Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

The ball drop exercise and no indication the atmosphere acts like a piston got me thinking about true fluid power.  And air is a fluid.
In hydraulics.  You can have a hydraulic jack at 10,000 psi.  But if the fluid doesn’t actually cause the output piston to move, the system doesn’t actually cause motion.  A hydraulic jack can be at a static state.  Until…. The output piston will not move until an input piston moves to cause a displacement of fluid that moves the output piston. 

It's called compression by applied energy.

The atmosphere to cause a ball to fall straight down must literally act like a moving piston to push the ball down in den pressure.

Or it acts like a spring mattress above your head pushing into a spring mattress above that and anotehr above that and so on and your energy is dissipated between them all with the one directly above you taking the brunt of the initial force as you see the indentation and the one above that will create more of a resistance until one of the mattresses acts as a full barrier.
This is when the reaction comes into force and the spring back occurs.

Now that is a massively crude analogy and if you can't grasp it and want to believe I'm saying the atmosphere is really mattresses then I can't help you. 
 

Example.  Drop a ball in a sealed container.  It still falls down despite the static atmosphere with no downward flow of gasses to transport the object down.

First of all you are holding a dense mass and stopping it from being allowed to overcome the lower resistance to it.
It's like the above. It's you holding that up against the mattresses at that point. Those mattresses are ready to spring back against the ball but your force and energy are preventing that spring.
Once you release it it then gets pushed against the resistant mattresses below and all of the mattresses above keep reacting as the ball goes through. It overcomes another and that mattress crashes back into the other and so on and so on until something denser stops the ball which is generally solid ground.

If energy can't move in and out, then it's not a closed system. And those systems vent nothing. And air conditioner is moving energy between two points in the closed system before releasing it, same for a heat pump and a fridge. The fan, if there even is one, is just to get that energy (or lack of energy) to disperse and have an effect faster. The closed system there is one of refrigerant, not one of air.

When your fridge does its job without the aid of external atmospheric pressure then you can claim it as a closed system.
But you know it can't work without it.

No, that's not a hypothetical. We have names for these situations. That's how we define words. An open system allows transfer of mass and energy.

All systems are open to transfer energy

 A closed system allows for transfer of energy, but not of mass.

There can never be a closed system.

 An isolated system allows for no transfer of mass or energy (and isn't necessarily a vacuum.

An isolated system is just another version of hypotheticals.

 After all, the universe ain't infinite, so it's one big isolated system, however big you think it is.)

It depends on what you think the universe is.
If its just what you're told then you're going on that and nothing else.

Enough with the word-fuckery. Just use dictionary definitions, please. Same for denpressure. Make up some new words, and actually TELL PEOPLE WHAT YOU MEAN. Wasting three days because you refuse to reveal how you define the word density is inane.

You are not forced to take part.
You can deal with what I say or don't. I'm fine either way.

Alright, gravity time. It's not really a force. Einstein's theory of general relativity explains it like a bowling ball on a mattress, except the mattress is also 3 dimensional.

Yes, so basically gravity is a nonsense that offers warped space which is basically just a skew on the reality of atmospheric pressure being warped by any dense mass placed into it.

Funny that, isn't it?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 08:40:06 AM

Radiation exists everywhere.
Just not nuclear.

If radiation is everywhere, why wouldn't we harness that power?

We do.

 A nuclear power plant is just a steam engine with a funky heat source, and a some extra valves and tanks for safety.

A power plant is exactly that. A steam engine turning turbines. Or a hydroelectric dam and turbines. Or a wind turbine. Or even hydrogen power.

Nuclear? Nahhhhhhhh.

When your fridge does its job without the aid of external atmospheric pressure then you can claim it as a closed system.
But you know it can't work without it.

Perhaps you're referring to a different context:

A closed system is a natural physical system that does not allow transfer of matter in or out of the system, although – in the contexts of physics, chemistry, engineering, etc. – the transfer of energy (e.g. as work or heat) is allowed.

Energy transfer is allowed in a closed system in the context of diferent disciplines.

As well, the guys and gals over at Maytag state that their refrigerators are closed systems...

Refrigerators vent heat out of the appliance in order to keep your food fresh. Refrigerators use a closed system that relies on refrigerant traveling in coils throughout the fridge. Refrigerant separates hot and cold air by absorbing the heat and carrying it away from the refrigerator's contents.

I'm guessing that Maytag knows a thing or two more about the physics, chemistry, & engineering of their fridges than you do. Unless of course you design and build your own.

Or it acts like a spring mattress above your head pushing

Really.



Because that is not what is going on with the dropped ball.  Nothing is pushing the ball down.  It’s gravity pulling the ball down.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

Pumping from vacuum
Fluid Handling

Pumping liquids from a tank with a negative pressure or even with (high) vacuum is not an easy task. The only driving force that still exists to get the liquid into the pump is gravity. In such cases, the so-called NPSHa (“net positive suction head available”) is usually very low. Then it is extremely important that the pump has an even lower NPSHr (net positive suction head required).

https://en.suurmond.com/products/pumping-from-vacuum/

Low pressure allows more dense liquid to overcome it.

We are taking about why the liquid isn’t being draw up in to the vacuum void above, but able to flow into the pump. It’s because of gravity. 

And why the pump has to have a volume of liquid higher than the pump.  Vs why the pump in this situation can’t be above the liquid level, and a suction run down into the liquid.

It depends on the height when dropped.

Again. 

No.

A steel ball and a ping pong ball dropping at the same rate.



With you providing no evidence of a correlation with density.

Just your endless word salad.

The difference in density between a coin and feather are extreme.

Take away air resistance and make it negligible.  They drop at the same rates.



The difference in the rate they drop is the zero, where in the den-pressure model it should be obvious and extreme from the start. 

And, again.

You can’t explain why things fall faster in a vacuum.

You can’t explain why a feather and coin would drop at the same rate.

You can’t model even a simple dropped ball with you BS with the accuracy achieved with modeling gravity in physics 101. 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 02, 2023, 06:40:20 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 05:19:43 AM

They're fictional.

From the troll that never worked around a reactor, never had to map out radiation hotspots in piping, never had to do radiation surveys, never had to wear a radiation dosimeter, and never had to read personnel dosimeters.

Radiation exists everywhere.
Just not nuclear.

Except that an active fission reactor makes more radiation and heat than when it’s shutdown.  And the running reactor can activate certain materials in a nuclear plant.  Items not radioactive during construction, but emit above background radiation after being exposed to the forms of radiation produced by a running reactor.

LONG-LIVED ACTIVATION PRODUCTS
1.2.1 Scope of Problem
Long-lived activation products are defined i n t h i s context as any radio- nuclide product of a half-life greater than 5.3 years which can be produced in sensible quantities in a nuclear reactor by the bombardment of neutrons or gamma ra s upon a suitable target material. The choice of 5.3 years, the half- l i f e of "Co, i s somewhat arbitrary. It i s based on the expectation that on a time scale of a few years, 6oCo w i l l be of dominant importance.

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6776358

Why hot spot surveys have to be done, to track what builds up and becomes activated over the years.  For controlling materials and personnel exposure. 

Nothing defines a closed system or and isolated system, except hypotheticals..

i.e. you don't like how it doesn't match your delusional garbage, so you dismiss it, and try to discard reality.
You hate it so much, you can't even bring yourself to provide a coherent definition.

In your condenser effort, it's a simple case of requiring the atmosphere to create the energy

And there you have failed.
A closed system prohibits MASS transfer, not ENERGY transfer.
But even that is wrong.
We don't need the atmosphere to create energy. Steam engines using that because it is simple doesn't mean it is the only way.
Is this why you hate nuclear power so much? Because it doesn't rely upon combustion, so you can't pretend it needs the atmosphere?
Don't worry, we have solar power as well, where energy from the sun is transferred via radiative processes, which can be converted into electrical power to move things. No need for the atmosphere there either. So are solar panels fake as well?

You cannot transfer heat if you do not have an external atmosphere.

Yes we can. You can dump the heat into other things, or radiate it away. It doesn't need to go into an atmosphere.

It renders your closed system, not closed.

No, it would render the closed system not isolated. It would still be closed.

Does it have a fan?

Notice how you are deflecting away from the issue?
Your claim was that the atmosphere does EVERYTHING.
Yet here is a simple example where it doesn't.
Instead a closed system is used to transfer heat from a CPU to a heatsink, using a working fluid.
That working fluid is not vented to the atmosphere, yet is perfectly capable of transferring heat.

If it was only the atmosphere that did it, that cooling system would not work at all.

Think about what they do and why they transfer heat.

Follow your own advice.
Recognise how they are transferring heat through them. You have conduction of heat through solid metal. Notice how energy is being transferred, WITHOUT AIR!

No molecular movement means no transfer. It's really simple.

And molecular movement doesn't mean it needs the air.

Repeatedly asserting it must be the atmosphere with no explanation of justification is just as pathetic as continually asserting Earth is flat with no justification or explanation.
It doesn't matter how many you repeat the same pathetic lie, it wont make it true. It just shows your desperation.

Because everything is attached.

Back to the same old delusional BS which you still can't justiify.
There is plenty of free space. You not liking that will not change it one bit.

If you want to honestly claim there is no free space, then you need to explain all the observations which clearly demonstrate there is, or provide a rational justification, based upon evidence and logical thought, as to why there can't be free space.

Again, your pathetic assertions just demonstrate your desperation and dishonesty.

yes.

So just straight out lies, wonderful.
Ice in the form of a table has the same molecular makeup as ice in the form of a chair.
There is no difference between the molecules.
They are simple H2O molecules in a latice.

No venting while still under energy will blow it apart.

Only if it overcomes the yield stress of the material.
It is entirely possible to make a pressure cooker which does not.
It would be more appropriate to use in an oven than with a direct heat source.
In fact, a system quite comparable is used in synthesis, and in cleaning procedures.

Again, your pathetic wilful rejection of reality just shows your desperation.

You see how silly it all is.

I see how silly your desperation is. Especially with you clinging to a pressure cooker, which is not made to do work in the thermodynamic sense. Instead it is made to raise the boiling point of water to cook food differently than if it was open to the atmosphere.
It is also silly how you continue down this path of wilful rejection of reality, just repeating your same pathetic, baseless assertions, while avoiding the much bigger issues of why things fall.

The dome is a natural stacking system that everything else vents into.

So what you are saying is that your dome is a closed system which does not vent into some external atmosphere, demonstrating your claim is pure BS?

It's far from dishonesty.

Again, it is extreme dishonesty or extreme delusion. Take your pick.

Atmospheric pressure always plays the part of resistance all ways and gravity is never required unless fantasy needs to be used.

Gravity is needed if you want to explain why it falls.
Without it, you just have the air pushing up, and none of the objects dropped should fall.

And if it was just the air, which magically produces a downwards force proportional to mass, then all objects should fall at the same rate, without the air slowing them down.

Or it acts like a spring mattress above your head pushing into a spring mattress above that and anotehr above that and so on and your energy is dissipated between them all with the one directly above you taking the brunt of the initial force as you see the indentation and the one above that will create more of a resistance until one of the mattresses acts as a full barrier.
This is when the reaction comes into force and the spring back occurs.

You have had this delusional garbage refuted countless times. Why keep bringing it up?

Take a helium filled balloon and push it up, according to your delusional garbage it should be pushed back down.
Take and object and push it to the right, according to your delusional garbage it should be pushed back to the left.
Take and object and push it down, according to your delusional garbage it should be pushed back up.

We can even do this, by getting a tube, sealed at one end with an object which creates an air tight seal around it. In such a tube, the atmosphere pushes back, regardless of direction.

The atmosphere is NOT acting as a spring.

But that is not the action-reaction pair.

The action-reaction pair is I push an object, it pushes back to oppose me pushing it.

It's called compression by applied energy.

Funny.  If I have a n air filled ballon in a box isolated from wind and such.  For air to move the ballon left. The atmosphere must have a left current.  The atmosphere must actually move left, or displace to the left.  Same for the right.  If I want the air ballon to move up, I must have an actual updraft of moving air. 

Your own example of a different of pressure moving a diaphragm.  Or even the mattress with moving springs.  Your using examples of things being displaced or moved.

Yet.  Somehow with no downward current in a static atmosphere you think a fluid can push/convey the same air filled ballon down with no movement. 

It depends on the height when dropped.

Care to actually share one of your first hand experiences and reproduce this experiment with balls of different densities…





I’m guessing not.  You would rather muddy the waters with BS than do actual experiments. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 09:15:50 AM

When your fridge does its job without the aid of external atmospheric pressure then you can claim it as a closed system.
But you know it can't work without it.

Perhaps you're referring to a different context:

A closed system is a natural physical system that does not allow transfer of matter in or out of the system, although – in the contexts of physics, chemistry, engineering, etc. – the transfer of energy (e.g. as work or heat) is allowed.

Energy transfer is allowed in a closed system in the context of diferent disciplines.

As well, the guys and gals over at Maytag state that their refrigerators are closed systems...

Refrigerators vent heat out of the appliance in order to keep your food fresh. Refrigerators use a closed system that relies on refrigerant traveling in coils throughout the fridge. Refrigerant separates hot and cold air by absorbing the heat and carrying it away from the refrigerator's contents.

I'm guessing that Maytag knows a thing or two more about the physics, chemistry, & engineering of their fridges than you do. Unless of course you design and build your own.

The system is never closed. It requires external atmospheric pressure in order to work.
There's no getting away from that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 09:01:49 AM

Or it acts like a spring mattress above your head pushing

Really.



Because that is not what is going on with the dropped ball.  Nothing is pushing the ball down.  It’s gravity pulling the ball down.

You tell me that so many times and yet you offer nothing for gravity.
I used a mattress analogy as just another simple way of showing people, including you.

Quote from: sceptimatic link=topic=91690.msg2402076#m

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

Pumping from vacuum
Fluid Handling

Pumping liquids from a tank with a negative pressure or even with (high) vacuum is not an easy task. The only driving force that still exists to get the liquid into the pump is gravity. In such cases, the so-called NPSHa (“net positive suction head available”) is usually very low. Then it is extremely important that the pump has an even lower NPSHr (net positive suction head required).

https://en.suurmond.com/products/pumping-from-vacuum/

Low pressure allows more dense liquid to overcome it.

We are taking about why the liquid isn’t being draw up in to the vacuum void above, but able to flow into the pump. It’s because of gravity. 

And why the pump has to have a volume of liquid higher than the pump.  Vs why the pump in this situation can’t be above the liquid level, and a suction run down into the liquid.

A pump merely pushes liquids into a lower pressure which offers less resistance to it.
What's the issue?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 08:39:23 AM

It depends on the height when dropped.

Again. 

No.

A steel ball and a ping pong ball dropping at the same rate.



With you providing no evidence of a correlation with density.

Just your endless word salad.

The difference in density between a coin and feather are extreme.

Take away air resistance and make it negligible.  They drop at the same rates.



The difference in the rate they drop is the zero, where in the den-pressure model it should be obvious and extreme from the start. 

And, again.

You can’t explain why things fall faster in a vacuum.

You can’t explain why a feather and coin would drop at the same rate.

You can’t model even a simple dropped ball with you BS with the accuracy achieved with modeling gravity in physics 101.

You can put this up as many times as you think you need to but the answer is always the same.
They do not fall at the same rate.


In a lower resistance to dense mass, objects will fall faster but objects of different dense mass will never fall at the same rate if both are similar shape.

It's air resistance and it's really as simple as that. It's all that's required.

Except that an active fission reactor makes more radiation and heat than when it’s shutdown.  And the running reactor can activate certain materials in a nuclear plant.  Items not radioactive during construction, but emit above background radiation after being exposed to the forms of radiation produced by a running reactor.

Quote

LONG-LIVED ACTIVATION PRODUCTS
1.2.1 Scope of Problem
Long-lived activation products are defined i n t h i s context as any radio- nuclide product of a half-life greater than 5.3 years which can be produced in sensible quantities in a nuclear reactor by the bombardment of neutrons or gamma ra s upon a suitable target material. The choice of 5.3 years, the half- l i f e of "Co, i s somewhat arbitrary. It i s based on the expectation that on a time scale of a few years, 6oCo w i l l be of dominant importance.

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6776358

Why hot spot surveys have to be done, to track what builds up and becomes activated over the years.  For controlling materials and personnel exposure.

There are lots of reactions in life. Lots of radiation in the atmosphere via many reactions, including the major central energy emitter (sun) and so on from it.

What there isn't, is fictional nuclear fissioning metal pellets inside a water boiler.
Something much simpler is going on but that's just my opinion.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 08:30:16 AM

In your condenser effort, it's a simple case of requiring the atmosphere to create the energy

And there you have failed.
A closed system prohibits MASS transfer, not ENERGY transfer.

If heat is lost to the atmosphere then energy is transferred. It's really as simple as that.
I have no clue what you mean by mass transfer unless you mean it takes a mass to aid in the transfer which is obvious because all mass has to transfer to another mass.

But even that is wrong.
We don't need the atmosphere to create energy.

That bright sun in the sky is a creation of energy and that is reflected energy back through the atmosphere in a cycle.
The atmosphere is always at the forefront of it or nothing works.

Steam engines using that because it is simple doesn't mean it is the only way.

There is a variety of ways to use steam but they all boils down to (get it?....pun intended) venting back to the atmosphere via expansion, compression, and expansion and compression. It's a little atmospheric fight of energy and resistant forces to it.

Is this why you hate nuclear power so much? Because it doesn't rely upon combustion, so you can't pretend it needs the atmosphere?

Not at all. I can't hate what I don't believe in.

Don't worry, we have solar power as well, where energy from the sun is transferred via radiative processes, which can be converted into electrical power to move things. No need for the atmosphere there either. So are solar panels fake as well?

I have no issues with solar power. It still requires the medium of atmosphere in order to work, unless you want to offer fake space vacuums and a 93 million-mile fictional ball of fire as a reasoning.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 08:30:16 AM

You cannot transfer heat if you do not have an external atmosphere.

Yes we can. You can dump the heat into other things, or radiate it away. It doesn't need to go into an atmosphere.

Dump the heat where?
Radiate it where?
Have a good think.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 08:30:16 AM

Does it have a fan?

Notice how you are deflecting away from the issue?
Your claim was that the atmosphere does EVERYTHING.

My claim stands.
I'm not deflecting anything.

Yet here is a simple example where it doesn't.
Instead a closed system is used to transfer heat from a CPU to a heatsink, using a working fluid.
That working fluid is not vented to the atmosphere, yet is perfectly capable of transferring heat.

If it was only the atmosphere that did it, that cooling system would not work at all.

It transfers heat because of a fan and also atmospheric pressure via vibration/friction or expansion.
That's why it can cool and still work.
It all has to do with external venting.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 08:30:16 AM

Think about what they do and why they transfer heat.

Follow your own advice.
Recognise how they are transferring heat through them. You have conduction of heat through solid metal. Notice how energy is being transferred, WITHOUT AIR!

Energy is transferred through the atmosphere.
It's transferred by expansion crating compression. It's why is can dissipate.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 08:30:16 AM

No molecular movement means no transfer. It's really simple.

And molecular movement doesn't mean it needs the air.

Molecular movement is all part of the overall atmosphere. Everything is attached. No free space.

Repeatedly asserting it must be the atmosphere with no explanation of justification is just as pathetic as continually asserting Earth is flat with no justification or explanation.
It doesn't matter how many you repeat the same pathetic lie, it wont make it true. It just shows your desperation.

It's been well explained but your not wanting to acknowledge it is not my issue.

If you want to honestly claim there is no free space, then you need to explain all the observations which clearly demonstrate there is, or provide a rational justification, based upon evidence and logical thought, as to why there can't be free space.

There are no observations for free space. Unless you think an empty room is a free space. And if so, I can't help you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 08:30:16 AM

No venting while still under energy will blow it apart.

Only if it overcomes the yield stress of the material.
It is entirely possible to make a pressure cooker which does not.
It would be more appropriate to use in an oven than with a direct heat source.
In fact, a system quite comparable is used in synthesis, and in cleaning procedures.

You can never make any vessel without using atmosphere in order to make it.
You can never use a vessel without using the atmosphere to transfer energy.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 08:30:16 AM

You see how silly it all is.

I see how silly your desperation is. Especially with you clinging to a pressure cooker, which is not made to do work in the thermodynamic sense. Instead it is made to raise the boiling point of water to cook food differently than if it was open to the atmosphere.

It takes the atmosphere to allow the energy to boil inside the pressure cooker. It also takes the atmosphere to transfer the heat from its walls.
It is always venting.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 08:30:16 AM

The dome is a natural stacking system that everything else vents into.

So what you are saying is that your dome is a closed system which does not vent into some external atmosphere, demonstrating your claim is pure BS?

What is outside of the dome is another argument. It will be something. It will be some kind of molecular mass of some description.
Will this Earth transfer something? Very possible, because I don't think anything is a truly isolated system.

But as it stands we are dealing with the atmosphere we are under and the energy we use to create work.

And if it was just the air, which magically produces a downwards force proportional to mass, then all objects should fall at the same rate, without the air slowing them down.

Explain this downward force proportional to mass, just so I'm clear.
In your own simple words.

Take a helium filled balloon and push it up, according to your delusional garbage it should be pushed back down.

No.
It gets crushed up because the helium is a molecular breakdown of a more dense molecule, meaning it's less dense and cannot overcome the more dense molecules which hold more layers within and so by vibration, it is squeezed to be compressed back to its original form but cannot be so it is squeezed up into a place in the atmosphere where the same molecular make up is. And that's where it stays until some energy transfers to it.

Take an object and push it to the right, according to your delusional garbage it should be pushed back to the left.

Only if you create a barrier to it.
You see if you do it in an open atmosphere then your energy is transferred to the object which pushed/compresses the atmosphere directly in front of it and skims the atmosphere at the sides, above and below.
So basically you compress what's in front and that compression has to be released, which is does, it's pushed to the sides and below and above.
the reaction to that is for that reactionary compression to decompress and crash into the air behind which is always filling the lower pressure created by the higher pressure created by your energetic push.

This crashes back to offer assistance to the push forward meaning your object is easier to push for that very reason.

Take and object and push it down, according to your delusional garbage it should be pushed back up.

And it could if the object you were pushing down was an object made of broken-down molecules, such as the helium balloon, because you are trying to push down into more dense layers and those denser layers are resisting that push, and squeezing back.

Similar to trying to push a football into a bath of water.

We can even do this, by getting a tube, sealed at one end with an object which creates an air tight seal around it. In such a tube, the atmosphere pushes back, regardless of direction.

Because the tube offers only one way major compression, mostly, with little room to decompress against a more dense object.

For instance. If you drop a variety of equal-sized balls of different densities into that tube, assuming they were close to a decent seal against escaping air compression under them then you'd see a massive change in the rate of fall of many.
This is actually a better way to disprove gravity because this offers much better resistance to dense masses.

The atmosphere is NOT acting as a spring.

It actually is.

But that is not the action-reaction pair.
The action-reaction pair is I push an object, it pushes back to oppose me pushing it.

No. The reaction to action is, you push an object and that object resists your push by friction of ground and atmosphere in front and around it.

We will use water once again as an analogy.

Let's assume you're underwater and are pushing a car.
To move that car you know you must push on the car while pushing your feet into the water bed.
Once the car moves you know you are pushing a mass of water out of the way of that car.
You also know you create waves when you do this. You also know when you create a wave it will crash against something and offer resistance.

The resistance is the water crushing back against that wave made by your car push.
The push of the car also left behind a lower pressure created by your push away which is immediately filled creating a pushback behind you, not against you in this scenario.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 09:01:49 AM

It's called compression by applied energy.

Funny.  If I have a n air filled ballon in a box isolated from wind and such.  For air to move the ballon left. The atmosphere must have a left current.  The atmosphere must actually move left, or displace to the left.  Same for the right.  If I want the air ballon to move up, I must have an actual updraft of moving air.

For the balloon to move there must be a change in pressure.
If you offer it to a box then all you're going to have is agitation of molecules of atmosphere around the balloon and also inside of it.
The balloon will likely move about in all kinds of directions, horizontally but its own dense mass displacement of the atmosphere it is in will ensure it resists the above and overcomes the below.
Remember sealing a box does not negate atmospheric movement on and within that box. It still transfers energy by expansion and compression by the agitation of moelcules which will move a balloon about in small amounts.


 

Your own example of a different of pressure moving a diaphragm.  Or even the mattress with moving springs.  Your using examples of things being displaced or moved.

Because any dense mass in the atmosphere is displacing it at all times by that very amount of the object minus the natural volume.

Yet.  Somehow with no downward current in a static atmosphere you think a fluid can push/convey the same air filled ballon down with no movement.

The atmosphere is never static.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 08:39:23 AM

It depends on the height when dropped.

Care to actually share one of your first hand experiences and reproduce this experiment with balls of different densities…





I’m guessing not.  You would rather muddy the waters with BS than do actual experiments.

If this is all you can muster to argue gravity then you have no right to act like you know stuff.

All I ever see you do is offer stuff and never explain what you're offering.

This actually proves denpressure a million times more than it would ever prove a fictional gravity.

But first of all, I'm sure you can tell me how this proves your gravity...right?


You see, an iron ball rolling down a slope to supposedly negate atmospheric resistance.
Not only does it not negate it it actually adds the resistance of the slope itself into the matter.

The higher up you place the ball the more energy is needed in order to do so and the more energy needed to do so means the dense mass offers an equal reaction to that energy applied to overcome the atmosphere it was placed into, meaning the distance to the ground enables the ball to have more time to overcome the atmospheric resistance below as it displaces from the start point of the reaction above.

The end result is more acceleration time to foundation.

No gravity anywhere because gravity is fiction.

I used a mattress analogy as just another simple way of showing people, including you.

You need to use an analogy that uses physical displacement?

That is not how your delusion works. 

And the video of the ball drop in slow motion shows that pressure is not pushing down the ball.  It shows the ball moving through a static atmosphere creating drag and low pressure behind it, creating a swirling wake.

You can put this up as many times as you think you need to but the answer is always the same.

Why, it drives home that for your delusion you have to ignore other people’s experiences.  And you have to ignore proven experiments results.  And it drives home the people with real experiences in physics experiments know you lie. 

The fact you have to ignore documented experiments that many have witnessed or preformed for themselves that when air resistance is made negligible objects of different densities do drop at the same rate.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 08:39:23 AM

It depends on the height when dropped.

Care to actually share one of your documented first hand experiences and reproduce this experiment with balls of different densities…





I’m guessing not.  You would rather muddy the waters with BS than do actual experiments.

If this is all you can muster to argue gravity then you have no right to act like you know stuff.

All I ever see you do is offer stuff and never explain what you're offering.

Changing the subject again.


Why don’t you show with this very simple experiment using the ramp you can model for different densities of balls of the same size using den-pressure to accurately predict changes in travel rates.   And show that balls of different densities do have very different travel rates.

You will not.  Because it’s been proven that when air resistance is made negligible there is no correlation between drop rates and densities.

Real Time) Bowling Ball and Feather Dropped in a Vacuum

I’m working on using a ramp and experiment conducting my own experiment.  If I an actually get around to it, we’ll see. 

But it’s easy to get the material and the ramp can just be a long PVC pipe cut longways in half.

Because you will not do what an actual scientist would do drives home you only have lies and empty words.

The system is never closed. It requires external atmospheric pressure in order to work.
There's no getting away from that.

Until you can justify that entirely baseless claim of yours, it is trivial to get away from.

Again, does your dome require an external atmosphere that it needs to vent from? Or is your dome a closed system?

A pump merely pushes liquids into a lower pressure which offers less resistance to it.
What's the issue?

Well one big issue is the fundamental distinction between a liquid and a gas, which relies upon free space.
If your delusional BS was true, the water should simply expand, and therefore it should touch the pump.

You can put this up as many times as you think you need to but the answer is always the same.
They do not fall at the same rate.

And you can reject reality as many times as you want, it just shows how desperate you are and how little you care for the truth.

What there isn't, is fictional nuclear fissioning metal pellets inside a water boiler.

That's right, because they aren't fictional. They are real.

If heat is lost to the atmosphere then energy is transferred. It's really as simple as that.

Which is NOT mass.
As MASS is not transferred, it is closed. It really is as simple as that.

I have no clue what you mean by mass transfer

The transfer of mass.
Stop playing dumb.

The atmosphere is always at the forefront of it or nothing works.

Repeating the same baseless BS wont help you.
It doesn't need the atmosphere. Instead you just look for pathetic ways to try and tie the atmosphere in, even if it isn't needed at all.

We can transfer energy radiatively through a vacuum. We can transfer it conductively, or convectively through materials other than air.
The atmosphere is not needed.

There is a variety of ways to use steam but they all boils down to (get it?....pun intended) venting back to the atmosphere via expansion, compression, and expansion and compression. It's a little atmospheric fight of energy and resistant forces to it.

Again, repeating the same dishonest BS will not help you.

I can't hate what I don't believe in.

You certainly seem to.

I have no issues with solar power. It still requires the medium of atmosphere in order to work, unless you want to offer fake space vacuums and a 93 million-mile fictional ball of fire as a reasoning.

And more pathetic wilful rejection of reality.
Yet again the evidence demonstrates you are wrong, and you just dismiss it.
I will offer reality, where we can have solar panels in space, getting energy from the sun in the form of photons.
It doesn't need the atmosphere.

Dump the heat where?
Radiate it where?
Have a good think.

Again, follow your own advice.
Try to actually think honestly, rather than just pathetic excuses you can use to try and pretend your delusional BS is correct.

We can dump into so many things it isn't funny. Like water. The air is not the only option.
We can radiate it away in the form of photons. Those photons carry the energy away. They don't need to go into anything to do that.

My claim stands.

Your claim is completely and utterly destroyed.
You claimed the air is the only way.
If that dishonest BS was true, then a liquid cooling system WOULD NOT WORK!
The fact that liquid cooling systems are used so widely and DO WORK, demonstrates that the atmosphere is NOT needed to transfer heat.
It shows your claim is pure BS.

But instead of facing this reality, you deflect away to try and find some fragment of air in the system.

It is just like your dishonest BS regarding a pulling force.
You can't explain how the force is transferred when it needs a pull, so you dishonestly and desperately search for any push in the system to deflect to that to pretend you have solved everything.

So yes, you are deflecting, just like you do pretty much all the time.

This entire line of BS of yours is just a pathetic deflection from your complete inability to explain how the air magically pushes things down in direct defiance of the observable pressure gradient.

It just shows how little you care about reality, how dishonest you are willing to be, and how desperate you are.

Molecular movement is all part of the overall atmosphere. Everything is attached. No free space.

No, it isn't.
Stop just repeating the same dishonest, delusional BS.
Try justifying your garbage.

It's been well explained but your not wanting to acknowledge it is not my issue.

No, it hasn't, because you have no explanation.
Every pathetic excuse you have provided has been refuted.
Your complete inability to explain your delusional BS is YOUR issue, not my issue.

There are no observations for free space.

Wilful ignorance will not save you. Appealing to pathetic strawmen will not save you.
The evidence for free space has been given to you countless times. And you have failed to explain how it works without free space.

Again, the simplest is the drastically different properties and behaviour of liquids and gases.

never

Again, repeating the same pathetic assertions just demonstrates your desperation. Either justify your BS or stop repeating the claims.

isolated

We are not talking about isolated systems. We are talking about closed systems. They are fundamentally different.
Do you want to update your delusional BS, accept that there can be closed systems and instead claim there are no isolated systems?

No.

Yes. Dismissing an objection to your BS, without even attempting to address what has been said will not help you.

You claim that the atmosphere is acting like a spring, then it shouldn't matter what you are pushing into it.
The atmosphere should push a helium filled balloon just like it should push down a solid block of lead.

cannot overcome

So you want to appeal to gravity again?
In your delusional garbage it is the air doing the work, not the helium.
And the air is the same.

So it is the AIR that has to overcome the force below.

The fact you need to jump to such a wildly different claim, entirely discarding your earlier analogy, demonstrates your claim is BS.

Stick to the analogy with the atmosphere as a mattress, which acts like a spring. Or if you don't want to, then admit that analogy is BS which in no way explains why things fall.

You see if you do it in an open atmosphere then your energy is transferred to the object which pushed/compresses the atmosphere directly in front of it and skims the atmosphere at the sides, above and below.

Just like when you push an object up, you don't magically compress the atmosphere above like a spring, instead the atmosphere flows around the object to below it.

Again, you directly contradict your delusional garbage, because your garbage doesn't work.

You need to have the air be magic so it will only act like a spring for objects denser than it and only for pushing up.
For everything else it magically switched.

If your model was correct, then you wouldn't need to switch like this.

Similar to trying to push a football into a bath of water.

And just like trying to push a ball of solid lead into a bath of water. The pressure pushes it up. It isn't enough to overcome the gravitational force forcing it down, but it does reduce its weight.

Because the tube offers only one way major compression

And this shows why your claim is garbage.
In the tube, the atmosphere acts like a spring, because it can't go around the object.
In the open atmosphere it doesn't, because the air flows around.

This is actually a better way to disprove gravity because this offers much better resistance to dense masses.

It doesn't disprove gravity at all.
In your delusional garbage, the air is the only thing pushing it down, so we should expect the same result.

We will use water once again as an analogy.
Let's assume you're underwater and are pushing a car.
To move that car you know you must push on the car

And that means the car pushes back on me.

Lets use a better analogy.
Lets have 2 train sets.
One train set is just the engine, it has a mass of 100 kg, and applies a force of 100 N to to the track, with the track pushing back with a force of 100 N.
As it has nothing else attached, this 100 N force acting on 100 kg causes it to accelerate at a rate of 1 m/s^2.

The other set has an additional carriage. Just to appease you, it can be sitting in front. This carriage also weighs 100 kg. So the train pushes into the carriage with some force, and the carriage pushes back with a reactionary force. Action-reaction. This means the net force on the train is less, so it accelerates at a slower rate. If your delusional BS was true, the train would magically pull a force of 100 N from no where and push the carriage, causing them both to accelerate at a rate of 1 m/s^2. But in reality, the train pushes with a force of 50 N, with the carriage pushing back with a reactionary force of 50 N, meaning there is a net force of 50 N acting on the train, causing it to accelerate at a rate of 0.5 m/s^2.

Or an even simpler one, lets use an explosive. It blows up. The right side pushes against the left, and the left side pushes back against the right. This means they each have a force pushing them outwards.

That is the action-reaction pair.

This actually proves denpressure a million times more than it would ever prove a fictional gravity.

Considering you need to repeatedly contradict yourself NOTHING can prove denpressure.

Before you get to proof, you need a coherent model.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 10:10:55 PM

I used a mattress analogy as just another simple way of showing people, including you.

You need to use an analogy that uses physical displacement?

That is not how your delusion works. 

And the video of the ball drop in slow motion shows that pressure is not pushing down the ball.  It shows the ball moving through a static atmosphere creating drag and low pressure behind it, creating a swirling wake.

As I said before, the atmosphere can never be static.

And you think your eyes can see whether the atmosphere is being compressed and decompressed against any dense mass.

I’m working on using a ramp and experiment conducting my own experiment.  If I an actually get around to it, we’ll see. 

But it’s easy to get the material and the ramp can just be a long PVC pipe cut longways in half.

Because you will not do what an actual scientist would do drives home you only have lies and empty words.

You have no clue what experiments I've done but you feel free to decide for your own benefit as much as you please because it has zero effect on what I do.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 10:07:39 PM

The system is never closed. It requires external atmospheric pressure in order to work.
There's no getting away from that.

Until you can justify that entirely baseless claim of yours, it is trivial to get away from.

Again, does your dome require an external atmosphere that it needs to vent from? Or is your dome a closed system?

I don't think anything is an entirely closed system. Everything has to affect something. Nothing can be independent in an overall system.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 10:13:29 PM

A pump merely pushes liquids into a lower pressure which offers less resistance to it.
What's the issue?

Well one big issue is the fundamental distinction between a liquid and a gas, which relies upon free space.

There can never ever be free space. It cannot exist as anything. It's fictional.
It backs up space in the fantasy books, only.

If your delusional BS was true, the water should simply expand, and therefore it should touch the pump.

Explain exactly what you mean.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 11:20:35 PM

If heat is lost to the atmosphere then energy is transferred. It's really as simple as that.

Which is NOT mass.
As MASS is not transferred, it is closed. It really is as simple as that.

The mass is the cause of the transfer of energy.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 11:20:35 PM

I have no clue what you mean by mass transfer

The transfer of mass.
Stop playing dumb.

Explain it.

We can transfer energy radiatively through a vacuum.

No we can't. A vacuum cannot exist so there would be no work done at any time...ever.

We can transfer it conductively, or convectively through materials other than air.
The atmosphere is not needed.

The atmosphere is always needed. Nothing works unless there is the atmosphere.

We can dump into so many things it isn't funny. Like water. The air is not the only option.

Dump what into the water and what are you using to do that?

We can radiate it away in the form of photons. Those photons carry the energy away. They don't need to go into anything to do that.

Explain what a photon is and how it radiates away energy.
Give me a simple example.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 11:20:35 PM

My claim stands.

Your claim is completely and utterly destroyed.
You claimed the air is the only way.
If that dishonest BS was true, then a liquid cooling system WOULD NOT WORK!

The atmosphere is the only way. I stand by what I said.

The fact that liquid cooling systems are used so widely and DO WORK, demonstrates that the atmosphere is NOT needed to transfer heat.
It shows your claim is pure BS.

Liquid cooling requires something else. Can you guess what it is?

But instead of facing this reality, you deflect away to try and find some fragment of air in the system.

Atmosphere in all systems.

It is just like your dishonest BS regarding a pulling force.
You can't explain how the force is transferred when it needs a pull, so you dishonestly and desperately search for any push in the system to deflect to that to pretend you have solved everything.

You can't describe what a pulling force is.
There's a good reason for that. It's because everything is compression and you can't have compression without expansion which is the cause of compression. Strange one isn't it?

As I said before, the atmosphere can never be static.

And you think your eyes can see whether the atmosphere is being compressed and decompressed against any dense mass.

Which has nothing to do with a ball dropped in a column of air showing no downward current flow proving the ball isn’t pushed down shown in the drag and area of low pressure behind the ball as it falls. 

You have no clue what experiments I've done

Then record them and show the results.

So far you provided opinions to support den-pressure
based on lies and misinformation. 

The atmosphere is always needed. Nothing works unless there is the atmosphere.

Except liquid filled heat exchangers.

Liquid filled hydraulics.

Electric driven screws.

Electric motors.

Fuel cells.

Nuclear fission.

Magnets.

Electromagnetic radiation.

The reaction of thermite.

The reaction of rocket fuel with its own oxidizer.

Burning Model Rocket Motor In Liquid Nitrogen - 4K Slow Motion

When influenced by gravity, things don’t need atmosphere to fall as proven by the fact objects fall faster in a vacuum chamber where air pressure and air resistance is made negligible.  Where the number of gas molecules is made negligible against the mass of a lead ball. 


If there can’t be free space, how does a vacuum pump work and a vacuum created?  Are you saying the remaining gas molecules grow in size as the air is pumped out of the chamber.  Then what happens if you take the vacuum chamber to near absolute zero and the gases turn to liquid? 


With you not able to show when air resistance in made negligible, there is a correlation between rates at which objects fall and density.

With you utterly failing to make accurate predictions on the modeling of ball drops with den-pressure.

Den-pressure is useless and a lie. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 11:21:18 PM

There are no observations for free space.

Wilful ignorance will not save you. Appealing to pathetic strawmen will not save you.
The evidence for free space has been given to you countless times. And you have failed to explain how it works without free space.

There has never and will never be free space.
It is impossible.
You can't even explain it because it would make no sense.

Again, the simplest is the drastically different properties and behaviour of liquids and gases.

Do you mean different densities based on molecular layering?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 11:21:18 PM

isolated

We are not talking about isolated systems. We are talking about closed systems. They are fundamentally different.

Same thing. Both are hypothetical.

Do you want to update your delusional BS, accept that there can be closed systems and instead claim there are no isolated systems?

Nope. I'm fine with what I've said.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 11:21:18 PM

No.

Yes. Dismissing an objection to your BS, without even attempting to address what has been said will not help you.

You claim that the atmosphere is acting like a spring, then it shouldn't matter what you are pushing into it.
The atmosphere should push a helium filled balloon just like it should push down a solid block of lead.

The atmosphere does push a helium balloon but the helium inside the balloon is broken down molecules that are less dense so the denser atmosphere pushes up or basically it squeezes the balloon up.

Stick to the analogy with the atmosphere as a mattress, which acts like a spring. Or if you don't want to, then admit that analogy is BS which in no way explains why things fall.

I don't mind sticking to it if it helps people.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 11:21:18 PM

You see if you do it in an open atmosphere then your energy is transferred to the object which pushed/compresses the atmosphere directly in front of it and skims the atmosphere at the sides, above and below.

Just like when you push an object up, you don't magically compress the atmosphere above like a spring, instead the atmosphere flows around the object to below it.

You actually do compress like a spring and it stays as long as you keep that dense mass pushed into it.
The only time the atmosphere flows around the object is when the object is in motion.
Otehr than that you're simply compressing it like a spring as you displace it with a foundation as resistance.

Again, you directly contradict your delusional garbage, because your garbage doesn't work.
You need to have the air be magic so it will only act like a spring for objects denser than it and only for pushing up.
For everything else it magically switched.
If your model was correct, then you wouldn't need to switch like this.

It doesn't need to be magic. It is what it is and it's any dense mass displacing it that creates the equal reaction to that displacing action.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 11:21:18 PM

Similar to trying to push a football into a bath of water.

And just like trying to push a ball of solid lead into a bath of water. The pressure pushes it up. It isn't enough to overcome the gravitational force forcing it down, but it does reduce its weight.

No. The pressure resists your push of the ball but fails to stop it, 0only slow its descent.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 11:21:18 PM

Because the tube offers only one way major compression

And this shows why your claim is garbage.
In the tube, the atmosphere acts like a spring, because it can't go around the object.
In the open atmosphere it doesn't, because the air flows around.

Yep. I've been saying it for long enough.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 11:21:18 PM

This is actually a better way to disprove gravity because this offers much better resistance to dense masses.

It doesn't disprove gravity at all.
In your delusional garbage, the air is the only thing pushing it down, so we should expect the same result.

Displacement.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2023, 11:21:18 PM

We will use water once again as an analogy.
Let's assume you're underwater and are pushing a car.
To move that car you know you must push on the car

And that means the car pushes back on me.

Nope. The car resists your force/effort. It does not push back unless you compress it against something in which it can compress back. Only then will it push back.
All it does it resist your push.

Lets use a better analogy.
Lets have 2 train sets.
One train set is just the engine, it has a mass of 100 kg, and applies a force of 100 N to to the track, with the track pushing back with a force of 100 N.
As it has nothing else attached, this 100 N force acting on 100 kg causes it to accelerate at a rate of 1 m/s^2.

The other set has an additional carriage. Just to appease you, it can be sitting in front. This carriage also weighs 100 kg. So the train pushes into the carriage with some force, and the carriage pushes back with a reactionary force. Action-reaction. This means the net force on the train is less, so it accelerates at a slower rate. If your delusional BS was true, the train would magically pull a force of 100 N from no where and push the carriage, causing them both to accelerate at a rate of 1 m/s^2. But in reality, the train pushes with a force of 50 N, with the carriage pushing back with a reactionary force of 50 N, meaning there is a net force of 50 N acting on the train, causing it to accelerate at a rate of 0.5 m/s^2.

Or an even simpler one, lets use an explosive. It blows up. The right side pushes against the left, and the left side pushes back against the right. This means they each have a force pushing them outwards.

That is the action-reaction pair.

I'll make this simple.

If I barge into you as you stand still then you resist my push and you fall backward as I move forwards.
You resist, you do not push back.
However, if I ran at you and you took a stance where you resist my push and then create a compressive force against me without you being moved forward, then I can bounce off you and move back. Then you push back.

If one car smashes into the back of another then the car at the back pushes the car in front, forward and that is a resistance, not a pushback.
However, if a car smashes head-on into another car coming at it then they both push into each other and both resist the push.

It's never as cut and dried as you think.