Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

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

The fact the mechanics of semiconductor and CPU’s work.  And make use of electrons and not hydrogen is proof your full of crap.

You can't show anything broken down.

Bull shit.  For your “electrical hydrogen” to form it has to consume something.  Such as in a semiconductor, the silicon would loose it properties and not function.  Reality is explained by doped silicone staying doped silicone to interact with electrons.  When a cpu breaks down, it doesn’t work anymore.

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.

Because it doesn’t make sense.

  It makes sense in reality water can be separated into hydrogen and oxygen.

It doesn’t make sense in den pressure delusion one molecule layers out into two separate and completely different molecules. 

How does one molecule in DPD make 2 H2(g) + O2(g)

Yep but it has to get there first and it gets there because of molecular breakdown

Complete and utter nonsense.

In den pressure delusional, your only motive to move is changes in pressure potential.

There is no gravity.  No force with direction of down. 

That means den pressure delusional is domed to move things from high pressure to lower pressure.

The flow of a river from lower pressure to higher pressure is no way explained by your delusion, and the fickle changes in atmospheric pressure.

It's all about breaking down denser molecules

The water doesn’t change density in any meaningful consistent way you need.  And the pressure and density of the atmosphere over the entire Mississippi can change completely, and can be at odds from the source to the outlet.

The atmosphere in no way offers the consistency driven by gravity.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 07:59:29 AM

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

The fact the mechanics of semiconductor and CPU’s work.  And make use of electrons and not hydrogen is proof your full of crap.

Lots of things work but it doesn't mean the truth of how and why they work is exactly what is stated. It just means something's been made up to cover for it and it can be worked with from that.
It doesn't guarantee molecules are set out as we get shown. This is the whole point.

You can't show anything broken down.

Physically we can see lots of stuff broken down but how it's broken down is a case for argument and this is where we're at with you going for mainstream ideals and I'm not.
At the molecular level, it's all about guesswork as to how and why things work.

Bull shit.  For your “electrical hydrogen” to form it has to consume something.  Such as in a semiconductor, the silicon would loose it properties and not function.  Reality is explained by doped silicone staying doped silicone to interact with electrons.  When a cpu breaks down, it doesn’t work anymore.

Everything has to consume something in order for it to gain any advantage, but it's how it's consumed and what does consume actually mean when molecularly delved into?

You're getting all worked up because what is given to you on a plate, what you're devouring with gusto is being questioned with alternatives that mean nothing to you and you likely take the counterarguments as an insult to your intellect that you gained from those well-served dishes of knowledge, of which you have absolutely no clue what those actual dishes are in their makeup on that silver platter other than the chefs telling you a few little tidbits and a whole lot of gobbledygook just to whet your appetite.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 07:59:29 AM

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.

Because it doesn’t make sense.

It'll never make sense to someone who refuses to understand alternates.

  It makes sense in reality water can be separated into hydrogen and oxygen.

Water can be separated into a lot more than that, so what's your point?

It doesn’t make sense in den pressure delusion one molecule layers out into two separate and completely different molecules. 

It doesn't. You just don't pay attention.

How does one molecule in DPD make 2 H2(g) + O2(g)

Understand the gobstopper analogy and the layering and the peeling and then you7'll understand the gobstopper is not one molecule, it's so many layers of molecules making one dense molecule within molecules with the outer layers peeling in many different ways against similar molecules depending on applied energy to them.

I suppose this will fly right over your head into cuckoo land judging by the fact you can't grasp the very basics.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 08:18:41 AM

Yep but it has to get there first and it gets there because of molecular breakdown

Complete and utter nonsense.

In den pressure delusional, your only motive to move is changes in pressure potential.

There is no gravity.  No force with direction of down. 

That means den pressure delusional is domed to move things from high pressure to lower pressure.

The flow of a river from lower pressure to higher pressure is no way explained by your delusion, and the fickle changes in atmospheric pressure.

The downward force is all dependent on the decompression of molecules resisting each other based on their dense mass makeup.

You just fail to pay attention.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 08:18:41 AM

It's all about breaking down denser molecules

The water doesn’t change density in any meaningful consistent way you need.  And the pressure and density of the atmosphere over the entire Mississippi can change completely, and can be at odds from the source to the outlet.

The atmosphere in no way offers the consistency driven by gravity.

So you think energy cannot make steam and change water density?
Ok, we'll leave it at that because you're not even trying.

The downward force .

From what?

With the atmosphere doing this in hundreds of spots over / along the Mississippi.



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


With the atmosphere providing no consistency.

With den pressure having the only motive of force to move items from high pressure to low pressure.


There is nothing being “broken” down.  The water stays water.  The air stays the same constant mixer of O2, N2, CO2, argon.

So you think energy cannot make steam and change water density?

Where is the latent heat of phase change occurring in the course of the Mississippi? 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

 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?

The point is den pressure is a lie because argon stays argon during pressure changes. It doesn’t “breakdown”.

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

Again.  You have the mentality of a five year old.

Argon exists as a single atom in the atmosphere.  That’s reality.  It has a stable full outer electron shell of eight electrons.  That explains why it exists as a single atom.  Why it doesn’t react chemically under processes found in our natural world.


You explain how argon came about in your delusion, and why it doesn’t “breakdown” with pressure changes.   Why the atmosphere is almost one percent argon.  What did argon “breakdown” from in your delusion.  Why is it stable despite pressure changes. 

Everything has to consume something in order for it to gain any advantage, but it's how it's consumed and what does consume actually mean when molecularly delved into?

You're getting all worked up because what is given to you on a plate, what you're devouring with gusto is being questioned with alternatives that mean nothing to you and you likely take the counterarguments as an insult to your intellect that you gained from those well-served dishes of knowledge, of which you have absolutely no clue what those actual dishes are in their makeup on that silver platter other than the chefs telling you a few little tidbits and a whole lot of gobbledygook just to whet your appetite.

What?  Your world salad is meaningless.

Take a simple fuel gauge.



How does this gauge reliably read fuel level in den pressure delusion.  What is “consumed” to make the needle deflect to indicate a level.  How do you replace what is “consumed”?  Why are there fuel gauges of this design that have worked for 50 plus years without ever having to replace a part?

Why if the needle of the gauge is made of plastic with no magnetic properties, the gauge coils causes no needle deflection. 

Why does it need an “advantage” over what?

The wire coils of a meter.



The wire coils of a small motor.



What are being “broken” down in the wires when in reality if the wires are broken down the meter and the motor don’t work.

 

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.

No, with this I can't see anything.
You are just throwing a vague collection of words without explaining how ANYTHING is joined.

Nice and simple, I have 2 molecules touching each other. What is stopping them getting separated, or sliding past each other?
What force is holding them together?

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.

So I should provide a bunch of vague BS with no explanatory power at all to do it like you have done with yours?

Again, first you can explain yours.
Tell us how 2 molecules can stay together rather than sliding past each other or separating without an attractive force holding them together.

And again, before I even bother trying to explain an attractive force to you, you need to admit that they are at least hypothetically possible, and that pathetic dismissal of the explanation because it involves an attractive force would dishonest BS.

What is it you're offering with this picture?

See those bright spots?
They are atoms.
The light region between the spots are were the bonds are.
And those dark areas? That is free space between atoms.

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

Then start explaining the basics. Why does the atmosphere stack? What force is causing this?

You really shouldn't need to be asking this.

No, we most certainly do. As this highlights the complete nonsense of your idea.
You need something to push off to make an object move (which can simply be another object). But once it is moving, resistance primarily acts to slow it down.
There is no reason additional resistance should be needed to keep it moving.
We observe how resistance makes it slow down.

you choose to believe you can move without having any leverage, which is a resistance to something, and then keep moving against no resistance

No.
We accept that momentum needs to be conserved, so in order for 1 object to accelerate in one direction another object needs to accelerate in the opposite direction (or a more complex arrangement).
The issue is your claim that resistance is needed to have motion continue after this.

Ok then, so try and explain the little nozzles that supposedly alter course by throwing out a gas that is not exothermic.

You mean the "expanding gas out the engine nozzle"?
How about you try being honest for once?

How?

It injects fuel and oxidiser into the combustion chamber and ignites it.
This gas is then expands outwards, pushing the rocket with the rocket pushing back.

If your space vacuum is devoid of all matter

That would be a perfect vacuum. Space is not a perfect vacuum.

anything allowed to exit the rocket just expands into nothing.

How?
You directly claim that without resistance objects can't move. Yet here you are claiming these gas molecules move (which is required for them to expand).
So those gas molecules need something to resist, to push against.
And do you know what provides that? The rocket.
This means the gas molecules push the rocket and the rocket pushes the gas molecules.
Action and equal and opposite reaction.
This causes the gas molecules to accelerate one way and the rocket to accelerate the other.

No need for any outside air.

There are only 2 other alternatives:
1 -  As there is no air to push off, the gas molecules are magically trapped inside an open container, with no way to move. In order for the molecules to expand, the rocket would need to be placed in atmosphere so the rocket can resist against the atmosphere to allow the rocket to act as resistance for the gas molecules to allow them to leave and expand.
2 - No resistance is ever required, the gas molecules can just accelerate without pushing off anything.

So the only honest, consistent options are to accept what happens in reality which means rockets can work in space, claim what is clearly pure nonsense with gas magically being trapped in an open container, or accept even more fantasy where objects just accelerate which would also allow rockets to work in space.

So which one will you pick? (I'm assuming the dishonest one of claiming the gas can magically expand without pushing against the rocket, but the rocket needs to push against something to move.)

Put a gun in a chamber and evacuate the pressure to an extremely low pressure then fire that gun, it simply won't fire.

Pure BS.
That may have been true for ancient guns, but modern guns have bullets in a cartridge which contains the fuel and oxidiser together with a primer.
They most certainly can fire in a vacuum.

https://www.military.com/video/guns/gunfire/will-a-gun-fire-in-space/971339055001

There is no reason at all for why it shouldn't fire.

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.

That's right.
Look at and all your BS.
The big difference are things like explanatory power and consistency.

Your nonsense has no explanatory power and no consistency.
The models produced by mainstream science do.

It's just a case of understanding denpressure, not the one you go with.

No, it is a case of your complete inability to justify your delusional BS.
You can offer nothing to demonstrate it is true.
No rational arguments, no evidence.
You can't even make a coherent model.
Meanwhile, mainstream science is supported by mountains of evidence.

How about you try understanding reality, rather than clinging to a fantasy to avoid the RE?

No gravity needed.

Until you can provide a viable alternative for why things fall and why the atmosphere stacks, gravity is most certainly needed.

It's just a case of paying attention.

Which is something you refuse to do.

If you paid attention you would realise your model is DOA, with you even effectively admitting it.

If things fell due to air pressure, it would need a greater pressure above the object. But there isn't. So that clearly is not the case.
If it was the air pressure, then the mass of the object would be irrelevant. If you took a helium filled balloon and used energy to push it up, it should then fall. But instead it continues to rise.

Your nonsense simply doesn't work.
And if you paid attention and been honest you would have realised this by now.

At the molecular level, it's all about guesswork as to how and why things work.

Only for those like you, who choose to remain wilfully ignorant of reality.

For those who actually care about the truth, there is plenty of evidence and understanding so such guesswork is normally not needed.

what you're devouring with gusto is being questioned with alternatives

No it isn't.
It is being dismissed, with no justification, and no evidence to support the delusional BS you are coming up with, nor even an attempt to deal with the evidence which supports the mainstream model.

So you think energy cannot make steam and change water density?
Ok, we'll leave it at that because you're not even trying.

Does water stack like “atmosphere” in den pressure delusion?  Would a River flow from less dense to more dense to get to sea level?  Would the water of a river be more dense at sea level than up stream at a higher altitude?   How would it flow based on water density in den pressure delusion.  What density differential would cause what flow.  Can you make a chart? 

Water temp in New Orleans was 88 degrees Fahrenheit at the time for this post for the Mississippi River. 
https://rivergages.mvr.usace.army.mil/WaterControl/stationinfo2.cfm?dt=S&sid=01300&fid=NORL1

Water temp of the Mississippi River at Iowa  Lock & Dam #11 – Dubuque, was 81 degrees Fahrenheit.

https://rivergages.mvr.usace.army.mil/WaterControl/stationinfo2.cfm?sid=DLDI4

Why is the Mississippi River “stacking” from less dense at sea level with a temp of 88 degrees Fahrenheit to more dense at a higher altitude above sea level In Iowa at 81 degrees Fahrenheit?

Density of water at 88 degrees Fahrenheit,   62.142 lb/cu ft

Density of water at 81 degrees Fahrenheit, 62.214 lb/cu ft

A change in density of a whole 0.072 lb/cu ft.


The Flow and the magnitude of flow for the the Mississippi is driven by gravity.  Not a negligible change in density. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 08:42:38 AM

The downward force .

From what?

With the atmosphere doing this in hundreds of spots over / along the Mississippi.



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


With the atmosphere providing no consistency.

With den pressure having the only motive of force to move items from high pressure to low pressure.


There is nothing being “broken” down.  The water stays water.  The air stays the same constant mixer of O2, N2, CO2, argon.

Why would the atmosphere provide consistency when energy from everywhere is always altering it?
Try and understand denpressure to argue against it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 08:43:42 AM

So you think energy cannot make steam and change water density?

Where is the latent heat of phase change occurring in the course of the Mississippi?

The Mississippi is a few thousand miles long, what are you talking about?
You're just picking up anything and throwing it out without knowing why.

The point is den pressure is a lie because argon stays argon during pressure changes. It doesn’t “breakdown”.

Molecules are broken down and containerised into Argon and other trace layers.
Changing them requires a lot more breaking down but as they stand they're used as a molecule called Argon which is not a lone molecule but a name for molecular breakdown to that point.
Have you ever seen a single atom of your Argon?
If not then what are you arguing for?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 07:59:29 AM

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

Again.  You have the mentality of a five year old.

It doesn't matter what you say. You're spending a lot of time taking on this 5-year-old mentality so what does that say about you?
You get weaker the more you try to use this old gunk.

Argon exists as a single atom in the atmosphere.  That’s reality.

The reality that was given to you on a plate which you devoured with gusto. It's not a single atom in denpressure.

  It has a stable full outer electron shell of eight electrons.  That explains why it exists as a single atom.  Why it doesn’t react chemically under processes found in our natural world.

You have absolutely no clue about that. You're just offering it because it's easy to read and regurgitate.

You explain how argon came about in your delusion, and why it doesn’t “breakdown” with pressure changes. 

Argon like all gases or even liquids or even solids come about because of the gobstopper analogy of molecular breakdown of peeled layering and conjoining.
You've been told this before but you can't comprehend it.

Why the atmosphere is almost one percent argon.

How do you know it is?

  What did argon “breakdown” from in your delusion.  Why is it stable despite pressure changes.

No moelcule is ever stable. They're all under pressure and under vibrational frequencies so varied as to be too many to contemplate.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 08:40:48 AM

Everything has to consume something in order for it to gain any advantage, but it's how it's consumed and what does consume actually mean when molecularly delved into?

You're getting all worked up because what is given to you on a plate, what you're devouring with gusto is being questioned with alternatives that mean nothing to you and you likely take the counterarguments as an insult to your intellect that you gained from those well-served dishes of knowledge, of which you have absolutely no clue what those actual dishes are in their makeup on that silver platter other than the chefs telling you a few little tidbits and a whole lot of gobbledygook just to whet your appetite.

What?  Your world salad is meaningless.

Take a simple fuel gauge.



How does this gauge reliably read fuel level in den pressure delusion.  What is “consumed” to make the needle deflect to indicate a level.  How do you replace what is “consumed”?  Why are there fuel gauges of this design that have worked for 50 plus years without ever having to replace a part?

Why if the needle of the gauge is made of plastic with no magnetic properties, the gauge coils causes no needle deflection. 

Why does it need an “advantage” over what?

The wire coils of a meter.



The wire coils of a small motor.



What are being “broken” down in the wires when in reality if the wires are broken down the meter and the motor don’t work.

What are youa ctually asking?
Before you go into your ask mode from me how about you offer up exactly what's happening to make those things work from your side?

Why would the atmosphere provide consistency when energy from everywhere is always altering it?

Yet without significant aerodynamic effects, objects consistently fall at a quite comparable rate.

It's not a single atom in denpressure.

So are you saying denpressure is just a delusional fantasy with no connection to reality?
Because in reality, all the evidence shows it is a single atom.

No moelcule is ever stable. They're all under pressure and under vibrational frequencies so varied as to be too many to contemplate.

They certainly appear stable.
Where you can take a collection of gases, test them, subject them to various environments and test them again, and find their composition the same.
Conversely, with other gases, when you do that, the composition varies.

All the evidence points to molecules made from atoms, and nothing points to your delusional BS.


Again, why does the atmosphere stack?
How does the low pressure above an object overcome the higher pressure below to push down?
But why does this only happen if the object is dense enough, as if there is a force proportional to mass acting against the pressure gradient, and the pressure gradient actually just pushes upwards?
How do solids and liquids hold themselves together without an attractive force?
Why does this attractive force appear to stop when molecules become a gas without free space?

What are youa ctually asking?
Before you go into your ask mode from me how about you offer up exactly what's happening to make those things work from your side?

No.  I have repeatedly gave the cliffs notes version of electricity for brevity.  And even provided a picture of electrons flowing from my little stove igniter.
 



The tithe of this thread is, “Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?“

How does this circuit work in den pressure delusion.



I can read and understand this circuit.

The way the circuit works is  clearly diagramed with symbolic use of current flow, electrical potential, and magnetic fields, coils, and resistance. 

In your terms for the circuit what is being broken down, what is being consumed.  What has an advantage over what for what reason to provide a fuel level reading.

Why does this circuit work.  What provides the means of the resistance of the float to provide a meaningful reading as indicated by the fuel gauge needle.


If there is no attraction in your delusion.  What deflects the needle to make a meaningful level reading.  Why are the coils copper, and the needle constructed with materials with magnetic properties.

Why not make the needle of plastic.  And instead of copper wires, why not use glass tubes filled with hydrogen gas. 

How can the circuit be used to create an experiment for you to share the experience of den pressure delusion.

Den pressure’s delusion can’t even explain the principles of a somewhat simple electrical circuit used for decades.  Den pressure delusion is worthless at the most basic levels.  While reality developed into manipulating materials at the level of atoms to provide advanced semiconductors, integrated circuits, and CPU’s. 

Molecules are broken down and containerised into Argon and other trace layers.

What molecules?  The reason argon was discovered because there was this near one percent of the atmosphere that never changed.



Hey.  Turbo.  If you’re reading this.  The below is me not quoting you.  But an external article. 

Lord Rayleigh and the Discovery of Argon: August 13, 1894

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201308/physicshistory.cfm


Finally, William Ramsay, a chemist from University College, London, learned of Rayleigh's results. He proposed that air might contain a previously unknown heavy gas that was not removed by the chemical methods used to remove the other constituents. Around this time Rayleigh learned of an experiment by physicist Henry Cavendish in 1795 that hinted at an unknown constituent of air. Cavendish had mixed air with additional oxygen and passed electric sparks from an electrostatic generator through the gas, in contact with an alkali solution. This removed the nitrogen and oxygen. At the end of a long experiment a tiny bubble of gas remained. He suggested that the bubble was a non-reactive gaseous constituent of the atmosphere. The experiment was never repeated and was forgotten for nearly a hundred years. Rayleigh repeated the experiment with equipment that produced a stronger electrical discharge. This worked, and about a cubic centimeter of gas was accumulated. It did not show the slightest trace of the nitrogen spectrum nor did it show any chemical reaction.

Meanwhile Ramsay showed that red-hot magnesium removed both nitrogen and oxygen from the air. He accumulated enough of the residual gas to measure the spectrum, specific heat and other properties. Rayleigh and Ramsay combined their efforts and confirmed the existence of a new, inert, monatomic constituent of the atmosphere.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201308/physicshistory.cfm

That’s the point.  Argon was found because nothing was “making more of it”, nor was it being “broken down”.

There was this left over component of atmosphere.  Because it couldn’t be reacted into being, and couldn’t be “broken down” out of existence, argon was discovered. 

The Mississippi is a few thousand miles long, what are you talking about?
You're just picking up anything and throwing it out without knowing why.

Exactly what I posted jackass.


The changes in density of the Mississippi are negligible, the changes in the atmosphere are chaotic and fickle.  With the Mississippi River flowing from a source higher in elevation into greater pressure at sea level. These items do not explain strong, consistent, and steady flow of the Mississippi to sea level.  Gravity and the changing of potential energy due to gravity and height to kinetic energy does.


Now.  In terms of den pressure delusion.  And your terms of broken down, consumed, and advantage.  What is the equal and opposite reaction of the flow of the Mississippi. 

Nice and simple, I have 2 molecules touching each other. What is stopping them getting separated, or sliding past each other?

You never have two molecules just touching each other as if they were two footballs just touching. I'm sure this is what you mean, so we need to clear this up.
Unlike your supposed free space, mine is all to do with compression. A compressive force from each molecular layer.
You just need to try and understand it.
On a scale of 1 to 100, 100 being full understanding, you are at about 2.

What force is holding them together?

Compressive force by expansion. Or basically peeling layers against peeling layers that are conjoined which allows expansion to compression by expansion.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 05:26:52 AM

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.

So I should provide a bunch of vague BS with no explanatory power at all to do it like you have done with yours?

Just provide what you think your attractive force is. If bull is all you can provide then do so.

Again, first you can explain yours.
Tell us how 2 molecules can stay together rather than sliding past each other or separating without an attractive force holding them together.

I'm assuming you're meaning two molecules of similar configuration/layering. If this is the case then they are linked by the pressure of layer peeling against the actual layering of the mass of the molecular make-up of layering (think gobstopper).
More dense molecules can slide past less dense molecules. A ball thrown through the air. A boat sailing on water...and so on and so on and so on.

It's all about understanding the denpressure setup and you understand nothing of it.
I even tried at the very basic of basics with spongeballs but you couldn't take in an analogy.

And again, before I even bother trying to explain an attractive force to you, you need to admit that they are at least hypothetically possible, and that pathetic dismissal of the explanation because it involves an attractive force would dishonest BS.

An attractive force needs to be explained.
Attraction offers some kind of pull. You know I don;t accept pull as being any force unless you can explain it without just offering gravity as some kind of be all and end all explanation with just one word.

You can't explain attractive force or pull because it doesn't exist/
Life is pressure and pressure is an expansion of matter to cause compression.
Your forces are all pushing forces and resisting forces which is just another word for a push. Push on push/

As simple as that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 04:57:50 AM

What is it you're offering with this picture?

See those bright spots?
They are atoms.
The light region between the spots are were the bonds are.
And those dark areas? That is free space between atoms.

Bonds?
What are bonds?
What makes those bonds bond?
The pictures are laughable.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 05:01:56 AM

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

Then start explaining the basics. Why does the atmosphere stack? What force is causing this?

This has been explained so many times. Either try and get it or don't bother yourself.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 05:20:47 AM

You really shouldn't need to be asking this.

No, we most certainly do. As this highlights the complete nonsense of your idea.
You need something to push off to make an object move (which can simply be another object). But once it is moving, resistance primarily acts to slow it down.
There is no reason additional resistance should be needed to keep it moving.

Let me explain something simple.
To get a bicycle moving you need to have something to push against.
The road or path or something with enough resistance to offer something to push the bike and the person.
Then you need the energy which is a push against a pedal to push a chain to push a cog to push a wheel to overcome initial full-on resistance to dense mass.
Assuming a straight road and a similar consistency of it, it then relies on the person using enough energy to keep the bicycle in motion against resistance at all times, not only the road but also overcoming the atmosphere the person and bicycle are pushing through.

At no time can that bicycle move without encountering resistance.

This applies to absolutely everything using energy to propel, whether it's a bicycle or a plane or a boat....etc.

No resistance means no movement, means no existence. Simple as that.

We observe how resistance makes it slow down.

Most of the time we do, what we can see and also what we can perceive. But we always know resistance is key to the movement of anything.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 05:20:47 AM

you choose to believe you can move without having any leverage, which is a resistance to something, and then keep moving against no resistance

No.
We accept that momentum needs to be conserved, so in order for 1 object to accelerate in one direction another object needs to accelerate in the opposite direction (or a more complex arrangement).
The issue is your claim that resistance is needed to have motion continue after this.

Conservation of momentum does not tell the whole story.
It's fine to have two objects collide and to channel that momentum onto each other in a sort of equal measure but you cannot do any of this unless there is always a resistance to that mass of both at ball times.

Remember, nothing is ever constant. Consistent yes but never ever constant.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 05:20:47 AM

Ok then, so try and explain the little nozzles that supposedly alter course by throwing out a gas that is not exothermic.

You mean the "expanding gas out the engine nozzle"?
How about you try being honest for once?

Ok then explain the gas expanding out of the nozzle and why it does so.

Let's understand it a little and you can offer it up.
Gas, whatever gas it is, is not burning in this story we're told, so what is it? I'll guess it's compressed air or something in the story.
Ok, so that has to be stored in a container and that container has to offer a release of air, and that air simply expands into the nothing you call space and somehow the reaction is to expand against the container it's already in to kick off that expansion into space to offer an opposite movement?
Come on for crying out loud.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 05:20:47 AM

How?

It injects fuel and oxidiser into the combustion chamber and ignites it.
This gas is then expands outwards, pushing the rocket with the rocket pushing back.

Nice swerve. We can deal with the combustion bit later on because it's equally as silly.

Ok so tell me about the little nozzles that somehow slow down a rocket after this big space burn from a massive nozzle as the story goes.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 05:20:47 AM

If your space vacuum is devoid of all matter

That would be a perfect vacuum. Space is not a perfect vacuum.

Of course not. It's got scattered little particles in it that just float about hasn't it, in the story?
Just random particles that just offer nothing.
Unless you can offer up something else because that implies no pressure in your space and that offers nothing.

Except magical fantasies, of course.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 05:20:47 AM

anything allowed to exit the rocket just expands into nothing.

How?
You directly claim that without resistance objects can't move. Yet here you are claiming these gas molecules move (which is required for them to expand).

Yes I stand by what I say. No resistance, no movement, meaning no existence.
But I'm trying to argue with your belief and to do that I have to try and figure out your space story you've been sold.

So those gas molecules need something to resist, to push against.

Always but it has to be an entirety of resistance, not just a few molecules of gas against nothing.

And do you know what provides that? The rocket.
This means the gas molecules push the rocket and the rocket pushes the gas molecules.
Action and equal and opposite reaction.

Once you allow a gas to expand from a container it needs to hit something to allow that gas to have a reaction on that rocket.
The atmosphere provides this perfectly well. Space provides nothing but fantasy.

This causes the gas molecules to accelerate one way and the rocket to accelerate the other.

Not in fictional space it doesn't.
Fine in the atmosphere.

No need for any outside air.

Abspolutely 100% need for atmosphere.

There are only 2 other alternatives:
1 -  As there is no air to push off, the gas molecules are magically trapped inside an open container, with no way to move. In order for the molecules to expand, the rocket would need to be placed in atmosphere so the rocket can resist against the atmosphere to allow the rocket to act as resistance for the gas molecules to allow them to leave and expand.

Correct. In the atmosphere, the rocket would need to expel gases that can expand out of the nozzle to compress that atmosphere to allow that atmosphere to offer up enough resistance to allow the rocket gases to create a consistent foundation for the rocket to sit atop for as long as that gas is allowed to expand out.
The rocket keeps a consistent push against higher but less dense atmospheric resistance by losing some of its own fuel density. Fuel to-mass ratio keeps the rocket sitting atop a ready-made consistent compressive reactionary foundation.
One potato two potato three potatoes...you get it.

2 - No resistance is ever required, the gas molecules can just accelerate without pushing off anything.

That can only happen as a thought in fairy tales. Fiction movies. sci-fi.

So the only honest, consistent options are to accept what happens in reality which means rockets can work in space, claim what is clearly pure nonsense with gas magically being trapped in an open container, or accept even more fantasy where objects just accelerate which would also allow rockets to work in space.

To accept honesty would be to accept rockets work in atmosphere.
To accept rockets working in a nothing environment that space is told to be in terms of pressure, is to accept sci-fi as some kind of truth, which is fair enough because most people have no wish or need to argue against it. They just go with the basic mainstream flow of mass opinion and peer pressure.

So which one will you pick? (I'm assuming the dishonest one of claiming the gas can magically expand without pushing against the rocket, but the rocket needs to push against something to move.)

I'm picking the honest one of rockets and anything else requiring atmosphere in order to work.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 05:20:47 AM

Put a gun in a chamber and evacuate the pressure to an extremely low pressure then fire that gun, it simply won't fire.

Pure BS.
That may have been true for ancient guns, but modern guns have bullets in a cartridge which contains the fuel and oxidiser together with a primer.
They most certainly can fire in a vacuum.

https://www.military.com/video/guns/gunfire/will-a-gun-fire-in-space/971339055001

There is no reason at all for why it shouldn't fire.

It'll work in low pressure but not in a fictional vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 07:59:29 AM

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.

That's right.
Look at and all your BS.
The big difference are things like explanatory power and consistency.

Your nonsense has no explanatory power and no consistency.
The models produced by mainstream science do.

What I say will obviously be thrown out by people like yourself. Don't think I'm under any illusions about that.
But none of that counts to me. I know my belief system and I know my theory system. I also know mainstream offers a lot of differentials that are never always the truth so finding the truth is not as easy as 123 and your offering of a regurgitation of mainstream ideals means zilch to me.

My explanations are fine for those who have the ability to nibble away and actually delve a little. You and your other half have zero intention of wanting to understand it.

Your idea is to simply argue against anything that questions mainstream ideals and you're welcome to that, obviously...but what a boring existence.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 07:59:29 AM

It's just a case of understanding denpressure, not the one you go with.

No, it is a case of your complete inability to justify your delusional BS.
You can offer nothing to demonstrate it is true.

I don't offer anything I say as truth. I offer my opinions in a steadfast way and my theories in a steadfast way. That doesn't fit with you and your other half so the way to argue it is to do what you do.
By all means carry on, as you will and I'll decide when to answer.
You have a full house with this one as I've overlooked a lot of your bitterness.

No rational arguments, no evidence.

Never will be for you.

You can't even make a coherent model.

Never will do for you.

Meanwhile, mainstream science is supported by mountains of evidence.

It's supported by mountains of stories by people who've been given carte blanche to sell us whatever it is as the dish of the time.

How about you try understanding reality, rather than clinging to a fantasy to avoid the RE?

How about you try to do that and see where it takes you?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 03, 2023, 08:18:41 AM

No gravity needed.

Until you can provide a viable alternative for why things fall and why the atmosphere stacks, gravity is most certainly needed.

All provided and also gravity is fictional.
Made-up nonsense to hide reality.

Does water stack like “atmosphere” in den pressure ?

Yes.

Would a River flow from less dense to more dense to get to sea level?

Yes.

  Would the water of a river be more dense at sea level than up stream at a higher altitude?

Yes, assuming the same body of water and not fresh to salt.

  How would it flow based on water density in den pressure.
 

It flows because it changes from less dense to more dense as it breaks down. Basically, it's mixed with more atmosphere.
Think about it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 04, 2023, 03:51:10 AM

What are youa ctually asking?
Before you go into your ask mode from me how about you offer up exactly what's happening to make those things work from your side?

No.  I have repeatedly gave the cliffs notes version of electricity for brevity.  And even provided a picture of electrons flowing from my little stove igniter.
 



The tithe of this thread is, “Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?“

How does this circuit work in den pressure delusion.



I can read and understand this circuit.

The way the circuit works is  clearly diagramed with symbolic use of current flow, electrical potential, and magnetic fields, coils, and resistance. 

In your terms for the circuit what is being broken down, what is being consumed.  What has an advantage over what for what reason to provide a fuel level reading.

Why does this circuit work.  What provides the means of the resistance of the float to provide a meaningful reading as indicated by the fuel gauge needle.


If there is no attraction in your delusion.  What deflects the needle to make a meaningful level reading.  Why are the coils copper, and the needle constructed with materials with magnetic properties.

Why not make the needle of plastic.  And instead of copper wires, why not use glass tubes filled with hydrogen gas. 

How can the circuit be used to create an experiment for you to share the experience of den pressure delusion.

Den pressure’s delusion can’t even explain the principles of a somewhat simple electrical circuit used for decades.  Den pressure delusion is worthless at the most basic levels.  While reality developed into manipulating materials at the level of atoms to provide advanced semiconductors, integrated circuits, and CPU’s.

Your issue is offering stuff you have absolutely no clue about but try to pretend you do by offering up diagrams and copying and pasting and then thinking you're smart.
You're regurgitating stuff to argue and you have no clue what you're arguing for or against.

Your issue is in refusing to offer your own simple words and instead throwing up diagrams and stuff and thinking that's your argument.
You're weak. Very weak.

You never have two molecules just touching each other as if they were two footballs just touching. I'm sure this is what you mean, so we need to clear this up.

And again you deflect.
I don't really care how they are touching.
The issue is how they maintain contact rather than sliding past each other or separating without an attractive force.
Care to try answering?

You just need to try and understand it.

No, you need to try to explain, something you refuse to do.
Without an attractive force, what is holding them together? The outside environment is quite comparable for solids and liquids (and in fact it can be the same when something is heated above its melting point before it melts or if it drops below its melting point before it freezes). Yet the observed properties are drastically different.
And without attractive forces, there is no reason for why this occurs.

On a scale of 1 to 100, 100 being full understanding, you are at about 2.

No, I'm much higher than that.
Conversely, you are around -1000.

Compressive force by expansion. Or basically peeling layers against peeling layers that are conjoined which allows expansion to compression by expansion.

This explains nothing.
Tell me what force is acting to prevent them moving relative to each other.

I'm assuming you're meaning two molecules of similar configuration/layering. If this is the case then they are linked by the pressure of layer peeling against the actual layering of the mass of the molecular make-up of layering (think gobstopper).

Again, this tells us nothing.
How about you try drawing a picture.
How does this layer peeling cause the objects to be linked?

It's all about understanding the denpressure setup and you understand nothing of it.
I even tried at the very basic of basics with spongeballs but you couldn't take in an analogy.

You mean spongeballs, that are not held together, and can flow?

Try making spongeballs act like a solid.

Once more, the issue isn't with my understanding, it is with your model fundamentally not working and this resulting in you being entirely incapable of explaining trivial things.

You know I don;t accept pull as being any force

Which is why trying to explain it to you is pointless.
It doesn't matter what explanation is provided, you will dismiss it because it involves a pulling/attractive force.

Your irrational hatred of such forces is so great, you can't even bring yourself to admit they would be hypothetically possible.

And you can't explain pushing forces either.

Bonds?

A region of electron density causing an attractive force between 2 atoms.

But again, this is just you deflecting.
We have a picture showing atoms, bonds and free space.
And you just look for whatever pathetic dismissal you can.

This has been explained so many times.

No, it hasn't.
You have NEVER been able to explain why the atmosphere stacks.
The closest you have gotten is reaching a point would indicate denser molecules remain where they are. But that doesn't produce a stack. It just means dense molecules remain where they are, unmoved by less dense molecules.

You need something to drive the dense molecules down.
That is gravity, which you hate, which is why you can't explain it.

Let me explain something simple.
To get a bicycle moving

Again, stop with the deflection.
Stop focusing on how to make it start moving. Which is really just changings its momentum.
Focus on what happens after that.

Just for the sake of argument, assume you have something moving through free space. What is going to stop it?
Why should it need to keep pushing off something to keep moving?

This is a fundamental distinction you wish to avoid at all costs because it destroys your argument.

it then relies on the person using enough energy to keep the bicycle in motion against resistance at all times, not only the road but also overcoming the atmosphere the person and bicycle are pushing through.

And notice what you are saying here?
Not that you need resistance to keep moving.
But instead that you need to apply a force to overcome the resistance that is trying to stop you.
So if you extrapolate that to no resistance, you need no force to keep moving.

It's fine to have two objects collide and to channel that momentum onto each other in a sort of equal measure but you cannot do any of this unless there is always a resistance to that mass of both at ball times.

That resistance is the other object.
Again, for a collision, all you need are the 2 objects colliding.

Otherwise, they just pass straight through each other.

Ok then explain the gas expanding out of the nozzle and why it does so.

I already did.
You have hot gas under pressure.
These are molecules flying around in all directions.
Some of these will hit the rocket, and bounce off it, only to move out and smash against other gas molecules.
Each collision with the wall of the rocket will transfer momentum between the gas and the rocket.
This is because the molecules of gas collide with the walls and push off to change their direction; and with each push, they are pushing the rocket.

Overall, the net result is the gas pushing off the rocket to move out of the rocket, and pushing the rocket as it does so.

No need for any external atmosphere.
This would work in an environment that other than the rocket and its exhaust was a perfect vacuum.

Gas, whatever gas it is, is not burning in this story we're told

Do you mean the hypothetical, or a real rocket?
The vast majority of rockets due have it burn.

But for the hypothetical, it could be any compressed gas. As it doesn't matter how the gas gets compressed there.

Ok, so that has to be stored in a container and that container has to offer a release of air, and that air simply expands into the nothing you call space

HOW?
How does it go from being "stationary" inside the container, to moving out into space?
What is causing this motion?

By your own claim, it needs something to provide resistance.
The only item available in this scenario is the container.
That means it needs to push against the container, which means it will push the container.
So for example, the container goes left while the gas goes right.

The only way out for you to pretend rockets can't work is if you claim a container of highly compressed gas, open at one end, in a perfect vacuum will magically contain the gas because there is nothing to push off. And that is quite clearly absurd.

Otherwise, the only 2 options you have is the gas uses the container for resistance, pushing it away - so rockets work in space; or you do not need resistance to move, so your argument against needing it is directly contradicted, and you lose any argument for rockets not working.

Nice swerve. We can deal with the combustion bit later on because it's equally as silly.

Yes, a typical swerve from you. Focus on the combustion and ignore what the gas is pushing off to move out of the rocket.

Ok so tell me about the little nozzles that somehow slow down a rocket after this big space burn from a massive nozzle as the story goes.

Who says it slows down the rocket?

You can stop trying to bring the atmosphere into almost every statement. It is not part of the discussion.
Deal with what is happening in a hypothetical perfect vacuum.
Then move on an apply that to an incredibly low pressure environment (a very good vacuum) like space.

It's got scattered little particles in it that just float about hasn't it, in the story?

How about you stop with the stories and focus on reality?
You know, an honest representation of space, rather than you repeated strawmen to pretend it can't be real?

In space, real space, there are molecules, moving around quite quickly, but there are so few, they offer negligible resistance.
In the solar system, the general trend of the molecules is to be moving away from the sun as part of the solar wind. This has lead to the idea of making a solar sail. This is a structure intentionally made to be very large and very light, to be able to use the solar wind to move through space away from the sun.

But this does mean rockets, which don't use solar sails, bring fuel and oxidiser (or something else like that) with them, and will expel part of them to change their moption (other than the change due to gravity).

Yes I stand by what I say. No resistance, no movement, meaning no existence.

And do you accept the logical implications of that?

Either the gas remains magically trapped inside an open container, or the container provides resistance for the gas to push off, with the container and gas both moving as a result?

Always but it has to be an entirety of resistance, not just a few molecules of gas against nothing.

It isn't a few molecules of gas against nothing.
The pressurised gas is using the container, and the container is using the pressurised gas.

For a rocket, the large difference in mass of the 2 means the gas accelerates much more than the rocket.

Once you allow a gas to expand from a container it needs to hit something to allow that gas to have a reaction on that rocket.

No, we don't.

Again, the issue is how it expands from the container in the first place.
As you have stated, this expansion (which would be movement) requires resistance.
That means there must be something for the gas to push against to be able to expand.
The only thing offered here is the rocket.
That means the gas pushes against the rocket to expand in the first place.
No outside atmosphere is needed at all.

Not in fictional space it doesn't.

Then tell us what magic happens in this fictional space of a perfect vacuum (as opposed to real space with an extremely low pressure making it a very good vacuum but not perfect).

Tell us what the gas is pushing/resisting against to be able to expand out of the container, or tell us that in your fantasy it needs to remain magically trapped inside an open container.

Correct.

So you are saying that in a perfect vacuum, if you placed a container full of gas at high pressure, but open at one end; the highly pressurised gas will magically remain inside this container?

If you truly think that, then clearly state it so there is no ambiguity at all and so you can't later try to twist out of it.

To accept rockets working in a nothing environment that space is told to be in terms of pressure, is to accept sci-fi as some kind of truth

No, accepting rockets work in space would be accepting reality. Accepting the simple principle of action and reaction.
Claiming they don't work requires believing in pure fantasy.

I'm picking the honest one of rockets and anything else requiring atmosphere in order to work.

You mean you are picking the standard dishonest BS of avoiding the issue entirely.

You were provided 3 options for a hypothetical.
The atmosphere has nothing to do with it.
We are discussing a hypothetical of a container full of compressed gas in an otherwise perfect vacuum, with one end open.
The 3 options you have:
1 - reality - The gas uses the container as resistance, pushing off the container to expand, meaning it pushes the container to move it.
2 - Fantasy magic containment - There is no resistance for the gas to push off, so it magically remains trapped in an open container.
3 - Fantasy magic movement - There is no resistance needed, the gas just magically accelerates without pushing off anything or using anything as resistance.

Care to try to be honest and pick one?

It'll work in low pressure but not in a fictional vacuum.

So it will work in a vacuum, just not a perfect vacuum which you want to pretend is the only possible vacuum even though you claim it isn't possible.
And that means things like rockets would work in space, i.e. a real vacuum, rather than a perfect vacuum.

Other than perfect vacuums not existing, what magic would stop it?
Is it that it wouldn't ignite in the initially air tight cartridge?
Or is it that it would ignite, so you have highly pressurised gas sitting between a lead bullet and the gun, with no way out other than by pushing the bullet along the barrel; but due to the vacuum it is magically contained?
If we consider the bullet, on one side of it we have a very large pressure trying to push it along the gun, and on the other side we have nothing at all.


You certainly seem to be treating a perfect vacuum more like a magical environment which provides whatever pressure is needed to result in no net force; magically providing whatever resistance is needed to make motion impossible.

Surely the more honest approach is to consider a real vacuum (i.e. a low pressure environment) and see how the resistance drops with decreasing pressure, and extrapolating that to no pressure against the bullet acting to slow it down.

But such an honest approach would mean admitting rockets do work in space, so it is clear why you would never do that.

What I say will obviously be thrown out by people like yourself. Don't think I'm under any illusions about that.

You certainly seem to be under illusions about it.
The reason your delusional BS is discarded is because it doesn't work. You can't explain anything. You can't defend your BS against any rational argument.
Instead of accepting that, you invent all sorts of elaborate illusions about us to pretend we are the problem.

My explanations are fine for those who have the ability to nibble away and actually delve a little.

And the big part there is "a little".
To anyone who delves too much, your nonsense falls apart.
They only work for those that take a superficial glance because they desperately want to pretend it works.

For anyone honestly looking at it, thinking deeply about it, they very quickly realise it makes no sense and doesn't work at all.

Your idea is to simply argue against anything that questions mainstream ideals

See, this is the kind of illusion you have constructed.
If you were honest, you would recognise I have went directly against some people presenting mainstream ideals.
I argue against BS.

Never will be for you.

Because unlike you I care about having a model which works to explain reality and which matches reality.
You just care about rejecting the RE at all costs.

How about you try to do that and see where it takes you?

I have.
All the evidence points to a round Earth, attractive forces and free space.
I have explained plenty of that to you, and you just dismiss it.

All provided and also gravity is fictional.
Made-up nonsense to hide reality.

No, you have provided nothing.
You have failed to provide an explanation for why the atmosphere stacks. The closest you have gotten is saying the less dense molecules can't push the more dense molecules out of the way. But that would either mean the dense molecules simply remain where they are (rather than stacking), or implicitly require gravity as a force trying to make the molecules move down with the dense molecules able to move the less dense ones out of the way to go down.

You have failed to provide an explanation of why things fall, and why some things go up. The closest you have gotten is by appealing to the mass of the object, as if it is trying to go down, so the mass of the object along with the low air pressure above can overcome the higher pressure below, and if the mass isn't sufficient it can't and the higher pressure below wins and pushes the object up. But that appeals to the mass of the object, as if there is a downwards force proportional to mass (i.e. gravity) trying to move the object down.

So in both cases, the air doesn't explain it.
Instead, there appears to be a downwards force, and that appears to be proportional to mass.
That force is gravity.

So the evidence shows gravity is real.
But you need to claim it is fictional nonsense, to pretend Earth isn't round.

You have no rational arguments against gravity. The closest you get is a temper tantrum about how it is a pulling force and pulling forces can't exist.

As I have told you before; you would be better off being like other FEers, claiming things like the aether is real and is pushing objects down with a force proportional to mass; or just claiming mass makes things go down.

Because one thing is abundantly clear from the available evidence: It is NOT the air causing it.
It is clearly a downwards force with some kind of relationship to mass so more mass means more force.

Your issue is offering stuff you have absolutely no clue about but try to pretend you do by offering up diagrams and copying and pasting and then thinking you're smart.

No.  It’s your little game.

You don’t understand how this simple circuit works.



How the circuit works is represented right there in the diagram.


You not understanding how the circuit works means you have made no effort to try to understand real world problems.  And have made no effort to pit your delusion against real world application.

Back to your little game.  You’re utterly useless.  You try to goad people into explaining something, then you just mad lib their explanations with just adding your delusional lingo.

Example.  sceptimatic the lazy to unsuspecting person wanting honest debate, “You don’t understand how to wipe your own ass.  It’s only works in den pressure delusion.”


Honesty person, “You get some toilet paper and use a careful scooping motion to remove and not smear.

sceptimatic the lazy, “No.  you didn’t read what I posted (which is a lie because sceptimatic never posted any explanation.  Maybe something related back in 2015). You can only wipe because the differences of layering.  See the poo is a single molecule that is a poo-stopper that is layered.  The toilet paper with a difference in density breaks down the poo. See things only work with the consumption of equal and opposite reaction through getting the advantage.  The atmosphere crush down so the poo crashes up.”


Again.  For this circuit.



In your terms for the circuit what is being broken down, what is being consumed.  What has an advantage over what for what reason to provide a fuel level reading.

Why does this circuit work.  What provides the means of the resistance of the float to provide a meaningful reading as indicated by the fuel gauge needle.


If there is no attraction in your delusion.  What deflects the needle to make a meaningful level reading.  Why are the coils copper, and the needle constructed with materials with magnetic properties.

Why not make the needle of plastic.  And instead of copper wires, why not use glass tubes filled with hydrogen gas. 

How can the circuit be used to create an experiment for you to share the experience of den pressure delusion.

Den pressure’s delusion can’t even explain the principles of a somewhat simple electrical circuit used for decades.  Den pressure delusion is worthless at the most basic levels.  While reality developed into manipulating materials at the level of atoms to provide advanced semiconductors, integrated circuits, and CPU’s.