Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.

Soo.  It’s funny to see how flat earther’s claim “no gravity”, then butcher the concept of gravity proclaiming no gravity.

Anyway.  I introduced this scenario..

Or substitute a pumpkin for the 2x4 if you like?

And now I have three different models of “no gravity” acting like gravity?


Let’s start with the poster bulmabriefs144, and “momentum.”

The momentum model that doesn’t explain how a ball held at rest on an incline plane overcomes air resistance and friction to roll downhill when released.  And how momentum can make it accelerate.

Quote

Then you are quite clearly applying a force to accelerate it.
What is doing this when it is just released with nothing except gravity acting on it?

Yes, right. Because that's the only way you can think of matter working, is as driven by forces.

I attach a hammer to a chain, and fix it on a pulley system (similar to a garage door). As the chain travels along the path, it moves to the object. But dragging it along encounters wind resistance because it's easier to drop something than it is to pull it along a track. The latter requires energy to move. 

None of this is any more than kinetic energy.

Lemme ask you a question. You said this "head" had a hammer just sitting on it, and nothing happened?



Sorry, but you just disproved your own theory. Gravity, as you explain it, is a constant force that pushes objects to the ground. So where are these newtons of yours not crushing Mr Pumpkin? No, I'm afraid that force you called "gravity" is indeed momentum, which only acted on the hammer because it was already in motion. The hammer that is not crushing said pumpkin, until you actually dropped it.

And if you need a force for the hammer on the chain, it's momentum also.

Now we have sceptimatic, and “Atmosphere”?   Doesn’t explain where the increased resistance comes from where a car has to burn more fuel to get up hill at a constant speed into a less dense atmosphere vs a flat surface. 

Nor drive / motivate the electrons in a regenerative braking system in a vehicle going down hill.  If the atmosphere was doing all that work to charge a mine train battery, shouldn’t the temperature of the atmosphere around a vehicle using regenerative breaking to charge a battery noticeable drop.  Really, what would the power density of air be in this delusion to charge batteries of a mine train going downhill? 

For anything to exert pressure upon anything it has to be resisted from all sides. The only way this can happen is if the dense mass of any object displaces what is in the area it takes up by its own dense mass.

A sledgehammer on a 4x2 piece of wood displaces the atmosphere it is placed in along with the wood itself.
Laying a sledgehammer onto a 4x2 piece of wood will offer a pressure push onto that wood by the dense mass of the hammerhead and in a small amount, the shaft.
The hammerhead is displacing a lot of atmosphere with only a small amount of porosity within the hammerhead.

Picking up that hammer and raising it a few feet above the wood then dropping it will offer your applied energy to the hammerhead and shaft that is always displacing the atmosphere aided by your energy.

Because that sledgehammer is picked up you have raised it into a little less strength of pressurised atmospheric layer meaning it displaces a little less pressure of that atmosphere but is still acting against the above atmosphere and what atmospheric layers are around the actual hammerhead and shaft, meaning it's like it's up against a spring for those areas against the below layers is has to overcome by their resistance to that hammerhead and shaft once released.

Once released the pressure push from above and around the hammerhead overcomes the resistance below which becomes greater as the push becomes stronger.

There is absolutely no requirement for any magical gravity force in reality but every need for it to keep the fiction of a globe running. I just thought I'd add that bit in.

Then we have turbonium2, and everything returns to its origin “the surface of the earth”. Who has to deny the existence of meteorites from space.  That has to deny we have found bits of mars on earth blown off by meteorites. And the earth gets loaded with space dust every year.  I think someone pointed out sunlight makes it to earth. And can’t explain why a leaf born of sunlight and atmosphere when dropped deep in a cave drops towards the center of the earth. And can’t be tricked to fall up.

Note.  The below was not posted in anyway to the sledge hammer example.

The fact that everything has existed on the Earth's surface or it's waters, while nothing at all has ever come down to Earth from elsewhere, over thousands of years time, would indicate they originate on Earth, no indication of being anywhere else, nor evidence of anything at all.

Everything on Earth, has always been on Earth, was created to be on Earth, which is the reason we have no NEED for a 'pulling down, holding down' force to ever exist at all, and none DOES exist at all.

Earth was created for all life to exist on it's surface, or within it's waters, but not within air, except to breathe it, and fly within it, among many other uses beyond, of course.

Why would we need a 'force' to hold things 'down' to Earth's surface, when mass and density keep us on the surface all the time?

It all depends on where all things originate from, doesn't it? And if we cannot prove where things on Earth, first came to exist, we can only look at where they are now, where they once were, and if anything comes to Earth from elsewhere, or not.

Based on all the available evidence, over thousands of years, my argument is far stronger than yours is, and it's not even close. 

It works perfectly.

Vs.  spherical earth.  Where gravity  has a value g.  A value that is used to design and make practical objects.  Like countering gravity in an elevator.  Using Hooke’s law in a hanging spring scale.  Using gravity for potential energy in a roller coaster.  Overcoming gravity with lift to make heavier than air flight possible. Using gravity to recharge batteries in a regenerative braking system.

I don’t care which model is “right”.  Which model is the most usable.

Is it;
A) engineering g gravity model
B) gravity is really momentum
C) gravity is “atmosphere”
D) gravity is this desire of objects to return to earth’s surface

No universal acceleration?

No universal acceleration?

Thought about it.  But wanted to stick to individuals claiming no “downward” force.


The return to origin, momentum, and atmosphere versions of gravity seem like stand alone models. Separate from each others. And not really under the umbrella of universal acceleration.  Where universal acceleration tries to explain a witnessed “force”.

It would seem with universe acceleration you could get to a point where “gravity” could be measured? Or at least we measure gravity, and gravity various around the earth based on local crust density and distance from earth’s center?  Where the listed models claim no measurable force of “gravity”? 

Oh look! It's an echo chamber!

Also, you focused on only one force, and skipped the part where I talk about have momentum and buoyancy work together.

If I sit in a large pool and fire arrows from a special waterproof bow, first we will see that water resistance is greater than air resistance, so it will not have the same momentum. Second, contrary to "gravity" arrow will fly upward. Denser medium, buoyant force drives object up. The arrow will likely not make it fully across the pool even at a full draw.
If I fire it standing outside the pool, it will fly last the pool, fly through the topiaries outside and kill the gardener stone dead. If not, it will fly until it loses speed, and then drop. You can test this by firing from a bow yourself.
If I fire from space, it will never stop moving due to lack of resistance. But if it somehow came near air or other obstruction, it would drop like a stone.

The momentum model that doesn’t explain how a ball held at rest on an incline plane overcomes air resistance and friction to roll downhill when released. 

Let's experiment. I have two objects: a bamboo staff and a ball treated in PFOA to become a nonstick ball.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid
A regular rubber ball would do, but to prove this isn't gravity exerting weight but the shape (and probably something like viscosity or static friction) of the object we are make it as slick as possible.  To prove that it isn't weight, we are filling two of these bamboo sticks with lead or osmium piping. Hell, let's add all of these to the experiment.

All of these get a flat place, with no inherent momentum. We place some bamboo staffs sideways, and some endwise.

My prediction? The PFOA ball will roll down at a full steam. The rubber ball will roll down like a normal rubber ball, stopping a lot sooner. The bamboo staff will not move. The heavy filled staffs will move slightly as they cause the ground to sink, but unless they are placed sideways, they will ease to a stop. The staffs that are placed sideways will roll based on weight, but due to their oblong shape, even without trees in the hill, they will likely stop before the ball-shaped objects.

Quote from: Unconvinced on November 27, 2022, 06:05:08 AM

No universal acceleration?

Thought about it.  But wanted to stick to individuals claiming no “downward” force.

...I'm gonna have to side with Bulma here. If you come at this from a "I want to prove this wrong," approach, aside from being unscientific, you just end up screwing up any chance to dialogue.

Scepti's the one I'm most familiar with, and while I have my issues with his model, there very much is a force at play there, but. Okay so I think basically every user who's spent five minutes talking to him seriously can tell you that Scepti's model gets complicated, it derives from fundamentally different core principles to the ones you're used to, dismissing it so abruptly feels much more like you didn't try than you actually found a response. Lumping him in with 'no downwards force' is, by my understanding, just straight-up wrong. Certainly he denies gravity, but he also accepts pressure (ie: a force applied to an area) exerted by the molecules of the air that serve to push things towards the ground (ie: down) so...

Bulma, from what I've seen, does say that a law exists to sort out objects by density (let me know if I misunderstand), which is very easy to characterise as something that acts an objects proportional to an object's density, and as it results in a change in motion/acceleration, manifests in a force.
Though, god I want to go through a dozen different thought experiments to understand that because there are so many ways to interpret it (easy one: books on a bookshelf. If we slide out a shelf, books fall to the level below - the question would then be if the books were always being dragged down and the shelf merely resisted them, or if there was no downwards force on the books beause the shelf was denser), it's just really damn hard to have detailed discussions without people jumping in. Leaping to the one reading that best suits your case is not helpful.

Turbo... okay yeah, searched a few of their posts and the 'nothing comes from space' is a li'l weird. Personally I want to understand what he means by 'originate' because your example of 'a leaf originating on a tree' likely isn't meaningful if it just comes from energy and mass that originated on the Earth. Is definitely offbeat, let's say, to attribute a force to an object's historical origins, but the offbeat stuff is the most fun to untangle, and the least vulnerable to hasty dismissal.

Anyway, dextrorotatory subquarks explain it.

Quote

The momentum model that doesn’t explain how a ball held at rest on an incline plane overcomes air resistance and friction to roll downhill when released. 

Let's experiment. I have two objects: a bamboo staff and a ball treated in PFOA to become a nonstick ball.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid
A regular rubber ball would do, but to prove this isn't gravity exerting weight but the shape (and probably something like viscosity or static friction) of the object we are make it as slick as possible.  To prove that it isn't weight, we are filling two of these bamboo sticks with lead or osmium piping. Hell, let's add all of these to the experiment.

All of these get a flat place, with no inherent momentum. We place some bamboo staffs sideways, and some endwise.

My prediction? The PFOA ball will roll down at a full steam. The rubber ball will roll down like a normal rubber ball, stopping a lot sooner. The bamboo staff will not move. The heavy filled staffs will move slightly as they cause the ground to sink, but unless they are placed sideways, they will ease to a stop. The staffs that are placed sideways will roll based on weight, but due to their oblong shape, even without trees in the hill, they will likely stop before the ball-shaped objects.

Maybe you should actually try out these experiments instead of just always assuming you're correct and thousands of scientists, engineers and mathematicians are all wrong.

Why not give it a try and upload the results to YouTube so we can all watch.  I'm sure it would be enlightening.

Be sure to show your math!  I noticed you said "a lot" which is very nicely vague but could you convert that to inches? Thanks.

Oh look! It's an echo chamber!

Oh look.  Two other flat earth delusions that conflict with yours.

And I bet you don’t bother to answer the heart of my post..


I don’t care which model is “right”.  Which model is the most usable.

Is it;
A) engineering g gravity model
B) gravity is really momentum
C) gravity is “atmosphere”
D) gravity is this desire of objects to return to earth’s surface

Also, you focused on only one force, and skipped the part where I talk about have momentum and buoyancy work together.

And you keep refusing to answer this simple question.

Take a ball and hold it at rest on an incline plane.  The ball has zero momentum.  Zilch.  Release the ball.  What force made the ball overcome friction and air resistance to roll downhill. In the gravity model air resistance and friction with the right materials are negligible.  In your model where air resistance and friction are the only forces, they are huge factors. In your model what overcomes them so a ball at rest can roll down the incline plane. 

If I sit in a large pool and fire arrows from a special waterproof bow,

And the arrows will fall back to earth due to gravity.

first we will see that water resistance is greater than air resistance, so it will not have the same momentum.

As far as the air resistance part.  There is a whole scientific field called ballistics that uses the value g to determine and predict the trajectory of objects in flight with reliably.

Second, contrary to "gravity" arrow will fly upward.

You mean buoyancy brought about by pressure gradients via gravity?  And the value of g is able to make buoyaunt force a predictable engineering factor?

External source…

That pretty much does it. This formula gives the buoyant force on a can of beans (or any other object) submerged wholly or partially in a fluid. Let's take stock of what we have now. Notice how the buoyant force only depends on the density of the fluid
ρ in which the object is submerged, the acceleration due to gravity g and the volume of the displaced fluid
V
f


https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/fluids/buoyant-force-and-archimedes-principle/a/buoyant-force-and-archimedes-principle-article

Denser medium, buoyant force drives object up. The arrow will likely not make it fully across the pool even at a full draw.

Another one if your over complicated scenarios where;

One, you cannot even address that two other FE’s have no support for your model.
Two, still needs gravity to create the pressure gradient that makes buoyancy possible.
Three, you cannot even explain the most basic models.
Four, the value g is used to engineer practical and predictable solutions concerning buoyancy.

If I fire it standing outside the

Make an actual video instead of what if…

Something like this…

Another example of gravity.


The pipe and air fitting press down on the scale and compress the spring in accordance with Hooke’s law using gravity.  I can counter gravity with a little uplift using a string.  Give the fitting just a little upward momentum.  Now.  What force is killing the upward momentum, and changing it to downward momentum.  Then causes the spring to compress in accordance to Hooke’s law.  And maintains the compression of the spring to keep the reading on the scale.

pool, it will fly last the pool, fly through the topiaries outside and kill the gardener stone dead.

I think you don’t understand the difference between delusional thought exercises and carrying out an actual experiment.

If not, it will fly until it loses speed, and then drop. You can test this by firing from a bow yourself.

Wait, You killed people with your bow?

If I fire from space, it will never stop moving due to lack of resistance.

No.  It keeps it course unless another force acts on it.

But if it somehow came near air or other obstruction, it would drop like a stone.

I have a bow and a small range. 

When I target practice;

One, the air doesn’t stop the arrow dead.

Two.  If I hit the target, and if the arrow has the power to penetrate the target.  The arrow goes some depth into the target deforming the target (tear /cut into it) and creates heat.

Three.  If the target is too hard for the arrow to penetrate, the arrow doesn’t stop dead.  It bounces off or ricochets.

Your models are built on your delusions and not reality.

You

Let's experiment.

How about we not jump to another over complicated model until you can explain how momentum made this ball roll downhill.




And what caused this ball pushed up the incline to change direction and roll back down the incline?

Let's experiment.

How about something real like this one…

Weight of ball



Weight of measuring cup with water




Weight of ball being placed in water


Final weight of system with ball being buoyant in water..

If I sit in a large pool and fire arrows from a special waterproof bow,

From underwater.  You need to take in account the string is pushing against water, not air if used underwater…

Also, you focused on only one force, and skipped the part where I talk about have momentum and buoyancy work together.

You mean the part where you assert things with no explanation nor justification?
Where you appeal to the observations which are made and act as if they are the explanations themselves?

You have no explanation at all for buoyancy.

Second, contrary to "gravity" arrow will fly upward.

You mean as expected due to gravity creating a pressure gradient in the fluid causing a buoyant force.
What is your explanation for why it goes up?
You have none. Instead you can just appeal to the observation.

Likewise, your explanation for why it goes down in air? Again, you have none, you just appeal to the observation.

My prediction? The PFOA ball will roll down at a full steam. The rubber ball will roll down like a normal rubber ball, stopping a lot sooner.

Notice how you ignored what the actual issue was?
Why are they moving in the first place?
They start stationary, without momentum (at least in your model). Why should they move?

Scepti's the one I'm most familiar with, and while I have my issues with his model, there very much is a force at play there, but. Okay so I think basically every user who's spent five minutes talking to him seriously can tell you that Scepti's model gets complicated, it derives from fundamentally different core principles to the ones you're used to, dismissing it so abruptly feels much more like you didn't try than you actually found a response. Lumping him in with 'no downwards force' is, by my understanding, just straight-up wrong. Certainly he denies gravity, but he also accepts pressure (ie: a force applied to an area) exerted by the molecules of the air that serve to push things towards the ground (ie: down) so...

Until you start to dig deeper and see them contradicting themselves (because they also need to explain the air pushing objects up, and it not being a force based upon area at all) and instead appealing to the mass/density of the object somehow overcoming the resistance of the air below aided by the resistance above, indicating that the object itself is trying to go down, and the air is just resisting it.

Also, why does your name get censored to slime?

Quote from: Slime on November 29, 2022, 07:26:01 AM

Scepti's the one I'm most familiar with, and while I have my issues with his model, there very much is a force at play there, but. Okay so I think basically every user who's spent five minutes talking to him seriously can tell you that Scepti's model gets complicated, it derives from fundamentally different core principles to the ones you're used to, dismissing it so abruptly feels much more like you didn't try than you actually found a response. Lumping him in with 'no downwards force' is, by my understanding, just straight-up wrong. Certainly he denies gravity, but he also accepts pressure (ie: a force applied to an area) exerted by the molecules of the air that serve to push things towards the ground (ie: down) so...

Until you start to dig deeper and see them contradicting themselves (because they also need to explain the air pushing objects up, and it not being a force based upon area at all) and instead appealing to the mass/density of the object somehow overcoming the resistance of the air below aided by the resistance above, indicating that the object itself is trying to go down, and the air is just resisting it.

Also, why does your name get censored to slime?

Force based on area is one of those tricksy details - Scepti prioritises talking about how much air is displaced specifically, so volume and density would be the defining factors in how great a force is exerted on an object. But getting to what displacement even means in this context, that's what drags you through molecules and I do not remember that well enough offhand. Air, in Scepti's model, is very different from how we understand it to be.
Oh! Wait yeah I see how poorly I phrased that. "pressure (ie: a force applied to an area)" was me using the conventional definition of pressure when talking to Data to clarify that Scepti does use a force, but I def see the misunderstanding. Scepti kiiind of relies on area when you start digging into porousness, which is its own can of worms, but at least casually it's more helpful to think in terms of volume of air displaced, I find.

If memory serves (and will accept correction from Scepti on this), I think he does accept the downwards force diminishing with altitude, so it's less that a mass wants to go down, and more that there's more air above than there is below so if we model air as just pushing outwards from all directions, the net force still presses down. But when you go higher, there is more resistance from the air below pushing up, hence a smaller net force pushing down, etc. If I'm understanding your argument, anyway.

The forum has a vendetta against lemons.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 29, 2022, 12:59:35 PM

Quote from: Slime on November 29, 2022, 07:26:01 AM

Scepti's the one I'm most familiar with, and while I have my issues with his model, there very much is a force at play there, but. Okay so I think basically every user who's spent five minutes talking to him seriously can tell you that Scepti's model gets complicated, it derives from fundamentally different core principles to the ones you're used to, dismissing it so abruptly feels much more like you didn't try than you actually found a response. Lumping him in with 'no downwards force' is, by my understanding, just straight-up wrong. Certainly he denies gravity, but he also accepts pressure (ie: a force applied to an area) exerted by the molecules of the air that serve to push things towards the ground (ie: down) so...

Until you start to dig deeper and see them contradicting themselves (because they also need to explain the air pushing objects up, and it not being a force based upon area at all) and instead appealing to the mass/density of the object somehow overcoming the resistance of the air below aided by the resistance above, indicating that the object itself is trying to go down, and the air is just resisting it.

Also, why does your name get censored to slime?

Force based on area is one of those tricksy details - Scepti prioritises talking about how much air is displaced specifically, so volume and density would be the defining factors in how great a force is exerted on an object. But getting to what displacement even means in this context, that's what drags you through molecules and I do not remember that well enough offhand. Air, in Scepti's model, is very different from how we understand it to be.
Oh! Wait yeah I see how poorly I phrased that. "pressure (ie: a force applied to an area)" was me using the conventional definition of pressure when talking to Data to clarify that Scepti does use a force, but I def see the misunderstanding. Scepti kiiind of relies on area when you start digging into porousness, which is its own can of worms, but at least casually it's more helpful to think in terms of volume of air displaced, I find.

If memory serves (and will accept correction from Scepti on this), I think he does accept the downwards force diminishing with altitude, so it's less that a mass wants to go down, and more that there's more air above than there is below so if we model air as just pushing outwards from all directions, the net force still presses down. But when you go higher, there is more resistance from the air below pushing up, hence a smaller net force pushing down, etc. If I'm understanding your argument, anyway.

The forum has a vendetta against lemons.

Yes, I did mean how pressure is typically based upon area, rather than volume.
But the bigger part relating to mass is what they have had to resort to to explain why somethings go down while others go up, where it appears they are appealing to the mass itself contributing, not just the atmosphere.

Quote from: Slime on November 29, 2022, 01:20:23 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 29, 2022, 12:59:35 PM

Quote from: Slime on November 29, 2022, 07:26:01 AM

Scepti's the one I'm most familiar with, and while I have my issues with his model, there very much is a force at play there, but. Okay so I think basically every user who's spent five minutes talking to him seriously can tell you that Scepti's model gets complicated, it derives from fundamentally different core principles to the ones you're used to, dismissing it so abruptly feels much more like you didn't try than you actually found a response. Lumping him in with 'no downwards force' is, by my understanding, just straight-up wrong. Certainly he denies gravity, but he also accepts pressure (ie: a force applied to an area) exerted by the molecules of the air that serve to push things towards the ground (ie: down) so...

Until you start to dig deeper and see them contradicting themselves (because they also need to explain the air pushing objects up, and it not being a force based upon area at all) and instead appealing to the mass/density of the object somehow overcoming the resistance of the air below aided by the resistance above, indicating that the object itself is trying to go down, and the air is just resisting it.

Also, why does your name get censored to slime?

Force based on area is one of those tricksy details - Scepti prioritises talking about how much air is displaced specifically, so volume and density would be the defining factors in how great a force is exerted on an object. But getting to what displacement even means in this context, that's what drags you through molecules and I do not remember that well enough offhand. Air, in Scepti's model, is very different from how we understand it to be.
Oh! Wait yeah I see how poorly I phrased that. "pressure (ie: a force applied to an area)" was me using the conventional definition of pressure when talking to Data to clarify that Scepti does use a force, but I def see the misunderstanding. Scepti kiiind of relies on area when you start digging into porousness, which is its own can of worms, but at least casually it's more helpful to think in terms of volume of air displaced, I find.

If memory serves (and will accept correction from Scepti on this), I think he does accept the downwards force diminishing with altitude, so it's less that a mass wants to go down, and more that there's more air above than there is below so if we model air as just pushing outwards from all directions, the net force still presses down. But when you go higher, there is more resistance from the air below pushing up, hence a smaller net force pushing down, etc. If I'm understanding your argument, anyway.

The forum has a vendetta against lemons.

Yes, I did mean how pressure is typically based upon area, rather than volume.
But the bigger part relating to mass is what they have had to resort to to explain why somethings go down while others go up, where it appears they are appealing to the mass itself contributing, not just the atmosphere.

In Scepti's case, it's the interaction of both - hence denpressure, density+pressure. Density determines the magnitude of the force on an object, atmospheric stacking determines the direction, and then there's just regular accounting for other forces at play.

In Scepti's case, it's the interaction of both - hence denpressure, density+pressure. Density determines the magnitude of the force on an object, atmospheric stacking determines the direction, and then there's just regular accounting for other forces at play.

Then from the opening post, why is the model not as good at predicting and modeling as g for gravity.

Then also from the opening post,”Now we have sceptimatic, and “Atmosphere”?   Doesn’t explain where the increased resistance comes from where a car has to burn more fuel to get up hill at a constant speed into a less dense atmosphere vs a flat surface. 

Nor drive / motivate the electrons in a regenerative braking system in a vehicle going down hill.  If the atmosphere was doing all that work to charge a mine train battery, shouldn’t the temperature of the atmosphere around a vehicle using regenerative breaking to charge a battery noticeable drop.  Really, what would the power density of air be in this delusion to charge batteries of a mine train going downhill?”


Then. What is a force?

In physics, a force is an influence that can change the motion of an object. A force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (e.g. moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate. Force can also be described intuitively as a push or a pull. A force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity. It is measured in the SI unit of newton (N). Force is represented by the symbol F (formerly P).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

In the individual’s model there is ZERO gravity.

What gives it the “atmospheric stacking determines the direction” with no force of gravity.

With no force of gravity, what is acting like a “container” to build pressure at the earth’s surface.  And pressure decreases as one increases altitude. Atmospheric pressure decreases as the force of gravity decreases as one gets farther away from earth’s center.

Now.  For this spring scale to work in accordance with Hooke’s law, how would the orange push the larger surface of the bowl into more dense atmosphere for the spring to compress to register a weight?  Remember, there is zero gravity in this model.




And why would this foam ball being about the same size, or a little larger weigh less?  Remember, there is zero gravity.  And how is the less dense foam ball causing a steel spring to compress?  To push the more dense and larger surface area bowl into more dense atmosphere.  With zero gravity in this model, what is motivating the scale to move measurable down into greater air resistance and compress the more dense steel spring.

Then also from the opening post,”Now we have sceptimatic, and “Atmosphere”?   Doesn’t explain where the increased resistance comes from where a car has to burn more fuel to get up hill at a constant speed into a less dense atmosphere vs a flat surface. 

How much do you actually know about denpressure in order to make that claim?
I'm not saying that to accuse, just, it is model based on fundamentally different principles to the ones we're used to - look at the nature of molecules alone - so the things that have become intuitive to you just won't hold in it. You are repeating a limited description of a situation but have not actually applied it in any way to the models you're talking about.

Like I said before, coming at this from the perspective of "How can I prove this wrong?" is unscientific and just screws over any chance for dialogue. Hyper-aggressive approaches benefit no one except the FEers that want to stoke an 'us vs them' battle.

Eg: "And why would this foam ball being about the same size, or a little larger weigh less?"
Because, under the denpressure model, matter is porous. Air seeps into the molecule-sized holes in a foam ball that aren't there for a satsuma, ergo less air is displaced, therefore less pressure. If you have your issues with the porousness model, you can join the club and the wealth of threads that have happened on that topic, but it's a very basic part of the model that you haven't acknowledged. Perhaps, rather than leaping to claiming that you're done, you slow down a little and learn what the heck you're arguing against and come away with a solid understanding before claiming you've poked holes.

What gives it the “atmospheric stacking determines the direction” with no force of gravity.

Hoo boy. To take on this, you're gonna need to know Scepti's model of the dome, nature of molecules, and then deal with porousness as applied to the earth. Hyper-simplified, not completely accurate visualisation would be to model the forces in an inflating balloon: it's less that the atmosphere stacks 'down' and more that it pushes towards the edges of the container it is in when heat/motion is applied to it.
There are objections, if memory serves jackblack will happily give you a dozen, but they're objections that need to be shown to apply to the model, and not asserted before you're even aware of the claims made by the model.

Don't rush. There's no need.

How much do you actually know about denpressure in order to make that claim?

This is the heart of the opening thread.

I don’t care which model is “right”.  Which model is the most usable.

Is it;
A) engineering g gravity model
B) gravity is really momentum
C) gravity is “atmosphere”
D) gravity is this desire of objects to return to earth’s surface


I know enough the answer is A

I'm not saying that to accuse, just, it is model based on fundamentally different principles to the ones we're used to

It’s just another butchered form of gravity that needs gravity to create the pressure gradient the individual claims makes everything work.

You

To take on this, you're gonna need to know Scepti's model of the dome,

Oh.  The dome thing.  The gas pressure in a closed container will essentially equalize. 

The reality is there is a change in pressure as altitude increases because there is no “container” around the earth.  The atmosphere pressure acts in accordance with a spherical earth with gravity.


Plus.  If there was a dome, it would have layers of dust on it millennia after millennia.  Who dusts the inside out outside of the dome? 

Eg: "And why would this foam ball being about the same size, or a little larger weigh less?"
Because, under the denpressure model, matter is porous. Air seeps into the molecule-sized holes in a foam ball that aren't there for a satsuma, ergo less air is displaced, therefore less pressure.

There.  Squished the ball down and placed it in an air tight plastic bag.  What is the predicted denpressure change in weight?

Picture squished foam ball in air tight bag.


The before picture of the foam ball.


Based on the two pictures.  The only difference is the weight of the plastic bag.

Eg: "And why would this foam ball being about the same size, or a little larger weigh less?"
Because, under the denpressure model, matter is porous. Air seeps into the molecule-sized holes in a foam ball that aren't there for a satsuma, ergo less air is displaced, therefore less pressure.

Let’s focus on this some more.

The spherical earth gravity model.  The weight is based off of the value g and the mass.  In this model squishing the air out of the ball will have little effect on its weight.  The mass of the ball is a magnitude or more massive than the air in it.  And g is constant.

In the denpressure model, what changes weight of an object?

You claimed, “Because, under the denpressure model, matter is porous. Air seeps into the molecule-sized holes in a foam ball that aren't there for a satsuma, ergo less air is displaced, therefore less pressure.”

So what happens in denpressure if you squish the ball down and push air out so it’s about half its original size?  What math model In denpressure predicts weight? 


So what happens in denpressure if you squish the ball down and push air out so it’s about  1/3rd its original size?


Let’s see..

Original weight





There.  Squished the ball down and placed it in an air tight plastic bag.  The size of the ball is about half its original size.



Really squished the ball down and placed it in an air tight plastic bag.  The size of the ball is about 1/3rd its original size.  Really pushed out lots of air.



Look at that.  Looks like the spherical earth model with the bag and air mass almost being negligible produced a predictable outcome.  Looks like the mass and the value of g stayed constant no matter the squishing.  denpressure  made no reliable predictions on what the scale would read….

There.  Squished the ball down and placed it in an air tight plastic bag.  What is the predicted denpressure change in weight?

At best you would have a small contribution from the bag increasing the weight, and a tiny contribution from the molecules being compressed.
But overall you wouldn't expect a significant change.

As a comparison, take a styrofoam ball, and then melt it down to a solid lump of styrofoam.

You claimed, “Because, under the denpressure model, matter is porous. Air seeps into the molecule-sized holes in a foam ball that aren't there for a satsuma, ergo less air is displaced, therefore less pressure.”

So what happens in denpressure if you squish the ball down and push air out so it’s about half its original size?  What math model In denpressure predicts weight? 

So what happens in denpressure if you squish the ball down and push air out so it’s about  1/3rd its original size?

I am yet to see a definitive formula produced, but the basic claim is that it is based upon how much atmosphere the physcial matter of the object displaces.
This does not include any air that fills up any air in the pores, i.e. that air is not displaced and so doesn't contribute to the weight.

So if you have the same amount of matter, and change the porousity, you are still displacing the same volume of air, so it weighs the same.
It wouldn't matter if you have expanded polystyrene foam, with 90% of it being air under normal analysis (more would be air under denpressure) or if you melt that down to a solid puck, the same amount of air would be displaced, as the air inside the expanded foam doesn't count.
This means denspressure predicts no change from the compression.

If you want to show a problem with denspressure, do basically the opposite of what you have done.
Have the object keep its size, but remove the air.
That way more air would be displaced so it should weight more. But scales observe it to weigh less.

So if you have the same amount of matter, and change the porousity, you are still displacing the same volume of air, so it weighs the same.
It .

Are you referring to spherical earth or denpressure?

A cubic foot of solid aluminum displaces the same amount of atmosphere as one cubic foot of lead.  But the lead has greater density and mass. And the lead weighs more.  And I would say each is void from any appreciable amount of internal atmosphere from the casting process.  They also can be used to make airtight containers. And well cast solid aluminum doesn’t oxidize from the inside out.

Which raises the question in denpressure if you makes a steel hollow container and pump full of pure oxygen, what happens as the oxygen and steel internally rusts..

The risks of oxygen deficiency & oxygen enrichment in confined spaces

https://www.argonelectronics.com/blog/oxygen-deficiency-enrichment-confined-spaces



A reduction in oxygen levels in a confined space could be due to the effects of combustion; it might be caused by microbial activity (such as the process of fermentation); it could be due to the oxidisation (rusting) of the internal surface of a tank or pipe; or it might be that the oxygen has been displaced by another gas such as nitrogen or argon.

A ball squished to a 3rd of its size takes up only a third of the space it once occupied.  If the foam ball was a 1 cubic foot block reduced to 3rd of its height. It will only occupy 1’x1’x.3’=.3 cubic foot. 

So in this example, of the foam ball.  The ball once squished has its density increased. The same mass takes up less space.

Density is equal to mass divided by volume. So.  If mass of the ball stayed the same, and the volume decreased.  Density increased.   

Anyway.   I can get a block of foam from Internet shopping. Something bigger than the ball.  I can squish it and then hollow it out.  Something to do. 

Quote from: Slime on November 29, 2022, 04:29:10 PM

Eg: "And why would this foam ball being about the same size, or a little larger weigh less?"
Because, under the denpressure model, matter is porous. Air seeps into the molecule-sized holes in a foam ball that aren't there for a satsuma, ergo less air is displaced, therefore less pressure.

Let’s focus on this some more.

The spherical earth gravity model.  The weight is based off of the value g and the mass.  In this model squishing the air out of the ball will have little effect on its weight.  The mass of the ball is a magnitude or more massive than the air in it.  And g is constant.

In the denpressure model, what changes weight of an object?

You claimed, “Because, under the denpressure model, matter is porous. Air seeps into the molecule-sized holes in a foam ball that aren't there for a satsuma, ergo less air is displaced, therefore less pressure.”

So what happens in denpressure if you squish the ball down and push air out so it’s about half its original size?  What math model In denpressure predicts weight? 


So what happens in denpressure if you squish the ball down and push air out so it’s about  1/3rd its original size?


Let’s see..

Original weight





There.  Squished the ball down and placed it in an air tight plastic bag.  The size of the ball is about half its original size.



Really squished the ball down and placed it in an air tight plastic bag.  The size of the ball is about 1/3rd its original size.  Really pushed out lots of air.



Look at that.  Looks like the spherical earth model with the bag and air mass almost being negligible produced a predictable outcome.  Looks like the mass and the value of g stayed constant no matter the squishing.  denpressure made no reliable predictions on what the scale would read….

With your ball under less porosity by compressing it, it changes nothing and all it does is offer that air inside the ball outside of the bag and now places it in the atmosphere as part of that same pressure already part of it.

Basically, your ball as a whole is porous, and only so much of it is displacing the atmosphere as it stands with the rest of it simply absorbing the atmosphere which is merely part of the overall pressure around and within, meaning only the solid structure of what makes the ball up is what is displacing the atmosphere and creating a pressure push upon the scale plate due to the structure resisting that pressure and using the scale plate as its foundation in which to resist, causing the scale plate to be pushed down.

If you place the ball in a bag and push out a lot of air/atmosphere you're still adding that atmosphere from the porosity back onto the bag.
You change nothing much except to add the bag onto the scale which would offer a very minuscule change in terms of the actual bag itself displacing the atmosphere, as little as that is.

Actually compressing the ball shows what denpressure is all about in terms of the density/structure of the ball/object and its closer size of atmospheric dispalcement by it.

Anyway.   I can get a block of foam from Internet shopping. Something bigger than the ball.  I can squish it and then hollow it out.  Something to do.

By squishing it and then hollowing it out only means you throw away some density that displaced atmosphere which means all you do is offer atmosphere as a filler which also means you lose a bit of otherwise registered scale weight.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 29, 2022, 11:15:10 PM

So if you have the same amount of matter, and change the porousity, you are still displacing the same volume of air, so it weighs the same.
It .

Are you referring to spherical earth or denpressure?

I'm referring to denpressure, specifically the foam ball example.

A cubic foot of solid aluminum displaces the same amount of atmosphere as one cubic foot of lead.  But the lead has greater density and mass. And the lead weighs more.  And I would say each is void from any appreciable amount of internal atmosphere from the casting process.  They also can be used to make airtight containers. And well cast solid aluminum doesn’t oxidize from the inside out.

And the claim of denpressure is that that is not the case, and that instead aluminium is more porous.

And that is where a problem lies.
If denpressure was correct, you should be able to compress aluminium to make it as dense as lead. But doing so would require a nuclear reaction.

A ball squished to a 3rd of its size takes up only a third of the space it once occupied.  If the foam ball was a 1 cubic foot block reduced to 3rd of its height. It will only occupy 1’x1’x.3’=.3 cubic foot.

That is the size of the air and the ball.
When you squish it you move the air from inside the ball has been moved to outside the ball.
But the volume actually taken up by the ball (rather than the air inside the ball) remains the same.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 30, 2022, 02:03:19 AM

Anyway.   I can get a block of foam from Internet shopping. Something bigger than the ball.  I can squish it and then hollow it out.  Something to do.

By squishing it and then hollowing it out only means you throw away some density that displaced atmosphere which means all you do is offer atmosphere as a filler which also means you lose a bit of otherwise registered scale weight.

In addition to the problem that aluminum is not porous in the sense you mean.

And in addition to, in a no gravity earth delusion, how does a less dense foam ball compress a more dense steel spring in accordance with Hooke’s law in this example.  Where density doesn’t give directionality.  How can I use density to get the foam block to move sideways to a cliff for example.



Then you have the original listed shortcomings of your model.

————
Now we have sceptimatic, and “Atmosphere”?   Doesn’t explain where the increased resistance comes from where a car has to burn more fuel to get up hill at a constant speed into a less dense atmosphere vs a flat surface. 

Nor drive / motivate the electrons in a regenerative braking system in a vehicle going down hill.  If the atmosphere was doing all that work to charge a mine train battery, shouldn’t the temperature of the atmosphere around a vehicle using regenerative breaking to charge a battery noticeable drop.  Really, what would the power density of air be in this delusion to charge batteries of a mine train going downhill? 
_________

And out if intellectual dishonesty you cannot address the heart of the opening post..

I don’t care which model is “right”.  Which model is the most usable.

Is it;
A) engineering g gravity model
B) gravity is really momentum
C) gravity is “atmosphere”
D) gravity is this desire of objects to return to earth’s surface


I would say a since you cannot prove aluminum is porous in the since your pushing, or it is demonstrably shown not to be porous in the way you mean, the answer is A

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2022, 02:34:05 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 30, 2022, 02:03:19 AM

Anyway.   I can get a block of foam from Internet shopping. Something bigger than the ball.  I can squish it and then hollow it out.  Something to do.

By squishing it and then hollowing it out only means you throw away some density that displaced atmosphere which means all you do is offer atmosphere as a filler which also means you lose a bit of otherwise registered scale weight.

In addition to the problem that aluminum is not porous in the sense you mean.

Everything is porous to some degree in terms of what's between any structural makeup.
It then comes down to molecular density of the structure.

If you place the ball in a bag and push out a lot of air/atmosphere you're still adding that atmosphere from the porosity back onto the bag.

I can still show the ball has more volume / takes up more space than the squished ball in the bag by placing each in a measuring cup with water and seeing how much water is displaced.

The ball/bag demonstrably has less “atmosphere” than the foam ball as a whole.  So the quoted statement by you is false. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2022, 02:32:15 AM

If you place the ball in a bag and push out a lot of air/atmosphere you're still adding that atmosphere from the porosity back onto the bag.

I can still show the ball has more volume / takes up more space than the squished ball in the bag by placing each in a measuring cup with water and seeing how much water is displaced.

The ball/bag demonstrably has less “atmosphere” than the foam ball as a whole.  So the quoted statement by you is false.

Inside the ball bag there is less atmosphere only because you used a lot of energy to force it out but where did you put that forced-out atmosphere? Back into the atmosphere external to the ball and bag so you only changed the volume within the bag but that volume is now exerting pressure back onto that ball and bag from outside of it on a much smaller dense mass.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 30, 2022, 03:28:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2022, 02:34:05 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 30, 2022, 02:03:19 AM

Anyway.   I can get a block of foam from Internet shopping. Something bigger than the ball.  I can squish it and then hollow it out.  Something to do.

By squishing it and then hollowing it out only means you throw away some density that displaced atmosphere which means all you do is offer atmosphere as a filler which also means you lose a bit of otherwise registered scale weight.

In addition to the problem that aluminum is not porous in the sense you mean.

Everything is porous to some degree in terms of what's between any structural makeup.
It then comes down to molecular density of the structure.

How might engineers who need to code in force parameters into the accelerometer inside of of smartphones use Denpressure. For instance, the accelerometer performs inclination sensing which uses the gravity vector and its projection on the axes of the accelerometer to determine the tilt angle.

How might they use Denpressure instead for their coding purposes?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2022, 03:35:02 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 30, 2022, 03:28:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 30, 2022, 02:34:05 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 30, 2022, 02:03:19 AM

Anyway.   I can get a block of foam from Internet shopping. Something bigger than the ball.  I can squish it and then hollow it out.  Something to do.

By squishing it and then hollowing it out only means you throw away some density that displaced atmosphere which means all you do is offer atmosphere as a filler which also means you lose a bit of otherwise registered scale weight.

In addition to the problem that aluminum is not porous in the sense you mean.

Everything is porous to some degree in terms of what's between any structural makeup.
It then comes down to molecular density of the structure.

How might engineers who need to code in force parameters into the accelerometer inside of of smartphones use Denpressure. For instance, the accelerometer performs inclination sensing which uses the gravity vector and its projection on the axes of the accelerometer to determine the tilt angle.

How might they use Denpressure instead for their coding purposes?

How do they use gravity?

Then you have the original listed shortcomings of your model.

Dude. Slow down, take a breath.
When you come in swinging, claiming it can't work before you ever even knew the proposed answers, you come off like you just care about making a straw man. You are not helping anyone's case.

I would say a since you cannot prove aluminum is porous in the since your pushing, or it is demonstrably shown not to be porous in the way you mean, the answer is A

Do you even know what the way he means is?

When you have a foam ball, you are thinking of the holes in it as though they are the porosity. They aren't. Yes, there is air in those holes that is not displaced by the ball - when you squish them out, that air continues to not be displaced. The ball occupies a smaller volume, but air displaced has not actually changed.
But the molecular structure of the actual foam that makes up the ball, that is more or less unchanged if you squish with your bare hands, continues to be porous - this is, by my understanding, where air can seep in. Density refers to how many of these gaps there are - if there are fewer, an object is more dense, and thus displaces more air. Ditto aluminium, it would have these tiny molecule-sized holes in, though fewer than foam.

"You cannot prove aluminum is porous." You do see how "Your position is not evidentially supported," is a very different claim to the "butcher the concept," thing you started out with, right? You need to slow down. Not every post needs to be a disproof or a victory, some just need to be clarification.

The argument against it I like is a balloon on scales - under gravity, air itself is subject to it. So if we inflate and weigh a balloon, then it ought to weigh more than the balloon when uninflated or deflated.