Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

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.

That is not an equal and opposite restrictions.

Then how is the water of the Mississippi still flowing to sea when the water at the mouth of the Mississippi is warmer and less dense than the water upstream.

Post from last night.

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.

As pointed out.  The water at the mouth of the Mississippi River is less dense than the water of the Mississippi in Iowa.  88 degree water at the mouth, more dense 81 degree water In Iowa.  This contradicts your statement of “It flows because it changes from less dense to more dense as it breaks down. Basically, it's mixed with more atmosphere.”

With there only being a change in density of a whole 0.072 lb/cu ft. between the mouth of the Mississippi and Iowa.

The density change of 0.072 lb/cu ft is negligible, and in no way explains the strength and volume at which the Mississippi River flows. 

Water flows because of gravity.  No atmosphere needed.

Where there being no gravity in your delusion and the only prime mover is atmosphere, natural atmospheric phenomena like:


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

Should disrupt flow.

With the atmosphere providing no consistency.

But despite the changes of a chaotic and fickle atmosphere.  The Mississippi flows constantly and steadily to sea level.

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

Is it false to say there are times the barometric pressure in Iowa is greater than at the mouth of the Mississippi.  Yet the Mississippi still keeps flowing to the Gulf of Mexico.  Why isn’t the Mississippi River breaking down up to Iowa when Iowa has greater barometric pressure than the Gulf of Mexico? 


What should happen to water flowing down the side of a vacuum chamber as the pressure is evacuated more and more below atmospheric pressure?  Should it stop flowing down? 


And why does a feather fall faster and faster as atmosphere is evacuated increasingly below atmospheric pressure in a vacuum chamber.  The “prime mover” atmosphere of your delusion is removed, and yet the father falls faster.


Den pressure delusion only contradicts itself. 

DPD offers no real reason why the Mississippi River flows constantly and steadily to sea level, gravity does. 

Quote from: JackBlack on July 03, 2023, 02:25:35 PM

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.

Mate, what's your best experiment idea I can do, to prove denpressure?

Like yourself, I pride myself in being a practical, hands-on, type of guy.

Hit me with the best experiment you've done, which proves denpressure, so I can duplicate the experiment and the results. You know, the number one experiment you get all your friends and critics to do, which shuts up the naysayers once and for all.

Quote from: scepti

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?

I could offer drawings but it'll be wasted on you as it was before because you have no intention of understanding any of it. You just want to argue and spew bitterness thinking you're gaining something.
Weird as all hell.

Quote from: scepti

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?

So how do they slow down in this fictional space you offer?

I'll make this easier for you seeing you're playing ignorant.
Take the moon garbage.
How did the rocket/craft/effigy slow down to about turn and land on it in your story told to you?

I could offer drawings but it'll be wasted on you as it was before because you have no intention of understanding any of it.

The drawings you provided before were wasted as they showed nothing.
Again, try explaining what is holding the molecules together in a solid, without an attractive force.

Don't just say they are conjoined, or molecular peeling, or any crap like that, as it explains nothing.
If you want to appeal to them being conjoined, explain what is keeping them conjoined.
If you want to appeal to molecular peeling, explain how this peeling works and keeps the molecules together.

I'll make this easier for you seeing you're playing ignorant.
Take the moon garbage.
How did the rocket/craft/effigy slow down to about turn and land on it in your story told to you?

This is where "slow down" is really useless terminology.
It uses its rocket engine to change velocity.

Pointing the exhaust forwards means it "slows down".
Same principle as pointing it backwards to make it speed up.

Now again, care to address the multitude of issues with your nonsense?

How about just a nice simple one considering you again appeal to rockets:
Consider a hypothetical of a container full of compressed gas in an otherwise perfect vacuum, with one end open.
What happens?
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.

No need to discuss any atmosphere, as that doesn't play any part of this situation.
Just describe what should happen in this hypothetical.

Again, this tells us nothing.
How about you try drawing a picture.

And evidently you being inadequate to reply to Smoke Machine and the topic of this thread.


What is an experiment that will allow you to share the personal experience of den pressure delusion and prove den pressure delusion.


I can share this circuit drawing with you.  It conveys much information concerning the way a fuel gauge works in a particular vehicle. 



Where any person with the rudimentary knowledge of electrons, current flow, Ohm’s law, and the use of a multimeter based off the principles of electron current flow can measure resistance, voltage, and current.

Mechanics, hobbyists, to shade tree mechanics can use the diagram to troubleshoot the circuit in the context of electron flow electricity.


Yet.  There is no explanation from you in the terms of den pressure delusion of breakdown, layering, consumption, and advantage how the circuit has any possibility of working in den pressure delusion.  And why the circuit uses copper wire, resistive material, coils, and the needle of the gauge makes use of magnetic properties.

Nor can you come up with an experiment concerning den pressure delusion and the circuit to prove your BS.

Where in reality it starts with this one definition.

The ampere (/ˈæmpɛər/, US: /ˈæmpɪər/;[1][2][3] symbol: A),[4] often shortened to amp,[5] is the unit of electric current in the International System of Units (SI). One ampere is equal to 1 coulomb, or 6.241509074×1018 electrons' worth of charge, moving past a point in a second.[6][7][8] It is named after French mathematician and physicist André-Marie Ampère (1775–1836), considered the father of electromagnetism along with Danish physicist Hans Christian Ørsted.

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

You just want to argue and spew bitterness thinking you're gaining something.
Weird as all hell.

Now now sceptimatic, your false authority and self righteousness is not answering anything.

I asked you a few questions concerning the Mississippi River.

What is the equal and opposite reaction for the flow of the Mississippi River?

And

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

Is it false to say there are times the barometric pressure in Iowa is greater than at the mouth of the Mississippi.  Yet the Mississippi still keeps flowing to the Gulf of Mexico.  Why isn’t the Mississippi River breaking down up to Iowa when Iowa has greater barometric pressure than the Gulf of Mexico? 

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.

I can't deal with a hypothetical perfect vacuum because one cannot exist.

All I could offer as a fantasy would be to offer suspended animation but even that doesn't offer anything reasonable.
The space vacuum what you prefer to know it as cannot exist as you offer it with scattered particles just supposedly floating about in nothingness.
People would be wise to sit down and actually think about this instead of taking in the utter garbage that is being offered for space and all the silliness about it.
Something else is going on and it's not as we're told, for sure.

Then move on an apply that to an incredibly low pressure environment (a very good vacuum) like space.

Your space does not offer any incredibly low pressure. How can it be?
Scattered particles in nothingness cannot offer pressure.
there's a reason compression and decompression offer pressure. It's because everything is always attached.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 04, 2023, 10:00:41 AM

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

No, you have provided nothing.

Then take no further notice and just get on with those who you feel have provided something in other threads.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 04, 2023, 10:00:41 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 03, 2023, 02:25:35 PM

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.

Mate, what's your best experiment idea I can do, to prove denpressure?

Like yourself, I pride myself in being a practical, hands-on, type of guy.

Hit me with the best experiment you've done, which proves denpressure, so I can duplicate the experiment and the results. You know, the number one experiment you get all your friends and critics to do, which shuts up the naysayers once and for all.

There's nothing I can offer that would not be argued as it being to go with fictional gravity.
The issue isn't about me offering anything. The issue is about people choosing what they want to accept.
And as you know yourself, mass adherence to gravity trumps anything a minority can offer, no matter what it is.
You know this and this is why you're trying to play the good and bad and indifferent person.

If this interests you then pay full attention to it and see where it takes you.
If not then carry on playing games.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 05, 2023, 02:05:59 AM

I could offer drawings but it'll be wasted on you as it was before because you have no intention of understanding any of it.

The drawings you provided before were wasted as they showed nothing.

Of course. And this is why you're getting nothing else, because you do not have the ability to think. If you can't copy and paste something you're in a mess.

Again, try explaining what is holding the molecules together in a solid, without an attractive force.

I have and I also asked you to provide what attractive force is and you simply can't. And for good reason.

Don't just say they are conjoined, or molecular peeling, or any crap like that, as it explains nothing.

It explains a lot for those who are prepared to actually put their mind to work. You have no intention of doing that and that is abundantly clear.

If you want to appeal to them being conjoined, explain what is keeping them conjoined.

I have but it just doesn't register with you because your goal isn't to understand anything outside of the box you're in.

If you want to appeal to molecular peeling, explain how this peeling works and keeps the molecules together.

I have and it's down to you to pay attention and show you actually are paying attention for me to go forward with this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 05, 2023, 02:05:59 AM

I'll make this easier for you seeing you're playing ignorant.
Take the moon garbage.
How did the rocket/craft/effigy slow down to about turn and land on it in your story told to you?

This is where "slow down" is really useless terminology.
It uses its rocket engine to change velocity.

Pointing the exhaust forwards means it "slows down".
Same principle as pointing it backwards to make it speed up.

No, slow down isn't useless. It's simple. If your rocket is doing supposedly thousands of mph through your fantasy space by using it's burning thrusters to propel it then tell me how it slows down to get to be able to about turn and hover above the supposed moon and then to burn again to arrest a fall whilst also using little air thrusters to supposedly balance it.

Absolutely utter gunk.

?

How about just a nice simple one considering you again appeal to rockets:
Consider a hypothetical of a container full of compressed gas in an otherwise perfect vacuum, with one end open.
What happens?

Nothing because you couldn't have anything in that setup.
If there are no molecules for pressure connection then nothing can survive in it so this question is pointless.

1 - Reality - The gas uses the container as resistance, pushing off the container to expand, meaning it pushes the container to move it.

If we talk about an extremely low pressure of connected molecules in denpressure theory then your containerised rocket gases being released will simply expand themselves in a chain reaction, into the extremely low pressure and extremely quickly too, I might add because the resistance to the expelled gases is minimal.


So what's happening inside the rocket container of gases?
They simply start at the opening and expand into each other from the front to the back of the container without using the container itself as any leverage in this situation, only using themselves as resistance to each other with naturally allowed expansion.

There would be no reaction onto the rocket container to propel that rocket in the opposite direction.

2 - Fantasy magic containment - There is no resistance for the gas to push off, so it magically remains trapped in an open container.

The only way a gas can remain sort of trapped in a container is if the pressure external to it is the same as the internal pressure.
A simple thought would be to simply offer up a tea cup on a table in the same pressure as the atmosphere around it.

3 - Fantasy magic movement - There is no resistance needed, the gas just magically accelerates without pushing off anything or using anything as resistance.

There can be no acceleration of gases unless there is a lower pressure for those gases to accelerate into and all must be attached.

No need to discuss any atmosphere, as that doesn't play any part of this situation.

In your fantasy world it doesn't but reality says it has to or we simply do not exist, never mind offering up fictional space rockets.

Just describe what should happen in this hypothetical.

I just have.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 05, 2023, 02:05:59 AM

Again, this tells us nothing.
How about you try drawing a picture.

And evidently you being inadequate to reply to Smoke Machine and the topic of this thread.

Try using the right quote.

Is it false to say there are times the barometric pressure in Iowa is greater than at the mouth of the Mississippi.  Yet the Mississippi still keeps flowing to the Gulf of Mexico.  Why isn’t the Mississippi River breaking down up to Iowa when Iowa has greater barometric pressure than the Gulf of Mexico? 

You honestly don't even know what you're trying to argue. You know nothing about denpressure and now you're asking this.
Your best bet is to learn the basics and go from there because you're offering nothing other than picking up tidbits of info and throwing it out as some kind of effort.

Learn denpressure and what's been said.
Once I see you do that I'll be more than happy to carry on.

Try using the right quote.

Try coming up with a model that works in reality.

You honestly don't even know what you're trying to argue.

You’re so full of BS.

Answer the question.


Is it false to say there are times the barometric pressure in Iowa is greater than at the mouth of the Mississippi.  Yet the Mississippi still keeps flowing to the Gulf of Mexico.  Why isn’t the Mississippi River breaking down up to Iowa when Iowa has greater barometric pressure than the Gulf of Mexico?


Is very simple really.  You keep invoking “atmosphere” with absolutely now forces.  No gravity.


But the atmosphere is unstable.  There can be greater atmospheric pressure up stream of the mouth of the Mississippi River than in the Gulf of Mexico.

A few nights ago the water density by temperature of the Mississippi River was greater in Iowa than in New Orleans.

Along the Mississippi River there are thermals and up drafts moving the atmosphere up away from “foundation”.

There is no statistical weather history data that shows “atmospheric den pressure delusion” drives the daily flow, strength, volume, direction, consistency of the Mississippi River. 


Gravity and changing potential energy to kinetic energy does.


Example…

Batteries of gravity and water: We found 1,500 new pumped hydro sites next to existing reservoirs


https://techxplore.com/news/2022-11-batteries-gravity-hydro-sites-reservoirs.amp

At its simplest, pumped hydro involves two dams, one high on a hill and one down in a valley, with pipes and turbines connecting them. You store electricity by pumping water uphill to the upper reservoir on sunny and windy days—and turn it back into power at night or during calm or cloudy days by letting the water flow back downhill through a turbine. Think of this system as a giant "gravity battery", where electricity is turned into gravitational potential energy and back again.

What’s the den pressure delusion equal and opposite reaction for the flow of the Mississippi River? 

I can't deal with a hypothetical perfect vacuum because one cannot exist.

You should be able to deal with it, regardless of if you think one can exist.
I think you can't deal with it because it shows how ridiculous your claims are.

But fine. Try it in space, the incredibly good vacuum, but not quite perfect.

So now:
You have a hypothetical of a container full of compressed gas in the very good vacuum of space, 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 (or too little 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.

Which is it?

The space vacuum what you prefer to know it as cannot exist as you offer it with scattered particles just supposedly floating about in nothingness.
People would be wise to sit down and actually think about this instead of taking in the utter garbage that is being offered for space and all the silliness about it.

People would be wise to sit down and actually think. You should try it some time.
Just what is wrong with it?

You can't actually show any fault.

The big issue here for you is free space.
But really, the only issue you have with free space is the idea of space, so that isn't why you hate space, that is just the excuse you use to pretend space can't be real.
Ultimately it comes down to your irrational hatred of the globe.
You need to pretend things like rockets and photos from space that support the fact that Earth is round must be fake; and the easiest way for you to do this is to claim space can't be real.

But you cannot provide any reason for why it can't be real.

Your space does not offer any incredibly low pressure. How can it be?
Scattered particles in nothingness cannot offer pressure.

Considering that is what gasses are, even at normal atmospheric pressure, it most certainly can.

1 mol of gas at 25 C and 1 atm occupies roughly 25 L.
Conversely, liquid nitrogen is roughly 0.035 L/mol.
This means that only 0.14 % of the space is occupied by gas molecules.
Or alternatively, this means that 99.86 % is free space.

These molecules colliding (especially with other objects) is what causes pressure.
The fundamental reason gas has pressure is because these gas molecules hit a wall and bounce off.

So no, we can most certainly have pressure from scattered particles in nothingness.

The issue is how large the container is and how much gas is inside. Eventually you get to a point where describing it in terms of pressure becomes almost meaningless as it is more like a few molecules of gas bouncing around in a container.

If you wish to disagree, try explaining why, rather than just rejecting reality because you hate it.
And no, your irrational hatred of free space, and boldly claiming everything must be connected is NOT an argument against it.
The closest that would get you is saying that doesn't describe reality. It says nothing about if scattered particles flying around through nothingness would be able to offer pressure.

there's a reason compression and decompression offer pressure. It's because everything is always attached.

Except it doesn't at all. Instead it is pure nonsense which doesn't explain anything.

Once more, you are just upset that you don't like reality.

Then take no further notice and just get on with those who you feel have provided something in other threads.

No, I will continue to call out your dishonest BS.

There's nothing I can offer that would not be argued as it being to go with fictional gravity.

Which is just your admission that your model provides nothing, as gravity can already explain what is observed.

The issue is about people choosing what they want to accept.

Yes, and people like me choose to accept what matches reality, what can explain what is observed in reality and make predictions about reality.
People like you hate reality, reject it at all cost, and try to come up with BS to pretend it can work.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 05, 2023, 02:37:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 05, 2023, 02:05:59 AM

I could offer drawings but it'll be wasted on you as it was before because you have no intention of understanding any of it.

The drawings you provided before were wasted as they showed nothing.

Of course. And this is why you're getting nothing else

So you admit your drawings show nothing, and that is why you wont provide any more, because you can't.

because you do not have the ability to think.

I most certainly do, as demonstrated by thinking about your model, and clearly explaining why it is BS.

I have

No, you haven't.
You refused to and instead repeatedly tried to deflect and demand I try to explain something you will just dismiss as impossible. You aren't even willing to admit that they could be hypothetically possible before an explanation.

It explains a lot for those who are prepared to actually put their mind to work.

Wrong again. It "explains" a lot for those desperate to reject reality.
To those honest people who actually put their minds to work, it is clear example of trying to hide an attractive force in something else.
What is conjoining other than an attractive force holding it together?
You are basically saying "it isn't held together by an attractive force, it is held together by an attractive force"

If you think otherwise, then EXPLAIN IT.
Explain how you can have it conjoined without an attractive force.

I have and it's down to you to pay attention and show you actually are paying attention for me to go forward with this.

I have paid attention, and clearly pointed out how you aren't actually explaining anything.
You are just trying to hide the attractive forces to pretend they don't exist.

No, slow down isn't useless.

It is just your attempt at misleading, even more so now you refuse to understand reference frames.

If your rocket is doing supposedly thousands of mph through your fantasy space by using it's burning thrusters to propel it then tell me how it slows down to get to be able to about turn and hover above the supposed moon and then to burn again to arrest a fall whilst also using little air thrusters to supposedly balance it.

So you just refuse to understand reference frames?

The moon is not stationary. It is orbiting Earth at roughly 1 km/s. That would be 3600 km/hr.

But part of it it also quite simple and comparable to everyday life on Earth. If you throw something up, gravity accelerates it downwards.
So if you are in an elliptical orbit, when you are going "up" (i.e. away from Earth), gravity will be slowing you down.

So the rocket starts on Earth, uses its rocket to get into a low orbit at a fairly high velocity.
Then uses its rocket again to put it on a trajectory passing the moon, with the elliptical orbit slowing it down.
When it reaches the moon, it is still travelling quite fast compared to Earth, but much much slower compared to the moon.
At that point it is capable of igniting the engine again to change its velocity and enter orbit around the moon, then detach and fire again to put it on a sub-orbital trajectory around the moon and land on the moon.

Just what do you think the issue is?
Just what do you think needs to be explained?

Absolutely utter gunk.

That does seem to be all you can provide.
You cannot demonstrate any fault with explanations provided to you, nor are you capable of providing coherent explanations yourself.

Nothing because you couldn't have anything in that setup.

You sure do hate having to answer questions which clearly demonstrate your BS is wrong.

If we talk about an extremely low pressure of connected molecules in denpressure theory then your containerised rocket gases being released will simply expand themselves in a chain reaction, into the extremely low pressure and extremely quickly too, I might add because the resistance to the expelled gases is minimal.

So what's happening inside the rocket container of gases?
They simply start at the opening and expand into each other from the front to the back of the container without using the container itself as any leverage in this situation, only using themselves as resistance to each other with naturally allowed expansion.

Remember your claims about resistance and it needing to go through things?

Consider the molecule right at the edge.
It can push against the molecule one layer in. But without resistance, that layer will then move inwards.
So it will need something to push against, which can be the next layer in, but then you have the same issue for that.
This continues all the way through until you reach the container.
At this point, you have the container being used as resistance, with the gas directly or indirectly pushing off it to be able to leave the container.
This means the gas is pushing the container.

Also notice your contradiction?
Previously you said you need resistance outside. That the rocket can't push off the gas, it needs some external amtosphere.
Yet here you are saying the gas inside can be used as resistance. So why can't the rocket use that as resistance to push off to work?

In your fantasy world it doesn't but reality says it has to or we simply do not exist, never mind offering up fictional space rockets.

You seem to be mixing up fantasy and reality yet again.
In reality, the atmosphere is NOT needed to explain how rockets work.
Real rockets, which really work in space.

It is your delusional fantasy which you are entirely incapable of defending in any way where you pretend they can't work.

Or are fantasy, fiction and reality other words you have chosen to redefine?

If there are no molecules for pressure connection then nothing can survive in it so this question is pointless.

WTF?

Why not test a rocket engine in a vacuum, and publish the results?

Or gun?

Will a Gun Fire in Space?

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

Link to video of gun fired in vacuum: https://www.military.com/video/guns/gunfire/will-a-gun-fire-in-space/971339055001

Model Rocket Engine In A Vacuum Chamber - 4K Slow Motion - will it burn? - Rockets (S1 • E3)

Rockets in a Vacuum Chamber - Newton's third law of motion Visualized

Just for fun…

Supersonic ping pong balls...vacuum and compression cannon combination. PART TWO

How to Make a Large Bore Vacuum Cannon

Quote from: Smoke Machine on July 04, 2023, 05:29:31 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 04, 2023, 10:00:41 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 03, 2023, 02:25:35 PM

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.

Mate, what's your best experiment idea I can do, to prove denpressure?

Like yourself, I pride myself in being a practical, hands-on, type of guy.

Hit me with the best experiment you've done, which proves denpressure, so I can duplicate the experiment and the results. You know, the number one experiment you get all your friends and critics to do, which shuts up the naysayers once and for all.

There's nothing I can offer that would not be argued as it being to go with fictional gravity.
The issue isn't about me offering anything. The issue is about people choosing what they want to accept.
And as you know yourself, mass adherence to gravity trumps anything a minority can offer, no matter what it is.
You know this and this is why you're trying to play the good and bad and indifferent person.

If this interests you then pay full attention to it and see where it takes you.
If not then carry on playing games.

Sceptimatic, I'm open to different mindsets or frames of mind if you will, and the value they can impart on a person. You wouldn't have embraced this whole ideology, complete with your own theory, if there wasn't a trade off to you.

So far in this thread, I have seen thought experiments, mainly by yourself, mixed with actual physical experiments by others, such as DungOverFlow2022. Thought experiments are fine to a degree. Einstein used them all the time to test concepts which could not readily be tested physically. But then, his theories did move into the physical world, where his theories were validated on the physical plane also.

Thought experiments are fine, if that's the limit of the experiments. But, if it is the limit, maybe you need to remind people, these thought experiments don't translate well into physical experiments?

I see where you're going with it all, and the presentation of an alternate possible reality, I guess. Gravity is your biggest hurdle. From the day we each first learn to walk, we learn that something makes us fall down. It's a force.

The majority call that force gravity and you call it denpressure with a whole other mechanism behind it.

If your thought experiments do not fare well in the physical world, I think you need sell your theory on how it has benefited you personally, in your life, as an alternate theory, worth playing with.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 05, 2023, 07:39:31 AM

I can't deal with a hypothetical perfect vacuum because one cannot exist.

You should be able to deal with it, regardless of if you think one can exist.
I think you can't deal with it because it shows how ridiculous your claims are.

But fine. Try it in space, the incredibly good vacuum, but not quite perfect.

Your vacuum isn't on offer as anything that is workable. I've already told you why with your scattered particles in nothingness.
It can't be answered because it's fantasy.

So now:
You have a hypothetical of a container full of compressed gas in the very good vacuum of space, with one end open.

When you can offer extreme low pressure as your environment then I can offer you one simple and answer.
While you offer up your vacuum I'll be offering no can-do against the fantasy of your setup.

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 (or too little 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.

Which is it?

Already answered. Either accept it or carry on copying and pasting this same stuff and get the same answer. It's up to you. It's your time wasted overall with the amount you put into your posts of the same thing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 05, 2023, 07:40:42 AM

Then take no further notice and just get on with those who you feel have provided something in other threads.

No, I will continue to call out your dishonest BS.

By all means, call out whatever you wish about whatever you think my theories are. I have no issue with it. It has zero effect on what I think.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 05, 2023, 08:09:26 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 05, 2023, 02:37:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 05, 2023, 02:05:59 AM

I could offer drawings but it'll be wasted on you as it was before because you have no intention of understanding any of it.

The drawings you provided before were wasted as they showed nothing.

Of course. And this is why you're getting nothing else

So you admit your drawings show nothing, and that is why you wont provide any more, because you can't.

Nice try. I said offering any drawings to people like you is a waste of time because you're not interested in anything that goes against your ideals.
You will simply brush off anything I say or draw and I'm fine with that because it's something I'm under no illusions about with people like yourself.

After years you actually know nothing about denpressure. Nothing.
And your brother has spent a decent amount of time knowing nothing about it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 05, 2023, 08:09:26 AM

If there are no molecules for pressure connection then nothing can survive in it so this question is pointless.

WTF?

Why not test a rocket engine in a vacuum, and publish the results?

Or gun?

It can't be done, that's why.

It can't be done, that's why.

Already answered.

Such as no proof the atmosphere “pushes” things down?



But every indication the ball is pulled through the atmosphere by gravity by the area of drag / wake / swirl left behind the ball. 


A person has to be literally blind to truth to believe in den pressure delusion. 

It can't be done, that's why.

And yet.

Gun fired in a vacuum where the bullet goes through the walls of the chamber.

Will a Gun Fire in Space?

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

Link to video of gun fired in vacuum: https://www.military.com/video/guns/gunfire/will-a-gun-fire-in-space/971339055001

Rocket engine burning in vacuum.

Model Rocket Engine In A Vacuum Chamber - 4K Slow Motion - will it burn? - Rockets (S1 • E3)

Rocket engine making thrust
in vacuum.

Rockets in a Vacuum Chamber - Newton's third law of motion Visualized

Video of how atmosphere needs to actually flow and have displacement to carry objects to make them move.

High pressure flowing to low pressure.

How to Make a Large Bore Vacuum Cannon

While you are  totally ignoring reality.


Feather and bowling ball falling at same rate.

(Real Time) Bowling Ball and Feather Dropped in a Vacuum

Funny all these documented experiments and experiences that disprove den pressure delusion.


And all you can do is deny reality, lie about it.   While producing no documented experiments of your own.

Sceptimatic, I'm open to different mindsets or frames of mind if you will, and the value they can impart on a person. You wouldn't have embraced this whole ideology, complete with your own theory, if there wasn't a trade off to you.

So far in this thread, I have seen thought experiments, mainly by yourself, mixed with actual physical experiments by others, such as DungOverFlow2022. Thought experiments are fine to a degree. Einstein used them all the time to test concepts which could not readily be tested physically. But then, his theories did move into the physical world, where his theories were validated on the physical plane also.

Einstein and co have offered no physical experiments that prove reasoning on gravity. They've offered theories that are said to be factual but hidden behind the words "scientific theory" for good reason. It's a get-out clause in case something happens which opens it up for the nonsense it is.

In my opinion, it's all cloaked behind the reality of atmospheric pressure upon dense mass. I call it denpressure and I've given my reasons why and why everything happens. It's dismissed by the idealists.

Thought experiments are fine, if that's the limit of the experiments. But, if it is the limit, maybe you need to remind people, these thought experiments don't translate well into physical experiments?

Most of life at the molecular level is merely thought experiments. Even physical experiments that go down that path are based on best guesswork that may end up being something else.

I see where you're going with it all, and the presentation of an alternate possible reality, I guess.

Where I go with it is for my own mindset in working it out.
If people want to brush it off in any way they wish then it's fine by me.
But I know there are people out there who can think for themselves and who know the story of Earth and the life of everything within it, is not the exact truth.

It's just a case of figuring out what dilution of the truth actually is.

Gravity is your biggest hurdle.

Not at all. It's everyone's biggest hurdle who use it as their go to word in an argument to any alternative, even when they know it cannot be explained as to what it is and they cannot explain it as being anything otehr than something that allows mass to attract mass.

It can't be explained for good reason. It's made up to cater for space fantasies of everything in that fantasy, including their fictional Earth setup of a global spin in a vacuum.

If your thought experiments do not fare well in the physical world, I think you need sell your theory on how it has benefited you personally, in your life, as an alternate theory, worth playing with.

My experiments do fare well but they do for me. They won't for anyone who has no intention of going against mainstream ideologies.

Such as no proof the atmosphere “pushes” things down?

I have enough proof that you simply do not pay any attention to explanations.

It can't be done, that's why.

Why don’t you answer the below honestly instead of changing the subject and using false authority.

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

Is it false to say there are times the barometric pressure in Iowa is greater than at the mouth of the Mississippi.  Yet the Mississippi still keeps flowing to the Gulf of Mexico.  Why isn’t the Mississippi River breaking down up to Iowa when Iowa has greater barometric pressure than the Gulf of Mexico? 


What is the den pressure equal and opposite reaction for the flow of the Mississippi River.  Especially with the water warmer at the mouth of the Mississippi River than in Iowa.  Where the atmospheric pressure can be greater up stream of the mouth of the Mississippi River. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 06, 2023, 05:20:24 AM

It can't be done, that's why.

And yet.

Gun fired in a vacuum where the bullet goes through the walls of the chamber.

No such thing as a vacuum so your argument is void.
Come back when you can offer low pressure and describe what your low pressure is.
Then we have something.
Unfortunately for you to do that means you have to give up your global idealism.

I have enough proof that you simply do not pay any attention to explanations.

Which is a lie.  You have offered no documented experiments which is the topic of this thread.

You can’t even explain this simple circuit.  And why the needle of the gauge has to be made with magnetic properties.




You only offer word salad.

You can’t even explain why gas molecules overcome their natural tendency to dissipate and bunch up at sea level without gravity.  Why they are not equalizing with the lower pressure in the upper atmosphere from higher pressure.


When reality shows high pressure equalizes with low pressure, and the only way “atmosphere” can make things move is if atmosphere actually flows to carry objects with it.

As seen here:

How to Make a Large Bore Vacuum Cannon

And it’s obvious that atmosphere doesn’t always “push down to foundation”


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

No such thing as a vacuum so your argument is void.

Really?  That is not an argument.  That is a five year old not accepting reality.


Again.  For work.

If a tank is pressurized.  It will discharge chemicals out if a valve is open inappropriately

If a tank is vented and made safe for maintenance, it is equalized with atmospheric pressure.

If a tank is under vacuum.  And it’s not a perfect vacuum.  That lets personal know it has a different hazard than a pressurized tank.  If a valve is inappropriately opened it will drawn in outside atmospheric being at a lower pressure potential.  It will upset the process and contaminate the process with atmosphere.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on July 06, 2023, 05:22:11 AM

Such as no proof the atmosphere “pushes” things down?

I have enough proof that you simply do not pay any attention to explanations.

Then looking forward to you starting your own YouTube den pressure delusion channel with experiments to compete with feathers and coins dropping at the same rate in a vacuum, rocket engines burning in a vacuum, to vacuum canons.

Note.  Added.  Maybe you could take each video, then publish a video of an experiment to show how it works in den pressure delusion.

Time to take den pressure delusion from the technology of a BBS in the 1990’s to the technology of video, slow motion video, and documenting your experience on YouTube.  Or some other video sharing platform.

Wonder why you and den pressure delusion hasn’t made the transition?

🤔