Is it me or is it these people who are basically put out to muddy the waters?
It is you.
You find something which doesn't match your fantasy, so you dismiss it as a lie, a massive conspiracy.
That so-called vacuum chamber is nothing of the sort.
Why? Because you don't like it?
Or are you yet again wanting to play your semantic games of its not actually a perfect vacuum?
We're all scientific if we are looking to evaluate life and happenings within this home we call Earth.
Being scientific would require honestly and following the evidence. So that doesn't match you at all.
When it all comes down to it there's so much we actually don't know the real truth of but there is also so much pretence of science that is and can be far from the truth and this is where we're at right now.
No, where we are at is you hating so much of science because it doesn't match your fantasy, so you dismiss it as lies or pretence; where you dismiss any evidence to support it, and cannot offer any viable alternative or show any fault with the model.
Nothing has contradicted me, unless you want to offer something.
Plenty has been offered, including your own model.
At perhaps the most basic level from reality, we know how air pressure works. It pushes from high to low pressure. This means the air pushes objects up, not down.
One of the most basic tenants of your model is contradicted by simple observations from reality.
It's only wrong when gravity is used.
Which means your model is wrong.
We do not need to use gravity to make an observation that the pressure is greater lower down, which will push objects up.
Gravity only comes into it if we want to explain the pressure gradient and why things fall.
But again, this shows the big issue with you, you reject gravity, solely because it is gravity.
There are millions and millions of experiments with physics and many people do an exceptional job with the use of experimentation and gaining knowledge of the uses of gases, liquids and solids and so on and so on.
I have zero issues with people like that and in fact, I absolutely admire them.
Except that their work shows your claims are delusional garbage and that the atmosphere acts nothing like what you claim.
Gas pressure can push an object up and can push objects along horizontally.
However, energy has to be applied.
The pressurised gas is a source of energy. As it pushes and expands it transfers energy.
Because that's what happens with a mass that has had energy applied to raise it into the atmosphere.
And the question you refuse to answer is WHY?
Why does lifting it up mean it goes down?
Why doesn't moving it to the right mean it goes back to the left?
Why doesn't moving it down make it go back up?
Why does the atmosphere magically just push things down in complete defiance of the known laws of gases?
The dense mass must overcome the atmosphere directly below it but it cannot just do that
This depends on what the mass and volume of the object is.
If the object is dense enough, then the force from gravity certainly can.
But you want to pretend gravity doesn't exist, and instead it is just the air.
So where is it getting the force from to overcome the pressure below?
It CANNOT be the air above, as that is less pressure.
It CANNOT be "compression", as that pushes inwards, not downwards.
Again, you have no answer. The best you get is appealing to the mass of the object, as if the object itself will magically try to go down.
It's that compression that squeezes the object back to the foundation that is more dense than it. Usually liquid or a solid, or basically water or solid/near solid ground. And so on.
Compression squeezes objects inwards, not downwards.
And why should it magically push the object down until it hits a foundation that is more dense? Why not just keep pushing it?
Also, understand that friction alone kills gravity because your gravity has to rely on no friction.
For this reason, you can never have your gravity as a supposed constant.
Why? Because you say so?
We can reduce friction so it is negligible.
But regardless, additional forces acting doesn't mean gravity magically stops existing.
The only aspect which relies upon no or negligible friction is all objects accelerating at the same rate.
So no, friction doesn't kill gravity in any way.
Conversely your delusional garbage required directly defying the known laws of how gases work.
So conversely, denpressure is DOA.
Until you can explain several of the gaping holes in denpressure, it will remain garbage.
You need to tell us what magic causes the atmosphere to stack and create a pressure gradient.
You need to tell us what magic causes objects to be pushed down (again, we know it can't be the atmosphere because the greater pressure below will push objects up).
To you, no, and to many others, no. But to me, It does not require a fictional gravity.
You believe it does because you were told so.
Stop repeating the same pathetic lies.
We know that the pressure gradient requires a downwards force acting on the fluid, independent of the fluid, and proportional to mass; because that is what observations show.
In order for the pressure to increase as you go down, you need a force in addition to the force from above pushing down.
This means there must be something acting directly on that layer of fluid itself other than the fluid around it.
Without such a force, the pressure is constant.
And as the pressure gradient is proportional to the density of the fluid, that force needs to be proportional to mass.
That leaves 2 options, a force like gravity, or an inertial force from Earth accelerating upwards.
As the downwards force varies across Earth, Earth accelerating upwards is not enough.
So that is why we think it requires very real gravity. Because that is what the evidence shows. You can claim it isn't gravity, but you still need some downwards force proportional to mass.
I'm not replacing gravity.
You are trying to replace gravity, and failing miserably.
Gravity explains why things fall, and you are trying to replace that.
You thinking it is fictional doesn't mean you aren't trying to replace it.
I'm simply offering what I believe is a closer reality.
And the problem is that it is clearly further away from reality.