Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 07:52:38 AM

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.

All this time and you've never paid any attention.

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

Because in reality, things are often made useful by the ability to use them to perform calculations.

e.g. if you want to paint a house, you don't just go and buy one bucket of paint, use it, realise you ran out and go get more.
Instead, a decent painter determines the area to be covered, the area that can be covered by each bucket, and does some simple math to determine how much paint is needed.

Likewise, when boat designers make boats, they need to account for the effects of the weight of the boat and the cargo and any ballast and fuel, as well as the bouyancy, to be able to determine how stable the boat will be and what conditions it is safe to go out in.

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.

And this just further demonstrates that you are wrong.
We see that the effect of air changes.
As the velocity increases, air resistances increases.
But if it is the air itself pushing down, it should either change the same, or air resistance shouldn't occur at all.

This demonstrates that the downwards force accelerating the object is separate from any force from the air.

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.

Quite the opposite.
To anyone who honestly pays attention, they can clearly see your garbage fails at almost every hurdle, while you cannot demonstrate a fault with the mainstream model.
And your delusional garbage works just as well for the RE.

All this time and you've never paid any attention.

I have paid attention, which is why I can so easily demonstrate your garbage is wrong.
You would be better off if you entirely ditched the idea of it being the atmosphere, and instead appealed to something like aether, entirely separate from the atmosphere; and left the atmosphere to provide an upwards force.

Again, it is quite clear that displacing the atmosphere does not cause a downwards force.
It is quite clear, from both logic and experimental observations, that displacing the atmosphere causes an upwards force.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 10:02:41 PM

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

Because in reality, things are often made useful by the ability to use them to perform calculations.

e.g. if you want to paint a house, you don't just go and buy one bucket of paint, use it, realise you ran out and go get more.
Instead, a decent painter determines the area to be covered, the area that can be covered by each bucket, and does some simple math to determine how much paint is needed.

Fine  if calculations are needed but they aren't in terms of trying to understand the very basics of denpressure.

Likewise, when boat designers make boats, they need to account for the effects of the weight of the boat and the cargo and any ballast and fuel, as well as the bouyancy, to be able to determine how stable the boat will be and what conditions it is safe to go out in.

All this is already calculated when needed. It's just hidden behind gravity, but the calculations are not needed to explain denpressure.

You can't even calculate gravity, so what is it you're actually calculating? I mean what force? Because it certainly isn't fictional gravity.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 10:11:09 PM

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.

And this just further demonstrates that you are wrong.
We see that the effect of air changes.
As the velocity increases, air resistances increases.
But if it is the air itself pushing down, it should either change the same, or air resistance shouldn't occur at all.

This demonstrates that the downwards force accelerating the object is separate from any force from the air.

The only downward force is the force of the object displacing atmosphere and causing a decompression against the below resistance of the atmosphere.
There is no other force. No fictional gravity supposedly pulling objects down.
A simple helium balloon shows gravity to be silly and fictional no matter how much people try to get out of it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 10:11:09 PM

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.

Quite the opposite.
To anyone who honestly pays attention, they can clearly see your garbage fails at almost every hurdle, while you cannot demonstrate a fault with the mainstream model.

It doesn't fail. That's the beauty of it. It's as plain as anything for anyone who dares to throw gravity in the bin where it belongs.

And your delusional garbage works just as well for the RE.

But it doesn't work for a spinning globe in a space vacuum. It shows the Earth is not what we are told and it also shows space is not what we are told.
It's something else.
It's a cell, in my opinion.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 10:13:59 PM

All this time and you've never paid any attention.

I have paid attention, which is why I can so easily demonstrate your garbage is wrong.

You sometimes appear to pay attention and then you get lost and restart. If that's deliberate then fair enough but if it's not then you're wasting your time.
You certainly have never shown my theory to be wrong but you have argued with a lot of posts telling me I'm wrong, which is absolutely fine because I tell you the same thing.
And this is where we're at.
Offering copy and paste does not offer you a leg up, it offers you something to regurgitate.

You would be better off if you entirely ditched the idea of it being the atmosphere, and instead appealed to something like aether, entirely separate from the atmosphere; and left the atmosphere to provide an upwards force.

I think I'll leave aether for outside of the cell.
Inside we are dealing with atmospheric pressure due to stacking layers of molecules..

Again, it is quite clear that displacing the atmosphere does not cause a downwards force.

Objects placed into the stacked layers cause compression and decompression by energy applied and a reaction to that energy, respectively.
If the dense mass of the object is pushed into the atmosphere from the ground by a force then that object will compress the atmospheric layers and cause resistance to its force until that force is dissipated.
Where the object stops is where the atmosphere is fully displaced all around it and that decompression over half of that object above in the layers overcomes the resistance below.

It is quite clear, from both logic and experimental observations, that displacing the atmosphere causes an upwards force.

No.
the only upwards force is by applied energy, as above.
Or unless you place broken-down molecules into the denser atmosphere and release the force holding them.
In this case, we'll use a helium balloon.
Only then do you have an upwards crush on that balloon because the broken-down molecules are much less dense than the molecules they are placed into until they are crushed up to a set of layers that are as broken down as those molecules.
At this point, they would sit there in that layer system.


No gravity needed...ever.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 24, 2023, 12:49:23 PM

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.

If you had a high speed camera you could see the differences in time from chest height.

From skyscraper height the difference is magnified by something.... something....   who knows?
Its a mystery.
Or you do know and youre purpsoefully being ignorant.

If the 6ft height had a 1hairs difference.
What would a 600ft height have?
Maybe 100hairs?
Scale

It doesn't fail. That's the beauty of it. It's as plain as anything for anyone who dares to throw gravity in the bin where it belongs.

And yet actual documented experience with a simple cellphone and slow motion camera shows objects are pulled through the atmosphere by gravity by the wake they leave.  Not pushed by pressure. 




You going to keep detailing the thread, or you going to state an actual experiment that would allow a person to witness den pressure in action.  I’m guessing no because den pressure is a con job. 

Quote from: JackBlack on May 24, 2023, 03:06:24 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 07:52:38 AM

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.

All this time and you've never paid any attention.

But I have.

Care to explain how your denpressure causes women's breasts to sag, and head towards the ground, along with men's testicles? Hmm?

My favourite answer to these observations, is gravity.

Fine  if calculations are needed but they aren't in terms of trying to understand the very basics of denpressure.

Again, the difference is between your nonsense vs mainstream science.
But I suppose you are right, calculations should come later considering you can't even explain the basics.

All this is already calculated when needed. It's just hidden behind gravity
... Because it certainly isn't fictional gravity.

It isn't hidden behind gravity. It USES gravity.
Your hatred of gravity doesn't magically make it go away.
So yes, we most certainly can calculate for the very real gravity.

If you want to dismiss it as fiction, you need more than your pathetic, hate filled assertions.

The only downward force is the force of the object displacing atmosphere and causing a decompression against the below resistance of the atmosphere.

Again, the experiment clearly demonstrates your claim is garbage.
If it was just the air pushing down, then there should be no wake left behind, and comparable objects should be pushed down the same.
There is no reason for different terminal velocities.

A simple helium balloon shows gravity to be silly and fictional no matter how much people try to get out of it.

You mean it demonstrates your nonsense to be garbage.

As I have explained repeatedly, if it is just the air pushing, you would expect the same result for every object (at least every object with the same shape).
That means a helium filled balloon should fall just like a solid steel ball.
The fact it doesn't means there is something quiet different happening.

And again, this is trivially explained with mainstream science.
There is a downwards force due to gravity, and an upwards force from the pressure gradient.
i.e. just like I have been explaining repeatedly, and like all experimental observations show, the air pushes from high pressure to low pressure.
That is pushing from the high pressure below the object upwards to the lower pressure above.

This means there are 2 forces acting on any object.
If the downwards force from directly from gravity is greater, the object goes down. If the upwards force from buoyancy is greater, the object goes up.
Mainstream science explains it so simply and rationally.

Your garbage can't explain it at all.

The idea that it refutes gravity, is just as stupid as saying a light kid on a see-saw being pushed up by a heavy kid on the other side magically disproves gravity.
It requires ignoring the heavier kid (or in the case of the helium balloon, the heavier air) outside going down.

And as already explained, we can repeat the experiment in equivalent conditions.
If we take a centrifuge, we see heavy objects go to the outside, while lighter objects are pushed up by the heavier fluid.
And if we get a car, and dangle a weight from the roof, when we accelerate forwards, the weight goes backwards, while a helium balloon suspended from the bottom goes upwards.

This is all expected from gravity and the known laws of how pressure and fluids work.

And we can also confirm that is how pressure works with a simple high pressure stream of gas, or by getting a tube with different pressures at each end with a test object in the middle.
If we use a solid steel ball bearing, or a balloon, or any other object, we see the same result, the air pushes from high pressure to low pressure.

So your delusional BS is once more entirely false.
Rather than disproving gravity, these simple observations disprove your nonsense.

It doesn't fail.

It does.
You repeatedly ignoring that failure, and just dishonestly pretending it all works wont help you.
Anyone who honestly looks can compare the 3 sytems.
In order of volume displaced, they see the hollow cube filled with air displaces the least, the hollow cube with most air removed displaces more and the water filled cube displaces the most (equal to the cube where the air is replaced by a lighter gas); but in order of weight, the hollow cube with the air removed weighs the least, follow by the cube filled with air, followed by the cube filled with water.

The "beauty" of it, to you, seems to be baselessly asserting it magically works and is plain as anything.
But it isn't for those who dares to throw gravity where it belongs.
It is to those with a deep seeded hatred of gravity and reality in general, looking for pathetic excuses to escape from reality.

But it doesn't work for a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

Why doesn't it?
Remember, the "space vacuum" is not a perfect vacuum.

You even described it quite well.
You have a central core made of molecules, with layers around it made of molecules.
That can be the RE.
Where the RE is just 1 very large molecule made of lots of smaller molecules in layers.

This molecule can be spinning.
And it can be moving around in space (the very low pressure environment where you claim air pressure is still significant which would still allow rockets to work even in your fantasy where they push off the air), and there can be other molecules out there, the quite compressed and heavily layered ones in terms of other planets/stars/the moon/etc, and the much less compressed ones on the outside.

It shows the Earth is not what we are told and it also shows space is not what we are told.

No, it doesn't.
At best it would show that space isn't the strawman of what you pretend we are told.
No one claims space is a perfect vacuum.
It is close, but not perfect.
It is a very low pressure environment, commonly called a vacuum.

You sometimes appear to pay attention and then you get lost and restart.

You mean I pay attention, take in multiple aspects of your model, and then demonstrate how your model doesn't work due to the contradiction between it and reality, or between your model and itself.

That isn't me not paying attention. That is me demonstrating why your model is wrong.
But because you have no honest response, as any "honest" response you give needs to contradict reality showing your model doesn't work, or contradict your model, showing your model doesn't work; you instead resort to dishonestly claiming I'm not paying attention.

Your latest attempt at "explaining" stacking is a great example of that.
Where I paid to what you were saying, and used that to demonstrate how you weren't explaining stacking at all.

You certainly have never shown my theory to be wrong

You mean you have never accepted that your model is wrong, even though you are not able to address the multitude of flaws.

Inside we are dealing with atmospheric pressure due to stacking layers of molecules..

And that stacking is clearly caused by something else, and the question is what?
And this stacking results in a higher pressure lower down, meaning it should push up, not down.

This is why if you brought in the aether your model would be vastly superior to what it is now. It has a fundamental requirement for any model to work, 2 different opposing forces. One based upon the atmosphere displaced pushing up, and one based upon something else pushing (or pulling) down. That way you can appeal to the difference between these 2 forces to explain why some objects go down and some go up.
While it is just 1 force, there is no reason for one object to go down, and another to go up.

Objects placed into the stacked layers cause compression and decompression by energy applied and a reaction to that energy, respectively.

And that results in an inwards force trying to crush the object, and the small pressure gradient across it results in an upwards force pushing the object up.
It does not result in a downwards force. No amount of dishonest BS will change this.
The pressure above pushing down is LESS than the pressure below pushing up. That means the object goes up, not down. Unless you have another force.

No gravity needed...ever.

Except almost all the time, to explain almost all the observations discussed.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 10:11:09 PM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 24, 2023, 12:49:23 PM

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.

If you had a high speed camera you could see the differences in time from chest height.

From skyscraper height the difference is magnified by something.... something....   who knows?
Its a mystery.
Or you do know and youre purpsoefully being ignorant.

If the 6ft height had a 1hairs difference.
What would a 600ft height have?
Maybe 100hairs?
Scale

sceptimatic Has been asked to model different drop rates based on density.  And asked why a steel ball easily twenty times more dense than a ping pang ball isn’t accelerating 20 times faster than the ping pong ball.  Something that would be quite evident with even a five foot drop. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 03, 2023, 07:59:12 AM

If two balls of different densities are dropped from the same height and they appear to hit the floor at the same time but one possibly could be hitting the floor 1/1 millionth of a second sooner...is this negligible to you?

Accuracy of analysis that can be averaged out to show consistency has nothing to do with you not being able to answer why a steel ball 20 times more dense than a ping pong ball (reality probably being the steel ball 100 times more dense) doesn’t fall at a rate twenty times faster than the ping pong ball.



It’s quite acceptable the steel ball might drop a fraction of a second a few times faster with the ping pong ball falling a few times a fraction of a second faster.

You by no means have shown when air resistance is made negligible the steel ball will drop at a faster rate.  And you can’t show nor made any effort to model with den pressure to predict how much faster the steel ball should drop constantly in your delusion.  And at what point it should be noticeable.

Your den-pressure is useless as a model and a lie.

sceptimatic  Never offers a clear answer.  And never offers any calculated modeling on what drop rates should be for objects with different densities.  Or sceptimatic never offers any documented experiments that can be done like this…

Galileo's Measure Of Gravity Explained By Jim Al-Khalili | The Amazing World Of Gravity | Spark

Something that could easily be done. 

Aluminum ball rolls down the ramp this fast.

Steel ball rolls down the ramp this fast.

Hard hollow plastic ball rolls done the ramp this fast.

Glass ball rolls done the ramp this fast.

Lead ball rolls down the ramp this fast. 

In reality.  It doesn’t even take modeling.  Just documenting and observing how long it takes balls of plastic and lead to travel down the same distance down a ramp. 

Funny sceptimatic the self proclaimed scientific person will not make a model of different falling objects with different densities, make predictions, and check those predictions with a simple ramp?  Only offers a barrage of word salad. 

If you had a high speed camera you could see the differences in time from chest height.

From skyscraper height the difference is magnified by something.... something....   who knows?
Its a mystery.
Or you do know and youre purpsoefully being ignorant.

If the 6ft height had a 1hairs difference.
What would a 600ft height have?
Maybe 100hairs?
Scale

It doesn't matter what the difference is. The fact is there is a difference.
Then a fictional vacuum is offered to supposedly close this distance to nothing and it's just not the case.

The reason why the so-called experts offer this short drop for gravity and then offer a supposed vacuum is that it's an easy dupe to bypass what should really be in people's faces, literally.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 25, 2023, 09:07:54 AM

It doesn't fail. That's the beauty of it. It's as plain as anything for anyone who dares to throw gravity in the bin where it belongs.

And yet actual documented experience with a simple cellphone and slow motion camera shows objects are pulled through the atmosphere by gravity by the wake they leave.  Not pushed by pressure. 

What wake? What are you talking about?

You going to keep detailing the thread, or you going to state an actual experiment that would allow a person to witness den pressure in action.  I’m guessing no because den pressure is a con job.

You witness denpressue in action with everything you do, you just don't want to accept it because fictional gravity holds the key to the brainwashing party.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 10:13:59 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 24, 2023, 03:06:24 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 07:52:38 AM

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.

All this time and you've never paid any attention.

But I have.

Care to explain how your denpressure causes women's breasts to sag, and head towards the ground, along with men's testicles? Hmm?

My favourite answer to these observations, is gravity.

Anything to add?

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 25, 2023, 09:43:42 AM

If you had a high speed camera you could see the differences in time from chest height.

From skyscraper height the difference is magnified by something.... something....   who knows?
Its a mystery.
Or you do know and youre purpsoefully being ignorant.

If the 6ft height had a 1hairs difference.
What would a 600ft height have?
Maybe 100hairs?
Scale

It doesn't matter what the difference is. The fact is there is a difference.
Then a fictional vacuum is offered to supposedly close this distance to nothing and it's just not the case.

The reason why the so-called experts offer this short drop for gravity and then offer a supposed vacuum is that it's an easy dupe to bypass what should really be in people's faces, literally.

There is a difference.
No one denied it.

It does matter.
Because you said the drag effect is meaningless and a dupe.
Its not meanigless when you take account of scale.

So
Is 1hairs width different from 100hairs widths?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 25, 2023, 10:44:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 10:13:59 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 24, 2023, 03:06:24 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 07:52:38 AM

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.

All this time and you've never paid any attention.

But I have.

Care to explain how your denpressure causes women's breasts to sag, and head towards the ground, along with men's testicles? Hmm?

My favourite answer to these observations, is gravity.

Anything to add?

Yes. Double chins and buttocks. Tuckshop arms.

Your denpressure explanation, hmm?

Quote

The only downward force is the force of the object displacing atmosphere and causing a decompression against the below resistance of the atmosphere.

If it was just the air pushing down, then there should be no wake left behind, and comparable objects should be pushed down the same.

Give me an example of a denser mass wake and a much less dense mass wake in freefall.

There is no reason for different terminal velocities.

There is never a terminal velocity in the grand scheme of things. Unless you want to count a nano nano nano nanosecond as a super flash terminal velocity.

Quote

A simple helium balloon shows gravity to be silly and fictional no matter how much people try to get out of it.

You mean it demonstrates your nonsense to be garbage.

As I have explained repeatedly, if it is just the air pushing, you would expect the same result for every object (at least every object with the same shape).
That means a helium filled balloon should fall just like a solid steel ball.
The fact it doesn't means there is something quiet different happening.

Not when you understand molecular layers and where they are in the stacking system and how they can be forcefully broken down to become less dense molecular layers, which is where the likes of helium come in when molecules are broken down so much so they cannot sit within the more densely packed molecules and are basically crushed against but cannot be crushed down because of their much less layered molecular make-up but they can be crushed up because each layer set gets less dense the higher it's stacked and that's where those helium molecules will be crushed towards and eventually settle in layers that are suited to their stacking.

Simple enough to understand and shows gravity to be utter nonsense.

And again, this is trivially explained with mainstream science.
There is a downwards force due to gravity, and an upwards force from the pressure gradient.
i.e. just like I have been explaining repeatedly, and like all experimental observations show, the air pushes from high pressure to low pressure.
That is pushing from the high pressure below the object upwards to the lower pressure above.

Only when a force is applied.
The pushing is decompression to cause compression all started by energy vibration and frequencies of that.

This means there are 2 forces acting on any object.
If the downwards force from directly from gravity is greater, the object goes down. If the upwards force from buoyancy is greater, the object goes up.
Mainstream science explains it so simply and rationally.

Your garbage can't explain it at all.

Garbage gravity cannot explain it.
You offer it as a force and absolutely do not know what you're really offering, other than say gravity. And when pressed it's always "Well it's mass attracting mass, so there." It's utterly senseless.

The idea that it refutes gravity, is just as stupid as saying a light kid on a see-saw being pushed up by a heavy kid on the other side magically disproves gravity.

No it's not.
The heavier kid is dense and is offering a force of a push against a less dense kid who has no option but to be pushed up.
The dense kid displaces much more atmosphere than the less dense kid. No gravity is needed.

It requires ignoring the heavier kid (or in the case of the helium balloon, the heavier air) outside going down.

You're basically just describing denpressure to be fair.

And as already explained, we can repeat the experiment in equivalent conditions.
If we take a centrifuge, we see heavy objects to the outside, while lighter objects are pushed up by the heavier fluid.

This proves denpressure. It does not prove anything else.

And if we get a car, and dangle a weight from the roof, when we accelerate forwards, the weight goes backwards, while a helium balloon suspended from the bottom goes upwards.

Actually as well as upwards the helium balloon goes forwards. Another proof of den pressure.
Dangling a mass from the roof also proves denpressure.
None of it offers gravity.

This is all expected from gravity and the known laws of how pressure and fluids work.

Absolutely not.
Pressure and fluids work very well without the fictional gravity added to them.

And we can also confirm that is how pressure works with a simple high pressure stream of gas, or by getting a tube with different pressures at each end with a test object in the middle.
If we use a solid steel ball bearing, or a balloon, or any other object, we see the same result, the air pushes from high pressure to low pressure.

Decompression/expansion to create compression. That's how it works for everything. It's merely a breakdown by so many variations in molecules and stacking systems all based on energy applied to create vibrational frequencies.

No gravity is required. No fictional forces needed.

No one claims space is a perfect vacuum.
It is close, but not perfect.

What does close actually mean?
It either is one or it isn't.

It is a very low pressure environment, commonly called a vacuum.

Ok so it's low pressure up in that sky. That's space then. So it's basically high altitude under the dome.

If you want to argue anything else then you need to explain what low pressure means for your supposed space away from your spinning globe.

If you want to offer scattered particles in a nothingness then explain it, because that offers absolutely nothing but balderdash.

This is why if you brought in the aether your model would be vastly superior to what it is now. It has a fundamental requirement for any model to work, 2 different opposing forces. One based upon the atmosphere displaced pushing up, and one based upon something else pushing (or pulling) down.
That way you can appeal to the difference between these 2 forces to explain why some objects go down and some go up.

You can have aether if you want but I'd offer that for outside of the dome, not inside.

While it is just 1 force, there is no reason for one object to go down, and another to go up.

The force is simple. It's decompression causing compression. It's a push against resistance or resistance to a push or push on push or resistance on resistance.

Anyway, you want to see it in those contexts.

One force obtains an equal reaction to it.
It's all based on dense mass displacement, at all times and never a time for anything else.
It just comes down to the dense mass molecular breakdown and the force of vibration and frequencies of them.


It's all a squeeze and never ever a pull.

Something that could easily be done. 

Aluminum ball rolls down the ramp this fast.

Steel ball rolls down the ramp this fast.

Hard hollow plastic ball rolls done the ramp this fast.

Glass ball rolls done the ramp this fast.

Lead ball rolls down the ramp this fast. 

In reality.  It doesn’t even take modeling.  Just documenting and observing how long it takes balls of plastic and lead to travel down the same distance down a ramp. 

Funny sceptimatic the self proclaimed scientific person will not make a model of different falling objects with different densities, make predictions, and check those predictions with a simple ramp?  Only offers a barrage of word salad.

Do all the balls roll down the ramp at exactly the same speed?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 25, 2023, 10:13:52 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 25, 2023, 10:44:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 10:13:59 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 24, 2023, 03:06:24 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 07:52:38 AM

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.

All this time and you've never paid any attention.

But I have.

Care to explain how your denpressure causes women's breasts to sag, and head towards the ground, along with men's testicles? Hmm?

My favourite answer to these observations, is gravity.

Anything to add?

Yes. Double chins and buttocks. Tuckshop arms.

Your denpressure explanation, hmm?

Anything to add?

It doesn't matter what the difference is. The fact is there is a difference.

And this is where you show a lack of understanding of significant vs insignificant.

Then a fictional vacuum is offered to supposedly close this distance to nothing and it's just not the case.

You mean a real vacuum is used to demonstrate how you can dramatically change the effects of the air.

In a standard atmosphere, a feather drops incredibly slowly, while other objects drop quite quickly.
But put it in a decent vacuum, the feather drops quickly as well.

This makes perfect sense in a model where the downwards force is NOT coming from the air; but it makes no sense at all in your model.

The reason why the so-called experts offer this short drop for gravity and then offer a supposed vacuum is that it's an easy dupe to bypass what should really be in people's faces, literally.

No, the reason they provide it is because it so easily demonstrates the different effects of air vs gravity.

It shows how the air is resisting objects falling through it, and that by having air as well as gravity, you can significantly slow down how fast something falls.
This is why parachutes work.

Give me an example of a denser mass wake and a much less dense mass wake in freefall.

You were provided an example of the video showing the wake.

There is never a terminal velocity in the grand scheme of things.

Semantic garbage which just deflects from the issue.
The simple fact is in reality we observe objects in a fluid accelerating downwards at different rates depending on their mass and geometry.
This is because you have a downwards force based upon the mass of the object, but the air (or fluid) resists based upon the geometry of the object.

If it was actually the air just magically pushing down, you would never expect this to happen.
Instead, as you change the geometry of the object you would change the downwards force and the resistance.
And if there was some magical limit, you would expect it to be the same for all objects.

Not when you understand molecular layers and where they are in the stacking system and how they can be forcefully broken down to become less dense molecular layers, which is where the likes of helium come in when molecules are broken down so much so they cannot sit within the more densely packed molecules and are basically crushed against but cannot be crushed down because of their much less layered molecular make-up but they can be crushed up because each layer set gets less dense the higher it's stacked and that's where those helium molecules will be crushed towards and eventually settle in layers that are suited to their stacking.

Simple enough to understand and shows gravity to be utter nonsense.

Simple enough to understand how you are desperate to pretend your delusional BS works even though you have no explanation.
Notice how again you appeal to the MASS of the object, as if there is a downwards force based upon mass trying to pull the object down to Earth.
The dense object has enough mass to overcome the upwards force from the air and go down, while the less dense object does not have enough mass so goes up.

Without this downwards force based upon mass, your garbage makes no sense at all.
You have no justification for why the air should push an object down, nor why changing the mass should magically cause it to push up.
You spout whatever dishonest BS is needed to pretend it works.

But more importantly, it in no way demonstrates any fault with gravity at all.

So even if your delusional BS actually worked, it wouldn't show gravity to be nonsense.

Only when a force is applied.

You mean like the force from the air, because the air has a certain pressure?

Garbage gravity cannot explain it.

Instead of repeatedly assert the same pathetic, desperate lie; try actually explaining what is wrong with the explanation from gravity.

No it's not.

Yes it is.
The helium balloon goes up while the dense air around it goes down.
Just like the light kid goes up while the heavy kid goes down.
So it most certainly is just as stupid as appealing to that situation.

The big distinction is that the heavy kid is much easier to see than the air, so your dishonest BS is exposed much more readily.

No gravity is needed.

Until you can explain the downwards force, you need gravity.
If you need to appeal to the mass of the object, you need gravity.

This proves denpressure.

No, it doesn't. Not in the slightest.
Your garbage has no way to explain it.
It also demonstrate how pressure gradients work, and how you need an extra force.
It DISPROVES denpressure.

Another proof of den pressure.

Repeatedly asserting the same pathetic, desperate lie will not help you.

Absolutely not.

Again, stop with the pathetic lies and try an explanation.

That's how it works for everything.

That's right. That is how it works FOR EVERYTHING!
Air pushes from high pressure to low pressure.
That means the pressure gradient of the atmosphere pushes from high pressure below to low pressure above.
That means the atmosphere pushes up.
That means your denpressure BS is wrong.

You need an extra force to explain why things fall.

If you want to offer scattered particles in a nothingness then explain it, because that offers absolutely nothing but balderdash.

Again, your irrational hatred of reality doesn't change it.
If you want to reject free space, you need to clearly articulate what is wrong with it, and explain what it explains. And just lying by claiming everything is attached will not help you.

You can have aether if you want but I'd offer that for outside of the dome, not inside.

It would be through everything, to provide the downwards force your air cant'.

The force is simple.

That's right, the downwards force from gravity is simple.

But again, if you want some objects to go down, while others go up, you need 2 forces. 1 is not enough.

It doesn't matter what the difference is. The fact is there is a difference.

The problem is when you make air resistance negligible with a vacuum there isn’t a difference.




And you have done nothing to prove /  document that the rate an object drops correlates to its density.

In the example of the steel ball and ping pong ball having air resistance made negligible by shape.  The steel ball being 20 times more dense than the ping pong ball, why doesn’t the steel ball fall twenty times faster.


In fact the value of g is in m/s^2 which allows one to derive the time it takes a ball to hit the ground from a known height.

The more advanced formulas take in account the drag / air friction of the dropped object.


How do you do that with just density and pressure?

In physics with the value of g, time is even considered.  It seems ignored in the delusion of den pressure. 

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 25, 2023, 11:38:40 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 25, 2023, 10:13:52 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 25, 2023, 10:44:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 10:13:59 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 24, 2023, 03:06:24 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 24, 2023, 07:52:38 AM

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.

All this time and you've never paid any attention.

But I have.

Care to explain how your denpressure causes women's breasts to sag, and head towards the ground, along with men's testicles? Hmm?

My favourite answer to these observations, is gravity.

Anything to add?

Yes. Double chins and buttocks. Tuckshop arms.

Your denpressure explanation, hmm?

Anything to add?

Yes. Jowls and height. A person generally loses 1/2 inch of height every ten years after age 40. So an inch shorter at age 60. All because of gravity. No wait, Sceptimatic, I take it you have another explanation? 

I guess you don't believe a clock on Earth's surface measures time going slower than a clock at the top of an extremely high building, ey, Sceptimatic? All because of den......., I mean, gravity.

Anything to add?

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 24, 2023, 04:31:56 AM

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?

Still watching you squirm around refusing to back up a single claim.  Just enjoying how completely you destroy your own points by doing so.  Continue squirming, it is fun and does a public service by showing newcomers how dishonest your claims really are. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 15, 2023, 04:26:56 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 15, 2023, 03:54:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 14, 2023, 10:33:37 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 14, 2023, 06:53:34 PM

Why down?
Queue the stacking word salad that explains nothing. 
Why down, not the same thing we keep telling you explains nothing, actually explain it.  I'm starting to think you have reached the limit of your ability to play silly games without invoking a lot more lying.  You do a decent job trying to avoid it, but you seem to have nothing left but the lies now.  Aka matter of factly stating things like very reduced pressure, or as most people refer to it as near vacuum or a vacuum doesn't exist, but never actually explain why.  Those are lies.

Spend some time paying full attention and you won't need to ask this a million times like Jack and data do.

So you can't answer the questions then. I've paid attention, I've been here for quite awhile, I know your games well. 
Here ya go, clean slate all around.  Ignore the past, explain. Why down, why that direction, not that it does happen, what mechanism makes the more massive items move in that direction.
I bet you won't, you'll scream yet again you've already explained it.  If you had, everyone wouldn't still be asking.  Stop blaming others for your inability to support your statements.

I have no need to scream but I'd say to you, calm down and stop getting all irate just because you don't want to understand.
If you'd paid attention you would not need to ask this question again and again and again like some others.

If you really want to understand then seriously pay close attention and stop pretending to just so you can get me to explain again only for you to say I haven't.
The issue is yours, not mine.

So you can't explain anything. Classic dodge used by so many dishonest conmen, glad we've clearly identified who you really are.
Plus, seeing as you can't answer a simple question like why down when cornered shows who has the issues.  I said to clean the slate, ignore the past, take the opportunity to actually answer something and not cry like a child yet again because you are asked to back up another ridiculous claim.  I've given you many outs, to preface your statements with you think it's a certain way, asked you to explain it, etc.  But you have consistently refused to do so.  You say the same things over and over again, we ask for an explanation, you not having even the intellectual honesty of Sunday morning nationally televised preacher, just reinforce that you either can not, or will not back up your claims.  I'm leaning towards will not as you aren't that dumb.  But that really makes you much much worse.

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 21, 2023, 07:52:22 PM

So you can't explain anything.

I can explain things just fine. It's down to people like yourself to try to understand the explanation and you choose not to. That's down to you and others, not down to me not explaining.

Quote from: Mikey T.

Classic dodge used by so many dishonest conmen, glad we've clearly identified who you really are.

You should have no further need to correspond if you think this...but you will.

Quote from: Mikey T.

Plus, seeing as you can't answer a simple question like why down when cornered shows who has the issues.

Already been answered and better answered. Failure to want to grasp it is on you and others, not me.

Quote from: Mikey T.

I said to clean the slate, ignore the past, take the opportunity to actually answer something and not cry like a child yet again because you are asked to back up another ridiculous claim.

Clean your own slate and start taking notice if you're interested. If not then go to a topic that suits you or talk to people on this topic who you think are worth your time. TRry and leave me out of it and you won't get so wound up.

Quote from: Mikey T.

I've given you many outs, to preface your statements with you think it's a certain way, asked you to explain it, etc.  But you have consistently refused to do so.

Nope. I've consistently answered and answered a lot of posts, sometimes 10 deep. The issue isn't mine.

Quote from: Mikey T.

You say the same things over and over again, we ask for an explanation, you not having even the intellectual honesty of Sunday morning nationally televised preacher, just reinforce that you either can not, or will not back up your claims.


 I'm leaning towards will not as you aren't that dumb.  But that really makes you much much worse.

I say the same things because that's what my answers are at the basic level to help people understand and yet you still refuse to do that so, once again, the issue is yours.

Previously on Scepti Dodgeball Ree

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 25, 2023, 10:09:32 PM

It doesn't matter what the difference is. The fact is there is a difference.

And this is where you show a lack of understanding of significant vs insignificant.

No. It's still a difference whether you want to attach insignificance to anything.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 25, 2023, 10:09:32 PM

Then a fictional vacuum is offered to supposedly close this distance to nothing and it's just not the case.

You mean a real vacuum is used to demonstrate how you can dramatically change the effects of the air.

There's no such thing as a real vacuum.

In a standard atmosphere, a feather drops incredibly slowly, while other objects drop quite quickly.

Atmospheric resistance against the dense mass displacement of it by area.

But put it in a decent vacuum, the feather drops quickly as well.

Much less atmospheric resistance to the dense mass area but still a displacement of it.

This makes perfect sense in a model where the downwards force is NOT coming from the air; but it makes no sense at all in your model.

The downward force comes from the object within the atmosphere, by displacement of its own dense mass of that atmosphere.

It shows how the air is resisting objects falling through it, and that by having air as well as gravity, you can significantly slow down how fast something falls.
This is why parachutes work.

Parachutes work because of dense mass displacement of the atmosphere but also the larger area used to attach a dense mass to another dense mass but spread it massively over an area that cannot easily overcome the resistance of the stacking system.

No need for fictional gravity.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 25, 2023, 11:44:32 PM

Give me an example of a denser mass wake and a much less dense mass wake in freefall.

You were provided an example of the video showing the wake.

I want you to explain why a wake offers a pull and gravity.
It seems you can't answer this, for obvious reasons.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 25, 2023, 11:44:32 PM

There is never a terminal velocity in the grand scheme of things.

Semantic garbage which just deflects from the issue.

Not at all.
It's a reality.
Terminal velocity cannot exist.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 25, 2023, 10:09:32 PM

It doesn't matter what the difference is. The fact is there is a difference.

The problem is when you make air resistance negligible with a vacuum there isn’t a difference.

There's no such thing as a vacuum and it scares you to use low pressure. I wonder why?

And you have done nothing to prove /  document that the rate an object drops correlates to its density.

I have but you omit the biggest thing for good reason. You omit the effort taken to get the more dense or less dense mass into an elevation in the first place.
Action and equal and opposite reaction.
Or basically applying energy and holding it will offer potential energy upon release, equal to the energy applied.
So let's not forget this bit because it matters.

In the example of the steel ball and ping pong ball having air resistance made negligible by shape.  The steel ball being 20 times more dense than the ping pong ball, why doesn’t the steel ball fall twenty times faster.

It likely would if the drop was massively greater than chest height.
Just answer this as honestly as you can even for a guess.
If you dropped that same iron ball and the same ping pong ball from a hot air balloon 3,000 feet height, do you think the ping pong ball will hit the ground at the same time as the iron ball?

In fact the value of g is in m/s^2 which allows one to derive the time it takes a ball to hit the ground from a known height.

In what? A so-called vacuum?

The more advanced formulas take in account the drag / air friction of the dropped object.

The more advanced, eh?
It's a pain to admit all formulas will take it into account because that's what every dense mass is up against.

How do you do that with just density and pressure?

Easy, you simply understand that any dense mass displacement of the atmosphere is always based on omitting internal volume.

In physics with the value of g, time is even considered.  It seems ignored in the delusion of den pressure.

The value of g is very simple. It's f. and f =fiction.

Yes. Jowls and height. A person generally loses 1/2 inch of height every ten years after age 40. So an inch shorter at age 60. All because of gravity. No wait, Sceptimatic, I take it you have another explanation? 

I guess you don't believe a clock on Earth's surface measures time going slower than a clock at the top of an extremely high building, ey, Sceptimatic? All because of den......., I mean, gravity.

Anything to add?

No, I think you've covered it all. Thanks.

Still watching you squirm around refusing to back up a single claim.  Just enjoying how completely you destroy your own points by doing so.  Continue squirming, it is fun and does a public service by showing newcomers how dishonest your claims really are.

Apologies to the mods for low content but I simply couldn't help but show my smirk to little Mikey.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 26, 2023, 09:38:06 AM

Yes. Jowls and height. A person generally loses 1/2 inch of height every ten years after age 40. So an inch shorter at age 60. All because of gravity. No wait, Sceptimatic, I take it you have another explanation? 

I guess you don't believe a clock on Earth's surface measures time going slower than a clock at the top of an extremely high building, ey, Sceptimatic? All because of den......., I mean, gravity.

Anything to add?

No, I think you've covered it all. Thanks.

No, by all means, thank-you.

As low content as your reply above is, I'm taking my reply to a notch even lower.

 There's no such thing as a vacuum and it scares you to use low pressure. I wonder why?

Because I can use the appropriate term.  And use the term correctly to talk with understanding with operators, engineers, and those with a technical background.

vacuum, space in which there is no matter or in which the pressure is so low that any particles in the space do not affect any processes being carried on there. It is a condition well below normal atmospheric pressure and is measured in units of pressure (the pascal). A vacuum can be created by removing air from a space using a vacuum pump or by reducing the pressure using a fast flow of fluid, as in Bernoulli’s principle.

https://www.britannica.com/science/vacuum-physics

Vacuum Units of Measurement
1.00E+9 1.00E+8 1.00E+7 1.00E+6 1.00E+5 1.00E+4 1.00E+3 1.00E+2 1.00E+1 1.00E+0 1.00E-1
Measuring vacuum, as with any kind of measuring, requires standard units of measure. Inches or millimeters of mercury, torr, and micron are three units of measure typically associated with the vacuum furnace industry. Other fields of vacuum use Pascals (Pa or kPa.)
Understanding Vacuum and Vacuum Measurement
1
Torr
Figure 1 - Mean Free Path Vs Pressure
N2 Ar Ne CH4 H2 Xe
78.08 0.93 1.8×10-3 2.0×10-4 5.0×10-5 8.7×10-6
Table 1
 Gas
Percent
 O2
20.95
CO2
0.033
He
5.24×10-4
Kr
1.1×10-4
N2O
5.0×10-5
H2O
1.57
                Feet
      1.00E-3
1.00E-4
1.00E-5
1.00E-6
1.00E-7
1.00E-8
1.00E-9
1.00E-10
1.00E-11
1.00E-12

Because of the work of 17th century scientist Evangelista
Torricelli, we know that the atmosphere generally exerts
enough pressure at sea level to support about a 30-inch
(760mm) column of mercury. From that foundation,
we can measure decreases in atmospheric pressure in
terms of inches or millimeters of mercury. Thus, a 10%
drop in atmospheric pressure would indicate a 3-inch
fall in the height of our column of mercury. In this way,
vacuum came to be measured by the difference between
normal atmospheric pressure and pressure in the system
being measured. Thus, a 10% decrease in gas density from atmospheric pressure would be measured as a 3-inch vacuum. For everyday vacuum measurements such as in weather forecasting, inches of mercury function well, but for measurements on a finer scale, other units are needed. One “torr,” a unit named in honor of Torricelli, is equivalent to one millimeter of mercury, yielding the figure of 760 torr as normal atmospheric pressure at sea level. Torr as units of measure are typically used for vacuums in the 1 to 760 Torr range. For measurements of vacuum on an even smaller scale, the “micron” is the term of use. One micron is equal to 0 .001 Torr (10-3 Torr). Microns (represented by the symbol μ) are typically used to measure vacuums in the range of 10-3 to 1 Torr. For heat treating purposes, torr and micron are the most commonly used units of measure. Table 2 gives conversion factors for the three units discussed above.
Vacuum Levels
Vacuum quality is subdivided into ranges according to the technology required to achieve it or measure it. A typical distribution of the universally accepted ranges can be found in Table 3. 1
Atmospheric Pressure – is variable but is standardized at 760 Torr or 101.325 kPa.
Low Vacuum – also called rough vacuum, is a vacuum that can be achieved or measured by basic equipment such as a vacuum cleaner.
Medium Vacuum – is a vacuum that is typically achieved by a single pump, but the pressure is too low to measure with a mechanical manometer. It can be measured with a McLeod gauge, thermal gauge, or a capacitance gauge. (Instrumentation to be discussed later.)
Units of Vacuum Measurement
 inHg (abs.)
Torr
Microns
1 inHg 1 Micron
1 3.937 x 10-5
25.4 1 x 10-3
2.54 x 104 1
 1 Torr
3.937 x 10-2
1
1000
 High Vacuum – is vacuum where the MFP of residual gasses is longer than the size of the chamber or of the object under test. High vacuum usually requires multi- stage pumping and ion gauge measurement. NASA has revealed that the vacuum level recorded on the moon was 1x10-9 Torr. 1
Ultra-High vacuum – requires baking the chamber to remove trace gasses and other special procedures. Most standards define ultra-high vacuum as pressures below 10-8 Torr.
Deep Space – is generally much emptier than any artificial vacuum.
Vacuum Level Ranges
Table 2
 Atmospheric Pressure Medium Vacuum (Rough)
Ultra High Vacuum Outer Space
760 Torr
25 to 1 x 10-3 Torr
1 x 10-9 to 1×10-12 Torr 1 x 10-6 to <3×10-17 Torr
 Low Vacuum (Rough)
760 to 25 Torr
High Vacuum (Hard)
1 x 10-3 to 1×10-9 Torr
Extremely High Vacuum
<1 x 10-12 Torr
  Perfect Vacuum – is an ideal state of no particles at all. It cannot be achieved in a laboratory, although there may be small volumes which, for a brief period, happen to have no particles of matter in them.

https://solarmfg.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Understanding-Vacuum-9.pdf

Apologies to the mods for low content but I simply couldn't help but show my smirk to little Mikey.

So.  Your changing the topic again.

Objects do fall faster in a vacuum that contradicts den pressure.

Objects of different masses and different densities do fall at the same acceleration minus drag.

This has been know for some time.

Giovanni Battista Benedetti

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Benedetti/


He answered in critics in his next work Demonstratio proportionum motuum localium contra Aristotelem et omnes philosophos which was published in Venice in 1554. In this he repeated his arguments regarding free fall and showed clearly that what he proposed contradicted Aristotle by quoting those passages in Aristotle's works that it contradicted. Two editions of this work appeared in quick succession, the second containing a modification of his ideas. In this second edition he said that the speed of the falling weight would depend on its surface area because of friction with the air, and only in a vacuum would bodies of different sizes fall at the same speed.

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Benedetti/



Now, ironically, Taisnier's work became better known than that of Benedetti, particularly after it was translated into English by Richard Eden in 1578. Simon Stevin published his experimental verification of this theory of free fall in 1586, still believing that the theory was really due to Taisnier. However, Taisnier had stolen the first edition of Benedetti's work and Stevin criticised it, making the correction that Benedetti had made himself in his second edition 32 years earlier. Benedetti was not aware that Taisnier had stolen his work until after 1570 and in the Preface of De gnomonum, written in 1573, he voiced his anger

Simon Stevin

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Stevin/


Also in 1586 (3 years before Galileo) he reported that different weights fell a given distance in the same time. His experiments were conducted using two lead balls, one being ten times the weight of the other, which he dropped thirty feet from the church tower in Delft.

Den pressure is not progress.  It’s a step backwards with no evidence that objects fall at a rate proportional to their densities.  You have provided no evidence.


It’s has been shown again and again that objects of mass are most accurately modeled fall using gravity and the value of g being 9.8 m/s^2.  Accuracy in modern modeling of free falling objects began when it was realized there is no correlation between densities and the rate of free fall.

Thus.  Why when shape makes air resistance negligible, a steel ball easily 20 times more dense than a ping pong ball fall at the same rate.





Den pressure lies about reality, well documented experiences and experiments, is fundamental flawed, and a farce.


The only apologies you need to make is for crapping over other peoples proven experiences to falsely claim they are lies  to embrace your untested delusions and your useless word salads.

It's still a difference whether you want to attach insignificance to anything.

It isn't just me attaching significance. It is the question of if the difference is in any way measurable.
If it isn't, then it isn't significant.

There's no such thing as a real vacuum.

Again, you not liking the meaning of words doesn't change it.
Vacuums clearly demonstrate your model is BS.

Again, if you want to say there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, then say that. Otherwise, stop pretending to speak English.

Atmospheric resistance against the dense mass displacement of it by area.
Much less atmospheric resistance to the dense mass area but still a displacement of it.

Why is it still pushed down the same while the air resists vastly less?

The downward force comes from the object within the atmosphere, by displacement of its own dense mass of that atmosphere.

Notice how you still can't remain consistent?
Is it coming from the object, or is it coming from the atmosphere?
If the atmosphere, the object shouldn't matter.
If the object, then the atmosphere isn't needed.

Parachutes work because of dense mass displacement of the atmosphere but also the larger area used to attach a dense mass to another dense mass but spread it massively over an area that cannot easily overcome the resistance of the stacking system.

And if your nonsense was true, they either wouldn't work, or wouldn't be needed.

Why does spreading it out matter? Why doesn't spreading it out cause a greater downwards force?

Your model makes no sense.

I want you to explain why a wake offers a pull and gravity.
It seems you can't answer this, for obvious reasons.

Because it was already answered, for you to just entirely ignore?

If it was the air pushing it down, the air should always be pushing down.
But if instead something else is pushing down, then the air needs to flow in behind to fill in the gap.

So the formation of a wake demonstrates it is not the air pushing down.

Not at all.

Yes, entirely.
You are avoiding the issue of your delusional model being entirely incapable of explaining why something like a solid aluminium ball falls down quite quickly, while taking the same mass and spreading it out causes it to fall quite slowly.

Instead of even attempting it, you just appeal to a single word and attack that.
Truly pathetic.

There's no such thing as a vacuum and it scares you to use low pressure. I wonder why?

Quite the opposite.
It has been explained to you repeatedly that vacuums do exist, and do not need to be perfect.
Yet you refuse to use the word. So the real question is why do you hate the word so much and refuse to use it with its correct meaning?

Because you want to pretend vacuums need to be perfect, so you can then dishonestly space in the RE model must be a perfect vacuum and can't exist, so you can then pretend that rockets can't work in a vacuum (even though they would still work in a perfect vacuum) and that all the photos of Earth from space must be fake. And this is tied to your idea that there can't be free space.

If you accept that vacuums don't need to be perfect, and what you repeatedly call an "extremely low pressure system" is actually a vacuum; then that would mean space can be real, that NASA and others could have launched rockets into space, and taken photos of the round Earth. Your entire fantasy comes crumbling down.

As for why we use a term, I have already pointed out that vacuums are low pressure systems.
Why should we stop using the word just because you hate it and insist on using it incorrectly?
Why should your behaviour stop us using the word correctly?

I have but you omit the biggest thing for good reason.

No, you haven't, as you entirely fail to describe what density even means in any meaningful way.

You omit the effort taken to get the more dense or less dense mass into an elevation in the first place.

No, that is a key part of why your model fails, as you have nothing to make it need energy.
Why should it take energy to lift things? Why should that energy relate to the mass of the object?

Just answer this as honestly as you can even for a guess.
If you dropped that same iron ball and the same ping pong ball from a hot air balloon 3,000 feet height, do you think the ping pong ball will hit the ground at the same time as the iron ball?

Why don't you try answering honestly? I can even give a comparable question:
Why doesn't the ping pong ball accelerate much more slowly the entire time, so it would appear like a slowed down version of the iron ball?
Why does changing the iron ball to iron foil make it even slower than the ping pong ball?

And how come reducing the pressure results in the ping pong ball and foil falling much faster?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 28, 2023, 02:41:07 AM

 There's no such thing as a vacuum and it scares you to use low pressure. I wonder why?

Because I can use the appropriate term.  And use the term correctly to talk with understanding with operators, engineers, and those with a technical background.

Quote

vacuum, space in which there is no matter or in which the pressure is so low that any particles in the space do not affect any processes being carried on there. It is a condition well below normal atmospheric pressure and is measured in units of pressure (the pascal). A vacuum can be created by removing air from a space using a vacuum pump or by reducing the pressure using a fast flow of fluid, as in Bernoulli’s principle.

https://www.britannica.com/science/vacuum-physics

Quote

Vacuum Units of Measurement
1.00E+9 1.00E+8 1.00E+7 1.00E+6 1.00E+5 1.00E+4 1.00E+3 1.00E+2 1.00E+1 1.00E+0 1.00E-1
Measuring vacuum, as with any kind of measuring, requires standard units of measure. Inches or millimeters of mercury, torr, and micron are three units of measure typically associated with the vacuum furnace industry. Other fields of vacuum use Pascals (Pa or kPa.)
Understanding Vacuum and Vacuum Measurement
1
Torr
Figure 1 - Mean Free Path Vs Pressure
N2 Ar Ne CH4 H2 Xe
78.08 0.93 1.8×10-3 2.0×10-4 5.0×10-5 8.7×10-6
Table 1
 Gas
Percent
 O2
20.95
CO2
0.033
He
5.24×10-4
Kr
1.1×10-4
N2O
5.0×10-5
H2O
1.57
                Feet
      1.00E-3
1.00E-4
1.00E-5
1.00E-6
1.00E-7
1.00E-8
1.00E-9
1.00E-10
1.00E-11
1.00E-12

Because of the work of 17th century scientist Evangelista
Torricelli, we know that the atmosphere generally exerts
enough pressure at sea level to support about a 30-inch
(760mm) column of mercury. From that foundation,
we can measure decreases in atmospheric pressure in
terms of inches or millimeters of mercury. Thus, a 10%
drop in atmospheric pressure would indicate a 3-inch
fall in the height of our column of mercury. In this way,
vacuum came to be measured by the difference between
normal atmospheric pressure and pressure in the system
being measured. Thus, a 10% decrease in gas density from atmospheric pressure would be measured as a 3-inch vacuum. For everyday vacuum measurements such as in weather forecasting, inches of mercury function well, but for measurements on a finer scale, other units are needed. One “torr,” a unit named in honor of Torricelli, is equivalent to one millimeter of mercury, yielding the figure of 760 torr as normal atmospheric pressure at sea level. Torr as units of measure are typically used for vacuums in the 1 to 760 Torr range. For measurements of vacuum on an even smaller scale, the “micron” is the term of use. One micron is equal to 0 .001 Torr (10-3 Torr). Microns (represented by the symbol μ) are typically used to measure vacuums in the range of 10-3 to 1 Torr. For heat treating purposes, torr and micron are the most commonly used units of measure. Table 2 gives conversion factors for the three units discussed above.
Vacuum Levels
Vacuum quality is subdivided into ranges according to the technology required to achieve it or measure it. A typical distribution of the universally accepted ranges can be found in Table 3. 1
Atmospheric Pressure – is variable but is standardized at 760 Torr or 101.325 kPa.
Low Vacuum – also called rough vacuum, is a vacuum that can be achieved or measured by basic equipment such as a vacuum cleaner.
Medium Vacuum – is a vacuum that is typically achieved by a single pump, but the pressure is too low to measure with a mechanical manometer. It can be measured with a McLeod gauge, thermal gauge, or a capacitance gauge. (Instrumentation to be discussed later.)
Units of Vacuum Measurement
 inHg (abs.)
Torr
Microns
1 inHg 1 Micron
1 3.937 x 10-5
25.4 1 x 10-3
2.54 x 104 1
 1 Torr
3.937 x 10-2
1
1000
 High Vacuum – is vacuum where the MFP of residual gasses is longer than the size of the chamber or of the object under test. High vacuum usually requires multi- stage pumping and ion gauge measurement. NASA has revealed that the vacuum level recorded on the moon was 1x10-9 Torr. 1
Ultra-High vacuum – requires baking the chamber to remove trace gasses and other special procedures. Most standards define ultra-high vacuum as pressures below 10-8 Torr.
Deep Space – is generally much emptier than any artificial vacuum.
Vacuum Level Ranges
Table 2
 Atmospheric Pressure Medium Vacuum (Rough)
Ultra High Vacuum Outer Space
760 Torr
25 to 1 x 10-3 Torr
1 x 10-9 to 1×10-12 Torr 1 x 10-6 to <3×10-17 Torr
 Low Vacuum (Rough)
760 to 25 Torr
High Vacuum (Hard)
1 x 10-3 to 1×10-9 Torr
Extremely High Vacuum
<1 x 10-12 Torr
  Perfect Vacuum – is an ideal state of no particles at all. It cannot be achieved in a laboratory, although there may be small volumes which, for a brief period, happen to have no particles of matter in them.

https://solarmfg.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Understanding-Vacuum-9.pdf

You can throw up as much as you want on a vacuum but none of it is relevant.

Low pressure, high pressure or lower pressure, or higher pressure is fine.
Vacuum means nothing and the wording for vacuum means nothing, as in, this.

vacuum, space in which there is no matter or in which the pressure is so low that any particles in the space do not affect any processes being carried on there. It is a condition well below normal atmospheric pressure and is measured in units of pressure (the pascal). A vacuum can be created by removing air from a space using a vacuum pump or by reducing the pressure using a fast flow of fluid, as in Bernoulli’s principle.

No matter is impossible so therefore there's no point in offering it.
 And also, pressure being so low as not to affect any process would never happen.
It may have a lesser effect on a process but it will always affect it.

The rest of the stuff you copied and pasted offers you nothing in your argument because you don't even know what you're arguing against.