Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 14, 2023, 10:01:57 AM

Still waiting on "why down" also, but you guys continue.  The vacuum semantics are fun.  The so called expanded molecule that's never been observed, theorized, mathematically tested, etc.

Has the free space been observed?

Any proof molecules expand their mass to take up all free space?

Anyway.

Representative picture of a feather in a sealed jar with air molecules with their mass expanded to ensure all space is filled with mass for den pressure delusion.



How does the feather fall in den pressure delusion without the mass of the feather and mass of the air molecules not occupying the same space at the same instance?

How are the molecules taking up all space with their mass not acting like a table to the feather? 

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 14, 2023, 10:01:57 AM

Still waiting on "why down" also, but you guys continue.  The vacuum semantics are fun.  The so called expanded molecule that's never been observed, theorized, mathematically tested, etc.

Has the free space been observed?

Yes, there are actual, award winning, "photos" of atoms.  Photo not being exactly correct since they used electrons instead of photons. 
But you will cry and throw a fit saying it's all fake... boo hoo, can't back up anything so everything else has to be fake to make himself feel better. 
Go ahead, we are waiting.  Throw your hissy fit. Better yet, try saying I'm upset, that's always a good laugh for me. 
Entertain me.

You simply do not understand it from my side because you're too far behind your shield.

Again, it isn't a matter of understanding, it is a matter of you lying about the meaning of words.
You want to pretend vacuums can't exist so you can pretend space can't exist, so you lie about vacuum means.

Nope. No vacuum can exist.
Lower pressure than external atmospheric pressure, yes.

So vacuums (i.e. lower pressure than external atmospheric pressure) can exist.

Correct, no free space can make gases more compressible, not free space.

No, the free space is what allows the gas to be compressed so easily.

Evacuating a chamber by natural decompression will obviously make anything fall faster because the resistance to that fall and dense mass are reduced.

Yes, and notice the key part, the effect of the atmosphere is reduced.
Notice that the effect making it go down isn't?

If the atmosphere is what pushed it down then that should be reduced as well.

But more problematic for you is why should it reduce?
You have the entire chamber full of gas, and for the feather to move it needs push to compress the gas out of the way.
But with free space, there are fewer molecules to push.

You see here you go again with this vacuum, as if it's offering no pressure and free space.

No, they aren't.
They are offering vacuum as incredibly low pressure, but still with molecules there. And yes, with free space between the molecules, as all the evidence demonstrates.
You hating the idea of free space doesn't make it a fallacy.

And this is why low heights are used to confuse people and have them believing in a fictional force called gravity.

No, low heights are used because they are easily accessible and over that distance the effect of air is negligible.

There is no reason in your fantasy for it to magically change after a long distance.
But in reality, where you have a downwards force from gravity, and a resistance from the air, making the effect of air change with velocity, while the downwards force changes with mass, it does change with distance.

It cannot happen and never will happen.
Everything is attached. All molecules are attached with absolutely no free space.

WHY?
Stop just asserting your delusional BS.
Explain why there cannot be free space.
What is so impossible about it?
That it upsets you because it means your lose your argument against space and photos from space?

Take a look at the water. Are you saying water is free space?

Water does have free space, and the molecules aren't permanently attached.
This allows the molecules to move around objects.
However, you need to overcome attractive forces and separate the molecules.
This is why you can float a paperclip on water, but if you shake it it sinks.

More densely layered molecules will push out of the way less densely layered molecules by expansion to compression to decompression.

Why? What is causing this push?
Again, it can't be the air above.

There is never a vacuum in denpressure so you will have to find another way to explain what it is you're trying to explain.

You have repeatedly admitted that there can be vacuums, you just refuse to use the word vacuum.

Pressure of molecules are always stacked. How can they not be?

What would cause them to be?
Why does it only stack vertically?

I have and you can't explain what free space is and how it supposedly works.

Pure BS.
You haven't explained it at all.
Instead you just assert that molecules are magically and will magically expand while staying magically attached, to prevent any free space.
You cannot explain what is actually wrong with free space.

Conversely, I have explained free space. It is really simple, space which doesn't have anything in it.

I'll make this simple.
If two molecules are side by side with free space around them and between them then how do they move, vibrate, expand, compress, decompress?

So you will "make it simple" by asking incredibly stupid questions?

Firstly, the molecules do not compress or decompress or expand.
The gas as a whole does.
This is because the pressure is based upon collisions.
Pressure is caused by molecules colliding with a ball and bouncing off it.
This is because it changes their direction, which requires a force to do so.
The pressure is a result of the velocity of the molecules, how many there are colliding with the wall per unit time (which in turn is based upon their velocity and how many molecules there are and the volume), and the mass of the molecules.
You can increase the pressure by increasing the number of molecules, or reducing the volume, or making them hit the wall faster (by increasing the temperature).
Compression and decompression, is simply changing the amount of free space.

Vibration is just parts of the molecule moving relative to each other.
Like masses on a spring.

As for actual movement, the object is moving, it has inertia, which keeps it moving, and there is nothing to stop it moving until it hits another molecule or the wall of the container, or some force like gravity or electromagnetism acts on it.

Just what do you think the issue is?

Free space offers nothing and anything in nothing cannot move and anything in nothing that cannot move means nothing can actually exist to do any work, which means no Earth and what's in it.

WHY?
Again, you are just asserting pure BS with no justification at all.

Why should you need matter directly touching to allow it to move and vibrate (especially as they would resist that).

I think you're massively projecting here.
Trying this is extremely weak and shows you to be losing the argument.

And like always, you are just lying, resorting to insults because you can't defend your delusional BS.

Even now, when you try to argue against free space, all you really do is just say no. You don't provide any justification at all.

I have provided plenty of explanations which you typically just dismiss because it includes things you don't like (like free space), without any actual problem shown.
Conversely, I have repeatedly demonstrated faults with your claims which you cannot address.

No it doesn't.

Then clearly explain what is wrong with the explanation.
Stop with your irrational hatred of it, and explain WHY it can't work.

Gases are compressible because the molecules are all attached in less dense layering within each molecule so can be compressed much easier by applied energy/force.

Again, notice how you do it piecemeal.
You cannot deal with multiple things at once because your model is incoherent garbage.
So you deal with only gas, and then directly contradict it with liquids.

Why shouldn't the same be true for liquids?
If we can just happily compress the molecules, why can't we do that for liquids?
Remember, you claim there is no real physical volume limitation. You claim molecules just magically expand and contract.

How do you reduce free space?

By bringing the molecules closer together, such as by reducing the volume of the container.

Liquids have no free space.

Repeating the same garbage wont help you.
This is also why liquids are typically less dense than their corresponding solids.
Water is an exception, due to the highly directional attractive forces making MORE free space in the solid.

Free space also explains why some materials have a negative coefficient of thermal expansion.

This is about denpressure so get used to it if you want to argue against it.

Get used to your wilful rejection of reality? Because you can't refute reality?

Stacking works by energy push up, not down, so there's your gravity fiction gone.

Quite the opposite. That is your delusional BS DOA. Again.

With it being a push up, we have the dense molecules below would should easily be able to push the less dense molecules out of the way.
The less dense would not be able to push the more dense molecules away.

This means a low density object should sit below a higher density object.

What you actually need is something acting directly on the mass, pushing/pulling down. i.e. what you need is gravity or something equivalent to it.
Without it, you can't explain the stacking.

Has the free space been observed?

Indirectly in many ways.
And directly such in observations of graphite with an STM.

More importantly, has your expansion BS been observed in any way? NO!

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

  And you can’t model what the difference should be disproves denpressure delusion.

No need to model. It's been done enough times but hidden behind a variety of atmospheric conditions when fictional gravity gets shown up for the idiocy that it is.

Done by who?  Documented where?

Because you can’t handle reality?

Why doesn’t a steel ball twenty times more dense than a ping pong ball from the get go drop twenty times faster. 

Why can’t you model, predict, and show den pressure delusion isn’t a failed model by showing at what point the steel ball should be ahead of the ping pong ball?  And if the steel ball is twenty times more dense than the ping pong ball why isn’t the steel ball dropping twenty times faster from the moment of release? 


You, “It's been done enough times but hidden behind a variety of atmospheric conditions when fictional gravity gets shown up for the idiocy that it is.” Like shape can be used to make air resistance negligible which contradicts den pressure delusion.  And how can it be “hidden behind a variety of atmospheric conditions” if den pressure always stacks to foundation.

So the atmosphere doesn’t always stack down?

Seems to fit with this….

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on June 09, 2023, 04:20:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 08, 2023, 11:00:35 PM

Because the paper is molecularly bonded and adds to the foundation for the denser bolt.

Again.  Up drafts, thermals, jet steam, winds, low pressure cells should have a great impact on weight if weight was driven by the chaotic atmosphere to ground.  Can you explain how DPD is transmitting weight to foundation in an area where there are large updrafts and thermals? 

https://aerospaceweb.org/question/nature/q0253.shtml

It looks like thermals are doing the opposite, pushing air away from DPD “fountain”.


Weight driven by gravity explains why scales, especially large scales used in commerce and loading safety, can be calibrated and literally certified to be accurate to the pound despite the chaotic atmosphere. 

I'll make this simple.
If two molecules are side by side with free space around them and between them then how do they move, vibrate, expand, compress, decompress?
Free space offers nothing and anything in nothing cannot move and anything in nothing that cannot move means nothing can actually exist to do any work, which means no Earth and what's in it.

It comes down to bonds and how close electrons can get to other electrons. 

Water hydrogen bonds.  Relatively strong.  Water ice melts at 0 degrees Celsius.

Ion bonds stronger such as sodium chloride.  Sodium chloride has a melting point around 900 degrees Celsius from ion bonds.

The electrons of solids can only get so close to each other.  So there is space between molecules.


As solids gain heat.  Go though latent heat and phase change and will not gain temperature until the solid is liquid.  Enough thermal energy is gained the solid becomes liquid.  The bonds are weakened enough the space between molecules becomes greater, and the molecules can flow about each other due to having more energy than when in a solid.  There is no expansion of individual molecules, they stay a fixed size.


Add heat to turn liquid to gas.  The liquid gas mixture will not increase in heat until all liquid is turned to gas. Latent heat of vaporization.  Rough analogy, add enough heat the molecules reach a gaseous state and take off like the elastic breaking on a ball just smacked too hard with a paddleball.    Enough energy bonds are broken and the molecules move with enough energy from heat (kinetic energy) they bounce off each other and objects.  They have free space between each other between collisions.  They have enough energy they broke their bonds, stay unbounded, have kinetic energy to bounce around, enough energy to spread out from each other in a closed container.  The molecules maintain their individual fixed sizes.


In den pressure delusion, what is the difference in bonds between solid, liquids, gases.  Why different melting and boiling points.  If in den pressure delusion molecules expand to ensure all free space is filled with the expanded mass of molecules, why doesn’t a gas act like a solid?  What’s the difference in bonds if gas molecules can expand their mass to take up all space.   If all molecules are “springy”, why doesn’t a steel block at room temperature expand when in a chamber having the atmosphere evacuated below atmospheric pressure? 


How can water evaporate in a den pressure delusion system if the atmosphere above it is expanded to ensure all space above liquid water is already filled with mass? 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

  And you can’t model what the difference should be disproves denpressure delusion.

No need to model. It's been done enough times but hidden behind a variety of atmospheric conditions

If atmosphere in the den pressure delusion is the motive force of “down” and always stacks “down” to foundation.  How can atmosphere hide its self from pushing to foundation?

Because the paper is molecularly bonded and adds to the foundation for the denser bolt.

This is where the bolt is above the paper?

Since there is more pressure below the paper, why isn’t the bolt the foundation for the paper?  Is the bolt less molecularly bonded than the paper?

And you yourself posted…

It's impossible for something low pressure to overcome higher pressure, meaning a tank with low pressure will not suck/pull/drag anything in. It's a fallacy.

Any proof molecules expand their mass to take up all free space?

Any proof of free space?

Anyway.

Representative picture of a feather in a sealed jar with air molecules with their mass expanded to ensure all space is filled with mass for den pressure delusion.



How does the feather fall in den pressure delusion without the mass of the feather and mass of the air molecules not occupying the same space at the same instance?

Remember when I mentioned displacement?
Can you remember all the times I said any dense mass will displace the atmosphere it is placed into?

Your diagram is not much help but I'll try.

The feather in your diagram is displacing atmosphere or what you put down as air.
That displaced atmosphere has to go somewhere. Using your diagram can you guess where?

How are the molecules taking up all space with their mass not acting like a table to the feather?

Because a table is much more densely packed with molecules that are more individually layered than atmospheric molecules, meaning they offer a more dense foun dation to the atmospheric molecules.

How haven't you grasped this bit yet?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2023, 10:46:41 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 14, 2023, 10:01:57 AM

Still waiting on "why down" also, but you guys continue.  The vacuum semantics are fun.  The so called expanded molecule that's never been observed, theorized, mathematically tested, etc.

Has the free space been observed?

Yes, there are actual, award winning, "photos" of atoms.  Photo not being exactly correct since they used electrons instead of photons. 
But you will cry and throw a fit saying it's all fake... boo hoo, can't back up anything so everything else has to be fake to make himself feel better. 

I'm sure you can show me them and verify them and explain them, right?
I'll wait till you have something and then we'll discuss it.

Go ahead, we are waiting.  Throw your hissy fit. Better yet, try saying I'm upset, that's always a good laugh for me. 
Entertain me.

I'm fine but I'd try and curb your own frenzy and it'll likely make it easier for you to argue your points when you ever have any.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2023, 04:39:35 AM

You simply do not understand it from my side because you're too far behind your shield.

Again, it isn't a matter of understanding, it is a matter of you lying about the meaning of words.
You want to pretend vacuums can't exist so you can pretend space can't exist, so you lie about vacuum means.

I've already told you why it doesn't happen in denpressure and you can do what you want with it.
What you decide to do with your own adhered-to schooling is also your privilege.
A vacuum does not and can not ever exist in denpressure theory.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2023, 04:41:13 AM

Pressure of molecules are always stacked. How can they not be?

What would cause them to be?
Why does it only stack vertically?

Because horizontally they're called layers and those layers are stacked layers from ground to dome.
If you want to offer up horizontal layers as being stacked side by side then fine, think of it that way. It doesn't alter anything of denpressure theory.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2023, 08:12:39 AM

Stacking works by energy push up, not down, so there's your gravity fiction gone.

Quite the opposite. That is your delusional BS DOA. Again.

With it being a push up, we have the dense molecules below would should easily be able to push the less dense molecules out of the way.
The less dense would not be able to push the more dense molecules away.

This means a low density object should sit below a higher density object.

I think you can agree you can't build a tower starting at the top, right?

I'll let you ponder this before we go any further because it's pointless until you start to grasp what's been said and why.

Imagine all this time and you have absolutely no clue what you're arguing against.

It comes down to bonds and how close electrons can get to other electrons. 

Start understanding these bonds in my denpressure theory and you'll have something to actually argue because you're doing nothing as it stands other than offering up bits and pieces of info you read up on and offering it without knowing why.


What is an electron?
In your own words explain what it is and how you know.

I won't look at copy and paste so offer your own words.

If atmosphere in the den pressure delusion is the motive force of “down” and always stacks “down” to foundation.  How can atmosphere hide its self from pushing to foundation?

Whoever mentioned atmosphere stacking down?

You would be better off paying more attention because you're literally at square one.

Any proof of free space?

You mean any proof of expanding molecules.


You mean as in why you can’t bring atoms and molecules too close because of electrons. 


That you can collide atoms.


The way hydrogen bonds work as seen in water, and the way hydrogen atoms position themselves when bonded to an oxygen molecule.

That carbon atoms have been imaged.

That gases are highly compressibe.


The way lungs and carburetors work.


The why molecular sieves and hemoglobin works over a range of pressures.

To the way surface area and chemical reactions work.

[

Remember when I mentioned displacement?

Picture..




Displace where.  All space in the jar is already filled with expanded mass.

Can you remember all the times I said any dense mass will displace the atmosphere it is placed into?

Why would it overcome the mass already taken by your expanding molecules because there is no free space in your delusion.   

How do you displace a “springy molecule” in a jar totally filled with expanded molecular mass?

Because a table is much more densely packed with molecules that are more individually layered than atmospheric molecules, meaning they offer a more dense foun dation to the atmospheric molecules.

How haven't you grasped this bit yet?

You still can’t grasp the demise of your delusion.

The jar in your delusion is completely filled with mass because your delusional molecules will expand to take up all free space. 

How does a feather fall if the jar is completely filled with molecular mass in your delusion. How does displacement occur in a jar totally void of free space with molecules expanding their mass to ensure at any instance there is no free space.   

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on June 14, 2023, 07:49:44 PM

If atmosphere in the den pressure delusion is the motive force of “down” and always stacks “down” to foundation.  How can atmosphere hide its self from pushing to foundation?

Whoever mentioned atmosphere stacking down?

You would be better off paying more attention because you're literally at square one.

And also understand that the object will be squeezed down against a much less resistant atmosphere within that chamber.

The feather or a ball or wood, all originates from being pushed UP from the ground and it's natural break down is back to where it came from, because the matter inside is greater than the atmosphere it is under. No gravity, just a cycle of dense materials being pushed up all the time and being pushed against what is above it, for example: the matter in the atmosphere. No gravity involved and no floating.

No gravity, just a element stack of dense to less dense molecules/matter/particles all pushing against each other from top to bottom and bottom to top. Action and reaction in equal measures.

Why is there up and down (top / bottom) in your delusional model with out the directionality of gravity? 

Start understanding these bonds in my denpressure theory and you'll have something to actually argue because you're doing nothing as it stands other than offering up bits and pieces of info you read up on and offering it without knowing why.

Can you cite and quote when you last posted about the “bonds” in your delusion.

What is an electron?

What’s the den pressure delusion definition and context first.  So we know what your delusion incorporates.


But elections and electric potential are responsible for these kind of accidents.. 

Electrical Arc Flash Demonstration

I guess the first context for me working in plants that use and generate electricity.

Electrons, electricity, arcing across contacts, bus tie ins, and shorts are real dangers.

Any proof of free space?

Yes, as already explained.
Any proof of your magic expansion? NO! It is just your irrational hatred of reality.

The feather in your diagram is displacing atmosphere or what you put down as air.
That displaced atmosphere has to go somewhere. Using your diagram can you guess where?

It has already displaced it. All that has done is result in the air being compressed.
But as the air is already decompressed, it is more like we have taken a bunch of air out and put the feather in, with a net change of air being removed.

Because a table is much more densely packed with molecules that are more individually layered than atmospheric molecules, meaning they offer a more dense foun dation to the atmospheric molecules.

Which without attractive forces holding them together should make it easier to fall through.
But you still haven't explained how a sheet of paper supports a steel bolt.

But you haven't provided the reason why it should fall in the first place.

I've already told you why it doesn't happen in denpressure and you can do what you want with it.

No, you haven't.
Quite the opposite in fact.
You have repeatedly told us how vacuums do exist in your fantasy, you just refuse to call them vacuums.

The sole reason for this is to pretend vacuums need to be a perfect vacuum, so you can pretend space needs to be a perfect vacuum, so you can pretend space can't exist, so you can pretend rockets and satellites can't exist, so you can pretend we don't have countless photos from space demonstrating your delusional garbage is wrong.

Because horizontally they're called layers and those layers are stacked layers from ground to dome.

Repeating an observation does not explain it.
Why don't they stack off a cliff sideways?
Why don't they stack off the wall and ceiling to make concentric stacks going towards the centre of the room.
Why do they stack in the first place?

You are explaining nothing.

I think you can agree you can't build a tower starting at the top, right?

This depends. Are we doing it in a world where there is no downwards force like gravity to pull it down? If so, I can start anywhere.

Before you just pathetically assert I can't, try explaining why I can't.

Imagine all this time and you have absolutely no clue what you're arguing against.

Imagine, all this time, I have repeatedly demonstrated my understanding, demonstrating your claims are pure BS, and the best you can come up with is this pathetic BS.
Considering how much you need to deflect, rather than answer what should be trivial questions demonstrate that I do know what I am talking about.

Start understanding these bonds in my denpressure theory

Bonds rely upon attractive forces, holding 2 things together, such that if you move the right one to the right it will pull the left one to the right.
In your  delusional fantasy with no pulling forces BONDS CANNOT EXIST!

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on June 14, 2023, 07:17:20 PM

It comes down to bonds and how close electrons can get to other electrons. 

Start understanding these bonds in my denpressure theory and you'll have something to actually argue because you're doing nothing as it stands other than offering up bits and pieces of info you read up on and offering it without knowing why.


What is an electron?
In your own words explain what it is and how you know.

I won't look at copy and paste so offer your own words.

By having to go back to 2015?

Quote from: Pavarotti on February 03, 2015, 08:16:18 AM

OK Scepti, at your service...

The difference between liquid and gas is the speed and energy with which an atom vibrates. An atom that receives more energy from somewhere e.g another atom, will start to vibrate faster. In a liquid atoms vibrate with enough energy that they overcome the bonds that kept them in a solid state, but not enough to move about freely. They will slide over each other, but still be stuck together.

When you give these atom more energy they will vibrate or move faster eventually breaking the last bonds that kept them together and instead bump into each other and try to get more space to move in. This is gas.

Different elements need different amounts of energy e.g iron needs a lot more energy to become liquid, and then gas.

The atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, to turn it into liquid you need to either compress it until the atoms are so close that they slide over each other but still vibrate fast, or cool it down.

Someone else explain why the balloon shrunk more in the liquid nitrogen than in the water? This is a lot of typing 

I thank you for this explanation and you don't realise how close you are to understanding just what is really happening. There is some truth's in what you say and some are just a little bit of a swerve...not by you...by science.

I'm going to let you look at what you typed for a little while and see if you can see where I'm coming from with what I say in terms of everything is attached.
We know things seperate by eye but the issue is do they or does it just appear that way?

Think about the compression of molecules and start to think about releasing a bond. Ask yourself why things are bonded and why you can realse bonds of a certain element form another.

I'm going to help you a little bit by being cryptic.
Ok here goes. Molecules are bubbles within bubbles within bubbles depending on densities. To release certain one's you have to apply different pressures or release pressure depending on what you want to seperate.

Now here's the crypic.
The olympic rings will give you a clue as to bonds and seperation whilst never being in free space.

Your word salad is meaningless in regards to;

1) latent heat of melting and vaporization.

2) ion bonds vs hydrogen bonds

3) why compounds formed by molecules with ion bonds have much higher melting points than molecules formed by hydrogen bonds.

4) den pressure delusion doesn’t explain the observable parts of atoms that build molecules are made of electrons, neutrons, and protons.

5) den pressure delusion doesn’t explain why cooper is a good conductor of electricity and why nonmetals like sulfur are poor conductors of electricity.

6) den pressure delusion ignores the science and logic behind the periodic table. 

7) den pressure delusion ignores the chemical properties of elements

Why is it specific examples can be given to show den pressure is a failed model?


Like a dropped ball shows all characteristics of being pulled through the atmosphere by gravity.

And no characteristics of being impossibly pushed into more density and resistance by lower density and lower resistance?  By the drag created behind the ball.  With no indication of being pushed down by the swirling wake it leaves?



When den pressure delusion is vague false assurances and assumptions based on opinion with no provided evidence? 

I see the pressure in the den thread hasn't slowed down. How many different ways can you guys say the same thing?

I'd rather watch grass grow than read through the last few pages of mindless drivel.

I see the pressure in the den thread hasn't slowed down. How many different ways can you guys say the same thing?

I'd rather watch grass grow than read through the last few pages of mindless drivel.

How did you know it was drivel if you didn’t take time from watching the grass grow to study the last few pages? 

 🤔


Is there a grass shortage or blight?

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 14, 2023, 02:31:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2023, 10:46:41 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 14, 2023, 10:01:57 AM

Still waiting on "why down" also, but you guys continue.  The vacuum semantics are fun.  The so called expanded molecule that's never been observed, theorized, mathematically tested, etc.

Has the free space been observed?

Yes, there are actual, award winning, "photos" of atoms.  Photo not being exactly correct since they used electrons instead of photons. 
But you will cry and throw a fit saying it's all fake... boo hoo, can't back up anything so everything else has to be fake to make himself feel better. 

I'm sure you can show me them and verify them and explain them, right?
I'll wait till you have something and then we'll discuss it.

Quote from: Mikey T.

Go ahead, we are waiting.  Throw your hissy fit. Better yet, try saying I'm upset, that's always a good laugh for me. 
Entertain me.

I'm fine but I'd try and curb your own frenzy and it'll likely make it easier for you to argue your points when you ever have any.

I'm sure you can show me an expanding molecule, verify the picture and explai....    wait you never explain anything.  Exactly as I said, you claim its fake.  I'm STILL waiting on explanations from you.   But if you want links and explanations of those photos, first you promise not to immediately cry fake, conspiracy, etc.  It's all you have really have though so I'm not holding my breath.

Also, frenzy???  3 to 5 posts in a month?  Sure.  You really are quite desperate.  Try new dance moves.  Continue though, it still entertains me.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2023, 11:23:53 PM

Any proof of free space?

You mean any proof of expanding molecules.


You mean as in why you can’t bring atoms and molecules too close because of electrons. 


That you can collide atoms.


The way hydrogen bonds work as seen in water, and the way hydrogen atoms position themselves when bonded to an oxygen molecule.

That carbon atoms have been imaged.

That gases are highly compressibe.


The way lungs and carburetors work.


The why molecular sieves and hemoglobin works over a range of pressures.

To the way surface area and chemical reactions work.

[

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2023, 11:23:53 PM

Remember when I mentioned displacement?

Picture..




Displace where.  All space in the jar is already filled with expanded mass.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2023, 11:23:53 PM

Can you remember all the times I said any dense mass will displace the atmosphere it is placed into?

Why would it overcome the mass already taken by your expanding molecules because there is no free space in your delusion.   

How do you displace a “springy molecule” in a jar totally filled with expanded molecular mass?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2023, 11:23:53 PM

Because a table is much more densely packed with molecules that are more individually layered than atmospheric molecules, meaning they offer a more dense foun dation to the atmospheric molecules.

How haven't you grasped this bit yet?

You still can’t grasp the demise of your delusion.

The jar in your delusion is completely filled with mass because your delusional molecules will expand to take up all free space. 

How does a feather fall if the jar is completely filled with molecular mass in your delusion. How does displacement occur in a jar totally void of free space with molecules expanding their mass to ensure at any instance there is no free space.

As soon as you try to learn denpressure let me know.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2023, 11:38:03 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 14, 2023, 02:31:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2023, 10:46:41 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 14, 2023, 10:01:57 AM

Still waiting on "why down" also, but you guys continue.  The vacuum semantics are fun.  The so called expanded molecule that's never been observed, theorized, mathematically tested, etc.

Has the free space been observed?

Yes, there are actual, award winning, "photos" of atoms.  Photo not being exactly correct since they used electrons instead of photons. 
But you will cry and throw a fit saying it's all fake... boo hoo, can't back up anything so everything else has to be fake to make himself feel better. 

I'm sure you can show me them and verify them and explain them, right?
I'll wait till you have something and then we'll discuss it.

Quote from: Mikey T.

Go ahead, we are waiting.  Throw your hissy fit. Better yet, try saying I'm upset, that's always a good laugh for me. 
Entertain me.

I'm fine but I'd try and curb your own frenzy and it'll likely make it easier for you to argue your points when you ever have any.

I'm sure you can show me an expanding molecule, verify the picture and explai....    wait you never explain anything.  Exactly as I said, you claim its fake.  I'm STILL waiting on explanations from you.   But if you want links and explanations of those photos, first you promise not to immediately cry fake, conspiracy, etc.  It's all you have really have though so I'm not holding my breath.

Also, frenzy???  3 to 5 posts in a month?  Sure.  You really are quite desperate.  Try new dance moves.  Continue though, it still entertains me.

As long as you're entertained then it's all good for you.

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 15, 2023, 05:56:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2023, 11:38:03 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 14, 2023, 02:31:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 14, 2023, 10:46:41 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 14, 2023, 10:01:57 AM

Still waiting on "why down" also, but you guys continue.  The vacuum semantics are fun.  The so called expanded molecule that's never been observed, theorized, mathematically tested, etc.

Has the free space been observed?

Yes, there are actual, award winning, "photos" of atoms.  Photo not being exactly correct since they used electrons instead of photons. 
But you will cry and throw a fit saying it's all fake... boo hoo, can't back up anything so everything else has to be fake to make himself feel better. 

I'm sure you can show me them and verify them and explain them, right?
I'll wait till you have something and then we'll discuss it.

Quote from: Mikey T.

Go ahead, we are waiting.  Throw your hissy fit. Better yet, try saying I'm upset, that's always a good laugh for me. 
Entertain me.

I'm fine but I'd try and curb your own frenzy and it'll likely make it easier for you to argue your points when you ever have any.

I'm sure you can show me an expanding molecule, verify the picture and explai....    wait you never explain anything.  Exactly as I said, you claim its fake.  I'm STILL waiting on explanations from you.   But if you want links and explanations of those photos, first you promise not to immediately cry fake, conspiracy, etc.  It's all you have really have though so I'm not holding my breath.

Also, frenzy???  3 to 5 posts in a month?  Sure.  You really are quite desperate.  Try new dance moves.  Continue though, it still entertains me.

As long as you're entertained then it's all good for you.

As expected, squirm squirm squirm. 
So no explanation for down, no evidence for magical expanding atoms, no mechanisms for well any claims made by you thus far.
See kids, what we have here is referred to as a snake oil salesman, a carpet bagger, con man, etc.  Zero integrity. 

As soon as you try to learn denpressure let me know.

Have you came up with a prediction modeled of den pressure delusion and posted the experiment.  You know the topic of the thread..

Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

Den pressure delusion would result in a carburetor that couldn’t create a combustible mixture from the imaginary expanding molecules that take up all free space you can’t prove exists. 


Den pressured delusion and expanding molecules that take up all free space with their mass would “vapor lock” lungs resulting in suffocation and no way to get CO2 out of the lungs.  Den pressure delusion would literally kill people. 

Yes, there are actual, award winning, "photos" of atoms.  Photo not being exactly correct since they used electrons instead of photons. 

 sceptimatic take you up on the offer?  Or can’t handle den pressure is an incomplete and failed model?  With no proof of expanding molecules? And evidence of free space. 

So no explanation for down, no evidence for magical expanding atoms, no mechanisms for well any claims made by you thus far.
See kids, what we have here is referred to as a snake oil salesman, a carpet bagger, con man, etc.  Zero integrity.

Pay better attention and you wouldn't have to go on like you do.