Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

What type of experiment could prove denpressure?


Any items to help those that believe in denpressure? 

Since it goes in hand usually with a domed earth. My bet would be on the ideal gas law and gasses tend to take the shape of their container? 

The bouncing off each other is not what you think. It's vibration and compr5ession against each other and the frequency of it.

I was pondering through experiment ideas with placing a lead block on a balance scale in a sealed chamber, suck out the atmosphere, and take the system to temperatures where all gasses would be a liquid.  No atmosphere on the block and scale.  Approaching absolute zero where vibration would approach zero.

By the way.  You can achieve zero atmospheric gas pressure with drawing off the gas out of the chamber then refrigerating the whole thing below temps an atmosphere would exist, and weight is still going to be dominated by gravity. 

Anyway…

Then it came to me how delusional den-pressure is.

In the real world outside your delusion where modeling and accurate predictability occurs.

There is the lowly vertical hanging spring scale with a metal spring.  Hang a 10 lbs (pounds as mass where gravity is exerting a force on the mass.  Why an elevator has to do work rated in horse power to pull cars from a more dense atmosphere into less dense atmosphere) foam block with less density from the hook of the spring that has more density.  The scale spring will extend downward in accordance with Hooke’s law and gravity.  I would dare even say directionality.

Another model that works and produces predictable and useable results. 

In your delusion.  Some how the less dense atmosphere is pushing the foam block into more dense atmosphere causing the steel spring that is more dense than the foam block to be pulled down by the less dense foam block.  Again, from less dense atmosphere into more dense atmosphere.

With you having no explanation why den-pressure can’t use density as a force to make things fall sideways.

Den-pressure is nonsensical.

Given I asked for this and got the run around, I'm hoping this gets an actual response. Just because Scepti doens't like the Cavendish experiment doesn't mean they can say "Nuh-uh." They need to come up with an experiment that proves Denpressure, and explain why it proves it. Something we can measure, and not like the appl experiment, in which they claim there's a difference, just not noticable or measurable. You have proven nothing if you just belive really hard that the apple falls at a different rate.

The cavendish experiment is known to have several flaws. It doesn't do what it intends to do - measure the density of the earth. It is very difficult to even do this measuring in the first place using this experiment. Its extremely sensitive to outside forces. The effect of temperature can alter the results. The effect of air density can affect it. The effect of the imperfection of the lead spheres. Assuming the earth is round, the effect of the rotation is also not accounted for.

Its a horrible experiment.

The cavendish experiment is known to have several flaws. It doesn't do what it intends to do - measure the density of the earth. It is very difficult to even do this measuring in the first place using this experiment. Its extremely sensitive to outside forces. The effect of temperature can alter the results. The effect of air density can affect it. The effect of the imperfection of the lead spheres. Assuming the earth is round, the effect of the rotation is also not accounted for.

Its a horrible experiment.

See, THIS is what I want. You gave actual reasons, and pointed out genuine issues with such a theoretically precise and delicate experiment. The problem is that Scepti doesn't do this. He just said:

Quote from: Magicalus on April 22, 2023, 10:15:36 AM

Here's a succinct guide from Harvard: https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/cavendish-experiment

The reason this works as proof of gravity is because there are no forces acting on the rod, yet it still spins toward the large masses. The only explanation for this happening no matter where you set it up is that there is a force attracting the masses to each other. That force is what we call gravity.

  I call it atmospheric compressive movement.

This isn't a reply. This isn't an argument. Scepti just said "No, it's this" without explaining what "atmospheric compressive movement" is, or debunking the claims in the original post. Doing a site search, this is the first time they've EVER used that term. Experiments aside, it's literally impossible to argue with this kind of thing.

Here's some more from that post:

Quote from: Magicalus

I've done my job; you do yours. What experiment can I run to prove denpressure is real?

You've done nothing of the sort.
You offered something and said its gravity and if you're absolutely honest with yourself you will accept you're offering nothing of the sort in terms of you actually know yourself.
You are simply reliant on the story.

I've given you my story and I don't expect you to accept it but that's my story.

Okay, admittedly cocky phrasing of my post aside, this isn't a response. I explained why the experiment proves gravity, namely the lack of other forces. Now, you can dispute the experiment and it's flaws, but I didn't say "Cavendish experiment means gravity because science man said so!" And as for the last bit, that's not true. We haven't seen Scepti's story, because Scepti refuses to elaborate beyond saying they use words to mean different things in denpressure for some reason.

Oh, and one more for the road:

I can't provide any experiment to prove anything against something other people believe in.
You believe in a spinning globe and gravity and light-year stars and black holes and ...well...you get my gist. So I'm under no illusions about offering you anything that will pacify you.

I have no issue with that by the way, I'm simply just saying.

It has to be down to the individual as to whether they want to sit back and ponder anything from all avenues.

If you want a simple reactionary argument. I offer you the Cavendish experiment as another denpressure evidence.

Now I gave you my reasoning with atmospheric displacement by any dense mass.
You have offered nothing to back up gravity except to say "See, it's gravity."

How about you explain what gravity is as a force?

You can provide an experiment. Please do. If you don't think it's convincing, rework it to be more convincing, to be more rigorous. to be a stronger proof. That's science. The first thing I did in that thread was bring up Newton's laws of motion, which Scepti promptly refuted by... not understanding how the human body works. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91652.msg2400703#msg2400703

After a back and forth with Stash, Scepti provided the idea that dropping an apple higher up means it will drop faster. They then go on to claim that this difference is marginal to the point of being null, which literally means non-existing. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91652.msg2400956#msg2400956

Then, I ask for an experiment, and Scepti asks for one back, giving me that hypocritical quote from earlier. Here, I'll do it properly this time.

Quote from: Magicalus on April 20, 2023, 10:49:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 20, 2023, 10:12:18 AM

You seem to be fixated with wanting numbers and calculations.
Let me just pacify you. You're getting no calculations so don't waste your time.

Alright, how about an experiment? Is there anything we can test and observe that proves denpressure is real? Forget numbers, something we can do that would make sense in denpressure, but not gravity. And no, it can't just be "gravity is obviously fake." Assume both are valid theories, and then make an experiment that would disprove gravity. Seems fair.

Now, I would make this experiment myself (other way round, given I'm on the other side), but it's hard to nail down exactly what denpressure is. I get you don't want to give out numbers, but a clear definition of the terms and systems you use would be helpful. Hell, it might even convince other people it's how the world works, because they'll be able to figure out what it actually is. Win-win for both sides.

First of all you need to do an experiment to show what gravity is and know it to be real before you can even bother to argue against denpressure.

I can put many things out that many of us already know to have a lot to do with atmospheric pressure being displaced by any dense mass but in that argument, someone will say "Oh yes but it can't happen without gravity."

So explain gravity in a way that actually makes sense.

I relented on the subject of any formulas and numbers, at which point everyone else threw in the towel. I asked only for an experiment. Then Scepti tells me, in nicer words, you first. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91652.msg2401192#msg2401192

And I provide the post from earlier about the Cavendish experiment. We've come full circle, and I've yet to see Scepti give a straight answer to any question except Newton, in which I had to search the site for the post they said "debunked Newton's laws of motion" (it didn't, see the post to do with human anatomy) because they, as is seemingly a pattern, refused to elaborate.

Is the Cavendish experiment flawed? Yes. It absolutely could be improved. But at least gravity tried, unlike denpressure. Also, it measures gravity, not Earth's density. That's just something you can do once you know what gravity is.

Is this AR material? Yeah, probably. But is Scepti engaging in debate? Is dodging around questions like "May I have any form of proof" debate? No. No it aint. You're the mod, you make the decisions, but I'm fascinated to see where you get your definition of debate, and what it is, if this counts. (That sounds sarcastic, it isn't. I'm actually interested in hearing all sides.)

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

The bouncing off each other is not what you think. It's vibration and compr5ession against each other and the frequency of it.

I was pondering through experiment ideas with placing a lead block on a balance scale in a sealed chamber, suck out the atmosphere, and take the system to temperatures where all gasses would be a liquid.  No atmosphere on the block and scale.  Approaching absolute zero where vibration would approach zero.

First of all there is no suck to gain a low pressure.
It's all a push against wider atmospheric pressure (environment) to allow the atmosphere to naturally expand from the container and be compressed into the atmospheric environment.

I'm also not sure what you're trying to get at with a balance scale and one lead block.
Maybe you can make this a bit more clearer just so I can get an idea of what you're trying to vision.

By the way.  You can achieve zero atmospheric gas pressure with drawing off the gas out of the chamber then refrigerating the whole thing below temps an atmosphere would exist, and weight is still going to be dominated by gravity. 

Be clearer in what you're offering.

Anyway…

Then it came to me how delusional den-pressure is.

In the real world outside your delusion where modeling and accurate predictability occurs.

There is the lowly vertical hanging spring scale with a metal spring.  Hang a 10 lbs (pounds as mass where gravity is exerting a force on the mass.
 Why an elevator has to do work rated in horse power to pull cars from a more dense atmosphere into less dense atmosphere) foam block with less density from the hook of the spring that has more density.  The scale spring will extend downward in accordance with Hooke’s law and gravity.  I would dare even say directionality.

Another model that works and produces predictable and useable results. 
In your delusion.  Some how the less dense atmosphere is pushing the foam block into more dense atmosphere causing the steel spring that is more dense than the foam block to be pulled down by the less dense foam block.  Again, from less dense atmosphere into more dense atmosphere.

Honestly I'm trying to work out what you're offering. It seems a mish mash of stuff.
Can you be simple and specific in what you're saying?

With you having no explanation why den-pressure can’t use density as a force to make things fall sideways.

Den-pressure is nonsensical.

Things can't fall sideways if the wind comes into play because that's simply high and low pressures creating waves through the pressures.

Be more specific.

Given I asked for this and got the run around, I'm hoping this gets an actual response. Just because Scepti doens't like the Cavendish experiment doesn't mean they can say "Nuh-uh." They need to come up with an experiment that proves Denpressure, and explain why it proves it. Something we can measure, and not like the appl experiment, in which they claim there's a difference, just not noticable or measurable. You have proven nothing if you just belive really hard that the apple falls at a different rate.

Ok then, I'll use the Cavendish experiment as my proof of denpressure, seeing as you seem to be able to without having a clue as to why what you see happens on an absolutely time-consuming and delicate effort of mass on a pivot, yet are convinced it's the gravity of which you also do not have a clue.
Now can you be honest about it from your own reasoning without appealing to any authority?

Is the Cavendish experiment flawed? Yes. It absolutely could be improved. But at least gravity tried, unlike denpressure.

What do you mean, at least gravity tried?
What happened was, someone offered up an experiment and simply said, there you go, gravity did that.
You accepted it as the better argument, like many. Why?

Because it's much easier to argue based on what is deemed as an authority and especially a majority adherence to it.

Also, it measures gravity, not Earth's density. That's just something you can do once you know what gravity is.

But you do not know what gravity is. You're told what it does. You're told mass attracts mass and that's that.
It's not even an argument, it's just a saying because in reality, we do not see what's on offer but because things can be picked up and dropped it suddenly becomes this gravity.
It's nonsense.

Is this AR material? Yeah, probably. But is Scepti engaging in debate?

Why is it angry ranting material?
Is it so you can offer better swearing techniques without punishment if it's put there?

Is dodging around questions like "May I have any form of proof" debate? No. No it aint.

Debate is a strange thing when one side has a majority audience against an almost lone wolf trying to argue against ready-made offerings off the shelf.

But let's make this plain and simple.
If you don't think this is a debate then you obviously think there's no need to question the basic modus operandi of mainstream ideals concerning the supposed global spin and all the rest of the add-in that goes with it, including this gravity story.
If that's the case with you then debate will never be accepted. It'll simply be you're right and anyone who has anything to say contrary to that is not engaging in debate and is somehow engaging in angry ranting or maybe complete nonsense.
So by going down this route and assuming you would get your own way, you win the day and basically shut out any opposition to what you were indoctrinated into and accept as the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, with a basic pretence of wanting to hear both sides of a story, to do what? To ridicule or to wish it demoted to the trash bin because it suits you.

I'm not quite sure about you.

You're the mod, you make the decisions, but I'm fascinated to see where you get your definition of debate, and what it is, if this counts. (That sounds sarcastic, it isn't. I'm actually interested in hearing all sides.)

You certainly don't appear to be interested in hearing all sides to make decisions.
I think you're swayed by the majority of arguments from global believers which outnumber those arguing against it on this forum, who have everything tailor-made to their needs via internet perusing and books and such, offering all the ammo they require to immediately fire back against anything or anyone who may offer a counter-argument.

This is not a bad dig at you as such but it does make me think you have different motives than the ones you seem to offer. You certainly don't appear to want to be unbiased so you're going to struggle a bit to actually take in counter-arguments that don't suit the modus operandi.

Ok then, I'll use the Cavendish experiment as my proof of denpressure, seeing as you seem to be able to without having a clue as to why what you see happens on an absolutely time-consuming and delicate effort of mass on a pivot, yet are convinced it's the gravity of which you also do not have a clue.
Now can you be honest about it from your own reasoning without appealing to any authority?

Can you be honest for once?
That isn't how proof works. You don't just get to claim an experiment is proof of your nonsense and leave it at that.
You need to explain how your model produces the result.
For gravity it is fairly direct.
Gravity is an attractive force between masses. This means there will be an attractive force between the mass on the rod and the mass not on the rod. This results in a torque on the rod, causing it to rotate.

How does your model work to explain the rotation of the rod towards the mass?

The cavendish experiment is known to have several flaws. It doesn't do what it intends to do - measure the density of the earth. It is very difficult to even do this measuring in the first place using this experiment. Its extremely sensitive to outside forces. The effect of temperature can alter the results. The effect of air density can affect it. The effect of the imperfection of the lead spheres. Assuming the earth is round, the effect of the rotation is also not accounted for.

Its a horrible experiment.

Those aren't flaws, they are variables to be accounted for and controlled as well as possible.  No experiment is ever perfect and they are subject to some degree of error, but that doesn't mean they don't do what they set out to do.  It just means that experimental error exists and needs to be factored in.

The set up is very sensitive, but Cavendish did a decent job of controlling variables and got pretty close to the results we see under far more controlled conditions.

Quote from: Magicalus on April 26, 2023, 06:25:14 PM

Is the Cavendish experiment flawed? Yes. It absolutely could be improved. But at least gravity tried, unlike denpressure.

What do you mean, at least gravity tried?
What happened was, someone offered up an experiment and simply said, there you go, gravity did that.
You accepted it as the better argument, like many. Why?

Because it's much easier to argue based on what is deemed as an authority and especially a majority adherence to it.

Or maybe because of the evidence? 

The experiment wasn't to determine whether gravity exists.  We see the effects of gravity elsewhere.  It was to measure the gravitational constant (or at the time determine the mass of the earth).

Quote from: Magicalus

Also, it measures gravity, not Earth's density. That's just something you can do once you know what gravity is.

But you do not know what gravity is. You're told what it does. You're told mass attracts mass and that's that.
It's not even an argument, it's just a saying because in reality, we do not see what's on offer but because things can be picked up and dropped it suddenly becomes this gravity.
It's nonsense.

It also explains the motion of all the bodies in the solar system and beyond.  It's a fundamental part of mechanics, which works, unlike your ideas which do not.

As for exactly why mass attracts mass, that is still a bit of an open question.  But we don't need to know exactly how it works to see the effect.

But isn't this supposed about the experiments you have done to demonstrate denpressure?  Here's one you could do- if things fall because of "atmospheric stacking", what happens when you remove the air from a chamber?  Do objects fall faster or slower in high vacuum?  Should be slower, right?

[
First of all there is no suck to gain a low pressure.
It's all a push against wider atmospheric pressure (environment) to allow the atmosphere to naturally expand from the container and be compressed into the atmospheric environment.

Meaningless word salad for you can’t explain why the “high press” at sea level isn’t venting/equalizing with the lower pressure of higher atmosphere. 

Gravity explains thus.

As for more “specific”

What’s your experiment to prove den-pressure.

How many hours of posting to you have?



256 days over users spent on this one form.

Post after post.  Hour after hour.

And you can’t explain how denpressure works to utilize Hooke’s Law to make a spring scale work.

You can’t explain why the high pressure at sea level doesn’t equalize with the lower pressure as described by gas laws, gravity does. 

  Here's one you could do- if things fall because of "atmospheric stacking", what happens when you remove the air from a chamber?  Do objects fall faster or slower in high vacuum?  Should be slower, right?

I would think in denpressure things of different density in a vacuum would fall at different rates too?

And there should be a scale/chart of velocity vs pressure



I think this video has been pointed out to sceptimatic before.

Brian Cox visits the world's biggest vacuum | Human Universe - BBC

And why would things reach terminal velocity in denpressure?  Shouldn’t things continue to accelerate as more of the atmospheric pressure works on it as a falling object reaches higher pressures at sea level? 

But you do not know what gravity is.

Gravity is a fundamental force that gives items on earth weight.  The force applied to an object with mass pulled towards the center of the earth.

Now.  What keeps the high atmospheric pressure at sea level, what keeps this high pressure from equalizing with the lower pressure in the upper atmosphere as outlined by the gas laws.  Gravity explains this.


Your statement seems very hypocritical and you oblivious to the gas laws.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 10:35:17 PM

Ok then, I'll use the Cavendish experiment as my proof of denpressure, seeing as you seem to be able to without having a clue as to why what you see happens on an absolutely time-consuming and delicate effort of mass on a pivot, yet are convinced it's the gravity of which you also do not have a clue.
Now can you be honest about it from your own reasoning without appealing to any authority?

Can you be honest for once?
That isn't how proof works. You don't just get to claim an experiment is proof of your nonsense and leave it at that.

I said as my proof, to me.
But, you are absolutely correct, it isn't a proof to you and is just an acceptance for me based on how I see the workings of it.
But this becomes the point.
You offer no proof of gravity by using it, so you be honest about that.

You need to explain how your model produces the result.

I did explain but it was rejected and also called delusional by you and your fellow globalists, which is fine but I did explain it regardless.

For gravity it is fairly direct.
Gravity is an attractive force between masses. This means there will be an attractive force between the mass on the rod and the mass not on the rod. This results in a torque on the rod, causing it to rotate.

There's no real explanation at all for gravity in what you're saying.
Why does mass attract mass and what does attraction actually mean in terms of how things come together from distance?

How does your model work to explain the rotation of the rod towards the mass?

Atmospheric pressure fluctuations due to vibrational frequencies cause expansion and resultant compression of molecules.

The experiment wasn't to determine whether gravity exists.  We see the effects of gravity elsewhere.  It was to measure the gravitational constant (or at the time determine the mass of the earth).

And how exactly did it do that?

It also explains the motion of all the bodies in the solar system and beyond.  It's a fundamental part of mechanics, which works, unlike your ideas which do not.

Or it explains something else entirely.

As for exactly why mass attracts mass, that is still a bit of an open question.

Of course it is. It's still an open question because there's no answer to it because it does not exist and is made up for the exact reasons to create fictional space stories as above and so on and to also keep a rotating globe alive in the minds of those who get indoctrinated into this stuff and by siding with majority go for the easy ride.

 But we don't need to know exactly how it works to see the effect.

And what effect are you actually seeing to assume it works?

But isn't this supposed about the experiments you have done to demonstrate denpressure?

It doesn't matter what I do. If you want to find stuff out then think and try stuff for yourself. Or if you don't then don't waste too much of your time on what I think.

  Here's one you could do- if things fall because of "atmospheric stacking", what happens when you remove the air from a chamber?  Do objects fall faster or slower in high vacuum?  Should be slower, right?

First of all evacuating atmosphere from a container still leaves a pressure in that container that will create a pushback onto any dense mass within and displace that atmosphere.
Also, you need to elevate a dense mass inside the container and then release it.

And, the dense mass itself only requires enough compressive force to overcome what is below along with its own dense mass displacement and then the lower pressure atmosphere above is also a lower pressure atmosphere below which means much less resistance, which means a bigger acceleration back to the foundation.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 10:31:09 PM

[
First of all there is no suck to gain a low pressure.
It's all a push against wider atmospheric pressure (environment) to allow the atmosphere to naturally expand from the container and be compressed into the atmospheric environment.

Meaningless word salad for you can’t explain why the “high press” at sea level isn’t venting/equalizing with the lower pressure of higher atmosphere. 

This is where it helps if you pay full attention to what I've been saying and you wouldn't need to waste too much time doing this.

It doesn't vent because it's at its limit of molecular breakdown and at that point, it freezes. It goes dormant.
It stacks.
It does not pressurise like in a gas bottle encased in metal.

Try and get your head around that and then it could help you understand.

As for more “specific”

What’s your experiment to prove den-pressure.

How many hours of posting to you have?



256 days over users spent on this one form.

Post after post.  Hour after hour.

You're getting yourself into a bit of a tizzy over me.
Try not to worry about how much time I spend typing or actually being logged in and not typing.
I'm merely giving you a bit of advice.
If you want to keep trawling through everything then at least do it to find out explanations I already gave and it'll save you asking and then trying to use posting time as some kind of dig.
Feel free to do it by all means but don't try and picture me sitting back in shock when you try this stuff.

And you can’t explain how denpressure works to utilize Hooke’s Law to make a spring scale work.

I explained it perfectly well. It's just that you can't seem to correlate any of it, which is not my issue.

You can’t explain why the high pressure at sea level doesn’t equalize with the lower pressure as described by gas laws, gravity does.

It can never equalise. It can get close at certain layer batches but that's about it.
Place a lower-pressure layer of molecules into a higher-pressure layer and you have to use energy to do so, in order to displace that layer but you can't leave off the energy or the higher-pressure layer will simply squeeze the lower-pressure layer back above it.
You can get a much better idea of this if you use different variations of solid matter like sand and salt and, well, all stuff like that.
Then put them in a jar and vibrate the jar and see the layers form into their respective densities and displacement of each other.

It's simple stuff that many will overlook and use gravity as a reason for it, even in a jar.
It's a bit silly but mass indoctrination into this stuff will always create a siege mentality against any argument to it.

And why would things reach terminal velocity in denpressure?  Shouldn’t things continue to accelerate as more of the atmospheric pressure works on it as a falling object reaches higher pressures at sea level?

There is never a true terminal velocity.

I said as my proof,

You mean like measuring a value for gravity that results in accurate modeling using gravity.  That is used successfully in engineering and physics.

While…..

You can’t provide an experiment that proves den-pressure.

You can’t explain how den-pressure works with Hooke’s laws to make less dense material like a foam block make a more dense steel spring stretch down in a vertical spring scale.  And how less dense atmosphere can make the spring go down using a foam block into more dense atmosphere.  Why less dense atmosphere would push anything down in to more dense a restrictive atmosphere.

You can’t explain in the outlines of gas laws why in a zero gravity earth delusion why there is more pressure at sea level, and why this greater pressure doesn’t equalize into less pressure at altitude.

From vacuum chambers to pressurized chambers, you can’t show that changes in pressure drives the weight of an object, and that changes in pressure drive the rates objects fall. You have failed to show a correlation between changes in pressure, weight,  and acceleration of falling objects.


You have failed in a world of airlocks how density can make things / force things to fall sideways.

In a world where the changes in sea water density for whole hundreds of feet of depth are negligible, you have failed to explain the lack of density layering in the ocean. (Especially there being great increases in pressure with essential no changes in density) And failed to explain why there is no predictable modeling derived from your nonsense about the atmosphere that predicts the pressure increases in ocean’s water column.

You failed to explain what happens to weight at absolute zero where “vibrations” stop.

You can’t even use you den-pressure in any useful way.  Your model can’t even approach the accuracy achieved in entry level physics for a simple ball drop.

.

It doesn't vent because it's at its limit of molecular breakdown and at that point, it freezes. It goes dormant.

Meaningless word salad with you having no explanation why the “high” pressure at sea level is magical kept in check by less dense upper atmosphere, and why it doesn’t follow in your delusion established gas laws to equalize pressure.

With no evidence your delusion occurs in gas bottles.

It can never equalise.

Sorry.  It happens with pressure all the time in gas bottles. As defined by gas laws.  Which is what your domed flat earth should at like. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 10:59:44 PM

But you do not know what gravity is.

Gravity is a fundamental force that gives items on earth weight.

Man-made scales offer a measurement of dense mass against atmospheric pressure using the moving scale as a resistant spring foundation whilst the scale entirety rests on a solid foundation.

When I ask what force is gravity it cannot be answered as a force except to say it's fundamental.
It's meaningless.

  The force applied to an object with mass pulled towards the center of the earth.

It means nothing.
Nobody has a clue what the centre of the Earth is. It's all storytelling and guesswork.
But seeing as we're arguing points, then what is it at the centre of Earth that supposedly pulls everything towards it?

Feel free to duck this or tell me you refuse to answer and I'll ask someone else. But remember, you really need to answer if you want to climb the higher podium in your mind.

Now.  What keeps the high atmospheric pressure at sea level,

All the layered molecules in the stacking system above which the lower molecules must resist both ways. Use a foundation to resist the above and so on and so on all the way up into less and less pressure based on fewer layers to resist as the stack rises.

Reference all this so you don't feel the need to keep asking.

what keeps this high pressure from equalizing with the lower pressure in the upper atmosphere as outlined by the gas laws.

Compressive force due to the amount of molecular layer of different densities above.

  Gravity explains this.

Gravity explains absolutely nothing.

Your statement seems very hypocritical and you oblivious to the gas laws.

Give me a gas law and explain what's happening.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 27, 2023, 05:18:29 AM

It can never equalise.

Sorry.  It happens with pressure all the time in gas bottles. As defined by gas laws.  Which is what your domed flat earth should at like.

It can never equalise.
the reason why we exist and everything else does is basically because everything does not equalise. It can come close but close is not equalisation.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 11:17:09 PM

In a way you're right but layers of equal molecular density will also become ever so slightly less with each stack and that's based on the end of the horizontally stacked line actually losing individual molecular layers.
Basically just like the layering vertically offering more pressure with each horizontal layer towards the centre of the dome, it becomes less towards the outer along the horizontal.

If that was the case we would observe a quite substantial pressure gradient across the dome.

We do.

But that is ignoring the point, the atmosphere high up has the same molecular make up as the atmosphere down low, with the exception of the number of molecules.

To a certain height, yes.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 11:17:09 PM

You can't have it both ways.

You are the one trying trying to have it both ways, with the air magically pushing up or down as needed.
I just have the air push up, so I don't need to have it both ways.

A push up will only happpen if energy is applied.

All the layered molecules in the stacking system above which the lower molecules must resist both ways. Use a foundation to resist the above and so on and so on all the way up into less and less pressure based on fewer layers to resist as the stack rises.

Still a word salad that doesn’t explain how a less dense / less pressured atmosphere keeps pressure bottled up at sea level and magical keeps the high pressure equalizing up into the areas of less pressure.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on April 27, 2023, 05:29:08 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 27, 2023, 05:18:29 AM

It can never equalise.

Sorry.  It happens with pressure all the time in gas bottles. As defined by gas laws.  Which is what your domed flat earth should at like.

It can never equalise.
the reason why we exist and everything else does is basically because everything does not equalise. It can come close but close is not equalisation.

With your statement being a lie.

Ideal Gas Law: Total Pressure of Two Flasks

In your zero gravity earth delusion, a less pressure gas can act like a barrier, and stop the more pressured gas from equalizing between two gas bottles connected by a tube?

Your delusion is stupid.

And not reflected in Hooke’s Law, Gas laws, Bernoulli's principle, Newton physics, principles of hydraulics.  All which create useable and accurate modeling and engineering that your den-pressure can’t even approach.

Compressive force due to the amount of molecular layer of different densities above.

Hmmmm

Osmosis and Diffusion


Diffusion in liquids and gases
The molecules that make up gases move more quickly than the molecules in liquids, and so the diffusion that takes place in liquids is slightly slower. But, the process is the same. Molecules randomly move from an area where they are most concentrated, to areas of lesser concentration. This is what is meant by the term concentration gradient - since molecules move from an area of high, to an area of low concentration, they are said to move down a concentration gradient.

https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/nmp/sonet/rlos/science/osmosis/page2.html

The reason den-pressure is FUCKING useless, it totally ignores how natural phenomena actually act. 

In other words.  In your zero gravity earth delusion, there can be no “compression” until the gas pressure is equalized up into the less dense and less pressured atmosphere. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on April 27, 2023, 02:05:43 AM

The experiment wasn't to determine whether gravity exists.  We see the effects of gravity elsewhere.  It was to measure the gravitational constant (or at the time determine the mass of the earth).

And how exactly did it do that?

Look it up yourself. 

Quote from: Unconvinced

It also explains the motion of all the bodies in the solar system and beyond.  It's a fundamental part of mechanics, which works, unlike your ideas which do not.

Or it explains something else entirely.

Nothing answer.  It makes testable predictions that compare extremely well to observations.  So the equations work.

Quote from: Unconvinced

As for exactly why mass attracts mass, that is still a bit of an open question.

Of course it is. It's still an open question because there's no answer to it because it does not exist and is made up for the exact reasons to create fictional space stories as above and so on and to also keep a rotating globe alive in the minds of those who get indoctrinated into this stuff and by siding with majority go for the easy ride.

That’s just a rant.  The fact is we haven’t worked out everything, but not knowing everything doesn’t mean we know nothing.  The effects of gravity are very very well known.

Quote from: Unconvinced

 But we don't need to know exactly how it works to see the effect.

And what effect are you actually seeing to assume it works?

Things falling, things having weight, buoyancy, gravity being equivalent to acceleration, orbits, trajectories, tides, etc, etc. 

Quote from: Unconvinced

But isn't this supposed about the experiments you have done to demonstrate denpressure?

It doesn't matter what I do. If you want to find stuff out then think and try stuff for yourself. Or if you don't then don't waste too much of your time on what I think.

I’ve done engineering work including gas systems and high vacuum chambers, thanks.  The equations we use, based on regular science work.  But my own efforts are utterly insignificant as their are literally millions of other people successfully using this stuff.

You on the on hand tell people that all this is wrong and that you have a better answer, yet you have apparently done absolutely nothing to test your ideas.  They exist entirely in your head.

Quote from: Unconvinced

  Here's one you could do- if things fall because of "atmospheric stacking", what happens when you remove the air from a chamber?  Do objects fall faster or slower in high vacuum?  Should be slower, right?

First of all evacuating atmosphere from a container still leaves a pressure in that container that will create a pushback onto any dense mass within and displace that atmosphere.
Also, you need to elevate a dense mass inside the container and then release it.

And, the dense mass itself only requires enough compressive force to overcome what is below along with its own dense mass displacement and then the lower pressure atmosphere above is also a lower pressure atmosphere below which means much less resistance, which means a bigger acceleration back to the foundation.

So faster?  Really?

First of all evacuating atmosphere from a container still leaves a pressure in that container that will create a pushback onto any dense mass within and displace that atmosphere.

Huh.

Funny.

This is how a Bourdon Tube Pressure Gauge works

Bourdon Tube Pressure Gauge Working Principle Animation

https://instrumentationtools.com/bourdon-tube-pressure-gauge-working-principle-animation/amp/

It is basically consisted of a C-shaped hollow tube, whose one end is fixed and connected to the pressure tapping, the other end free, as shown in fig. The cross section of the tube is elliptical.




When pressure is applied, the elliptical tube (Bourdon tube) tries to acquire a circular cross section; as a result, stress is developed and the tube tries to straighten up. Thus the free end of the tube moves up, depending on magnitude of pressure. A deflecting and indicating mechanism is attached to the free end that rotates the pointer and indicates the Pressure reading. The materials used are commonly Phosphor Bronze, Brass and Beryllium Copper.

So.  Let get this straight.   As the number of gas molecules are removed from a chamber equipped with a Bourdon Tube Pressure Gauge, the ability for the atmosphere to physically extend the Bourdon Tube is diminished.  The c shape of the tube physically contracts.

But in your den-pressure delusion where less atmospheric pressure in a container makes a Bourdon Tube “contact” and deflect the gauge to show less pressure.  Somehow will magically make things read the same weight, and have no change in weight in relationship to pressure changes.  But the same pressure change has less force to deform the Bourdon Tube, changes the shape of the Bourdon Tube so it can indicate the pressure change.


Den-pressure is bullshit. 


Note. Added.  And you can take the whole system and refrigerate it to temps approaching absolute zero to turn all gases to liquids….

In your zero gravity earth delusion, a less pressure gas can act like a barrier, and stop the more pressured gas from equalizing between two gas bottles connected by a tube?

No, not at all. Haven't you been taking any notice of what I said?

Your delusion is stupid.
And not reflected in Hooke’s Law, Gas laws, Bernoulli's principle, Newton physics, principles of hydraulics.  All which create useable and accurate modeling and engineering that your den-pressure can’t even approach.

And yet I'm still waiting for you to simply explain how it works due to this gravity you stand by.
I would like you to simply explain it without copying and pasting something.

If you can't do this then you have no argument.