Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

First of all don't offer me space as your argument.

That wasn't space, that was the vomit comet.

As for the liquids. I'm not sure what you're getting at. How about explaining instead of just throwing up a few videos or copying and pasting which you regularly do?
You keep putting up topics about denpressure so put some effort in from you to understand it or don't bother putting up topics and expecting to get answers without being clear.

How about you follow your own advice.
Instead of putting up a picture of a bunch of layers, you try explaining what is causing this layering?
As for what they are getting at, the fact that in free fall, these layers don't form.
There isn't some magical layering that occurs. You need something to cause it.

Then it's not a vacuum.
Call it lower pressure.

NO! I will use the accepted English word for it VACUUM!
If you don't like, and don't want to converse in English, then stop pretending to.

The simple end result is, you can create lower pressure by molecular breakdown but you can never create free space. And that's the key.

That isn't the key, that is your delusional BS claim you cannot justify at all.

Quote from: JackBlack

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 10, 2023, 09:11:19 AM

Now imagine a line of original gobstopper/molecules and then you offer another line on top with one layer missing.

Why?
What is causing the top to have a layer missing?

Energy/friction/vibration and frequencies.

That doesn't answer the question at all.
That also applies to the bottom.
Why is the TOP having a layer missing?

But this is what's happening all of the time. It's friction/vibration and frequencies of it all that keep molecules moving into each other by peeling and recompressing/decompressing layers.

So there is no need to appeal to the top at all.
Instead it is jut some molecules have less layers.

So no stacking of layers of different density.

The compression of the molecules themselves.

Causes them to push outwards, not in any particular direction.
So still no explanation of stacking.

The original.

And this is where you claim fails again
You have a molecule with lots of layers.
You then have a layer break off and get crushed up, because it is less dense, but the resulting part left over, with this less dense layer removed, is also less dense.
This makes no sense.

Consider your gobstopper like a steel ball covered in cork. I can break it down by removing the cork layer, separating the less dense part from the more dense part, with the steel ball by itself more dense than the gobstopper.

Scepti, here's a dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/ Use it.

A small drop for some things does not offer any accurate end product and the bowling ball and the feather in a supposed big evacuation chamber are utter nonsense to me so I wouldn't waste too much energy trying to force that upon me..

Alright, so tell me if I've got this right: you don't believe in gravity, rather believing in denpressure, a model which makes things like a vacuum chamber impossible. Now, upon being presented with a vacuum chamber, you claim it doesn't exist. Upon seeing a video of something that could only happen in a vacuum chamber, you say it doesn't make sense to you, so don't argue about it.

Wow, that sounds pretty close minded. Weird how the moment something happens that denpressure doesn't work with, it's all of a sudden something not worth arguing about.

Consider your gobstopper like a steel ball covered in cork. I can break it down by removing the cork layer, separating the less dense part from the more dense part, with the steel ball by itself more dense than the gobstopper.

You still don't get it.

Scepti, here's a dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/ Use it.

I'm absolutely fine with what I use.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 10, 2023, 10:35:38 PM

A small drop for some things does not offer any accurate end product and the bowling ball and the feather in a supposed big evacuation chamber are utter nonsense to me so I wouldn't waste too much energy trying to force that upon me..

Alright, so tell me if I've got this right: you don't believe in gravity, rather believing in denpressure, a model which makes things like a vacuum chamber impossible.

Correct.

Now, upon being presented with a vacuum chamber, you claim it doesn't exist.

As a vacuum chamber, yes. As a chamber to allow for lower pressure then I'm fine with it.

Upon seeing a video of something that could only happen in a vacuum chamber, you say it doesn't make sense to you, so don't argue about it.

A vacuum chamber is never going to be a real thing. It cannot exist.
Now people can argue that a vacuum is close to nothing but not nothing but that is just as senseless.
Low pressure in a chamber is fine. That's all it will ever allow.

Wow, that sounds pretty close minded.

Of course it's closed mind. It's because gravity is utter nonsense and I absolutely know that.

Weird how the moment something happens that denpressure doesn't work with, it's all of a sudden something not worth arguing about.

There's nothing put forward that discounts denpressure. It works and I haven't seen one thing that discounts it but so much that discounts fictional gravity.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2023, 01:39:49 AM

Consider your gobstopper like a steel ball covered in cork. I can break it down by removing the cork layer, separating the less dense part from the more dense part, with the steel ball by itself more dense than the gobstopper.

You still don't get it.

Come up with that experiment to prove den pressure.  It is the topic of this thread…

the wrold exists = proof

you're not dealing with someone speaking english

the wrold exists = proof

you're not dealing with someone speaking english

I can see that but never mind.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2023, 08:19:40 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2023, 01:39:49 AM

Consider your gobstopper like a steel ball covered in cork. I can break it down by removing the cork layer, separating the less dense part from the more dense part, with the steel ball by itself more dense than the gobstopper.

You still don't get it.

Come up with that experiment to prove den pressure.  It is the topic of this thread…

All experiments prove it so pick some out and figure it out.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 11, 2023, 08:37:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2023, 08:19:40 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2023, 01:39:49 AM

Consider your gobstopper like a steel ball covered in cork. I can break it down by removing the cork layer, separating the less dense part from the more dense part, with the steel ball by itself more dense than the gobstopper.

You still don't get it.

Come up with that experiment to prove den pressure.  It is the topic of this thread…

All experiments prove it so pick some out and figure it out.

Really..

Liquids in near-Zero G



Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'


How is taking a ride on a vomit comet or a rocket to simulate micro gravity “space”. 

You still don't get it.

I don't get it, or I recognise why it is nonsense?

You still can't explain it.

You still don't have any explanation for why things stack.
In your attempt to, you responded in a manner which indicates there should be no stacking with lower density higher up.

So why do things stack?
Can you actually explain it, or can you just appeal to a stack magically existing without cause?

As a vacuum chamber, yes.

Again, if you don't want to speak English, stop pretending to.

Of course it's closed mind. It's because gravity is utter nonsense and I absolutely know that.

You most certainly are close minded, but you most certainly do NOT know that.
You foolishly believe that; even though you cannot demonstrate any fault with gravity, nor are you capable of providing a variable alternative.
Instead, all you are capable of doing is baselessly asserting that your magic magically works even though it directly defines the known laws of physics, including plenty you could easily verify yourself with simple experiments, including some you have even appealed to.

There's nothing put forward that discounts denpressure. It works and I haven't seen one thing that discounts it but so much that discounts fictional gravity.

And more delusional BS.
Plenty has been put forward that discounts your delusional garbage and you just ignore it.
You are yet to provide a single example of anything that discounts the very real gravity that you hate.

Again, the most simplest is the pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
The pressure is greater the lower down you are.
This means the air pressure pushes things up, not down.
So denpressure fails right from the start.

Another simple example is the fundamentally different behaviour of solids liquids and gases, which is entirely inexplicable in your fantasy, but is explained entirely with mainstream which uses free space and pulling forces, both of which you hate, as they both link up to the RE HC model which you hate.

All experiments prove it so pick some out and figure it out.

Nothing proves it, and you know it.
That is why you refuse to provide an experiment, because you know that anything you provide will rely upon gravity or otherwise already entirely explained by mainstream science, without any need for your delusional BS.
Again, in order to prove your delusional BS, you would need to have an experiment which gives one result in your fantasy and another result based upon mainstream science, and then actually conduct the experiment and get your result.
This is yet to happen.
Instead, there are plenty of simple experiments which your delusional BS should give a different result, and that result is not observed in reality.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2023, 10:40:00 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 11, 2023, 08:37:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2023, 08:19:40 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2023, 01:39:49 AM

Consider your gobstopper like a steel ball covered in cork. I can break it down by removing the cork layer, separating the less dense part from the more dense part, with the steel ball by itself more dense than the gobstopper.

You still don't get it.

Come up with that experiment to prove den pressure.  It is the topic of this thread…

All experiments prove it so pick some out and figure it out.

Really..

Liquids in near-Zero G



Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'


How is taking a ride on a vomit comet or a rocket to simulate micro gravity “space”.

What are you trying to argue?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2023, 08:19:40 AM

You still don't get it.

I don't get it, or I recognise why it is nonsense?

You don't get it. It's fairly clear that you don't by the way you try to argue against it.

You still can't explain it.

You still don't have any explanation for why things stack.
In your attempt to, you responded in a manner which indicates there should be no stacking with lower density higher up.
So why do things stack?
Can you actually explain it, or can you just appeal to a stack magically existing without cause?

I have explained but I have no con trol over those who want to ignore the explanations by putting up their global shield.
That's not my issue and people are free to do as they wish and I'm ok with that.
So I understand why you can't grasp it.

Again, the most simplest is the pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
The pressure is greater the lower down you are.
This means the air pressure pushes things up, not down.
So denpressure fails right from the start.

It fails for you because you have very little clue as to how it works and after all this time I'd have thought you would've grasped a better insight but to be fair I think the severe global mindset does not allow you to delve.

Another simple example is the fundamentally different behaviour of solids liquids and gases, which is entirely inexplicable in your fantasy, but is explained entirely with mainstream which uses free space and pulling forces, both of which you hate, as they both link up to the RE HC model which you hate.

I explained.
It's up to you what you take from it all and you can dismiss it as I would expect but I still explained regardless of how many times you'll tell me I haven't..

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 11, 2023, 11:44:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2023, 10:40:00 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 11, 2023, 08:37:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2023, 08:19:40 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2023, 01:39:49 AM

Consider your gobstopper like a steel ball covered in cork. I can break it down by removing the cork layer, separating the less dense part from the more dense part, with the steel ball by itself more dense than the gobstopper.

You still don't get it.

Come up with that experiment to prove den pressure.  It is the topic of this thread…

All experiments prove it so pick some out and figure it out.

Really..

Liquids in near-Zero G



Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'


How is taking a ride on a vomit comet or a rocket to simulate micro gravity “space”.

What are you trying to argue?

As shown by experiments, it takes gravity to do this.

As shown by experiments, it takes gravity to do this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 10, 2023, 05:40:22 AM

You're getting weaker by the second.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 12, 2023, 02:36:36 AM

As shown by experiments, it takes gravity to do this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 10, 2023, 05:40:22 AM

You're getting weaker by the second.

Then why do these liquids mix?

Liquids in near-Zero G



Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2023, 03:13:51 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 12, 2023, 02:36:36 AM

As shown by experiments, it takes gravity to do this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 10, 2023, 05:40:22 AM

You're getting weaker by the second.

Then why do these liquids mix?

Liquids in near-Zero G



Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'

DiahoreaOverFlow, should this thread read, Experiment ideas to disprove denpressure? Every scientific experiment does.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 12, 2023, 04:15:45 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2023, 03:13:51 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 12, 2023, 02:36:36 AM

As shown by experiments, it takes gravity to do this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 10, 2023, 05:40:22 AM

You're getting weaker by the second.

Then why do these liquids mix?

Liquids in near-Zero G



Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'

DiahoreaOverFlow, should this thread read, Experiment ideas to disprove denpressure? Every scientific experiment does.

None does.

None does.

Then why are the liquids of different densities mixing in simulated micro gravity? 

Why do the feather and bowling ball drop at the same rate?



How do molecular sieves work?  How can a specific molecular sieve work to remove CO2 for example in a process with pressure swings? 

What are you trying to argue?

That fluids don't just magically go into layers. Instead you need certain forces acting on them to cause it.

You don't get it. It's fairly clear that you don't by the way you try to argue against it.

Pure BS.
The fact I can repeatedly show contradictions with you being entirely incapable of refuting any argument against it demonstrates that I do get it, and I understand it is nonsense which doesn't work to explain reality at all.

I have explained

No, you haven't.
You either just assert that you have explained it, or you just appeal to existence of a stack, either directly, or by analogy.
You NEVER explain what is causing to stack.

The fact that you need to continually resort to insulting me and claiming I don't get it and claiming that you have explained it demonstrates quite well that you CANNOT explain it.

So I understand why you can't grasp it.

Because you have no explanation at all, because the explanation for why the atmosphere "stacks" relies upon gravity?
Again, I grasp it quite well, and recognise why it is BS.

It fails for you because you have very little clue as to how it works

Again, pure BS.
It fails for me because I understand how gases work and understand that your claims are pure BS.

Again, it truly is quite simple, an object in the air has the air pushing from all around. The pressure gradient in the atmosphere means the pressure is greater below, so the air pushes up.

It truly is that simple.
You are yet to provide any justification for why it should be magically different.

And all your pathetic attempts to pretend it should entirely fail because they work equally well for a solid lead ball and a helium filled balloon.
With the sole exception of you implicitly appealing to gravity by appealing to the mass of the object as if it should cause it to go down.

after all this time I'd have thought you would've grasped a better insight but to be fair I think the severe global mindset does not allow you to delve.

No, the issue is your delusional BS doesn't work.
You have no explanation.
I have grasped all your claims, and recognise why they are BS.

Stop insulting me, and start trying to justify your BS.

I explained.

No, you didn't.
You just asserted that there can be no free space.
You were entirely incapable of explaining why liquids and gases behave so differently.

Again, if you wish to disagree, then stop with the pathetic insults and baseless assertions, and start explaining.

Explain why the atmosphere stacks.
That means an actual causal explanation.
Just appealing to the fact that it is stacked is not an explanation for why it is stacked.
Likewise, appealing to an example of liquids that are stacked is not an explanation either.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2023, 08:38:40 AM

None does.

Then why are the liquids of different densities mixing in simulated micro gravity? 

What do you mean by mixing?
I see compressive force by the expansion of the atmosphere within the tube which pushes the liquids away and forces them into another area.
I don't see any fictional micro gravity needing to be involved in any of it..

Why do the feather and bowling ball drop at the same rate?

They don't and you can keep using this gunk for as long as you wish but it's still gunk.

How do molecular sieves work?  How can a specific molecular sieve work to remove CO2 for example in a process with pressure swings?

What do you mean by pressure swings?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2023, 10:57:47 PM

What are you trying to argue?

That fluids don't just magically go into layers. Instead you need certain forces acting on them to cause it.

Of course. It's called the dense mass molecular makeup of each that resists the lesser dense molecular makeup and so on and so on and so on.

Of course. It's called the dense mass molecular makeup of each that resists the lesser dense molecular makeup and so on and so on and so on.

Of course, the DENSE MASS, attracted to Earth by a force proportional to mass, i.e. GRAVITY.

Otherwise, you are still at square 1 with no explanation of what is causing them to form layers.

What reason is there for them to form layers?

Jumping back to your analogy, you have water and oil in a bottle, and you have shaken it up. Why should they form layers?

Quote from: JackBlack on May 12, 2023, 05:09:48 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2023, 10:57:47 PM

What are you trying to argue?

That fluids don't just magically go into layers. Instead you need certain forces acting on them to cause it.

Of course. It's called the dense mass molecular makeup of each that resists the lesser dense molecular makeup and so on and so on and so on.

Can you explain why this happens in your theory? Can you explain why dense mass molecular makeup resists lesser dense molecular makeup in your theory?

I don't see much resistance between varying molecular structures in the ingredients I combine to make a cake or make a milkshake.

What do you mean by mixing?
I see compressive force by the expansion of the atmosphere within the tube which pushes the liquids away and forces them into another area.
I don't see any fictional micro gravity needing to be involved in any of it..

In the video of the ground base rocket.

On the way up.  The rocket expelled all its fuel.  The rocket slows, then before it reaches its peak height.  The liquids mix before the rocket’s parachute opens.





On the way up.

Tube on the left.  Water green under oil.  Tube right on the right blue water under air.

Until burnout.

The graph on the left is altitude of the rocket vs time in video.

The liquids are sealed tight as in no liquid is spilling out.






After burnout rocket slows.  Effectively in micro gravity.  The right tube with the rocket nose still pointed up slowing down, why is more dense water above the air? 

The left tube. Water and oil start to mix.  Still forward momentum.  Nose pointed up.







Peak of altitude or apogee.  Nose up towards sky. Before parachute deployment.  The rocket is in simulated micro G.

The water and oil (green and clear liquids) mixed.

The water and air (the blue liquid in the right tube) still has water above air.

How are the densities of the different liquids getting all mixed up after fuel burnout, still with forward momentum to zero momentum, and the rocket nose pointed upwards?


There are two different sealed containers, so how is there “expansion of the atmosphere within the tube”?

They don't and you can keep using this gunk for as long as you wish but it's still gunk.

The reality is feathers, coins, bowling balls with air resistance removed drop at the same rate.  That is demonstrable reality.

What do you mean by pressure swings?

For my air separation example that uses refrigeration to make liquid nitrogen and liquid oxygen.  CO2 breakthrough in the refrigeration process would make CO2 ice and plug up the system.


Molecular sieve is used to capture CO2. 

Molecular sieve has pores of a specific size that captures CO2 and allows diatomic oxygen and diatomic nitrogen to pass.

Molecular sieve works because CO2 molecules don’t change size with pressure.

The molecular sieve will work if the system is running at 10 pounds or 60 pounds of pressure.  It will continue to capture CO2 and pass N2 and O2. 

If the process is running at 60 psi, then air loads shift in the process and pressure drops to 40 psi.  The molecular sieve still captures CO2 and passes N2 and O2.

It’s does this because CO2 has a different molecular size than O2 and N2.  And their sizes don’t change with swings in pressures/pressure changes.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 12, 2023, 05:09:48 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2023, 10:57:47 PM

What are you trying to argue?

That fluids don't just magically go into layers. Instead you need certain forces acting on them to cause it.

Of course. It's called the dense mass molecular makeup of each that resists the lesser dense molecular makeup and so on and so on and so on.

What is dense mass?
A crushed sponge?

Of course, the DENSE MASS, attracted to Earth by a force proportional to mass, i.e. GRAVITY.

Dense mass isn't attracted, there's no such thing. It's all push on push or push against resistance to push. A dense mass is simply a force and resistance of another dense mass. As simple as that and in no way any gravity fiction is required.

Otherwise, you are still at square 1 with no explanation of what is causing them to form layers.

What reason is there for them to form layers?

Their dense mass make-up of molecules.

Jumping back to your analogy, you have water and oil in a bottle, and you have shaken it up. Why should they form layers?

Molecular density of each being different.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 13, 2023, 03:38:08 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 12, 2023, 05:09:48 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2023, 10:57:47 PM

What are you trying to argue?

That fluids don't just magically go into layers. Instead you need certain forces acting on them to cause it.

Of course. It's called the dense mass molecular makeup of each that resists the lesser dense molecular makeup and so on and so on and so on.

Can you explain why this happens in your theory? Can you explain why dense mass molecular makeup resists lesser dense molecular makeup in your theory?

I don't see much resistance between varying molecular structures in the ingredients I combine to make a cake or make a milkshake.

You're using a force to scatter all the varying ingredients of differing dense masses so immediately your own force/energy offers nothing for a realistic layering. But try leaving them and see what happens.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 13, 2023, 03:36:51 AM

In the video of the ground base rocket.

On the way up.  The rocket expelled all its fuel.  The rocket slows, then before it reaches its peak height.  The liquids mix before the rocket’s parachute opens.


On the way up.

Tube on the left.  Water green under oil.  Tube right on the right blue water under air.

Until burnout.

The graph on the left is altitude of the rocket vs time in video.

The liquids are sealed tight as in no liquid is spilling out.



After burnout rocket slows.  Effectively in micro gravity.  The right tube with the rocket nose still pointed up slowing down, why is more dense water above the air? 

The left tube. Water and oil start to mix.  Still forward momentum.  Nose pointed up.





Peak of altitude or apogee.  Nose up towards sky. Before parachute deployment.  The rocket is in simulated micro G.

The water and oil (green and clear liquids) mixed.

The water and air (the blue liquid in the right tube) still has water above air.

How are the densities of the different liquids getting all mixed up after fuel burnout, still with forward momentum to zero momentum, and the rocket nose pointed upwards?


There are two different sealed containers, so how is there “expansion of the atmosphere within the tube”?

Because the actual rocket has elevated into a much higher layering of atmosphere and that causes a change in all of the molecules in all of the liquids and gases, expanding them or allowing expansion.
This expansion enacts a force on a denser liquid against the atmosphere within caused by less atmospheric layering external to it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 13, 2023, 03:36:51 AM

They don't and you can keep using this gunk for as long as you wish but it's still gunk.

The reality is feathers, coins, bowling balls with air resistance removed drop at the same rate.  That is demonstrable reality.

The reality is it appears that some things fall at the same rate but it's simply not the case.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 13, 2023, 03:36:51 AM

What do you mean by pressure swings?

For my air separation example that uses refrigeration to make liquid nitrogen and liquid oxygen.  CO2 breakthrough in the refrigeration process would make CO2 ice and plug up the system.


Molecular sieve is used to capture CO2. 

Molecular sieve has pores of a specific size that captures CO2 and allows diatomic oxygen and diatomic nitrogen to pass.

Molecular sieve works because CO2 molecules don’t change size with pressure.

The molecular sieve will work if the system is running at 10 pounds or 60 pounds of pressure.  It will continue to capture CO2 and pass N2 and O2. 
If the process is running at 60 psi, then air loads shift in the process and pressure drops to 40 psi.  The molecular sieve still captures CO2 and passes N2 and O2.

It’s does this because CO2 has a different molecular size than O2 and N2.  And their sizes don’t change with swings in pressures/pressure changes.

I already told you about different sizes and you denied it and said all molecules were the same size.
Now you're offering set broken down molecules into different gases as being fairly uniform.
I'm not arguing against that and you're offering nothing to back up anything on your part. It backs up my thoughts all the way but you can't or won't see that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 13, 2023, 03:38:08 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 12, 2023, 05:09:48 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2023, 10:57:47 PM

What are you trying to argue?

That fluids don't just magically go into layers. Instead you need certain forces acting on them to cause it.

Of course. It's called the dense mass molecular makeup of each that resists the lesser dense molecular makeup and so on and so on and so on.

What is dense mass?
A crushed sponge?

Any packed mass.

Dense mass isn't attracted

Then stop appealing to dense mass like it explains things.
Instead, appeal to the air pushing it.

Their dense mass make-up of molecules.

Again, unless you are appealing to gravity, this does not explain it.
Why should dense mass cause them to make layers?

Molecular density of each being different.

Again, this explains nothing.
Why should their density being different make them form layers?
Why don't they just stay mixed?
If they are going to form layers, why do the dense ones go to the bottom, instead of the top or the side or the middle?

Because the actual rocket has elevated into a much higher layering of atmosphere and that causes a change in all of the molecules in all of the liquids and gases, expanding them or allowing expansion.

If this was the case it should have happened while it was still ascending, rather than waiting till it enters a 0g state.

I already told you about different sizes and you denied it and said all molecules were the same size.

Stop repeating the same strawman.
You faseley claim the molecules of all gases magically change size, expanding and contracting as necessary. If that was the case molecular sieves wouldn't work.
They work because each molecule has their own size.
For example, CO2 is much larger than N2 and O2, so O2 and N2 can easily make it through pores of a certain size while CO2 can't.
If your nonsense was true, then CO2 would be able to get squeezed through.

It backs up my thoughts all the way but you can't or won't see that.

It directly contradicts your fantasy, just like so much of reality. You just refuse to accept that, because you want to pretend your fantasy is true.