Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 23, 2023, 12:13:47 PM

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.

Your account triggered in me something I had to deal with a few years back, even something I had to deal with just a week or so ago. I don't want to swap war stories with you, but best we leave this side topic for now.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2023, 10:13:47 PM

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.

Sceptimatic is entitled to his viewpoint. If he truly believes what he says, then he isn't a charlatan. He may be called indoctrinated but he would just as fast turn around and say it is all globe earth believers who are indoctrinated. He won't accept or entertain anything contrary to his programming, and again he will say the same of globe earthers. It's a stalemate with him.

You may have to learn to accept one day that he looks at the world through a different window to you, and not get angry about it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2023, 08:21:21 AM

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

You are so far removed from reality.

This is atmosphere.

Quote

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.

I think you need to actually read and understand what I've been saying before you come out with what you do.
Your shield is well and truly up and you're simply not seeing what I've explained.
You carry on because it's your time you're wasting.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2023, 08:21:21 AM

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. 

Quote

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.

Get to know the basics before you start looking up everything that suits you and totally omitting what I've been saying.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2023, 08:21:21 AM

No they don't displace the same amount

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

Atmosphere is already in the structure.
Take some time to get your head around what I'm saying and stop creating your own barrier with your accepted setup.
This is my setup whether you like it or not.
If you want to understand it then put your unbiased mind to work. If not then don't type another word to me as you're simply wasting all of your time.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2023, 08:21:21 AM

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 perceived reality, no. But then again what is it you think you're trying to understand?
As above.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2023, 08:21:21 AM

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. 

Remember your volume is not the same setup as mine. Understand that and we can go from there.
The more densely packed the structure the less volume within it.
This is why materials of the same size displace more 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.

You're basically answering your own query but you simply cannot see it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2023, 04:41:16 AM

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.

Squeeze.
You see this is where you cannot use a water analogy because you're offering pumping out and then offering to pump something else in.
You can't actually use this as an analogy because it won;t help you understand it.

I'll offer you something to think about and I know you'll likely go off on one but here goes.

What is forced into or against something there must be an equal reaction to it.

If you are using an analogy of forcing water into a cube and pumping something else out, what is that something else?
And also if you're adding water to the cube then what is it you are pushing out?

I just want to clarify.
And also all materials expand and contract when pressure is applied. If you don't accept this then we can go no further.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2023, 04:41:16 AM

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.

There is no flaw. The only flaw is with you not understanding what's being said.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2023, 08:21:21 AM

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.

Maybe you should.

Funny.  No evidence the atmosphere pushes items down.

It squeezes back against what was compressing it. Displacement.
Understand this and you have a chance.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2023, 10:13:47 PM

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.

You carry on and I'll just sit back and smile.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 23, 2023, 06:10:41 PM

Funny.  No evidence the atmosphere pushes items down.

It squeezes back against what was compressing it. Displacement.
Understand this and you have a chance.

Fluid power demonstrates there has to be an actual flow of fluid from high pressure to low pressure where the movement of fluid has to carry an object along to make it move.  There is no such
Action in den pressure.

The video clearly shows the object is being pulled by gravity through the atmosphere by the wake it is leaving.


You can’t demonstrate otherwise.

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


And you have no personal experience to counter the highly researched, documented, and published results that proves when air resistance is made negligible objects of different densities fall at the same rate.  That is reality.  Den pressure only works if you ignore documented and demonstrable reality.

Atmosphere is already in the structure.

What is the composition of your atmosphere.

In my proven reality of working with an air separation plant molecules of CO2 don’t expand nor contract with pressure and they don’t breakdown.

The Molecular sieve with its fixed pore size captures only CO2 and passes N2 and O2 over widen variations of pressures. 


The CO2 is rejected before the refrigerator process.  If it wasn’t, the pressure swings of the refrigerator process would build up CO2 ice and plug up.  The CO2 monitors of the system would detect CO2 breakthrough. 

In the real world you have this equation

A combustion reaction occurs when a substance reacts quickly with oxygen (O2). For example, in the Figure below, charcoal is combining with oxygen. Combustion is commonly called burning, and the substance that burns is usually referred to as fuel. The products of a complete combustion reaction include carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O). The reaction typically gives off heat and light as well. The general equation for a complete combustion reaction is:

Fuel + O2 → CO2 + H2O

Or this

The metal complex [(tpy)(Mebim-py)RuII(S)]2+ (tpy = 2,2′ : 6′,2′′-terpyridine; Mebim-py = 3-methyl-1-pyridylbenzimidazol-2-ylidene; S = solvent) is a robust, reactive electrocatalyst toward both water oxidation to oxygen and carbon dioxide reduction to carbon monoxide. Here we describe its use as a single electrocatalyst for CO2 splitting, CO2 → CO + 1/2 O2, in a two-compartment electrochemical cell.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1203122109

Now.  Can you write a balanced chemical formula how CO2 is broken down in your delusion in atmosphere.

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 23, 2023, 09:47:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2023, 10:13:47 PM

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.

You carry on and I'll just sit back and smile.

Good job, keep squirming.
This pleases me.

You see this is where you cannot use a water analogy because you're offering pumping out and then offering to pump something else in.
You can't actually use this as an analogy because it won;t help you understand it.

It seems to work fine, and just demonstrates your model is wrong.

If you are using an analogy of forcing water into a cube and pumping something else out, what is that something else?

The water initially going in is to simply put the cube in the environment, and show just how much water the cube itself displaced. If you like, you can start with the cube already in the water and just measure how much the displacement changes.
After that, when you pump it out, the water inside the cube can simply expand (turn to gas with the water vapour filling the void).
And if you pump a different fluid in, that can directly displace the water pushing it out.

So this analogy does not fail.

And also all materials expand and contract when pressure is applied. If you don't accept this then we can go no further.

The expansion and contraction in this case is entirely insignificant, as observed by the volume of water displaced changing.
We can even fill it with a lighter gas at a higher pressure and still see the reduction in weight even though it should have expanded from the increased pressure inside.

There is no flaw. The only flaw is with you not understanding what's being said.

Ignoring the flaw to accuse me of not understanding wont make the flaw disappear.
There is quite clearly a massive flaw.
Displacement does not correlate with weight.

Maybe you should.

I do understand, which is why I can so easily demonstrate why your claims are nonsense.

It squeezes back against what was compressing it. Displacement.

And that is inwards, not downwards.

Understand this and you have a chance.

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.

In archery you can make a target for arrows by squeezing lays of cardboard.  The more layers with
increasing squeeze of a ratchet strap increases the squeeze and takes an increasing powerful bow to shoot through the layers.

What force is drawing the sub down from less pressure to more pressure.  The opposite of proven fluid power. The density of sea water has negligible changes with depth.  Why is that? 



https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/chapter/6-3-density/


What?  A change in density of .01 for 2500 meters?  How many layers is that in den pressure? Only .01 gram / centimeter cubed change for 2500 meters?  And what meaningful measurement of sea water do you get from mass -volume.  Please provide example.

By the way.

Volume of the ocean is 660 million cubic kilometers.

For a Los Angeles attack sub, Submerged: 6,927 tonnes (6,818 long tons)

What the hell does “6,927 tonnes (6,818 long tons) - 660 million cubic kilometers” even mean?  And how do you convert that to layers? 

In fact.  In den pressure shouldn’t the volume in density for den pressure always be the volume of earth’s atmosphere?

510 million square kilometers.

So the density in den pressure is always negligible?


Example 1 gram mass? In den pressure density?


1g - 510 million square kilometers?


In den pressure what is a 1 gram mass compared to 510 million square kilometers of atmosphere?

Or is it the mass of the earth - the volume of the 1 gram mass?

den pressure is stupid. 

Fluid power demonstrates there has to be an actual flow of fluid from high pressure to low pressure where the movement of fluid has to carry an object along to make it move.  There is no such
Action in den pressure.

What is fluid power?
How do you get fluid from high pressure to low pressure?
Using a simple analogy explain this in your own words, let's see if you can do it without searching out something to copy and paste.

The video clearly shows the object is being pulled by gravity through the atmosphere by the wake it is leaving.


You can’t demonstrate otherwise.

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

No video shows any object being pulled by gravity and you know this.
And also, as I said, vacuums do not exist. Use extremely low pressure and I'll happily answer.

And you have no personal experience to counter the highly researched, documented, and published results that proves when air resistance is made negligible objects of different densities fall at the same rate.

Atmospheric pressure is never negligible.

  That is reality.  Den pressure only works if you ignore documented and demonstrable reality.

Gravity only works if you ignore reality.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2023, 11:37:37 PM

Atmosphere is already in the structure.

What is the composition of your atmosphere.

So many varieties of broken-down molecules.

In my proven reality of working with an air separation plant molecules of CO2 don’t expand nor contract with pressure and they don’t breakdown.

Really?
Then how come carbon monoxide can be made?

The Molecular sieve with its fixed pore size captures only CO2 and passes N2 and O2 over widen variations of pressures. 

Pressures. Heat. Put your mind to work and understand the sieve.

The CO2 is rejected before the refrigerator process.  If it wasn’t, the pressure swings of the refrigerator process would build up CO2 ice and plug up.  The CO2 monitors of the system would detect CO2 breakthrough. 

In the real world you have this equation

Quote

A combustion reaction occurs when a substance reacts quickly with oxygen (O2). For example, in the Figure below, charcoal is combining with oxygen. Combustion is commonly called burning, and the substance that burns is usually referred to as fuel. The products of a complete combustion reaction include carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O). The reaction typically gives off heat and light as well. The general equation for a complete combustion reaction is:

Fuel + O2 → CO2 + H2O

Or this

Quote

The metal complex [(tpy)(Mebim-py)RuII(S)]2+ (tpy = 2,2′ : 6′,2′′-terpyridine; Mebim-py = 3-methyl-1-pyridylbenzimidazol-2-ylidene; S = solvent) is a robust, reactive electrocatalyst toward both water oxidation to oxygen and carbon dioxide reduction to carbon monoxide. Here we describe its use as a single electrocatalyst for CO2 splitting, CO2 → CO + 1/2 O2, in a two-compartment electrochemical cell.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1203122109

You're not offering anything against denpressure.
You're merely offering up lots of copy and paste from wherever you find what suits you and you think it somehow offers an argument against denpressure which you have absolutely no clue about and it's so clear to see you know next to nothing about it because you've never taken the time to.

Now.  Can you write a balanced chemical formula how CO2 is broken down in your delusion in atmosphere.

No need to write anything.
Put your mind to work not your pen.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 12:37:18 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 23, 2023, 09:47:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 22, 2023, 10:13:47 PM

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.

You carry on and I'll just sit back and smile.

Good job, keep squirming.
This pleases me.

Anything to add or just this?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 12:08:51 AM

You see this is where you cannot use a water analogy because you're offering pumping out and then offering to pump something else in.
You can't actually use this as an analogy because it won;t help you understand it.

It seems to work fine, and just demonstrates your model is wrong.

It demonstrates that you have little clue about denpressure.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 12:08:51 AM

If you are using an analogy of forcing water into a cube and pumping something else out, what is that something else?

The water initially going in is to simply put the cube in the environment, and show just how much water the cube itself displaced. If you like, you can start with the cube already in the water and just measure how much the displacement changes.
After that, when you pump it out, the water inside the cube can simply expand (turn to gas with the water vapour filling the void).
And if you pump a different fluid in, that can directly displace the water pushing it out.

So this analogy does not fail.

You're offering up all sorts. Why not stick to water and atmosphere and we can go from there.
You're offering an analogy that does not correlate with denpressure.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 12:08:51 AM

And also all materials expand and contract when pressure is applied. If you don't accept this then we can go no further.

The expansion and contraction in this case is entirely insignificant, as observed by the volume of water displaced changing.
We can even fill it with a lighter gas at a higher pressure and still see the reduction in weight even though it should have expanded from the increased pressure inside.

Expansion and contraction are always significant. To say otherwise just renders your arguments pointless.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 12:08:51 AM

There is no flaw. The only flaw is with you not understanding what's being said.

Ignoring the flaw to accuse me of not understanding wont make the flaw disappear.

You simply don't understand, that much is clear.

There is quite clearly a massive flaw.

In what you offer, I agree.

Displacement does not correlate with weight.

Displacement by any dense mass will offer a scale reading of measurement of that dense mass by a person-made moving foundation of resistance. (scales and plate).

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 12:10:32 AM

It squeezes back against what was compressing it. Displacement.

And that is inwards, not downwards.

Understand this and you have a chance.

You can't squeeze inwards without creating a compression and expansion into compression and the inward squeeze will determine whether something is squeezed up or down based on the molecular dense mass of the object.

In archery you can make a target for arrows by squeezing lays of cardboard.  The more layers with
increasing squeeze of a ratchet strap increases the squeeze and takes an increasing powerful bow to shoot through the layers.

Maybe you can explain what you're getting at here.

What force is drawing the sub down from less pressure to more pressure.  The opposite of proven fluid power. The density of sea water has negligible changes with depth.  Why is that? 

Sea water is pumped into air tanks and the sub becomes more of a dense mass displacement of the atmosphere which means it gets squeezed down as it displaces the atmosphere.


And if you think seawater has negligible changes at depth then I can't help you.

By the way.

Volume of the ocean is 660 million cubic kilometers.

For a Los Angeles attack sub, Submerged: 6,927 tonnes (6,818 long tons)

What the hell does “6,927 tonnes (6,818 long tons) - 660 million cubic kilometers” even mean?  And how do you convert that to layers?

You don't.

In fact.  In den pressure shouldn’t the volume in density for den pressure always be the volume of earth’s atmosphere?

In the internal structure, yes.
And then you have the dense mass structural displacement of the external atmosphere to displace, minus that internal volume.
I think (maybe not) the lightbulb could come on for you. let's see.

510 million square kilometers.

So the density in den pressure is always negligible?


Example 1 gram mass? In den pressure density?


1g - 510 million square kilometers?


In den pressure what is a 1 gram mass compared to 510 million square kilometers of atmosphere?

Or is it the mass of the earth - the volume of the 1 gram mass?

den pressure is stupid.

This isn't going to help you.
Your mind is stuck to anything you find on the internet that you think would be good to copy and paste.
You're wasting your time and you certainly are not being impressive.

The writing was on the wall with this thread topic on the very first post, 22 pages ago. Yet still the diehards persist.

I've never before read a larger display of absolute useless drivel.

Maybe I should start a new thread topic titled, "Experiment ideas to disprove the Flux Capacitor".

So many varieties of broken-down molecules.

The atmosphere is composed of nitrogen, oxygen, CO2, and argon.  Then trace gases.

Can you write down balanced den pressure equations where they came from and where they go in your delusion.  And what causes equilibrium in the atmosphere of oxygen, nitrogen, CO2, and argon.

Fluid power is the fundamentals of how compressed fluids like pneumatics provides motivation to accurate air operated valves and pneumatic pistons.


And for your den pressure density.  The delusion of mass - volume.

Let’s use an example.
Let’s use a 1 gram mass with a volume of 1 centimeter cubed, on a 2 gram mass with the volume of 5 centimeters cubed, on the ground in open atmosphere.

In your delusion of mass - volume what is the density of the one gram mass, with what mass and volume? 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 24, 2023, 05:06:11 AM

In fact.  In den pressure shouldn’t the volume in density for den pressure always be the volume of earth’s atmosphere?

In the internal structure, yes.
And then you have the dense mass structural displacement of the external atmosphere to displace, minus that internal volume.
I think (maybe not) the lightbulb could come on for you. let's see.

You just killed den pressure again.  So no.

the volume of the atmosphere is roughly 4,200,000,000 cubic kilometers.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-volume-of-air-in-Earth%E2%80%99s-atmosphere-and-volume-of-water-on-Earth#:~:text=the%20volume%20of%20the%20atmosphere%20is%20roughly%204%2C200%2C000%2C000%20cubic%20kilometers.


That means for almost all densities of things like 1 gram weights, the density is negligible.  Insignificant.


Please use your density delusion in some math problem?  Or maybe a stated experiment that can prove the accuracy and practicality of mass - volume. 


You know.  Like the actual topic of this thread.  Not your he said she said BS.  Like actual documented experiments.  Reality that you ignore to facilitate the he said she said argument.

Such as things do fall faster in a vacuum.

Or when shape makes air resistance negligible for items of different densities which fall at the same rate.

Anyway.

There has been no effort to show how den pressure can be useful or experienced through actual experiments.

Den pressure isn’t real science.  No effort has been made to explain real phenomena.  Like simply things falling faster in a vacuum.


Den pressure totally ignores working fluid power principles and the gas laws. 

Den pressure has no application in the fields of nuclear power, chemistry, chemical processing, and conventional power plants.


Dan pressure’s only application is to troll through a Jerry Springer style debate with the drama of a he said she said divorce case void of any actual physical evidence and documentation.

I came to know den pressure and it’s a useless fraud.  Troll on den pressure troll on.


Carry on wayward troll.

He will see there is never peace.

You’ll never lay your lying keyboard to rest.

Masquerading as a man with a reason
My charade is the event of the season
And if I claim to be a wise man, well
It surely means that I don't know
On a stormy sea of moving emotion
Tossed about, I'm like a ship on the ocean
I set a course for winds of fortune
But I hear the voices say

https://www.google.com/search?q=carry+on+my+wayward+son+lyrics&client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&ei=_oduZKOsB6moptQPgIeyuAo&oq=carry+on+my+way+song&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAEYADIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzIKCAAQRxDWBBCwA0oECEEYAFAAWABgvwloAXAAeACAAUiIAUiSAQExmAEAyAEHwAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

Carry on wayward troll.

He will see there is never peace.

You’ll never lay your lying keyboard to rest.

It demonstrates that you have little clue about denpressure.

Wrong again.
It demonstrates I understand it quite well, and can easily demonstrate how your model fails to match reality.
Demonstrating that your model doesn't work, doesn't mean I don't understand.
Again, reality clearly demonstrating that displacing air reduces the weight.
That the downwards does not come from displacing air.

Why not stick to water and atmosphere and we can go from there.

Because the water is being used as an analogy for the air. In that you cannot appeal to the air, as that is represented by the water.
We could just stick to the air, and just accept that removing the air from the inside of the cube will result in MORE air being displaced.
But you don't want to accept that, so I gave you a simple analogy to clearly demonstrate it.

You're offering an analogy that does not correlate with denpressure.

You mean I am offering an analogy that clearly demonstrates that denpressure doesn't work. Because it clearly demonstrates that by removing the air from the inside, you increase the amount of air displaced, but that doesn't result in an increase in weight.

So the only way in which it doesn't "correlate with denpressure" is that it shows it is wrong.

Expansion and contraction are always significant. To say otherwise just renders your arguments pointless.

Repeating the same lies wont help you.
The size of the object can be measured directly. We can see how much its "apparent" volume changes due to this expansion and contraction and see that it is tiny compared to the change in size of the object, and far less significant than the change in weight reading.
That means it is insignificant.
You wanting to continually and claim that it is always significant just how pathetic your model is.

But again, I offered an alternative, which you just ignored because you can't then come up with these pathetic excuses.
We can put a gas inside it, displacing more atmosphere, even at a higher pressure, and still have the reading lower.

You simply don't understand, that much is clear.

Repeating the same insult will not help you.
The fact you need to keep saying this instead of explaining just what is wrong demonstrates that I do understand and you have run out of pathetic excuses.

Displacement by any dense mass will offer a scale reading of measurement of that dense mass by a person-made moving foundation of resistance.

Again, the experiments the opposite.
That displacing it will not cause the reading, as displacing more can reduce the reading.

You can't squeeze inwards without creating a compression and expansion into compression and the inward squeeze will determine whether something is squeezed up or down based on the molecular dense mass of the object.

And that compression and expansion in inwards and outwards.
Not upwards or downwards.
If you want to appeal to the air, then the only thing you have giving you an upwards or downwards component is the pressure gradient, and that means everything is pushed up.
You have no explanation at all for why pushing something inwards should make it go down, especially when the push from below is greater than the push from above.
And you have no explanation for why the mass of the object should change it.

Saying it is based upon the molecular dense mass of the object, it yet again appealing to gravity, where it is the mass of the object trying to go down due to gravity.

And compared to your delusional BS, gravity and buoyancy works just fine.
The fluid, having a greater pressure below, pushes up, with a force equal to the weight of fluid displaced.
The object, having mass, experiences a downwards force from gravity, going down.
If the downwards force directly from gravity is greater than the upwards force from the fluid, it goes down.
If the upwards force from the fluid is greater, it goes up.
Quite simple.
No need for any dishonest, convoluted BS of squeezing in magically turning into a downwards force.
No need for directly defying the known laws of how gases work to pretend the air can magically push from low pressure to high pressure.

How do you get fluid from high pressure to low pressure?
Using a simple analogy explain this in your own words, let's see if you can do it without searching out something to copy and paste.

It is like having a punch of little sponges or springs, in 2 compartments separated by a wall which can slide along.
The ones in the high pressure region are compressed a lot and wanting to push outwards in all directions.
The ones in the low pressure region aren't as compressed.
This means the ones in the high pressure region can expand, pushing onto the wall that divides them which in turn pushes on the ones in the low pressure region.
This causes the ones in the low pressure region to shrink, while the ones in the high pressure region expand, and the wall moves over.
Without external influence, this will continue until the pressure equalises, with the 2 regions being the same pressure and the sponges all compressed the same.
To keep this working a pump is used to take sponges from the low pressure region and force them into the high pressure region. This keeps there being room in the low pressure region and keeps the ones in the high pressure region compressed.

No video shows any object being pulled by gravity and you know this.

You not liking reality does not change it.
You are also entirely ignoring the key point.
The point from this video is that it is NOT the air. A wake is left behind the ball due to something other than the air moving it down. Whatever is moving it down is called gravity.

And also, as I said, vacuums do not exist.

And as I said, you are lying. Stop pretending to use English when you aren't going to the actual definition of words.
Make up your own word to describe it.
Perfect vacuums don't exist.
That doesn't mean vacuums don't.

Atmospheric pressure is never negligible.

Which means a feather should always fall slowly, and you have no reason at all to claim rockets wont work in space.

Gravity only works if you ignore reality.

If you don't ignore reality, you need something like gravity.
You are yet to present a single time where gravity doesn't work.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of cases where gravity (or some force proportional to mass) is needed to explain reality, where your delusional nonsense doesn't work at all.

Is "reality" another word you ignore the meaning of?
Does it actually mean this real world we live in? Or to you, does "reality" mean your delusional fantasyland where everything just magically works due to air, so far removed from reality it isn't funny?

Then how come carbon monoxide can be made?

Because the bonds (the attractive forces holing the different atoms together) can be broken.
But normally CO is made from incomplete combustion and will react with O2 to produce CO2.

Pressures. Heat. Put your mind to work and understand the sieve.

I have, and clearly explained why your fantasy doesn't work.

In reality, where molecules have a ~fixed size, some molecules will be small enough to go through the pores, and some will not.
So the molecules of gas, flying around and bumping into each other in otherwise free space will sometimes hit the pore and go in, and travel through the pore, but if they are small enough. Larger molecules would hit the pore and bounce off, because they don't fit.

As a simple analogy, get a wall with holes of equal size in it.
Then get a bunch of rigid balls. Some balls are small and fit through the hole. Others are larger, and don't fit.
Now through the balls at the wall.
Some of the small balls will hit a portion of the wall without a hole, and bounce off. Others instead go through the hole.
But for the larger balls, they all bounce off. The best you get is it going to the hole, hitting the rim and bouncing back.

Now lets try it with your nonsense, using sponge balls.
We get the sponge ball, regardless of how large it is, and force it through the hole, and it goes through.
By allowing the "molecules" to expand and contract, we can force them through the hole.

And if you think seawater has negligible changes at depth then I can't help you.

The pressure changes, but the amount there does not.

Just like if you take a block of steel, and put it in a hydraulic press, until it reaches its yield point, it doesn't change much.

Fluid power is the fundamentals of how compressed fluids like pneumatics provides motivation to accurate air operated valves and pneumatic pistons.

Absolutely no bearing on any argument against denpressure.

And for your den pressure density.  The delusion of mass - volume.

Let’s use an example.
Let’s use a 1 gram mass with a volume of 1 centimeter cubed, on a 2 gram mass with the volume of 5 centimeters cubed, on the ground in open atmosphere.

In your delusion of mass - volume what is the density of the one gram mass, with what mass and volume?

You seem to want to do calculations for stuff. Why?

You need to understand denpressure first before you try to argue anything by doing what you do with this stuff.

Or when shape makes air resistance negligible for items of different densities which fall at the same rate.

Ok so here's the thing.
Your steel ball and your ping pong ball.
So they are dropped from chest height and appear to hit the floor at the same time and this somehow proves gravity.
But, if we take those two same balls and drop them off a skyscraper they will not hit the ground at the same time.
Now you will argue that air resistance is at play.
But then you argue against that for the chest height.

You see, gravity when it appears to suit and atmospheric resistance to keep a silly spinning globe and space idea relevant to the masses and it's very clear to anyone that pays close attention, it's a made-up word of fiction that triues to cover up for the reality of atmospheric pressure/resistance.