atmospheric stacking it is part of and under.
Why not above?
Place a scale plate under that dense mass and you will see how much the resistance and displacement of that atmosphere, is, on a scale reading by a spring, or sorts, that resists the crush onto that dense mass and then shows up a man made scale reading.
No, you will see the force of gravity pushing it down.
If you want to see the effect of the atmosphere, there are 2 options, one is to ensure the entire scale and the object are sealed in an airtight bag, with no air in there at all (or only a negligible amount). Then you see the air exert a force based upon the AREA of the scales, not the volume, not the mass.
The other option, to see the effect of the pressure gradient (i.e. the stack), you can compare the weight of the object in different fluids, or no fluid. With this you see the air applies an upwards force, not a downwards one.
This has all already been pointed out to you. Stop playing dumb.
Pretty simple really and explainable to those who wish to actually throw away the magical stuff.
Yes, when we throw away your magical nonsense and instead stick to the very real gravity it is trivial to explain.
But with your nonsense, you can't even explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
The ground, up, for objects using that ground.
And for objects in mid air?
Why does atmospheric pressure decrease with height?
Less amount of atmospheric stacking.
You need to explain why this stacking causes a pressure gradient in the first place, without appealing to gravity.
it's how that mass is spread out as pressure upon is lessened, or if pressure was increased then it would be the opposite in terms of how smaller and compressed that mass becomes.
But increasing pressure reduces your weight, not increases it, due to the buoyant force increasing.
It fictional.
There you go rejecting reality and evidence again.
When I get info that I believe will help me, I'll be sure to let you now.
By which I take it you mean when you get info that will help you attack reality that you hate and prop up your delusional nonsense?