Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

Understand what conjoined is and you'll understand my reasoning.

I do understand what conjoined is.
I understand that it requires some kind of attractive force to hold it together, or else it will fall apart.
You need an attractive force to keep it conjoined.

You choose not to because you are hell-bent on ensuring nothing goes against your mainstream ideals.

It has nothing to do with mainstream ideals and everything to do with honesty.

You NEED attractive forces. You appeal to them. You just refuse to admit it because as soon as you do so much of your BS just falls apart.

You can't even explain what attractive force it is or pulling force so why you're you offering it?

BECAUSE IT IS NEEDED!
Without an attractive you CANNOT explain the observations.

The first step is to realise such a force is needed.
Then we can work on explaining it.

Also, it has been explained to you before. And do you know what your response was? Outright rejection because it was an attractive force.
As soon as you see an attractive force, you dismiss it, without any further thought.

And if you really want to go down this rabbit hole and boldly no one can explain a fundamental force, then you are in the same boat, being incapable of explaining how molecules push each other.

Use your brain.

I am. You should try it some time.
If you do, you will realise attractive forces are needed, and compressive forces or pushing forces are NOT enough to explain reality.

Then you're talking simple dense mass displacement, not conjoining.

As above, conjoining requires attractive forces, so in your fantasy, I'm not going to be using that.
Instead, I will be using molecules with no attractive forces between them.
Without such attractive forces, the molecules can break away from each other and go through the gap.
This means NOTHING can be solid.

In denpressure the linking is basically conjoined

And if you put your mind to work, you would realise that is just you being dishonest, appealing to attractive forces, and trying to hide them.
Without attractive forces, there is no joining.

So we are straight back to the same issue.
How are they joined together without an attractive force holding them together?
If you have 2 molecules, one on the left and one on the right, and the one on the right moves to the right, how does it transfer a force to the one on the left to move it to the right?

I'm showing you why attraction/pull cannot work and has no basis to work with molecular pressures.

No, you aren't.
You are boldly declaring it can't work for no reason at all, and pretending your nonsense works, while being completely incapable of explaining how.
Instead you just resort to an attractive force and pretend you don't.

What magic prevents an attractive force?

As I said earlier in the thread. What constitutes a solid or a liquid/fluid and a gas?
Where does one start and one end?

And I explained, including using that analogy, which you cannot show a fault with and cannot provide an alternative to.

A solid is defined by its attractive forces which hold it together to maintain its shape, such that it is only with significant force applied that it will deform permanently, with lesser forces just acting like a spring where it pushes it but it goes back to its original shape.
A liquid is defined by fewer attractive links (or overall weaker attraction), such that it can easily be deformed to take the shape of its container, but still maintains a near constant volume.
A gas is defined as negligible attractive forces, with lots of free space between the molecules so it will fill its container rather than having a near constant volume. (With the exception of having a pressure gradient due to gravity so if the container is large enough it can cause issues where most of the gas is down low.)

This means you can easily move things through a gas, as you don't need to break the links.
You can also fairly easily move things through a liquid, but it is substantially harder than a liquid, as you do need to help it along breaking and re-joining links.
And moving things through solids requires completely breaking the links.

To our simple perceivest of vision, we can segregate the densities into solids, liquids/fluids, and gases on the face of it.

Yes, by their attractive forces and what this results in.
And this is NOT by their density.

When is gold a solid but when is gold a liquid?
When is water a liquid and when is it a solid?
When is gas a solid?

It is a solid when it holds its shape.
It is liquid, when it can overcome the attractive forces enough to take the shape of the container while still maintaining its volume.
It is a gas when it can overcome the attractive forces to fill the container.

Really simple, and all discussed in terms of the attractive forces holding it together.

I already gave you my reasoning. Pay attention to what#'s said and lower your hate shield.

No you haven't.
Instead, you dismissed attractive forces outright because you hate them because that is your main argument against gravity; and then used them when you appealed to conjoined molecules.

You can believe anything you want to but I stick by what I'm saying.

It isn't a matter of what I want.
That is how you go.
On the other hand, I care about the truth; so I follow the evidence and accept what it demands.
You look for whatever out you can use to pretend your delusional BS works and ignore everything that shows it is wrong.

You offer a link that's being pushed and yet you split it.

Yes, it splits, because there are no pulling forces to pull the left side of the link over.
You need an attractive force between the right side and the left side, so when the right side moves to the right, it can PULL the left side over.

Without such a force, it just falls apart.

That is the entire point. Solids, like links in a chain, REQUIRE PULLING FORCES TO WORK!
Without pulling forces, they fall apart and act like a gas.

How about you offer a chain and try the same thing with your supposed (attrractive/pulling force?
And try and explain what a pulling force actually means.

How about you stop deflecting and explain how it works without a pulling force; or admit that pulling forces are possible and in fact required?
As we have all seen what happens when you are provided an explanation. You will simply dismiss it because it involves a pulling force.

If you can't grasp what was said then it's you that has the issue.

I fully grasp what was said.
I just recognise it doesn't work.

Me recognising your claims are BS and do not work does not mean I don't grasp what you are saying.
Your inability to defend your BS is entirely YOUR issue. Not mine.

There's no difference

There is a VERY big difference.
In one, you have an attractive force holding it together, this can allow them to stay together and hold their shape.
In the other, there is no attractive force, and there are merely touching, such that if one moves, the other needs a force to come from elsewhere to move it, and therefore there is NOTHING to make it hold its shape, so it would freely flow.

It makes no sense because to have free space means you offer no path for anything, meaning life cannot work and nor can the cell of life nor the entirety of all the rest of it.

You could not be further from the truth.
Free space is a path.
It is literally a free path, that is entirely open for things to move through.

But notice how again, you aren't explaining why free space is a problem.
You just assert it means no path, with no explanation for why free space, which literally means nothing is there to block it, somehow means no path; and then just assert it means life cannot work.

You aren't explaining any actual problems.

Compare that to my refutation of your BS.
I have clearly provided an example of where attractive forces and free space are needed.
I have explained the evidence which demonstrates this.
I have explained the logical consequences of an alternative where there are no attractive forces and no free space, and clearly demonstrated how that doesn't match reality.

However, if you want to change your free space to saying you think an empty room with some space in it is free space of molecules you cannot see and can offer boxes to fill it then I'd happily understand why you're offering it.

No, free space is space between the molecules. There are no molecules in this space.
It is also not static, with the molecules moving around.

And this is where your science becomes the fiction.

No, this is where you just wilfully reject reality because you don't like it.

If you paid closer attention you would understand.

Stop just throwing out the same pathetic insults.
I have paid attention, and I do understand your BS, and realise it doesn't work.

Those who refuse to listen will be forever deaf. Those who refuse to see will be forever blind. And those who refuse to use their own mind will be forever regurgitating a script.

And is that why you are continually regurgitating the same delusional BS which has no chance at all to work in reality?
Refusing to accept reality at all costs and instead clinging to your delusional fantasy?

Pay better attention to what was said way back and you won't feel the need to retype the same stuff.

Follow your own advice.
Pay attention to what has been said and actually respond to it honestly; rather than just repeating the same refuted BS.

In a fictional world you'd have a point. In sci-fi you would have a thought process but that's all it is.
The old con job attributed to Newton of ......an object in motion remains in motion at a constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force...... is absolute utter clap trap.

No, in reality we have a point.
Experimental observations demonstrate beyond any sane doubt, that resistance slows things down.
If you are moving with some velocity relative to another object, which you are touching, like the air or a solid, it will provide a resistive force which acts against that relative motion.

As that resistance decreases, the object moves for longer; extrapolated to a hypothetical point of no resistance where it continues to move forever.
It truly is quite simple, unless you have a force acting to change the velocity of the object, it keeps going with that same velocity.

So no, it isn't a con job. It is an honest representation of relaity.
So it is understandable why you would dismiss it as a con job, because you hate reality.
And you need to use your pathetic lie to try arguing against free space, to indirectly try arguing against a round Earth.

That is what all your wilful rejection of reality comes back to, your hatred of the RE model and how it describes reality.

So the one describing a fantasy here is YOU. A fantasy that makes absolutely no sense, where resistance to motion magically makes things move more.
It makes absolutely no sense at all.

If your delusional BS was true, firing a bullet at a solid wall should have the go into the wall and keep on going until it made it out the other side, regardless of if that wall was a 0.1 mm thick sheet of paper, or a 1 km thick slab of steel. Conversely, firing it through a gas which should provide minimal resistance should have it stop almost instantly.

Instead, the exact opposite is observed.

To get anything in motion you first

Forget about getting it in motion.
Discuss once it is already in motion. As that is where your fantasy lies.

However, little resistance is still resistance and will always offer a  force/resistance against the dense mass of the object.

Which in no way means that resistance is needed.
Instead, it could be 1 ms for it to stop, or 1e100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years.

Gravity is just a fictional bull

You mean you need to dismiss it as fictional bull because it destroys your delusional fantasy. Even though you can offer no viable alternative to what is explained by gravity, and the closest you have gotten is by implicitly appealing to gravity.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2023, 09:01:05 AM

Show me this fixed-size single atom.

As repeatedly posted.

Everything from molecular sieve with fixed pore sizes that allows individual molecules with individual fixed sizes over a range of pressures to pass through while removing larger molecules, to how lungs and carburetors work, to why a feather falls faster and faster as pressure decreases below atmospheric pressure, to the difference between solid, liquid, and gas.


Now you show me proof that molecules expand with pressure to ensure no voids of mass to the point if only one molecule existed in all of the space of the universe it would infinitely expand to create infinite mass.

Ok you know you can alter states of molecular makeup but can you actually see individual atoms in free space?
You mention argon being one atom, so explain how you know this and do you have verification of it with some visual?

If the answer is no or a skirt around the answer then accept you do not know and are basically following a theoretical viewpoint of how it may work.

I'm doing the same with denpressure so you're not qualified to tell me it's wrong unless you absolutely know it's wrong.
Just saying so means nothing.

Physicists show unlimited heat conduction in graphene

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-05-physicists-unlimited-graphene.amp


Scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM) image of graphene on Ir(111). The image size is 15 nm × 15 nm. Credit: ESRF

What are you showing me here?

Can you show me where the argon is in the picture and where is the free space within that picture?

Quote

30 years of moving atoms: How scanning probe microscopes revolutionized nanoscience

https://cen.acs.org/analytical-chemistry/imaging/30-years-moving-atoms-scanning/97/i44



For 22 h over Nov. 9 and 10, 1989, Donald M. Eigler and Erhard K. Schweizer used the ultrasharp tip of a scanning tunneling microscope (STM) to pick up 35 xenon atoms and spell IBM in 5 nm tall letters on a cold nickel surface (shown). By the end of the experiment, the IBM team recorded a microscope image of the masterpiece—published several months later (Nature 1990, DOI: 10.1038/344524a0)—that created a scientific sensation and was displayed in newspapers around the globe.

Quote

IBM in atoms was a demonstration by IBM scientists in 1989 of a technology capable of manipulating individual atoms.[1] A scanning tunneling microscope was used to arrange 35 individual xenon atoms on a substrate of chilled crystal of nickel to spell out the three letter company initialism. It was the first time that atoms had been precisely positioned on a flat surface.[2][3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_(atoms)

Quote

Nanotechnology Takes Giant Leap Foward by Manipulating Molecules
Scientists have been able to move atoms around for 30 years, but moving molecules has proven much more difficult

https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/molecular-nanotechnology-takes-giant-leap-foward-by-manipulating-molecules-2650277224


In research described in the journal Nature, the scientists from the Peter Grünberg Institute, in Germany, were able to use an SPM to get a platelet-shaped PTCDA molecule, which is structurally related to graphene, to stand upright on a silver platform rather than its favored position of lying flat on the surface. The results could serve as an important stepping-stone in the effort to make molecular nanotechnology a reality and, in so doing, bring about other disruptive technologies.

So, basically you're offering diagrams and sketches from the internet and books and this is factual to you, right?

You're reliant on simply believing what's offered.

They may as well have written IBM with tiny unicorns for what that's worth.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2023, 12:26:40 AM

Understand what conjoined is and you'll understand my reasoning.

I do understand what conjoined is.
I understand that it requires some kind of attractive force to hold it together, or else it will fall apart.
You need an attractive force to keep it conjoined.

Then I'm sure you can offer up an explanation as to what attractive force is, right?
You need to be careful with the answer.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2023, 12:27:48 AM

You can believe anything you want to but I stick by what I'm saying.

It isn't a matter of what I want.
That is how you go.
On the other hand, I care about the truth; so I follow the evidence and accept what it demands.

You may care about some truths, but you also care about ensuring people do not have alternate theories to what you believe is the mainstream truth, most of which is unprovable pertaining to what's being argued.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2023, 12:27:48 AM

You offer a link that's being pushed and yet you split it.

Yes, it splits, because there are no pulling forces to pull the left side of the link over.
You need an attractive force between the right side and the left side, so when the right side moves to the right, it can PULL the left side over.

Yet you can't seem to offer this as a diagram to show me. You offer one link and split it with a push arrow.
There's a reason for this. There's no pull and attractive force cannot be explained unless you can offer up a diagram to explain it.

Free space is a path.
It is literally a free path, that is entirely open for things to move through.

How can free space be a path?
What makes that path?

It simply cannot happen.
If you have free space you have nothing. Nothing can exist.
You must have something compressed against something compressed throughout that is also under the ability to be decompressed. Everything has to be attached.

Free space is just a little con job to offer space vacuums where silly offerings of supposed spaceships and probes and such are being sent into it to simply go on forever.
It's just utter fantasy that skirts around reality.


Let me make this clear and offer you a simple analogy.

If you are one molecule in supposed free space, how do you move?

You cannot use anything to resist or as leverage to offer movement in any direction because no direction would exist and you as the molecule could not expand because there's nothing holding you together.
This is how silly it all is.

There can never be free space of the nothing you mention. Your vacuum. No scattered particles in your vacuum. It's utter fantasy.

If everything is not attached then nothing exists. It's as simple as that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2023, 01:51:30 AM

In a fictional world you'd have a point. In sci-fi you would have a thought process but that's all it is.
The old con job attributed to Newton of ......an object in motion remains in motion at a constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force...... is absolute utter clap trap.

No, in reality we have a point.
Experimental observations demonstrate beyond any sane doubt, that resistance slows things down.
If you are moving with some velocity relative to another object, which you are touching, like the air or a solid, it will provide a resistive force which acts against that relative motion.

There's no argument against resistance. It's a reality.

As that resistance decreases, the object moves for longer; extrapolated to a hypothetical point of no resistance where it continues to move forever.

There's no argument about decreasing resistance to an object in motion.
The issue starts when no resistance to motion is offered.

It truly is quite simple, unless you have a force acting to change the velocity of the object, it keeps going with that same velocity.

And this is really simple. You can never have an object in motion without it encountering resistance so it will always have a counter force acting against it.
It can never ever have a constant velocity at any time.

So no, it isn't a con job. It is an honest representation of reality.

It is a con job because it does not represent reality but is sold as reality, so it's a con job like a lot of supposed science relating to this stuff.

So it is understandable why you would dismiss it as a con job, because you hate reality.

I dismiss it because it does not represent reality. It represents a con job until it gets offered as fantasy. When it gets offered as fantasy I'll stop calling it a con job.

And you need to use your pathetic lie to try arguing against free space, to indirectly try arguing against a round Earth.

Getting all angry and pent up will not offer you any more traction with your arguments. It weakens you.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on June 28, 2023, 01:45:46 PM

Physicists show unlimited heat conduction in graphene

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-05-physicists-unlimited-graphene.amp


Scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM) image of graphene on Ir(111). The image size is 15 nm × 15 nm. Credit: ESRF

What are you showing me here?

Can you show me where the argon is in the picture and where is the free space within that picture?

Read the article, learn something new.  Form an argument concerning the source.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on June 28, 2023, 02:02:49 PM

Quote

30 years of moving atoms: How scanning probe microscopes revolutionized nanoscience

https://cen.acs.org/analytical-chemistry/imaging/30-years-moving-atoms-scanning/97/i44



For 22 h over Nov. 9 and 10, 1989, Donald M. Eigler and Erhard K. Schweizer used the ultrasharp tip of a scanning tunneling microscope (STM) to pick up 35 xenon atoms and spell IBM in 5 nm tall letters on a cold nickel surface (shown). By the end of the experiment, the IBM team recorded a microscope image of the masterpiece—published several months later (Nature 1990, DOI: 10.1038/344524a0)—that created a scientific sensation and was displayed in newspapers around the globe.

Quote

IBM in atoms was a demonstration by IBM scientists in 1989 of a technology capable of manipulating individual atoms.[1] A scanning tunneling microscope was used to arrange 35 individual xenon atoms on a substrate of chilled crystal of nickel to spell out the three letter company initialism. It was the first time that atoms had been precisely positioned on a flat surface.[2][3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_(atoms)

Quote

Nanotechnology Takes Giant Leap Foward by Manipulating Molecules
Scientists have been able to move atoms around for 30 years, but moving molecules has proven much more difficult

https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/molecular-nanotechnology-takes-giant-leap-foward-by-manipulating-molecules-2650277224


In research described in the journal Nature, the scientists from the Peter Grünberg Institute, in Germany, were able to use an SPM to get a platelet-shaped PTCDA molecule, which is structurally related to graphene, to stand upright on a silver platform rather than its favored position of lying flat on the surface. The results could serve as an important stepping-stone in the effort to make molecular nanotechnology a reality and, in so doing, bring about other disruptive technologies.

So, basically you're offering diagrams and sketches from the internet and books and this is factual to you, right?

You're reliant on simply believing what's offered.

They may as well have written IBM with tiny unicorns for what that's worth.

Read the article.  It’s imaging and technology that moves individual atoms.

Do you believe pictures of people have actual trapped people?  It’s imagery similar to images created with photons, x-rays, or cat scans /MRI’s.

Sorry there is a functioning reality beyond the den pressure delusion.

A scanning tunneling microscope (STM) is a type of microscope used for imaging surfaces at the atomic level. Its development in 1981 earned its inventors, Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer, then at IBM Zürich, the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1986.[1][2][3] STM senses the surface by using an extremely sharp conducting tip that can distinguish features smaller than 0.1 nm with a 0.01 nm (10 pm) depth resolution.[4] This means that individual atoms can routinely be imaged and manipulated. Most scanning tunneling microscopes are built for use in ultra-high vacuum at temperatures approaching absolute zero, but variants exist for studies in air, water and other environments, and for temperatures over 1000 °C.[5][6]

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

Quote from: JackBlack on June 28, 2023, 02:48:33 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2023, 12:26:40 AM

Understand what conjoined is and you'll understand my reasoning.

I do understand what conjoined is.
I understand that it requires some kind of attractive force to hold it together, or else it will fall apart.
You need an attractive force to keep it conjoined.

Then I'm sure you can offer up an explanation as to what attractive force is, right?
You need to be careful with the answer.

Why type of bond is conjoined?  Why would it make molecules “stick together” in say as diatomic oxygen (O2) is subjected to increasingly less pressure below atmospheric pressure in DPD. 

Quote from: JackBlack on June 28, 2023, 03:11:00 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2023, 12:27:48 AM

You can believe anything you want to but I stick by what I'm saying.

It isn't a matter of what I want.
That is how you go.
On the other hand, I care about the truth; so I follow the evidence and accept what it demands.

You may care about some truths, but you also care about ensuring people do not have alternate theories to what you believe is the mainstream truth, most of which is unprovable pertaining to what's being argued.

Explain how den pressure delusion works with microchips to modeling how fast a ball drops.

The problem is den pressure delusion is based on misconceptions and fails to be useful in everyday modeling.


Like this is just electrical potential making already existing electrons jump across the gap of the igniter.



Where in den pressure delusion according to you this would have to be a hydrogen generator. Despite your false assurances you can’t explain why the “electrical hydrogen” would leave one side of the igniter, jump the gap to be attracted to the opposite side of the igniter.

And what is consumed to break down to hydrogen. Where the process has to occur from anything like copper wires to the very limited amount of materials in silicon microchips. 

And again…

Are you talking about a plunger or a fuelled missile?

No.  But there is always a pressure difference of higher pressure below the plunger and a lower increasingly so pressure above the plunger.  There is always a pressure differential across the plunger.


There is no gravity to give a downward force in den pressure delusion. 

The reason the plungers upward momentum is stopped is because the pressure under the plunger pushing up equalizes with the force of gravity pushing down.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on June 28, 2023, 03:33:46 AM

And you still haven’t addressed the reality that argon exists in the atmosphere as single atoms. 

I have addressed it. I told you there are no single atoms.

Which means you’re wrong.  Argon exists in the atmosphere as single fixed sized atoms.

What are you?  Like five? Or just your mentality. 

There's no argument about decreasing resistance to an object in motion.
The issue starts when no resistance to motion is offered.

Why does an already moving object, say a missile or rocket need resistance to keep moving.

Oh.  By the way a rocket can work in a vacuum because it uses an exothermic reaction that results is energy and expanding gas out the engine nozzle.  A rocket literally creates is own “atmosphere” for the equal and opposite reaction. 

If you can remotely rig a gun to fire while dropping in a vacuum in a chamber, do you think the fired bullet will not be as energetic.  By what factor? 

Then I'm sure you can offer up an explanation as to what attractive force is, right?
You need to be careful with the answer.

Stop deflecting.

Explain how conjoining or any kind of attachment works without an attractive force.

Before I waste more time explaining how attractive forces work, you can start by admitting they are at least hypothetically possible.
Again, last time you just dismissed it because it used an attractive force, as you claim they can't exist.

You may care about some truths, but you also care about ensuring people do not have alternate theories to what you believe is the mainstream truth, most of which is unprovable pertaining to what's being argued.

And that is just another lie from you.
I care about THE truth. Not just a subset of the truth.
This also means I like people exploring alternatives which could lead to the truth.

What I don't like is people spouting the same refuted BS, acting like what is known must be wrong, without being able to show any fault, and without being able to show a viable alternative.

Yet you can't seem to offer this as a diagram to show me. You offer one link and split it with a push arrow.
There's a reason for this. There's no pull and attractive force cannot be explained unless you can offer up a diagram to explain it.

There is a very simple reason for it. It demonstrates the problem with your delusional BS.

Without a pulling force, this is what happens.
You need a pulling force where the atoms on the right pull the atoms on the left.

How can free space be a path?
What makes that path?

Nothing needs to make a path.
Do you know how paths are made in forests? By clearing away the trees.
Paths are an absence of things; things which would block the way.

It simply cannot happen.
If you have free space you have nothing. Nothing can exist.

Your irrational hatred of reality means nothing.
Having free space between things does not mean nothing can exist.
You are just blatantly lying to pretend that your fantasy is true.

You must have something compressed against something compressed throughout that is also under the ability to be decompressed. Everything has to be attached.

Why?
Stop just asserting the same pathetic BS.
Your pathetic assertions are entirely worthless.

There is NOTHING that indicates that everything must be magically stuck together, and plenty that demonstrates free space.

If you are one molecule in supposed free space, how do you move?

Why not try 2?
You again go for an incredibly dishonest idea, to try and pretend there is a problem.

If there is just a single molecule, the only way to change its motion is to have the molecule split.
If you have 2 molecules, they can push off each other, and then have both flying away from each other.

Again, you don't need everything full to have something to push off.

because there's nothing holding you together.

Remember, you are the one opposing something holding things together.

If everything is not attached then nothing exists. It's as simple as that.

No, it isn't.
That is just pure BS, asserted with no justification at all.

You can never have an object in motion without it encountering resistance so it will always have a counter force acting against it.

But you can have it be so negligible, that it can be ignored for practical purposes.

It is a con job because it does not represent reality but is sold as reality, so it's a con job like a lot of supposed science relating to this stuff.

Or, is this just another con job from you?
Where you dishonestly represent it as Newton claiming you can have an environment with truly no resistance, or just as an approximation.
Just like you dishonestly pretend people claim the vacuum of space is a perfect vacuum.

There's no argument about decreasing resistance to an object in motion.
The issue starts when no resistance to motion is offered.

So?  What is the equal and opposite reaction of water flowing as in a river?




Looks like it’s flowing at a constant speed to me?  If it kept slowing down, how would it ever make it to the ocean? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2023, 11:59:29 PM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on June 28, 2023, 01:45:46 PM

Physicists show unlimited heat conduction in graphene

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-05-physicists-unlimited-graphene.amp


Scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM) image of graphene on Ir(111). The image size is 15 nm × 15 nm. Credit: ESRF

What are you showing me here?

Can you show me where the argon is in the picture and where is the free space within that picture?

Read the article, learn something new.  Form an argument concerning the source.

No need to read the article. You've obviously had a scan over it and come to some conclusion about atoms.
What is it you're offering with this picture?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2023, 12:01:51 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on June 28, 2023, 02:02:49 PM

Quote

30 years of moving atoms: How scanning probe microscopes revolutionized nanoscience

https://cen.acs.org/analytical-chemistry/imaging/30-years-moving-atoms-scanning/97/i44



For 22 h over Nov. 9 and 10, 1989, Donald M. Eigler and Erhard K. Schweizer used the ultrasharp tip of a scanning tunneling microscope (STM) to pick up 35 xenon atoms and spell IBM in 5 nm tall letters on a cold nickel surface (shown). By the end of the experiment, the IBM team recorded a microscope image of the masterpiece—published several months later (Nature 1990, DOI: 10.1038/344524a0)—that created a scientific sensation and was displayed in newspapers around the globe.

Quote

IBM in atoms was a demonstration by IBM scientists in 1989 of a technology capable of manipulating individual atoms.[1] A scanning tunneling microscope was used to arrange 35 individual xenon atoms on a substrate of chilled crystal of nickel to spell out the three letter company initialism. It was the first time that atoms had been precisely positioned on a flat surface.[2][3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_(atoms)

Quote

Nanotechnology Takes Giant Leap Foward by Manipulating Molecules
Scientists have been able to move atoms around for 30 years, but moving molecules has proven much more difficult

https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/molecular-nanotechnology-takes-giant-leap-foward-by-manipulating-molecules-2650277224


In research described in the journal Nature, the scientists from the Peter Grünberg Institute, in Germany, were able to use an SPM to get a platelet-shaped PTCDA molecule, which is structurally related to graphene, to stand upright on a silver platform rather than its favored position of lying flat on the surface. The results could serve as an important stepping-stone in the effort to make molecular nanotechnology a reality and, in so doing, bring about other disruptive technologies.

So, basically you're offering diagrams and sketches from the internet and books and this is factual to you, right?

You're reliant on simply believing what's offered.

They may as well have written IBM with tiny unicorns for what that's worth.

Read the article.  It’s imaging and technology that moves individual atoms.

Do you believe pictures of people have actual trapped people?  It’s imagery similar to images created with photons, x-rays, or cat scans /MRI’s.

Sorry there is a functioning reality beyond the den pressure delusion.

Quote

A scanning tunneling microscope (STM) is a type of microscope used for imaging surfaces at the atomic level. Its development in 1981 earned its inventors, Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer, then at IBM Zürich, the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1986.[1][2][3] STM senses the surface by using an extremely sharp conducting tip that can distinguish features smaller than 0.1 nm with a 0.01 nm (10 pm) depth resolution.[4] This means that individual atoms can routinely be imaged and manipulated. Most scanning tunneling microscopes are built for use in ultra-high vacuum at temperatures approaching absolute zero, but variants exist for studies in air, water and other environments, and for temperatures over 1000 °C.[5][6]

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

As I said earlier. They could offer you tiny unicorns and you'd believe it.

Why type of bond is conjoined?  Why would it make molecules “stick together” in say as diatomic oxygen (O2) is subjected to increasingly less pressure below atmospheric pressure in DPD.

If you want to understand peeling and molecular conjoining then pay more attention to what's said about it and you'll understand why molecules are attached in so many various forms based on so many peelings and the conjoining.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2023, 12:19:39 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 28, 2023, 03:11:00 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2023, 12:27:48 AM

You can believe anything you want to but I stick by what I'm saying.

It isn't a matter of what I want.
That is how you go.
On the other hand, I care about the truth; so I follow the evidence and accept what it demands.

You may care about some truths, but you also care about ensuring people do not have alternate theories to what you believe is the mainstream truth, most of which is unprovable pertaining to what's being argued.

Explain how den pressure delusion works with microchips to modeling how fast a ball drops.

The problem is den pressure delusion is based on misconceptions and fails to be useful in everyday modeling.


Like this is just electrical potential making already existing electrons jump across the gap of the igniter.



Where in den pressure delusion according to you this would have to be a hydrogen generator. Despite your false assurances you can’t explain why the “electrical hydrogen” would leave one side of the igniter, jump the gap to be attracted to the opposite side of the igniter.

And what is consumed to break down to hydrogen. Where the process has to occur from anything like copper wires to the very limited amount of materials in silicon microchips.

Start trying to get to the basics before you go down that path because all you'll do is confuse yourself as always.

And again…

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2023, 07:37:28 AM

Are you talking about a plunger or a fuelled missile?

No.  But there is always a pressure difference of higher pressure below the plunger and a lower increasingly so pressure above the plunger.  There is always a pressure differential across the plunger.


There is no gravity to give a downward force in den pressure delusion. 

The reason the plungers upward momentum is stopped is because the pressure under the plunger pushing up equalizes with the force of gravity pushing down.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 28, 2023, 07:29:05 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on June 28, 2023, 03:33:46 AM

And you still haven’t addressed the reality that argon exists in the atmosphere as single atoms. 

I have addressed it. I told you there are no single atoms.

Which means you’re wrong.  Argon exists in the atmosphere as single fixed sized atoms.

What are you?  Like five? Or just your mentality.

How about trying your best to pay attention, otherwise what is it you're trying to argue against?
It certainly isn't denpressure because you know absolutely nothing about it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2023, 12:44:00 AM

There's no argument about decreasing resistance to an object in motion.
The issue starts when no resistance to motion is offered.

Why does an already moving object, say a missile or rocket need resistance to keep moving.

You really shouldn't need to be asking this. You should know because your natural surroundings and your natural understanding are of that but somehow you choose to believe you can move without having any leverage, which is a resistance to something, and then keep moving against no resistance, forever because you're told space is this environment of nothing that offers no resistance to motion and yet to offer no resistance to motion would mean no motion could be offered in the first place.
It's absolutely silly as all hell but people believe it because that's the story of fiction said to be a truth.

Oh.  By the way a rocket can work in a vacuum because it uses an exothermic reaction that results is energy and expanding gas out the engine nozzle.

So you want to use exothermic reactions for a supposed rocket movement in your fictional vacuum. Ok then, so try and explain the little nozzles that supposedly alter course by throwing out a gas that is not exothermic.


Or do you want to change your exothermic to something else?

  A rocket literally creates is own “atmosphere” for the equal and opposite reaction. 

How?
If your space vacuum is devoid of all matter then it has zero pressure against it and anything allowed to exit the rocket just expands into nothing. I mean even this is fictional in itself, so let us assume extreme low pressure which offers some pressure against the rocket but the rocket can only release its gases to expand to fit that extreme environment of low pressure, meaning no way in hell could you get any motion, because there's nothing to push against because there's no resistance to the mass of the rocket.

Yes yes, I know I know, but, it's in a space vacuum and it just can do this.

No, it can't because a space vacuum is a fantasy, and space rockets are a fantasy.

Missiles however are real and they work because they have an atmosphere to resist their mass ejection of fuel.

If you can remotely rig a gun to fire while dropping in a vacuum in a chamber, do you think the fired bullet will not be as energetic.  By what factor?

Put a gun in a chamber and evacuate the pressure to an extremely low pressure then fire that gun, it simply won't fire.
Put it in reasonably low pressure in a confined environment that offers little room then your gun will fire because it can still react to the environment.
I have a feeling you'll offer up that tube and gun and claim this is a vacuum and the gun fires.
Don't bother.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2023, 12:03:46 AM

Then I'm sure you can offer up an explanation as to what attractive force is, right?
You need to be careful with the answer.

Stop deflecting.

Explain how conjoining or any kind of attachment works without an attractive force.

It works by expansion. By molecular peeling. Molecular peeling offers compression by that expansion of peeling because molecular peeling also offers molecular expansion by layer loss of the actual molecule itself as another whole, attached also by lots of conjoined peelings of layers, depending on the pressures applied and where.
So many variations.
So, as you can see it's always a push against resistance to push or expansion causing compression.

Before I waste more time explaining how attractive forces work, you can start by admitting they are at least hypothetically possible.
Again, last time you just dismissed it because it used an attractive force, as you claim they can't exist.

Now you explain what attractive force is and don't just offer gravity as if you know what you're talking about.
Offer you what attraction actually is so it can be visualised as I've just done with mine, for those who want to pay attention.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2023, 12:44:00 AM

There's no argument about decreasing resistance to an object in motion.
The issue starts when no resistance to motion is offered.

So?  What is the equal and opposite reaction of water flowing as in a river?

First of all understand everything that happening to get it to that flow point.
Where does a river start and where does it end?
Once you understand all that you'll understand the action and equal and opposite reaction to that action which you shouldn't really be denying.

Looks like it’s flowing at a constant speed to me?  If it kept slowing down, how would it ever make it to the ocean?

No such thing as constant.
Consistent would be better.
The reason I say this is because you use constant velocity when arguing for an object in motion to stay in exact motion unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. Basically, an attributed to a Newton fallacy.

It seems you're offering a river flow with absolutely no resistance to that flow by using a constant.
If you believe this it's no wonder you are still at square one of denpressure and why you'll never get past anything of an explanation unless it's in the fantasy pseudo-science books..

As I said earlier. They could offer you tiny unicorns and you'd believe it.

They didn’t “offer me anything”.

It’s just a model that actual works, and can make usable results that make sense.

You claimed this about electricity..

Vibrational frequencies or basically creating heat by pressure/compression and breaking down molecules into hydrogen and super compressing it as an instance.

This is not “Electricity hydrogen”



They are electrons that are negatively charge particles that can be pushed and pulled by a collapsing and rising electromagnetic field.  A collapsing and rising magnetic field from a copper cable with AC current flowing through it will also induce current flow in near by metals.  Current flow being the movement of already existing electrons. 

Semiconductors that allows current  flow in microchips shows current flow is by a particle known as electrons.  Not an atom called hydrogen.

Semiconductors can be structured on the level of atoms.  I don’t “believe”, but understanding items can be built by the manipulation of individual atoms.

There is no evidence that current flow is “hydrogen”.

You can’t show that “electron flow” is anything “broken down”.  Especially in semiconductors at the CPU level where the small “transistors” of a CPU would quickly be made useless in the consumption of something “broken down” to produce your electrical hydrogen.

The fact there is atom level manufacturing making working equipment that would be impossible in den pressure delusion proves you’re full of bull shit.

And the fact that Argon exists in the earth’s atmosphere as a single atom proves den pressure is a lie.  Especially from the fact Argon can be ran through the smallest of pressures to the greatest off pressures.  From vacuum to 3000 psi or more and never “breakdown”.


With you utterly not being able to show hydrogen is produced from bigger molecules like diatomic oxygen, copper atoms, or the silicon doped with impurities in semiconductors.

But water can be separated into oxygen and hydrogen by the electrolysis.

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

Were the bonds of water being broken by electrolysis.  Where twice as many hydrogen molecules are produced than oxygen.

“Overall reaction: 2 H2O(l) → 2 H2(g) + O2(g)”


The equation balances.


Where, in the “den pressure delusion”, one gobstopper of a layered water molecule should only make one molecule of what?  How in the hell in the den pressure delusion does one molecule of water breakdown and layer out to a molecule of hydrogen and a molecule of oxygen.  And what breaks down to make argon or helium.

First of all understand everything that happening to get it to that flow point.
Where does a river start and where does it end?

Because it starts at a greater height to a lower height.  Changing greater height and the greater potential energy due to gravity to a lower state of potential energy.  And the change in height and potential energy occurs, it corresponds to a change in kinetic energy.

Why in den pressure delusion void of all gravity would water flow from less pressure, density, resistance into the higher pressure, density, higher resistance at a lower altitude.

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.

It gets worse for den pressure delusion.  There can be a high pressure cell over the outlet of the Mississippi into the ocean, and be less pressure at the source of Mississippi from a low pressure cell. And visa versa.  But the flow of the Mississippi stays the same rate as determined by gravity.  Not changes from unstable and fickle atmospheric pressure. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 04:58:45 AM

As I said earlier. They could offer you tiny unicorns and you'd believe it.

They didn’t “offer me anything”.

Anything you read and take in if offered to you.

It’s just a model that actual works, and can make usable results that make sense.

Anyone can offer up a theoretical model of something and say it works because of this and that. It doesn't mean it is exactly what's said.

Just like gluons are offered in supposed particle physics and when asked they say .... oh it's just the glue that holds them together.
Utter gobbledygook and means nothing.

You claimed this about electricity..

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 26, 2023, 05:35:57 AM

Vibrational frequencies or basically creating heat by pressure/compression and breaking down molecules into hydrogen and super compressing it as an instance.

This is not “Electricity hydrogen”



They are electrons that are negatively charge particles that can be pushed and pulled by a collapsing and rising electromagnetic field.  A collapsing and rising magnetic field from a copper cable with AC current flowing through it will also induce current flow in near by metals.  Current flow being the movement of already existing electrons. 

Semiconductors that allows current  flow in microchips shows current flow is by a particle known as electrons.  Not an atom called hydrogen.

Semiconductors can be structured on the level of atoms.  I don’t “believe”, but understanding items can be built by the manipulation of individual atoms.

There is no evidence that current flow is “hydrogen”.

There's no evidence it isn't part of that setup.

You can’t show that “electron flow” is anything “broken down”.  Especially in semiconductors at the CPU level where the small “transistors” of a CPU would quickly be made useless in the consumption of something “broken down” to produce your electrical hydrogen.

You can't show anything broken down. It's all about breaking down into different layers which we basically can't see within more dense molecular make-up.
And the electrical makeup isn't just hydrogen, it's a molecular mix that offers molecular vibration through dense but marginally porous wiring under vibrational frequencies always creating friction/heat and doing work because of it.
It's just a case of understanding denpressure, not the one you go with.

The fact there is atom level manufacturing making working equipment that would be impossible in den pressure delusion proves you’re full of bull shit.

Molecular levels? I have no issue with that. If you want to call them atoms then fine but they aren't singular.

And the fact that Argon exists in the earth’s atmosphere as a single atom proves den pressure is a lie.

It doesn't. It can never exist as a single atom nor can anything else exist as a single atom.

 Especially from the fact Argon can be ran through the smallest of pressures to the greatest off pressures.  From vacuum to 3000 psi or more and never “breakdown”.

Any gas can be pressurised given the right circumstances and setup. They can also be extreme low-pressure, so what's your point?

With you utterly not being able to show hydrogen is produced from bigger molecules like diatomic oxygen, copper atoms, or the silicon doped with impurities in semiconductors.

But water can be separated into oxygen and hydrogen by the electrolysis.

I'm sure you can explain electrolysis, right?
I'm pretty sure you'll offer up a diagram showing some atom set up and say it, right?
Water can be separated but it isn't just 2 breakdowns you can get from water.

Were the bonds of water being broken by electrolysis.  Where twice as many hydrogen molecules are produced than oxygen.

“Overall reaction: 2 H2O(l) → 2 H2(g) + O2(g)”


The equation balances.


Where, in the “den pressure delusion”, one gobstopper of a layered water molecule should only make one molecule of what?  How in the hell in the den pressure delusion does one molecule of water breakdown and layer out to a molecule of hydrogen and a molecule of oxygen.  And what breaks down to make argon or helium.

You see, this is why you have no clue. You don't even begin to understand what was said. You just go into rant mode.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 05:34:41 AM

First of all understand everything that happening to get it to that flow point.
Where does a river start and where does it end?

Because it starts at a greater height to a lower height.

Yep but it has to get there first and it gets there because of molecular breakdown and being squeezed up as that molecular breakdown becomes less dense than the more dense atmosphere it is in.
It then adds to the layers above where it cannot be squeezed and farther into the stacked layers and it becomes bonded or conjoined with those layers as it's pushed into those molecules until they become too dense for the layers they're in and are basically squeezed back down against resistance that breaks them back down again as droplets to hit higher and to then carry on being squeezed down to lower land to follow dense mass friction that is a push on push all the way to a resistance too great to be penetrated from which it is dispersed.


No gravity needed.

 Changing greater height and the greater potential energy due to gravity to a lower state of potential energy.
  And the change in height and potential energy occurs, it corresponds to a change in kinetic energy.

The kinetic energy starts at the bottom and becomes potential energy as soon as it ceases to be pushed any farther. It then once again becomes kinetic energy once it's allowed to become released against the friction it was pushed up through.
Equal and opposite reaction to action.

Why in den pressure delusion void of all gravity would water flow from less pressure, density, resistance into the higher pressure, density, higher resistance at a lower altitude.

It won't unless energy is applied to get it from higher pressure into lower pressure, as explained above.
It's all about breaking down denser molecules and allowing expansion of them to compress against the molecules not directly in the full area of that energy to then decompress against them to squeeze them into the next layers in the stack...and so on and so on for as long as the energy lasts to hold expansion/peeling/vibration.

It's just a case of paying attention.

You, yourself posted..

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 31, 2023, 03:14:25 AM

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.

It gets worse for den pressure delusion.  There can be a high pressure cell over the outlet of the Mississippi into the ocean, and be less pressure at the source of Mississippi from a low pressure cell. And visa versa.  But the flow of the Mississippi stays the same rate as determined by gravity.  Not changes from unstable and fickle atmospheric pressure.

It's basically about you paying better attention. I don't think you can as it clearly shows.