Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

Do you understand converting things?  Like converting between miles and kilometers.

Density where mass / volume lets you “convert”. It’s a defined ratio.  Like every mile is 1.609 kilometers.  If you know the density in mass / volume for  example of liquid sulfur .  And you have a known volume of liquid sulfur, but need to know the mass of that volume, you can use density to solve for mass.


Now.  Do that with mass - volume…….

All you have to do is understand why I use dense mass as structure and the volume within the structure as being the minus when dense mass is measured.
Just try and understand this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2023, 04:41:48 AM

What you said about the cube told me enough to say you've taken no notice of how denpressure works.

And yet here you are again, just spouting crap about me, rather than explaining just what is wrong.

Again, a fairly fundamental principle of denpressure is that displacing the atmosphere causes objects to be pushed down.
And objects with more mass displace more atmosphere to be pushed down more.
The big issue for it is the example of such an air-tight hollow cube, where displacing more atmosphere makes it weigh less.

It is a clear demonstration that your model is garbage.
A demonstration which has been brought up repeatedly, with you having no counter to it.

And this is where you need to understand why stacked layers come into it but you choose to absolutely forget this.

Remember when I said the densest layers are below and they get less dense as they stack in layers all the way up?
Remember the gobstopper analogy?
Remember the pyramid analogy?

Again, if displacing atmosphere causes the push down, then getting a hollow cube and removing most of the air from it to cause it to displace more air (as now it is also displacing the interior volume, not just the wall volume) should cause it to weigh more. It should cause the reading on a scale to increase.
But in reality, it decreases.

Ok, pay close attention to what I'm saying before you just reply in mass in an angry tone.
To remove atmosphere from that cube requires you to push the atmosphere away from it to allow decompression from within, naturally.

I think you should understand this part from my side.
Ok so now you've added that internal pressure to the external of the atmosphere.
The cube itself still displaces the atmosphere by its own structure minus the natural volume.

The pressure released from the cube is placed right back on the cube and anything surrounding it, meaning the entire atmosphere.
I gave you a very good analogy with water to give you a visual.
Just remember the released atmosphere doesn't just leave and go into high altitude to then push down onto the cube. This is why I know you have no clue about denpressure.

You need to understand the released atmosphere from the cube affects everything in that atmosphere not just back on top of the cube, it's all around it in the stacked layers, including scale and plate.

So in effect what you have done is allowed decompression of molecules from within the cube to end up external and in doing so you've ever so slightly disrupted natural internal volume but created a bit more resistance to the dense mass of the structure which will show a small reading change on a scale plate.

It's not what appears lighter inside the cube but what pressures are added into the stacked layers around it adding to a higher resistance and also the expansion by contraction of the external atmosphere and the cube to cater for the change in pressures.

I know this will go right over your head but if you really want to understand it then you need to get your teeth into it instead of just being angry.

But if we instead fill the void with something else, like water, then it does weigh more.

Because you are then changing the structure.

You are evacuating the natural volume and replacing it with water which has much less volume within it.
So what you've done is allowed the evacuation of more atmosphere and taken in a lower-down stacked layering of water molecules.
By doing this you fill that water void with an atmosphere that takes its place in a less pressurised external stack meaning the cube can displace more external atmosphere with less resistance to it due to expansion by contraction and vibration and frequencies, which appear nothing but are all still key as molecules are always in a decompression fight.

It clearly demonstrates that displacing atmosphere is NOT the reason things fall down or weigh anything.

It is the only way.
The squeeze.

If I didn't understand denpressure and this was a fundamental lack of understanding, then you would explain what the issue was, instead of continuing coming up with these pathetic dodges.

You don't understand it. It's clear.

Ultimately this ties back to one of the massive issue for denpressure, how does the air push things down?

Atmosphere is stacked layers.
Each layer is trying to decompress against the layers above and along the layers.
Add in a dense mass object and that object displaces its own dense mass structure of the atmosphere, minus its own interior volume.
It's the compression of the atmosphere by that dense mass displacement of it that creates an equal reaction of resistance in an attempt to decompress, push back, or spring back against the dense mass object displacing it.

This is happening against the entire object barring directly below because below the object is the start of the stacked layering system that has to try to resist the decompression upon the object or spring back or push back from above and around. It becomes a squeeze down as the dense mass object overcomes the below resistance aided at all times by an ongoing decompression as the object displaces atmosphere in every layer all the way to a foundation that can actually fully resist.
This is why it hits the ground.

All the evidence demonstrates beyond any sane doubt that air ALWAYS pushes from high pressure to low pressure. This means the air would push objects up, pushing from the high pressure below to the low pressure above.

Yes, it's always doing that but have a try to honestly understand my stacking system and any dense mass within and pay full attention...and I mean full attention to what I've said above.


If you can't or won't try to understand it then I don't care but you can't say I don't try to explain.

Scepti,
You still haven't answered my question.  I'll be more specific.

You have stated that glass is permeable and the atmosphere passes through it.

You need to understand what is meant by atmosphere. It's not simply just air you breathe and that's that.

Fluorescent Bulbs contain mercury vapor. 

And?

At what rate does the atmosphere permeate through the glass?

That depends on what broken-down molecules are contained within.

At what rate does the mercury vapor permeate through the glass?

It probably doesn't because the molecular make-up is too dense.

One thing that I've noticed skimming this thread is that Sceptimatic defines broadly used terms completely different from the rest of the world, (maybe purposefully) obfuscating the discussion. It would be a lot easier for everyone if he just used different names like shdensity or whatever (again, maybe he wants to obfuscate everything).

On this note, Sceptimatic, please define what you mean by volume. I'm pretty sure it's different from the dictionary and the math definition (so basically how everyone else defines it)

And also, what is denser (and why) and in what units do we measure density:
50g - 25ml
55g - 30ml
100g - 50ml

And deflecting questions by asking "explain to me what your model says about this" is just an excuse to point imaginary or completely misinterpreted flaws in the answer and then change the subject completely without ever having to explain his model more clearly and objectively.

I'm asking anyway.

Explain to me why you get 50g to 25ml as an instance.

Now what I mean by this is, tell me why it works and give a real genuine reason for it that you actually do know for sure.

You see it's ok offering it but you need to know why you are.

Let's go through this real slow see where we get to and then I'll add in my setup.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 22, 2023, 10:24:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2023, 08:46:16 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 22, 2023, 06:54:50 AM

Glad the calculations that help keep people and the environment safe is bookworm stuff.  Nothing like being in charge of setting up the control system to do a liquid sulfur load and hope you have everything right so it doesn’t overfill the railcar where it can cause members of your shift hours of cleanup.  Or worse, it lead to an injury.

Can you explain what exactly is happening?

What?   

Density  = mass / volume is a ratio that is measurable in the lab.  It’s a specific ratio and characteristic of say liquid sulfur that allows for converting between volume and mass.

Example. 


I have a process where the liquid storage tank for collecting liquid sulfur is about to overfill.  It will cost more to shutdown the process than to fill up and clean out stainless steel tanker trucks made for hauling water that are on site for plant use. 

The water tanker trucks can hold a volume of 1800 liters of water at 20 degrees Celsius.  They are designed to haul the weight of 1800 liters of water at 20 degrees Celsius.  The density of water at 20 degrees Celsius is .9982 kilogram / liter. 

But, liquid sulfur has more mass per liter than water. 

What is the mass the tanker truck can hold in water?

                1800 liters     .9982 kg
Weight = ——————- x ————
                                        Liter

Weight is 1,796.76 kilograms


So the weight capacity of the stainless steel tanker truck is 1,796.76 kilograms.  It’s max safe load limit. 


But per liter, liquid sulfur has more mass than water. 1800 liters of liquid sulfur would overload the tanker truck.

At a max mass limit of 1796.76 kilograms, how many liters of liquid sulfur can the tanker truck hold.

Density of liquid sulfur is 1.8 kg / liter. 



Liters       1796.76kg.      Liter
liquid  = —————    x  —————
sulfur                              1.8 kg



Or.  Because liquid sulfur has more mass the water per liter.  The tanker truck because of the mass of the liquid sulfur can only take on 998.2 liters of liquid sulfur to prevent being over loaded.  That is less the the 1800 liter volume of the tanker truck.  The mass of the liquid sulfur is the limiting factor for the tanker trucks. 

Now.  Do the same thing using your units of “mass - volume” for liquid water and liquid sulfur.

Have a think about the mass of sulphur and water from my side and you may just understand why I use dense mass as structure and volume as what the structure holds and what the structure is immersed in.


Have a real try.

No.  I did have a think in the language of math.  Show your delusion works in my world.

Now.  Do the same thing using your units of “mass - volume” for liquid water and liquid sulfur.

You need to understand what is meant by atmosphere. It's not simply just air you breathe and that's that.

Then state in your own words what the composition of atmosphere is.

Then state in your own words what the definition of volume is. 

How can one cubic meter each of glass, steel, and aluminum that are tight against gases and liquids displace different amounts of fluids and or gases. 

In your delusion after “soaking” in a liquid like water the steel, glass, and aluminum should weigh more. That’s not the case.

Note.  Added.  Water is composed of smaller molecules than O2, N2, and argon.

 The objects are tight against liquid and gases. Why a gas bottle can store the same amount of gas year after year.  Like how a CO2 fire extinguisher holds pressure year after year and the same amount of CO2.  Why it keeps its charge of CO2 year after year.  CO2 fire extinguishers would be pretty useless if they started swapping CO2 molecules with diatomic Oxygen molecules.  Note added.  If you were an insurance company would you bond and insure a manufacturer of CO2 fire extinguishers if the CO2 supposedly broke down into oxygen such as in your delusion, or the CO2 could be swapped out with oxygen across the air tight metal casing like in your delusion. 

The directionality of down has already been explained.

By mainstream science - Yes. By you - No.

You pretend you have explained it, but you refuse to actually provide an explanation.
The best you get is appealing to a magically stacked atmosphere, where you can't explain why it stacks such that it is a greater pressure below; and then having that stack defy the pressure gradient to push things down.

And this is where you need to understand why stacked layers come into it but you choose to absolutely forget this.

No, I haven't forgotten anything.
I fully remember how you want to pretend that you magically just displace above so it acts like a spring or a mattress and pushes down.
But that doesn't address the issue at all.

Remember when I said the densest layers are below and they get less dense as they stack in layers all the way up?

You mean the observation from reality, which you are completely incapable of explaining? That I have brought up several times to show a massive problem with your model.
Yes I remember it. But it doesn't help you.
Again, this just demonstrates that the pressure is greater below, meaning it pushes up.

Remember the gobstopper analogy?

You mean how you tried describing the RE, where there is a mostly solid central core, with layers built up around it with these layers made of molecules?

Ok, pay close attention to what I'm saying before you just reply in mass in an angry tone.

How about you pay close attention to what I'm saying before replying in a condescending and insulting tone?

To remove atmosphere from that cube requires you to push the atmosphere away from it to allow decompression from within, naturally.

I think you should understand this part from my side.
Ok so now you've added that internal pressure to the external of the atmosphere.
The cube itself still displaces the atmosphere by its own structure minus the natural volume.

The pressure released from the cube is placed right back on the cube and anything surrounding it, meaning the entire atmosphere.
I gave you a very good analogy with water to give you a visual.

Lets try a nice simple analogy with water.
You can easily measure how much water is displaced by getting a measuring cylinder and putting some water in, and then looking at how much the volume changes when you put the object in.

You can start with the cube open so it can fill with water, and then pump that water out into the surroundings (i.e. the measuring cylinder), and observe that more water is displaced once the water is pumped out of the cube.

Yes, the cube still displaces atmosphere, but it is now displacing more, yet weighs less.

This is why I know you have no clue about denpressure.

Again, your inability to address the issues I have raised demonstrate that I know a decent amount.

You need to understand the released atmosphere from the cube affects everything in that atmosphere not just back on top of the cube, it's all around it in the stacked layers, including scale and plate.

In which case use 2 hollow cubes, identical. But only remove the air from one.
If your nonsense was true, they should both change reading by the same amount. But back in reality there is no detectable change in the hollow cube you left untouched, yet a significant, measurable change in the cube you removed the air from.

So there is no point in appealing to change in the atmosphere outside, as it doesn't explain it.
The only noteworthy change at all is that it now displaces more atmosphere yet weighs less.

I know this will go right over your head but if you really want to understand it then you need to get your teeth into it instead of just being angry.

You mean you know I will be able to see straight through it and point out why your nonsense doesn't work; so you feel the need to insult me before I even respond.

Me pointing out your delusional BS doesn't work is not me being angry.

You are evacuating the natural volume and replacing it with water which has much less volume within it.

The problem is the contradiction between the 2 results.
If they were ranked in order of atmosphere displaced, the evacuated cube displaces the most, the air filled hollow cube displaces the least.
But ranking them in terms of weight we see the water filled cube weighs the most and the evacuated cube weighs the least.

You need something OTHER than the displacement of atmosphere to cause weight. Something like a downwards force proportional to mass.

It is the only way.
The squeeze.

It isn't.
A squeeze explains nothing, and is demonstrably wrong.
So your nonsense is not a way at all.
Meanwhile, gravity works fine.

Each layer is trying to decompress against the layers above and along the layers.

And this should result in them all equalising, with no pressure gradient, nor any directionality at all.

It's the compression of the atmosphere by that dense mass displacement of it that creates an equal reaction of resistance in an attempt to decompress, push back, or spring back against the dense mass object displacing it.

And this "push back" is inwards, not downwards.
The object doesn't just magically push up.
The only exception is that the pressure is slightly greater below, meaning the air pushes up.

This is happening against the entire object barring directly below because below the object is the start of the stacked layering system that has to try to resist the decompression upon the object or spring back or push back from above and around.

The directionality for this appeals to any surface without air.
That means you should get the same result putting a heavy cube against a wall, with it sticking to the wall. But this isn't observed, demonstrating this is not the reason.
It also relies upon the object touching the ground, and in no way explains why an object in mid air should go down.

It becomes a squeeze down as the dense mass object overcomes the below resistance

Again, WHY DOWN?
Why is this mass trying to go down?
Why isn't it trying to go up?
Why is it trying to go anywhere at all?
What is providing the motivation for it to move?
Again, we know it can't be the air as the air pressure is greater below, meaning the air is pushing up, and with enough force to overcome the resistance from above.

Yes, it's always doing that

And if it is always doing that, it can't push down. That means you need something other than the air to explain why things go down.

have a try to honestly understand my stacking system and any dense mass within and pay full attention

I have.
And I recognise that it doesn't work.

Try following your own advice, and try to honestly understand your stacking system and why it doesn't work and pay attention to the refutations of it. Rather than just dismissing them and looking for excuses.

but you can't say I don't try to explain.

Yes, I can, because you entirely ignore the issues raised.
Look at this post, you agree the air pushes from high pressure to low pressure. But that should mean it pushes things up. You accept that, and then insult me.

To try to explain how it pushes down, you appeal to the dense mass overcoming the below resistance, but don't have anything to push it down.
The best you get is a suction cup, which works in any direction when pressed against a surface.

But take that away and just use a normal object, with all around, then the air pushes up.

To actually explain this particular issue, you need to explain how the low pressure air above manages to push an object down overcoming a greater resistance below which it physically cannot overcome due to it being a higher pressure.
You need to explain how your systems defies the known laws of how gasses work which even you agree to, to push from low pressure to high pressure.

Until you address the issues raised you aren't explaining anything.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2023, 11:15:58 PM

You need to understand what is meant by atmosphere. It's not simply just air you breathe and that's that.

Then state in your own words what the composition of atmosphere is.

All variations of molecular make-up.
I told you this.

Then state in your own words what the definition of volume is. 

Volume is any atmosphere within a dense mass structure. Simple enough.

How can one cubic meter each of glass, steel, and aluminum that are tight against gases and liquids displace different amounts of fluids and or gases.

The structure and volume within that structure.
 

In your delusion after “soaking” in a liquid like water the steel, glass, and aluminum should weigh more. That’s not the case.

Water molecules are much more dense in their makeup and struggle to penetrate the internal structure materials

Note.  Added.  Water is composed of smaller molecules than O2, N2, and argon.

No, they aren't. They are more densely molecularly layered

The objects are tight against liquid and gases. Why a gas bottle can store the same amount of gas year after year.  Like how a CO2 fire extinguisher holds pressure year after year and the same amount of CO2.  Why it keeps its charge of CO2 year after year.  CO2 fire extinguishers would be pretty useless if they started swapping CO2 molecules with diatomic Oxygen molecules.

The bottle can store the gases because its structure does not allow structural penetration of the atmospheric volume already within.
It's repelled.

  Note added.  If you were an insurance company would you bond and insure a manufacturer of CO2 fire extinguishers if the CO2 supposedly broke down into oxygen such as in your delusion, or the CO2 could be swapped out with oxygen across the air tight metal casing like in your delusion.

The CO2 is already broken down and placed into the container. Why would it change?
It can only change when it's released.

Lets try a nice simple analogy with water.
You can easily measure how much water is displaced by getting a measuring cylinder and putting some water in, and then looking at how much the volume changes when you put the object in.

Yep, because the object is displacing the water because it is resisting atmospheric squeeze and using the water to create a foundation of resistance to its own dense mass displacement of the atmosphere, minus the object's internal volume.

You can start with the cube open so it can fill with water, and then pump that water out into the surroundings (i.e. the measuring cylinder), and observe that more water is displaced once the water is pumped out of the cube.

Fill the cube with water and you add to the dense mass displacement of the atmosphere along with the cube's own dense mass, minus its internal volume.
At this point, you're measuring the squeeze on the cube by the displacement of it against water and water against the atmosphere.
Push water out of the cube and you offer it back to the dense mass structure of displacement of the atmosp[here and minus the volume you've allowed into the cube plus what's also in the internal molecular structure of it.

Yes, the cube still displaces the atmosphere, but it is now displacing more, yet weighs less.

It displaces more because you added a more dense mass structure to the cube by adding water that also displaces atmosphere.

I'm sure this will fly right over your head.

All variations of molecular make-up.
I told you this.

So atmosphere is anything to you that has molecules, but you exclude atoms?

Argon is in the atmosphere and isn’t a molecule.  It’s an actual atom of argon.

Solids can be made of molecules, but they are not atmosphere.

Volume is any atmosphere within a dense mass structure. Simple enough.

Properly cast steel and aluminum are solid steel and aluminum, and have no atmosphere in them.

Graphite is made up of graphite atoms, not molecules.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

How can one cubic meter each of glass, steel, and aluminum that are tight against gases and liquids displace different amounts of fluids and or gases.

The structure and volume within that structure.
 

Steel is air tight and doesn’t have “atmosphere” if properly forged for example as a gas bottle.  A fire extinguishers keeps CO2 confined, doesn’t lose CO2 over time, and doesn’t exchange anything with the outside environment/ atmosphere.

No, they aren't. They are more densely molecularly layered

Water molecules are much more dense in their makeup and struggle to penetrate the internal structure materials

Which has nothing to do with water molecules are still less in molecular weight than diatomic oxygen molecules and water readily dissolves salts and sugar. 

How is water too “dense” but the “universal solvent”?

But I have not gotten a block of aluminum to dissolve sugar. 

No, they aren't. They are more densely molecularly layered
The CO2 is already broken down and placed into the container. Why would it change?
It can only change when it's released.

CO2 isn’t “broken down”.  It takes a chemical process like combustion to combine carbon with oxygen to form CO2.

How do you covert CO2 back to carbon and oxygen without a chemical process.

I can make water in a bottle freeze, melt, and turn to steam. 


Regardless.  Solid blocks of glass, steel, and aluminum of equal size displace the same amount of atmosphere because they in your own words “ They are more densely molecularly layered”.

Fill the cube with water and you add to the dense mass

And you still need to answer to this…

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2023, 08:46:16 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 22, 2023, 06:54:50 AM

Glad the calculations that help keep people and the environment safe is bookworm stuff.  Nothing like being in charge of setting up the control system to do a liquid sulfur load and hope you have everything right so it doesn’t overfill the railcar where it can cause members of your shift hours of cleanup.  Or worse, it lead to an injury.

Can you explain what exactly is happening?

What?   

Density  = mass / volume is a ratio that is measurable in the lab.  It’s a specific ratio and characteristic of say liquid sulfur that allows for converting between volume and mass.

Example. 


I have a process where the liquid storage tank for collecting liquid sulfur is about to overfill.  It will cost more to shutdown the process than to fill up and clean out stainless steel tanker trucks made for hauling water that are on site for plant use. 

The water tanker trucks can hold a volume of 1800 liters of water at 20 degrees Celsius.  They are designed to haul the weight of 1800 liters of water at 20 degrees Celsius.  The density of water at 20 degrees Celsius is .9982 kilogram / liter. 

But, liquid sulfur has more mass per liter than water. 

What is the mass the tanker truck can hold in water?

                1800 liters     .9982 kg
Weight = ——————- x ————
                                        Liter

Weight is 1,796.76 kilograms


So the weight capacity of the stainless steel tanker truck is 1,796.76 kilograms.  It’s max safe load limit. 


But per liter, liquid sulfur has more mass than water. 1800 liters of liquid sulfur would overload the tanker truck.

At a max mass limit of 1796.76 kilograms, how many liters of liquid sulfur can the tanker truck hold.

Density of liquid sulfur is 1.8 kg / liter. 



Liters       1796.76kg.      Liter
liquid  = —————    x  —————
sulfur                              1.8 kg



Or.  Because liquid sulfur has more mass the water per liter.  The tanker truck because of the mass of the liquid sulfur can only take on 998.2 liters of liquid sulfur to prevent being over loaded.  That is less the the 1800 liter volume of the tanker truck.  The mass of the liquid sulfur is the limiting factor for the tanker trucks. 

Now.  Do the same thing using your units of “mass - volume” for liquid water and liquid sulfur.

By the way.  It works in reverses. A good gas bottle or plastic bag can provide a vacuum seal and keep it indefinitely. 

And den pressure still needs to address the reality that when air resistance is made negligible objects of different densities do as proven and documented through experiments fall at the same rate.

What fundamentdal difference is there between atmosphere and atmosphere?


Theres the very measureable different gasoeus 'airs' available that can be isolayed in pressure vessels.

Propane tanks on bbq.
Oxygen tanks for divers.
Helium tanks for making your voice sound funny... andballoons.
Submarines.

These things exist and have ability to trap "air".




Then we have the "air" that pushes things down.
What is THAT 'air"?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2023, 04:29:10 AM

All variations of molecular make-up.
I told you this.

So the atmosphere is anything to you that has molecules, but you exclude atoms?

I'm excluding everything like that and using molecular breakdown.
Now if you want to offer up atoms within a molecule then you need to explain what it is and what it does in a nice and simple way, without picking something from the internet to offer up as copy/paste.
Can you do it?
I doubt it.

Now then, the atmosphere is a volume within any structure. Try not to get mixed up with air as if the air is the be-all and end-all.

Argon is in the atmosphere and isn’t a molecule.  It’s an actual atom of argon.

An atom from where?

Solids can be made of molecules, but they are not atmosphere.

Solids are structures and all structures have volume.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2023, 04:29:10 AM

Volume is any atmosphere within a dense mass structure. Simple enough.

Properly cast steel and aluminum are solid steel and aluminum, and have no atmosphere in them.

They are structural in their make-up and within those structures are volumes of the atmosphere, not simply air.

Graphite is made up of graphite atoms, not molecules.

I'm sure you can offer it up then, from your own mind.
Let's see what you offer as a graphite atom and how it works.
In the meantime, as far as my setup is concerned, it's molecular layering. See gobstopper for clarification of what I mean.

Steel is air tight and doesn’t have “atmosphere” if properly forged for example as a gas bottle.

Air tight means nothing.
It's still atmospherically volumised within the structure.

A fire extinguishers keeps CO2 confined, doesn’t lose CO2 over time, and doesn’t exchange anything with the outside environment/ atmosphere.

Because the metal structure and volume within it do not allow the sieve.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2023, 04:29:10 AM

No, they aren't. They are more densely molecularly layered

Water molecules are much more dense in their makeup and struggle to penetrate the internal structure materials

Which has nothing to do with water molecules are still less in molecular weight than diatomic oxygen molecules and water readily dissolves salts and sugar. 

What do you mean by less in molecular weight?
Explain it by using something simple so we don't end up getting all mixed up.
No copy and paste.

How is water too “dense” but the “universal solvent”?
But I have not gotten a block of aluminum to dissolve sugar.

You obviously are not reading anything I say, which is fine but don't try and argue against something you clearly are not taking any notice of.

 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2023, 04:29:10 AM

No, they aren't. They are more densely molecularly layered
The CO2 is already broken down and placed into the container. Why would it change?
It can only change when it's released.

CO2 isn’t “broken down”.  It takes a chemical process like combustion to combine carbon with oxygen to form CO2.

Understand what chemical process means and you'll understand change and breaking down.

How do you covert CO2 back to carbon and oxygen without a chemical process.

You don;t without changing energy vibration and frequency.
The atmosphere will eventually do that, as it does with everything, over time.

I can make water in a bottle freeze, melt, and turn to steam. 

Yep because you breakdown molecules by using applied energy.

Regardless.  Solid blocks of glass, steel, and aluminum of equal size displace the same amount of atmosphere because they in your own words “ They are more densely molecularly layered”.

No they don't displace the same amount.
This is why you need to pay attention to what I've been saying about the dense mass structural volume of an object.
Your glass and steel and aluminum are not only broken down molecules but they're also of a different structural dense mass of varying volumes.

What fundamentdal difference is there between atmosphere and atmosphere?


Theres the very measureable different gasoeus 'airs' available that can be isolayed in pressure vessels.

Propane tanks on bbq.
Oxygen tanks for divers.
Helium tanks for making your voice sound funny... andballoons.
Submarines.

These things exist and have ability to trap "air".




Then we have the "air" that pushes things down.
What is THAT 'air"?

All of the above are broken-down molecules of atmosphere by applied energy vibration and frequencies.

You're simply containing many varying molecular breakdowns into containers.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 22, 2023, 05:26:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2023, 04:28:36 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 22, 2023, 01:07:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 21, 2023, 09:10:25 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 21, 2023, 07:52:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 21, 2023, 04:47:07 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 20, 2023, 03:33:51 PM

Care to tell us about the day you closed your eyes to the globe earth for the last time, and when you opened your eyes again, your life on a flat earth began?

I've already been through that.

Post up the link?

There's no way in heaven or hell I'll find it amongst your trillion posts on this forum. That would be like saying it's engraved on a grand of sand, somewhere on that sandy beach.

Mate, the closest I've come to your awakening was in the opposite direction, when I stood on a hill, sank my energy down into the earth, rooting myself to the Earth, and watched not a sunset, but the entire Western horizon moving up in front of the sun, and myself on this giant ball planet, roll backwards slightly. It made me unbalanced. That's something, I doubt you could ever experience with your mindset. You'd just watch the sun setting.

You'll find it if it interests you enough.

Come on, man! Throw a dog a bone!

I still haven't fulfilled my promise yet, of visiting you in my etheric body, and dragging your consciousness up into outer space to view the Earth, have I?

(This is the part where you say, "And people say I'm a looney. What about this guy?")

Ask some of the frenzied crew and they may bring up the topic for you. Some love a good old yesteryear search.

Screw the frenzied crew, glued to their science and maths text books. Bunch of bookworms. I was reading all that regurgitated mathematics by DungOverFlow2022 and it sent me to sleep.

What keyword am I to use in this search? Or ok, what year would you have made this grand disclosure? What are we talking here - 2013? 2014?

Glad the calculations that help keep people and the environment safe is bookworm stuff.  Nothing like being in charge of setting up the control system to do a liquid sulfur load and hope you have everything right so it doesn’t overfill the railcar where it can cause members of your shift hours of cleanup.  Or worse, it lead to an injury.

A liquid sulphur load? It is bookworm stuff, and it is an overflow of data. A massive overflow.

But glad to see your nerdy work excites you so much that you spend all your free time on here, explaining how important calculations are to your sulfur loads. To me, it's another type of load. Do we really need to suffer through each and every formula?

Sceptimatic obviously doesn't do such work and neither do I. Some of us actually have to work for a living. Sceptimatic in the directors chair of his latest soft porn flick, and me, well, you know where I work....

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 23, 2023, 07:10:00 AM

What fundamentdal difference is there between atmosphere and atmosphere?


Theres the very measureable different gasoeus 'airs' available that can be isolayed in pressure vessels.

Propane tanks on bbq.
Oxygen tanks for divers.
Helium tanks for making your voice sound funny... andballoons.
Submarines.

These things exist and have ability to trap "air".




Then we have the "air" that pushes things down.
What is THAT 'air"?

All of the above are broken-down molecules of atmosphere by applied energy vibration and frequencies.

You're simply containing many varying molecular breakdowns into containers.

right

but then these things need to crush and vibrate and pass through to affect things inside.

example - submarine

the air above the water needs to push through the water through the submarine and onto the obsjects in the submarine to make them fall down.

but the submarine is clearly air tight or else people would start dying.

so the breathing air is different from the push-down air.

what is the push-down air?!

Some of us actually have to work for a living.

You mean like cleaning up frozen sulfur when the sulfur unit plugs and overflows?  When it’s 98 degrees outside and like 90 percent humidity.

Or outside for hours when it’s below zero outside and you are wet from running steam lines and hoses to thaw out frozen pipe?

Or shut a 20 inch valve that takes about a half hour to close for lock out tag outs.  And you still have about 300 other things to lock out tag out? 

Or spend hours in tyvek and a respirator cleaning and inspecting vessels.


Or come in and find out you’re now part of an investigation team and help recover body parts from the accident that happened on the shift before you can in.  One of the worst days of my life.  I really hope you’re blessed and never had to do that.  If you have, I’m sorry you had to go through that. 

I'm excluding everything like that and using molecular breakdown.

You are so far removed from reality.

This is atmosphere.

As of 2023, by mole fraction (i.e., by number of molecules), dry air contains 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.[8] Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere. Air composition, temperature, and atmospheric pressure vary with altitude. Within the atmosphere, air suitable for use in photosynthesis by terrestrial plants and breathing of terrestrial animals is found only in Earth's troposphere.[citation needed]

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

For confined space entry, I have used gas monitors.  They monitored oxygen levels, CO2 (because sometimes welding and cutting by torch has to be done in a confined space), lower explosive limit (LEL), and H2S because we have lots of sulfur in our processes that can cause hydrogen sulfide gas to form.

We also have monitors for ammonia.  And we have had areas with high ammonia in the “atmosphere” because of leaks.  It’s usually obvious concern ammonia because the fumes will drive you away.  Unfortunately  H2S can deaden the sense of smell before you ever realize you are in trouble without a gas monitor.

I have also worked with an air separation units that captured moisture and CO2 before going into the main process where liquid oxygen and nitrogen is produced.  Moisture and CO2 would make ice in the process and plug it up. 



Now.  What does your delusion have to do with actual atmosphere.

Now if you want to offer up atoms within a molecule then you need to explain what it is

No.  You need to explain what actually makes up the earth’s atmosphere.  The compositions of gasses that is the scientific definition of atmosphere.  And cite how you know what the actual composition is.  And you need to explain why argon is a single atom and why oxygen is a diatomic molecule.

As far as Argon.  We have bottles of it for padding/shielding welds at work.  And I have a small bottle at home for welding at home. The air plant I worked at wasn’t designed to make pure argon.  But we had to vent it off as a none-condensible gas.  But I worked with people that actually ran air separate units that produced pure argon. 


Argon is a noble gas that has an outer shell with a full complement of electrons.  It’s a stable configuration.  It’s not reactive like oxygen in the presence of heat and carbon that produces CO2.  Argon being inert makes it a perfect gas to use as a shielding gas for welding.  It displaces “atmosphere” from the weld to prevent the metal from reacting with the “atmosphere” to make undesirable compounds.

Also.  We used burners in some of the processes that worked off Stoichiometry chemistry calculations.


The control system would actually model specific feeds and quantities to produce specific consumption of the reactants to ensure all free oxygen was consumed. 


Note.  Feed flows were pressure and temperature compensated for RE density to ensure accuracy of mass flow meters. 

Stoichiometry is a section of chemistry that involves using relationships between reactants and/or products in a chemical reaction to determine desired quantitative data. In Greek, stoikhein means element and metron means measure, so stoichiometry literally translated means the measure of elements. In order to use stoichiometry to run calculations about chemical reactions, it is important to first understand the relationships that exist between products and reactants and why they exist, which require understanding how to balance reactions.


Balancing
In chemistry, chemical reactions are frequently written as an equation, using chemical symbols. The reactants are displayed on the left side of the equation and the products are shown on the right, with the separation of either a single or double arrow that signifies the direction of the reaction. The significance of single and double arrow is important when discussing solubility constants, but we will not go into detail about it in this module. To balance an equation, it is necessary that there are the same number of atoms on the left side of the equation as the right. One can do this by raising the coefficients.

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Inorganic_Chemistry/Supplemental_Modules_and_Websites_(Inorganic_Chemistry)/Chemical_Reactions/Stoichiometry_and_Balancing_Reactions

Since you’re supposedly an experience person and only post what you know from first hand.


What is the Stoichiometry chemistry of your molecular breakdowns?  List then for earth’s atmosphere.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 23, 2023, 09:30:39 AM

Some of us actually have to work for a living.

You mean like cleaning up frozen sulfur when the sulfur unit plugs and overflows?  When it’s 98 degrees outside and like 90 percent humidity.

Or outside for hours when it’s below zero outside and you are wet from running steam lines and hoses to thaw out frozen pipe?

Or shut a 20 inch valve that takes about a half hour to close for lock out tag outs.  And you still have about 300 other things to lock out tag out? 

Or spend hours in tyvek and a respirator cleaning and inspecting vessels.


Or come in and find out you’re now part of an investigation team and help recover body parts from the accident that happened on the shift before you can in.  One of the worst days of my life.  I really hope you’re blessed and never had to do that.  If you have, I’m sorry you had to go through that.

I was just being silly. I'm sure you work hard. I have no idea what your job title or description is. I only know what Sceptimatic does.

I'm not that blessed, and I hope you received the help you needed after such a job. Did you experience acute PTSD?

Understand what chemical process means and you'll understand change and breaking down.

This is the composition of earth’s atmosphere.

As of 2023, by mole fraction (i.e., by number of molecules), dry air contains 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.[8] Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere.

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

I have ran an air separation unit for years.


The compressor brings in 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide.

The air separation process runs great in the winter and has a tougher time in the summer because of the extra moisture in the air.  More humidity in the summer, for a given volume.  In the winter, less humidity and the atmosphere is more dense.


The molecule sieve and the drying agents removed water and CO2 before refrigeration, or there would be ice plunging.

The plant makes 3.71 times the liquid nitrogen compared with liquid oxygen.  The process compresses, expands to lower pressure, and through refrigeration makes liquid nitrogen and oxygen. CO2 is not produced anywhere downstream of the molecular sieve that removes it, or it would plug the system with CO2 ice.  The plant makes the same amount of liquid nitrogen to liquid oxygen in a ratio of what is found in the atmosphere.   Everything that goes into the air separation process is accounted for and nothing is “broken down”.  The mass of N2, O2, CO2, Argon, etc is the same going in, the same in the process, the same as it leaves the process. The process causes changes in state of mater. 

I'm not that blessed, and I hope you received the help you needed after such a job. Did you experience acute PTSD?

We helped each other out at the plant.  We had counseling. And I was lucky to have family, friends, and church/faith. 

But somethings never completely heal.  And the ache of missing people never really goes away.  It lessens with time, not festering.  But it’s still there in the shadows. Never knowing when it might trigger a few tears and a moment of grief.

I hope you were well supported and cared for too.

No they don't displace the same amount

How? Each has  “more densely molecularly layered” so atmosphere doesn’t penetrate each one meter cube.

This is why you need to pay attention to what I've been saying about the dense mass structural volume of an object.

No.  You are not making sense and are not posting anything based in reality.

Your glass and steel and aluminum are not only broken down molecules but they're also of a different structural dense mass of varying volumes.

Which has nothing to do with each cube of equal volume of glass, steel, aluminum displaces an equal amount of atmosphere because each is air tight against atmosphere. 


And they are not “broken down”.  What mass was each cube derived from?  Example, aluminum ore is just aluminum and oxygen.  You refine the ore, you drive off the oxygen usually through heat.  The mass of aluminum and oxygen going into the refining process is the same as coming out. 

And also, what is denser (and why) and in what units do we measure density:
50g - 25ml
55g - 30ml
100g - 50ml

And deflecting questions by asking "explain to me what your model says about this" is just an excuse to point imaginary or completely misinterpreted flaws in the answer and then change the subject completely without ever having to explain his model more clearly and objectively.

Great question?  I guess the person that expects you to explain everything can’t answer questions about their own model? 

Fill the cube with water and you add to the dense mass displacement of the atmosphere along with the cube's own dense mass, minus its internal volume.

We are using water as an analogy for the atmosphere, so you can forget the atmosphere.

You have the cube open, when you put it in, the water fills the cube, and a certain reading is recorded.
If you then remove most of the water from the cube, pumping it out into its surroundings, you get a higher reading.
If you pump something else in to displace more water, then the reading goes up even more.

The simple analogy demonstrates that by removing most of the air from inside the cube you would be displacing more atmosphere, which in your fantasy should result in a greater downwards force.

It displaces more because you added a more dense mass structure to the cube by adding water that also displaces atmosphere.
I'm sure this will fly right over your head.

You mean you entirely ignoring what is said and presenting a fantasy instead?
It displaces more by removing the air from the inside, without adding more mass to the cube.

The point is that the cube, with the air inside removed (as much as possible) will displace more atmosphere, yet weigh less.
This is NOT because something has been put in the cube.

It demonstrates a fundamental flaw with your model.
It demonstrates you need something other than displacing atmosphere to a cause a downwards force.

Understand what chemical process means and you'll understand change and breaking down.

Understand the difference between a chemical and physical process, and with that understand that water boiling in a physical process, not chemical.

Funny.  No evidence the atmosphere pushes items down.



But ever indication objects are pulled down by gravity by the wake the dropping ball leaves.

What’s the visual evidence and documented experience that shows otherwise?

Backed by objects fall faster in a vacuum.

Backed when air resistance is made negligible by shape or using a vacuum, objects of different densities do fall at the same rate.

[img width=400] https://i.imgur.com/WPQlKpi.jpg[-img]

How is den pressure backed by “experience” when documented actual events kill den pressure.  And no actual documented physical evidence is supplied to support den pressure.  Just endless word salad,  circular logic, changing subjects, and moving goalposts.  And the hypocrisy of “use your own words” when den pressure just right out ignores reality and certain subjects are ignored. Where den pressure is just a game.  Whit no effort put forth to complete a comprehensive and logical reference on den pressure with cited evidence?  But we will beat that dead horse with hundreds of post.





What’s the title of this thread again?

Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?


Has there been an experiment cited with the purpose of showing den pressure is something other than a delusion? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2023, 08:25:28 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 23, 2023, 07:10:00 AM

What fundamentdal difference is there between atmosphere and atmosphere?


Theres the very measureable different gasoeus 'airs' available that can be isolayed in pressure vessels.

Propane tanks on bbq.
Oxygen tanks for divers.
Helium tanks for making your voice sound funny... andballoons.
Submarines.

These things exist and have ability to trap "air".




Then we have the "air" that pushes things down.
What is THAT 'air"?

All of the above are broken-down molecules of atmosphere by applied energy vibration and frequencies.

You're simply containing many varying molecular breakdowns into containers.

right

but then these things need to crush and vibrate and pass through to affect things inside.

example - submarine

the air above the water needs to push through the water through the submarine and onto the obsjects in the submarine to make them fall down.

but the submarine is clearly air tight or else people would start dying.

so the breathing air is different from the push-down air.

what is the push-down air?!

There is no push-down air.
It's a stacked atmosphere based on the density of molecular layers along each layer isn that stacking system.
It's a push against the resistance of the stacked layers.

The submarine contains an atmosphere.
It stays buoyant because it cannot be crushed down much by the water and atmosphere above because it has much less dense molecules within a containment.
Allowing the atmosphere to be pushed out by allowing water in will naturally see the sub being squeezed down because it's becoming too dense to be squeezed up.

Basically, it's acting like a swim bladder.

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 22, 2023, 10:19:13 AM

Why, you won't explain anything and you cry and cry about science being lies when anyone explains anything to you.
Please, explain what mechanism causes the directionally of down.   Bet you won't, just like any other charlatan caught in their lies.

Save your anger and don't waste it on me as I tend to just smile. The directionality of down has already been explained. Pay more attention to what was said.

There is no anger my little puppet.  You dance the dance I decree, and you have done well.  I pull the string, you say what I want.  It's been this way for quite awhile.  You will never explain things like directionality.  You will forever claim that it's been done, yet you can't even post a link to where you supposedly did so without it being thoroughly trashed.  To be honest, I don't want you to explain it.  I pull the string by asking, you make a fool of Flat Earth nonsense in every squirm.