Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

Quote from: JackBlack on July 07, 2023, 04:20:12 PM

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

It is an argument and a very good one at that.

No, it is an incredibly poor one. So poor in fact that most people would dismiss it as not an argument.

No, it's absolutely fine.

This is what you’re ignoring.

We are beings that live in atmosphere.

There is a difference in stored energy from being pressurized vs being at vacuum.

A tank pressurized in reference to atmosphere has more stored energy than atmosphere.

If a pressurized tank is ruptured or over pressurized too much it will spray out its contents.  May even explode.  May even become a missile hazard if not bolted / chained down.


A tank at vacuum in reference to atmosphere has less stored energy than atmosphere.  It has completely different hazards.  It my implode from basically becoming a sink for the atmosphere at which is at greater pressure.  Meaning the atmosphere has greater potential/ stored energy and wants to flow to lower pressure.  If the tank is open to atmosphere by a valve, or implodes, the atmosphere with more stored energy will flow to the area of lower pressure.  In this case a vacuum.


And this is what makes den pressure delusion ridiculous without gravity.

The pressure at the top of Mount Everest is something like 6 psi.  We could fail consistently and even post the pressure at the top of Mount Everest is 10 psi.

If I took a tank and vented it to atmospheric pressure at sea level to equalize it with atmospheric pressure.  Shut the valve so the tank is air tight.  Took the tank to the open atmosphere at the same altitude as the peak of Mount Everest.  If your worried about the temperature, the bottle is being kept at the same temp from sea level with a battery powered blanket.  Open the valve on the bottle, the pressure of roughly one atmosphere (14.7 psi) would vent out and equalize with the lower pressure at the greater altitude. If I took a check valve with a metal disc which is more dense than atmosphere and installed it so the check valve would allow flow out of the bottle to atmosphere, the flow from the bottle would still overcome the resistance of the check valve and flow out.

Now.  How is it a tank at atmospheric pressure opened at 29,000 feet above sea level will vent out even if there is the resistance of a metal disc check valve.  But the tendency of gas to dissipate and equalize from a state of higher pressure and energy to a lower pressure and energy is over come with the bunching of gas molecules at sea level.  And there is a decrease in atmospheric pressure, density, and energy with an increase in altitude.


There is no answer in den pressure delusion. Density is not a force.  The resistance of the check valve in my example is still over came so high pressure / energy equalizes with lower pressure and lower energy.  There would be no directionality in den pressure delusion. 


The answer is an atmosphere in near equilibrium with gravity.  Why there is the directionality of down.


So.  Long story short.  Your opinion on vacuum is out of complete ignorance and understanding of context.

Or.  Your opinion on vacuum is that you’re a true troll pushing lies for a deceitful view that is incapable of modeling reality in any useful way. 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on July 07, 2023, 01:46:02 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 07, 2023, 08:34:18 AM

It's because of atmospheric stacking based on the dense mass of each molecule in each layer of each stacking system, all pushing into each other and all resiting each other based on their dense mass.

Your model doesn’t have gravity. 

And it's taken you 865,977 (slight exaggeration  ) posts to get to this obvious understanding.
No wonder you struggle.

Nice of you to ignore the whole post and it’s context troll.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 07, 2023, 08:34:18 AM

It's because of atmospheric stacking based on the dense mass of each molecule in each layer of each stacking system, all pushing into each other and all resiting each other based on their dense mass.

Your model doesn’t have gravity.  There is no downward force in your delusion.  The tendency of gases is to move from high pressure to low pressure. To dissipate. To equalize pressure differences. 

The den pressure delusion atmosphere with no downward force of gravity should succumb to the full tendency of gases to dissipate and equalize pressure.  Flow from high pressure potential to low pressure potential to equalize potential as much as possible in the atmosphere. Especially if there is a dome in your delusion.

Why doesn’t your delusion stack down from the dome.  There is no downward force in your delusion.

Or stack up from sea level, while stacking down from the dome so there is a lower pressure/density trapped in between.


The reason gases overcome their tendency to dissipate and not flow from high pressure to equalize with the lower pressure of the up atmosphere where the gases of the atmosphere are bunched up at sea level is due to Earth’s gravity and its downward force.

The gases of the Earth’s atmosphere is in near equilibrium with gravity where in den pressure delusion the gases of the atmosphere would continually equalize any pressure change.

Sorry that you sceptimatic cannot argue the statements in bold with any logic or credibility.

This is where we have to be careful if you're using the water analogy, especially if you're using a ball of atmosphere, so we need to be clearer about this.
Let's use a metal ball.

And seeing as we are using that then you can understand a metal ball sitting on a sea/water bed would not be getting pushed up directly from underneath and it is key to understand this.
What is happening is the ball's curve below at the sea/water bed is having it sit and displace that water and that water curve around it is acting back around it trying to decompress against it but has also added more water mass above the ball.

To make this simpler to visualise, imagine filling a bath to a certain height and marking the sides of that bath to water level.
You then drop a ball into that bath and it hits the bottom but you notice the water level line is now under water because the ball has displaced its own dense mass of water which now sits above it.
I'm sure you can get this as it is part of what you can see in reality and also seeing how you seem to get a little more of what I'm saying than most.

So looking at that you can see that it's not anything underneath the ball trying to push it up it's everything at the side of the ball trying to crush it up against the mass of water from the middle of the ball upwards crushing down and winning based on the amount of water.

Quote from: Themightykabool

fluid pressure can only PUSH.
can we agree on that?

As long as you understand that push is actually crush and not a direct push from beneath the entire ball.
It's important to understand this because this is the whole point of layering and stacking.

Quote from: Themightykabool

for visualizing - the darker the blue, the MORE push.

The darker the blue the more dense and the more crush.

Water isnt an analogy.
Bouancy is a prpoerty all fluids show.

A 100000ton ocean liner is pushed up by the higher pressure below.

The push from the crushing(DPism) is mostfrom bottom towards top.

The only dirdction is up.

You "being careful" is becauee you know there is only one direction possible.

Unless instead of defelctin, you can care to answer how fluids know direction.

This is where we have to be careful if you're using the water analogy, especially if you're using a ball of atmosphere, so we need to be clearer about this.
Let's use a metal ball.

And seeing as we are using that then you can understand a metal ball sitting on a sea/water bed would not be getting pushed up directly from underneath and it is key to understand this.
What is happening is the ball's curve below at the sea/water bed is having it sit and displace that water and that water curve around it is acting back around it trying to decompress against it but has also added more water mass above the ball.

No, this is where we need to be careful to ensure you don't just entirely discard reality because you don't like.
In reality, the pressure below the ball. No amount of BS will change that.
The water is not being pushed around it to the top.
And it doens't matter what the ball is made of.
It can be a steel ball, an aluminium ball, or a ping pong ball full of air.
Regardless, the pressure is greater on the bottom of the ball than on the top.

The water is NOT magically going up to the top to push down harder.
The pressure remains greater below, and the water is pushing UP!

This is why all objects, when immersed in water will have their weight appear to reduce; because of the upwards buoyant force.

An object with the same density as water will appear weightless.
An object with a lower density will appear to have a negative weight and go up.
An object with a greater density will appear to have less weight, but still go down.

And this reduction in weight is based upon the amount of water displaced, not the mass of the object.

And this doesn't require the scale to be in water, so don't even try with that dishonest BS.
We can also do it with a spring scale above the water.

So air pressure, with a greater pressure below CANNOT be the reason things fall.

To make this simpler to visualise, imagine filling a bath to a certain height and marking the sides of that bath to water level.
You then drop a ball into that bath and it hits the bottom but you notice the water level line is now under water because the ball has displaced its own dense mass of water which now sits above it.

And notice that this happens regardless of what you are using.
You could use a steel ball, or a balloon.
In both cases, the water is displaced and goes up.

So looking at that you can see that it's not anything underneath the ball trying to push it up it's everything at the side of the ball trying to crush it up against the mass of water from the middle of the ball upwards crushing down and winning based on the amount of water.

The question is where is the water contacting the ball to try to move it?
In this case, pressure does only push, so we don't even need to discuss a pulling force for that.
But the water above the ball, over near the edge of the bath is NOT pushing on the ball.
Instead it is the water just around it.

We can also entirely remove this water from the equation by having the bath filled to the brim so when we put the ball in, the water spills over the top and our water level remains where it was.

It is ultimately the pressure gradient in the water, with the pressure greater below the ball, which is acting to push it up.
The greater pressure below overcomes the higher pressure above so there is a net upwards force from the water pressure.

As long as you understand that push is actually crush and not a direct push from beneath the entire ball.
It's important to understand this because this is the whole point of layering and stacking.

So as long as we understand that reality is wrong?

Again, the water pushes from all directions. This "crush" if it was exactly the same from all directions, would just push the ball inwards, keeping its centre of mass in the same position.
But it isn't perfectly uniform. There is a pressure gradient, with the pressure greater below.
That means overall the force is pushing up.

So lets not use an incredibly misleading idea of "crush". Instead, lets use what actually happens:
The water below pushes up. The water above pushes down.
But the push up from below is greater than the push down from above. This means that overall there is a push up on the object from the water.

And this applies regardless of fluid.
If there is a pressure gradient, the fluid pushes in a direction from high pressure to low pressure.
So for the atmosphere, it pushes from below to above, i.e. it pushes objects up.

Once again, Denpressure doesn't work.

No, it's absolutely fine.

Only if you don't care about your model working or matching reality at all.
So if you are happy with it being no more than pathetic, delusional garbage that in no way depicts reality, then yes its "fine".
But if you want a model which actually works to explain reality, you have nothing.

And it's taken you 865,977 (slight exaggeration  ) posts to get to this obvious understanding.
No wonder you struggle.

No, that is just more dishonest BS from you.

Your model needs gravity to work.
You need to explain why the atmosphere stacks.
You need it every time you appeal to the dense mass of an object helping the pressure above overcome the resistance below to allow the object to move down.

The point is that your garbage doesn't work without gravity.

Without gravity, you have no reason for the atmosphere to stack at all.
Without gravity, you have no reason for an object to fall when the pressure is greater below.
Without gravity, you have no reason for an object denser than air to fall while one lighter than air is pushed up.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2023, 06:46:22 AM

Who said there was no lower pressure?

Why would atmosphere flow into a tank when a valve is open if the tank wasn’t at a lower pressure.  Or at a vacuum. 

You need to make your mind up. First, you say I said there was no lower pressure and now you're offering it.
How about you actually start to pay attention? You're acting like some kind of programmed robot.

Get this into your head.
I asked you what you mean by drawing in the atmosphere. You've refused to give an answer.
I then said to you that a lower pressure internally against a higher external;l pressure will allow that external higher pressure to near equalise with the lower pressure internally.
I can't be any clearer.
So how about you tell me where draw comes into it and what draw actually means in this scenario, because it's as if you're telling me a low pressure can draw a high pressure in.
Explain how.

For the atmosphere to push into a tank by opening a valve, the tank has to have a lower pressure potential to draw in the atmosphere.  Or be at a vacuum.

So tell me what draw is and how a low pressure against a high pressure can do this because it's as if you're offering a lower pressure to be a force that somehow drags/pulls in a higher pressure.
I'd like to know how when it should be clear that a higher pressure will push into the tank and near equalise within the lower pressure.

See how vacuum gives context, directionality, and state of stored energy in reference to the atmosphere.

No. Vacuum means nothing so it's simply lower pressure. No scattered particles in free space of nothing.
Yes, I understand it's used in processes to offer an ideal but in its entire context overall for what it's offered for, it's nonsense.

Lower pressure is wording that offers something in reality.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2023, 06:49:07 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 07, 2023, 04:20:12 PM

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

It is an argument and a very good one at that.

No, it is an incredibly poor one. So poor in fact that most people would dismiss it as not an argument.

No, it's absolutely fine.

You not understanding vacuum and its context just makes your argument stupid.

There's no such thing as a vacuum to understand so offering this up as some kind of argument and attempt to belittle just makes you weaker by the day.

You need to make your mind up. First, you say I said there was no lower pressure and now you're offering it.

First.  Cited and quote with context where I posed “there was no lower pressure ”

This is what you’re ignoring.

We are beings that live in atmosphere.

No, I'm not ignoring it. You're just offering something you want to believe I don't subscribe to.
You waste so much of your time offering gunk like this.

Just remember, we are beings that live in an atmosphere that is under pressure and has a foundation to hold it, not under an atmosphere that somehow rotates around a rotating ball in a space vacuum.

There is a difference in stored energy from being pressurized vs being at vacuum.

Yes there is. One is a reality of pressure and the other is a fantasy offered to give people a mindset that we're a big spinning ball in a space vacuum among many other spinning balls and burning fires in this vacuum of nothing or scattered random particles that just offer silly things like bouncing off each other or gravity that cannot be explained to be anything.
The stories are utter fantasy and blatant fictional storytelling.

A tank pressurized in reference to the atmosphere has more stored energy than the atmosphere.

If you force the atmosphere into a container to become higher pressure than the atmosphere, it takes energy to do so and the energy put into that pressurisation is now potential energy that can be released to offer the same reactionary force initially put in.
Equal and opposite reaction to action and it applies to every force.

If a pressurized tank is ruptured or over pressurized too much it will spray out its contents.
  May even explode.  May even become a missile hazard if not bolted / chained down.

Of course because it's releasing that potential energy to become reactionary energy/force.

A tank at vacuum in reference to atmosphere has less stored energy than atmosphere.

A tank under lower internal pressure than external atmospheric pressure has no potential energy unless that energy can be released into something that has even less pressure than it.

If it's against a higher pressure it has no energy to offer as a reaction, only within the molecules themselves vibrating and resisting each other.

It has completely different hazards.
  It my implode from basically becoming a sink for the atmosphere at which is at greater pressure.  Meaning the atmosphere has greater potential/ stored energy and wants to flow to lower pressure.

If you offer too much energy to allow evacuation from a tank then you offer lower resistance against external pressure upon it. This is why the external pressure crushes the tank causing what we know as an implosion.

  If the tank is open to atmosphere by a valve, or implodes, the atmosphere with more stored energy will flow to the area of lower pressure.  In this case a vacuum.

Once you open a valve the higher pressure will always go to try and equalise the lower pressure.

And this is what makes den pressure delusion ridiculous without gravity.

This is what makes Denpressure realistic because Denpressure totally wipes out fictional gravity stories and also fictional space vacuums...etc.

The pressure at the top of Mount Everest is something like 6 psi.  We could fail consistently and even post the pressure at the top of Mount Everest is 10 psi.

The pressure is always lower with each stacked layer from bottom to top..

If I took a tank and vented it to atmospheric pressure at sea level to equalize it with atmospheric pressure.  Shut the valve so the tank is air tight.  Took the tank to the open atmosphere at the same altitude as the peak of Mount Everest.  If your worried about the temperature, the bottle is being kept at the same temp from sea level with a battery powered blanket.  Open the valve on the bottle, the pressure of roughly one atmosphere (14.7 psi) would vent out and equalize with the lower pressure at the greater altitude.

Ok, what you're forgetting with this is, on a molecular scale your tank is expanding with every layer it is pushed into. You will never ever keep constant pressure within the tank because of this.
Of course, you'll argue a rigid tank but it doesn't matter.
Molecularly the tank is porous and prone to expansion against lesser pressure external to it against the internal pressure.
You can plainly see what happens just by using a weaker container and doing the same thing.

If I took a check valve with a metal disc which is more dense than atmosphere and installed it so the check valve would allow flow out of the bottle to atmosphere, the flow from the bottle would still overcome the resistance of the check valve and flow out.
Now.  How is it a tank at atmospheric pressure opened at 29,000 feet above sea level will vent out even if there is the resistance of a metal disc check valve.  But the tendency of gas to dissipate and equalize from a state of higher pressure and energy to a lower pressure and energy is over come with the bunching of gas molecules at sea level.  And there is a decrease in atmospheric pressure, density, and energy with an increase in altitude.

Of course if you've offered a one-way system of higher pressure into a lower pressure.
On a visual inspection it would be clear.

There is no answer in den pressure delusion. Density is not a force.

Density is the structural mass of any object. Every molecule making up that structural mass is always under pressure. It is a resistance to pressure. It is always a push-on push or resistance against resistance.
As long as it resists/pushes then it is a force.
If energy is added to that force then it becomes a higher force.
But it's still all a force of resistance.

  The resistance of the check valve in my example is still over came so high pressure / energy equalizes with lower pressure and lower energy.  There would be no directionality in den pressure delusion. 

Of course it's overcome if the flow is offered from high pressure to low pressure.
It can't work the other way around.

The answer is an atmosphere in near equilibrium with gravity.  Why there is the directionality of down.

The answer is a stacked and layered atmosphere that offers varying molecular density in each layer making each layer less pressurised the higher those layers go up.
No need for fictional gravity that cannot even be explained but is accepted because some supposed boffins offered it to bypass reality and offer fantasy space and spinning ball Earths, suns, and planets, etc for the brainwashing of the eager public.

So.  Long story short.  Your opinion on vacuum is out of complete ignorance and understanding of context.

Long story short. Your opinion on gravity is based on adhering to a fictional storries told and sold by so-called scientific idols.

Or.  Your opinion on vacuum is that you’re a true troll pushing lies for a deceitful view that is incapable of modeling reality in any useful way.

Your special go-to dig when you have nothing to add. 
Say it as many times as you feel the need to but always remember it makes me smile when I see the weakness of you stand out like a blind cobblers thumb.

Get this into your head.
I asked you what you mean by drawing in the atmosphere. You've refused to give an answer.

I have repeatedly answered even you don’t like reality.

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

If the pressure is lower internally than externally then nothing will be drawn in, it will be atmospheric pressure pushing in to nearly equalise the pressure.
The lower pressure does not draw anything in, unless you can describe what you mean by drawn.

It can’t push in if there is no lower pressure potential to draw it in. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 07, 2023, 08:34:18 AM

Lower pressure cannot draw anything in.
What the hell does draw in in your mind mean?

You don’t answer the question. If there is no lower pressure why would the higher pressure equalize.  If there is no lower pressure, then there is no difference of pressure potential to drive movement.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2023, 06:49:07 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 07, 2023, 04:20:12 PM

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

It is an argument and a very good one at that.

No, it is an incredibly poor one. So poor in fact that most people would dismiss it as not an argument.

No, it's absolutely fine.

This is what you’re ignoring.

We are beings that live in atmosphere.

There is a difference in stored energy from being pressurized vs being at vacuum.

A tank pressurized in reference to atmosphere has more stored energy than atmosphere.

If a pressurized tank is ruptured or over pressurized too much it will spray out its contents.  May even explode.  May even become a missile hazard if not bolted / chained down.


A tank at vacuum in reference to atmosphere has less stored energy than atmosphere.  It has completely different hazards.  It my implode from basically becoming a sink for the atmosphere at which is at greater pressure.  Meaning the atmosphere has greater potential/ stored energy and wants to flow to lower pressure.  If the tank is open to atmosphere by a valve, or implodes, the atmosphere with more stored energy will flow to the area of lower pressure.  In this case a vacuum.
 

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2023, 06:44:14 AM

This is where we have to be careful if you're using the water analogy, especially if you're using a ball of atmosphere, so we need to be clearer about this.
Let's use a metal ball.

And seeing as we are using that then you can understand a metal ball sitting on a sea/water bed would not be getting pushed up directly from underneath and it is key to understand this.
What is happening is the ball's curve below at the sea/water bed is having it sit and displace that water and that water curve around it is acting back around it trying to decompress against it but has also added more water mass above the ball.

To make this simpler to visualise, imagine filling a bath to a certain height and marking the sides of that bath to water level.
You then drop a ball into that bath and it hits the bottom but you notice the water level line is now under water because the ball has displaced its own dense mass of water which now sits above it.
I'm sure you can get this as it is part of what you can see in reality and also seeing how you seem to get a little more of what I'm saying than most.

So looking at that you can see that it's not anything underneath the ball trying to push it up it's everything at the side of the ball trying to crush it up against the mass of water from the middle of the ball upwards crushing down and winning based on the amount of water.

Quote from: Themightykabool

fluid pressure can only PUSH.
can we agree on that?

As long as you understand that push is actually crush and not a direct push from beneath the entire ball.
It's important to understand this because this is the whole point of layering and stacking.

Quote from: Themightykabool

for visualizing - the darker the blue, the MORE push.

The darker the blue the more dense and the more crush.

Water isnt an analogy.
Bouancy is a prpoerty all fluids show.

A 100000ton ocean liner is pushed up by the higher pressure below.

The push from the crushing(DPism) is mostfrom bottom towards top.

The only dirdction is up.

You "being careful" is becauee you know there is only one direction possible.

Unless instead of defelctin, you can care to answer how fluids know direction.

I thought you had some interest for a second. Silly me.
Never mind.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2023, 06:44:14 AM

This is where we have to be careful if you're using the water analogy, especially if you're using a ball of atmosphere, so we need to be clearer about this.
Let's use a metal ball.

And seeing as we are using that then you can understand a metal ball sitting on a sea/water bed would not be getting pushed up directly from underneath and it is key to understand this.
What is happening is the ball's curve below at the sea/water bed is having it sit and displace that water and that water curve around it is acting back around it trying to decompress against it but has also added more water mass above the ball.

No, this is where we need to be careful to ensure you don't just entirely discard reality because you don't like.
In reality, the pressure below the ball. No amount of BS will change that.
The water is not being pushed around it to the top.
And it doens't matter what the ball is made of.
It can be a steel ball, an aluminium ball, or a ping pong ball full of air.
Regardless, the pressure is greater on the bottom of the ball than on the top.

There is no pressure on the bottom of the ball from the water below it.
Understand what I'm saying before you go into a frenzy.

No, I'm not ignoring it. You're just offering something you want to believe I don't subscribe to.

Another meaningless word salad.

Gas at higher pressure has more stored energy than gas at lowered pressure.   The lower pressure in the upper atmosphere has nothing to restrain the higher stored energy of the lower atmosphere.  In your den pressure delusion.  The gas at lower altitudes with more pressure and stored energy should flow to the upper atmosphere with less stored energy to equalize.  There is nothing to stop this as illustrated by tanking a gas bottle at atmospheric pressure to 29,000 feet and it will vent out.

The reason the atmosphere is bunched up at sea level is due to being in bear equilibrium with gravity.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 09, 2023, 03:36:41 AM

No, I'm not ignoring it. You're just offering something you want to believe I don't subscribe to.

Another meaningless word salad.

Gas at higher pressure has more stored energy than gas at lowered pressure.   

I have no clue why you want to keep repeating something I already agreed with.

If I were you I'd just give up because you seem robotic to me.

This is what you’re ignoring.

Then what?  You’re blatantly deceitful?

If you tank a tank of helium at 15 psi and a tank the same size of “heavier more dense diatomic oxygen” at 10 psi.  Connect the two tanks with a pipe and a valve.  Open the valve, the helium at 15 psi will flow to the tank of oxygen at 10 PSI.  Then the pressures will equalize to some new pressure.

That is what should happen in your den pressure delusion with the atmosphere. 

The reason gas molecules bunch up at sea level with greater pressure than the upper atmosphere is due to gravity. 

I thought you had some interest for a second. Silly me.

And yet the only thing that would seem to indicate no interest is that they can explain why you are wrong.

There is no pressure on the bottom of the ball from the water below it.
Understand what I'm saying before you go into a frenzy.

Again, you are asking me to reject reality.

Lets go down this little fantasy of yours:
There is no pressure below the object.
There means there is nothing that can apply a pushing force to it which would go upwards.
This means it would be impossible for the object (like a helium filled balloon) to be pushed upwards.

Notice the problem?

What magic stops the water below the ball applying pressure to it?

Sceptimatic, all your points come from a firm flat earth foundation. Denpressure is just one of the many spokes sticking out of that foundation. When you are arguing denpressure, you are subsequently also arguing the moon landings never happened, gravity is fiction, the Earth is motionless and stationary, the truth of the shape of the Earth is being kept hidden by authorities, etc.,  etc.

I asked you for your opinion on how life has been better for you as a flat earther, and your sales pitch for anyone you're hoping to seduce to the dark side. You don't seem to be able to articulate the benefits you have discovered.

So, my hand has been forced. I'm going to have to do an experiment.

I'm going to choose a week, flip the switch, and be a flat earther for a week, embracing the denpressure theory. Afterwards, I can report my findings. The differences will all be psychological, naturally. I think one week should be sufficient to get a taste of life on the inside of the dome.

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 08, 2023, 12:39:43 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2023, 06:44:14 AM

This is where we have to be careful if you're using the water analogy, especially if you're using a ball of atmosphere, so we need to be clearer about this.
Let's use a metal ball.

And seeing as we are using that then you can understand a metal ball sitting on a sea/water bed would not be getting pushed up directly from underneath and it is key to understand this.
What is happening is the ball's curve below at the sea/water bed is having it sit and displace that water and that water curve around it is acting back around it trying to decompress against it but has also added more water mass above the ball.

To make this simpler to visualise, imagine filling a bath to a certain height and marking the sides of that bath to water level.
You then drop a ball into that bath and it hits the bottom but you notice the water level line is now under water because the ball has displaced its own dense mass of water which now sits above it.
I'm sure you can get this as it is part of what you can see in reality and also seeing how you seem to get a little more of what I'm saying than most.

So looking at that you can see that it's not anything underneath the ball trying to push it up it's everything at the side of the ball trying to crush it up against the mass of water from the middle of the ball upwards crushing down and winning based on the amount of water.

Quote from: Themightykabool

fluid pressure can only PUSH.
can we agree on that?

As long as you understand that push is actually crush and not a direct push from beneath the entire ball.
It's important to understand this because this is the whole point of layering and stacking.

Quote from: Themightykabool

for visualizing - the darker the blue, the MORE push.

The darker the blue the more dense and the more crush.

Water isnt an analogy.
Bouancy is a prpoerty all fluids show.

A 100000ton ocean liner is pushed up by the higher pressure below.

The push from the crushing(DPism) is mostfrom bottom towards top.

The only dirdction is up.

You "being careful" is becauee you know there is only one direction possible.

Unless instead of defelctin, you can care to answer how fluids know direction.

I thought you had some interest for a second. Silly me.
Never mind.

Oh i have interwst

My interest is how you chose to answer

You refuse to answer

Dodgy mcodgeroonyface dodges another undodgy question with a dodgy deflec-dodge

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 09, 2023, 03:36:41 AM

This is what you’re ignoring.

Then what?  You’re blatantly deceitful?

If you tank a tank of helium at 15 psi and a tank the same size of “heavier more dense diatomic oxygen” at 10 psi.  Connect the two tanks with a pipe and a valve.  Open the valve, the helium at 15 psi will flow to the tank of oxygen at 10 PSI.  Then the pressures will equalize to some new pressure.

That is what should happen in your den pressure delusion with the atmosphere. 

The reason gas molecules bunch up at sea level with greater pressure than the upper atmosphere is due to gravity.

I'm not even sure what you're getting at.
What happens with this scenario?

No, not at all. Haven't you been taking any notice of what I said?

Because den pressure delusion fails to model the real world.

What was you reply to the below?

Of course it is.
The atmosphere has to have a foundation to enable it to stack as the atmosphere we know.
The forces we know of come directly from Earth's cell.

Hmm.

Seems your delusion is betrayed by weather once again.



The atmosphere is moving a lower set of clouds westwards.  The atmosphere moving upper clouds eastward.

No indication the atmosphere is moving clouds down. 

If atmosphere makes things fall, why are the clouds driven at right angles of falling instead of falling? 


How are the two different altitudes of clouds moving in opposite directions parallel with the foundation of your delusion.

What is the equal and opposite reaction for any clouds moving parallel to your delusional foundation?  And how would such atmospheric conditions work with your false assurances concerning tides? 

It works by atmospheric pressure push.
A pressure build and a pressure drop over the course of half a day and again the next half.

It seems tides are impacted by the mass of the moon.  With no observable pattern by atmosphere.  Are your claims concerning tides from actual observations and weather patterns. Or just empty opinion and assurances by you.


Back to the Mississippi River.

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?

What is the equal and opposite reaction of the flow of the Mississippi River in den pressure delusion.  Where the only driving force in your delusion is “atmosphere”. 

And the Mississippi River is flowing more in parallel with “foundation” than falling to foundation.  So what is the equal and opposite reaction for your delusional den pressure driven River?

It seems the flow of the Mississippi River is better explain by potential gravitational energy converted to kinetic energy. With no observable pattern by fickle atmosphere to drive the flow of the Mississippi River.  just empty opinion and assurances by you not based on actual observation.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 09, 2023, 03:37:47 AM

I thought you had some interest for a second. Silly me.

And yet the only thing that would seem to indicate no interest is that they can explain why you are wrong.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 09, 2023, 03:40:54 AM

There is no pressure on the bottom of the ball from the water below it.
Understand what I'm saying before you go into a frenzy.

Again, you are asking me to reject reality.

Lets go down this little fantasy of yours:
There is no pressure below the object.
There means there is nothing that can apply a pushing force to it which would go upwards.

There is always pressure below the centre of the object that crushes against that object.
The very bottom of the object is simply sitting on layers.

You need to pay close attention to what's being said.

This means it would be impossible for the object (like a helium filled balloon) to be pushed upwards.

No it wouldn't if you pay attention.
A helium balloon will be crushed all around but it cannot be crushed down because the dense mass of the atmosphere resists that crush and crushes it up.
The very tip of the balloon would be the only part on a layer.
Pay close attention to the layering.

Notice the problem?

There isn't one except the problem you're making for yourself in not understanding it.

What magic stops the water below the ball applying pressure to it?

There is no magic. It's foundation layering and that foundation layering depends on what is being pushed against it in terms of dense mass of any object.

If the dense mass is displacing a lot of atmosphere then the resistance below to crush it up will be overcome by the mass above which the object is also displacing of its own dense mass.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on July 09, 2023, 03:56:46 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 09, 2023, 03:36:41 AM

This is what you’re ignoring.

Then what?  You’re blatantly deceitful?

If you tank a tank of helium at 15 psi and a tank the same size of “heavier more dense diatomic oxygen” at 10 psi.  Connect the two tanks with a pipe and a valve.  Open the valve, the helium at 15 psi will flow to the tank of oxygen at 10 PSI.  Then the pressures will equalize to some new pressure.

That is what should happen in your den pressure delusion with the atmosphere. 

The reason gas molecules bunch up at sea level with greater pressure than the upper atmosphere is due to gravity.

I'm not even sure what you're getting at.
What happens with this scenario?

This.

If you tank a tank of helium at 15 psi and a tank the same size of “heavier more dense diatomic oxygen” at 10 psi.  Connect the two tanks with a pipe and a valve.  Open the valve, the helium at 15 psi will flow to the tank of oxygen at 10 PSI.  Then the pressures will equalize to some new pressure.

In den pressure delusion, why isn’t the tank of lower pressure O2 not keeping the higher pressure lower density helium from flowing out of its tank.

Like den pressure delusion’s claim the higher pressure of the lower atmosphere is not flowing up and equalizing with the lower pressure of the upper atmosphere. 

Sceptimatic, all your points come from a firm flat earth foundation.

All my points come from a dismissal of a spinning global Earth and all the absolute gunk we've been told to believe about everything that comes with that absolute utter gunk. In my opinion of course.

Denpressure is just one of the many spokes sticking out of that foundation.

Denpressure is a major spoke as far as I'm concerned.

When you are arguing denpressure, you are subsequently also arguing the moon landings never happened,

Of course.

gravity is fiction,

Of course.

the Earth is motionless and stationary, the truth of the shape of the Earth is being kept hidden by authorities, etc.,  etc.

Sort of, yes.

I asked you for your opinion on how life has been better for you as a flat earther, and your sales pitch for anyone you're hoping to seduce to the dark side. You don't seem to be able to articulate the benefits you have discovered.

My life doesn't change with how I live on Earth. Earth is what it is regardless of what I think or what you or anyone else thinks.

 

So, my hand has been forced. I'm going to have to do an experiment.

I'm going to choose a week, flip the switch, and be a flat earther for a week, embracing the denpressure theory.

To embrace something you have to know what it is you're embracing.
That means you first have to cast aside the schooled ideals within you for a while and attempt to understand the alternates without using your schooling shield to blur your lines.

Basically, you need to first go into layman's logic and question the schooled ideals in a critical way to offer you some chance of alternate thinking and to actually delve deeper into whatever alternates you choose to absorb.
If it's denpressure then you need to be full on and you also need to spend as much time grasping the very basics before you take another step.
Your biggest hurdle is the two brothers who will attempt to ridicule you to force you to weaken.

Anyway, the choice is yours and it'll be quite simple to figure out if you're serious just by the way you try to take stuff in.
It requires you to question and also requires you to still question one specific to allow you to move on to another. That way you have a chance, unlike the two that offer 10,000,000 (a little exaggeration  ) different hits at once to basically skew anything.

Afterwards, I can report my findings. The differences will all be psychological, naturally.

Most of life learning is psychological and it comes down to a reliance on whatever storylines suit the individual with most opting to trust official lines rather than question them.

I think one week should be sufficient to get a taste of life on the inside of the dome.

One week may help if you're fully interested in deeply questioning without using barriers.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 09, 2023, 03:37:47 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on July 08, 2023, 12:39:43 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2023, 06:44:14 AM

This is where we have to be careful if you're using the water analogy, especially if you're using a ball of atmosphere, so we need to be clearer about this.
Let's use a metal ball.

And seeing as we are using that then you can understand a metal ball sitting on a sea/water bed would not be getting pushed up directly from underneath and it is key to understand this.
What is happening is the ball's curve below at the sea/water bed is having it sit and displace that water and that water curve around it is acting back around it trying to decompress against it but has also added more water mass above the ball.

To make this simpler to visualise, imagine filling a bath to a certain height and marking the sides of that bath to water level.
You then drop a ball into that bath and it hits the bottom but you notice the water level line is now under water because the ball has displaced its own dense mass of water which now sits above it.
I'm sure you can get this as it is part of what you can see in reality and also seeing how you seem to get a little more of what I'm saying than most.

So looking at that you can see that it's not anything underneath the ball trying to push it up it's everything at the side of the ball trying to crush it up against the mass of water from the middle of the ball upwards crushing down and winning based on the amount of water.

Quote from: Themightykabool

fluid pressure can only PUSH.
can we agree on that?

As long as you understand that push is actually crush and not a direct push from beneath the entire ball.
It's important to understand this because this is the whole point of layering and stacking.

Quote from: Themightykabool

for visualizing - the darker the blue, the MORE push.

The darker the blue the more dense and the more crush.

Water isnt an analogy.
Bouancy is a prpoerty all fluids show.

A 100000ton ocean liner is pushed up by the higher pressure below.

The push from the crushing(DPism) is mostfrom bottom towards top.

The only dirdction is up.

You "being careful" is becauee you know there is only one direction possible.

Unless instead of defelctin, you can care to answer how fluids know direction.

I thought you had some interest for a second. Silly me.
Never mind.

Oh i have interwst

My interest is how you chose to answer

You refuse to answer

Dodgy mcodgeroonyface dodges another undodgy question with a dodgy deflec-dodge

Your major issue is in how you deal with stuff.
You just can't help yourself and have to try and be a clever skitty git and this is why you never get anywhere, which is a shame because you actually do seem to be asking good questions at first and then you sort of feel a bit intimidated by those who are hell-bent on ensuring nothing is explained, so you go into the same mode.

One step forward and 2 back is your way and has been for long enough.

Man up.

If you tank a tank of helium at 15 psi and a tank the same size of “heavier more dense diatomic oxygen” at 10 psi.  Connect the two tanks with a pipe and a valve.  Open the valve, the helium at 15 psi will flow to the tank of oxygen at 10 PSI.  Then the pressures will equalize to some new pressure.

In den pressure, why isn’t the tank of lower pressure O2 not keeping the higher pressure lower density helium from flowing out of its tank.

It is.

Like den pressure delusion’s claim the higher pressure of the lower atmosphere is not flowing up and equalizing with the lower pressure of the upper atmosphere.

No, because its layered naturally not containerised.

You choose to never pay any attention and this is why you're always back to square one.

No, because it’s layered naturally not containerised.

It takes a force to cause atmosphere to press up in pressure and be pressurized.  To bunch up gas molecules in a space they want to dissipate from.  And it takes a force to keep the lower atmosphere with more stored energy and pressure from equalizing up with the less pressure and less energy of the upper atmosphere.  “To keep it constrain.”

And it’s not explained by “density”.
 
I can take a small lead bullet, say 22 cal, and set it in any number of ways on an empty soda can.  The bullet by just sitting on the sofa can has no ability to do work on the soda can. Add energy and motion to the bullet with gun power and let it shoot into the soda can, the bullet will do work on the soda can.  Deforming the can to the point its structure is deformed and the wall’s pierced. 

Density is not a force.  You have failed to demonstrate how density is a force.  How density can be a force to make work.  It takes adding a force to make density to do work.  Like the lead bullet example.

There is no force in your den pressure delusion to “constrain” the more pressure and energy of lower atmosphere to overcome gas molecules tendency to dissipate and equalize with lower pressure of the upper atmosphere. It is explained by an atmosphere in near equilibrium with gravity.

You choose to never pay any attention and this is why you're always back to square one.

Me?


How about you stop ignoring the points of this post.

No, not at all. Haven't you been taking any notice of what I said?

Because den pressure delusion fails to model the real world.

What was you reply to the below?

Of course it is.
The atmosphere has to have a foundation to enable it to stack as the atmosphere we know.
The forces we know of come directly from Earth's cell.

Hmm.

Seems your delusion is betrayed by weather once again.



The atmosphere is moving a lower set of clouds westwards.  The atmosphere moving upper clouds eastward.

No indication the atmosphere is moving clouds down. 

If atmosphere makes things fall, why are the clouds driven at right angles of falling instead of falling? 


How are the two different altitudes of clouds moving in opposite directions parallel with the foundation of your delusion.

What is the equal and opposite reaction for any clouds moving parallel to your delusional foundation?  And how would such atmospheric conditions work with your false assurances concerning tides? 

It works by atmospheric pressure push.
A pressure build and a pressure drop over the course of half a day and again the next half.

It seems tides are impacted by the mass of the moon.  With no observable pattern by atmosphere.  Are your claims concerning tides from actual observations and weather patterns. Or just empty opinion and assurances by you.


Back to the Mississippi River.

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?

What is the equal and opposite reaction of the flow of the Mississippi River in den pressure delusion.  Where the only driving force in your delusion is “atmosphere”. 

And the Mississippi River is flowing more in parallel with “foundation” than falling to foundation.  So what is the equal and opposite reaction for your delusional den pressure driven River?

It seems the flow of the Mississippi River is better explain by potential gravitational energy converted to kinetic energy. With no observable pattern by fickle atmosphere to drive the flow of the Mississippi River.  just empty opinion and assurances by you not based on actual observation.

You choose to never pay any attention and this is why you're always back to square one.

I’m never back at square one.


It comes down to the old example.

I can’t density a ball straight up into the atmosphere.

I can throw a ball straight up into the air.  (By the way.  What is the den pressure delusion equal and opposite reaction for pitching a ball.  When I used to pitch in little league, I had the most power and accuracy by pitching the ball and following through.  By completely having my arm follow the release of the ball.  I didn’t release the ball about shoulder level then have my arm move backwards behind me form recoil.  I think your understanding of “equal and opposite” is flawed in not understanding different forces and how they balance.)

I can use the stored energy of gun power or compressed air and shoot the ball straight up.  The expanding gases imparting kinetic energy on the ball then equalizing with the atmosphere.


Back to throwing the ball straight up.  I can feel the strain of gravity on my arm. With the right equipment, it can even be measured through simulating.

I can throw a baseball.  I can’t throw up 200 pounds of lead nor 200 pound of les dense styrofoam.

The ball needs a force to move it. 

Then the ball slows down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.


Then the ball doesn’t just stop.  It stops, is at rest for a moment, then the direction of travel changes 180 degrees, then it accelerates back to earth.


It can’t be the “Density” of the atmosphere.  Density isn’t a force. The atmosphere is the resistance.  Not the force making the ball accelerate back to earth.


It’s not “pressure”.  The upper atmosphere of lower pressure can’t pressure the ball against higher pressure below it to convey it down.

Gravity is the force that slows the ball down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance. 

Gravity is the force that gets the ball to change direction of travel by 180 degrees to fall back to earth.

Gravity is the force that makes the ball accelerate back to earth despite air resistance. And accelerate into increasing resistance and pressure from an area with less pressure and stored energy. 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on April 27, 2023, 06:17:37 AM

In your zero gravity earth delusion, a less pressure gas can act like a barrier, and stop the more pressured gas from equalizing between two gas bottles connected by a tube?

No, not at all. Haven't you been taking any notice of what I said?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

Your delusion is stupid.
And not reflected in Hooke’s Law, Gas laws, Bernoulli's principle, Newton physics, principles of hydraulics.  All which create useable and accurate modeling and engineering that your den-pressure can’t even approach.

And yet I'm still waiting for you to simply explain how it works due to this gravity you stand by.
I would like you to simply explain it without copying and pasting something.

If you can't do this then you have no argument.

Two balls one mad of glass one of wood droop in water one sinks the other floats how does den-pressure tell the difference. the size of the balls are the same!

There is always pressure below the centre of the object that crushes against that object.
The very bottom of the object is simply sitting on layers.

You need to pay close attention to what's being said.

I am paying close attention, which is why I can see you trying to flee from reality.

The bottom is not simply sitting on layers. The pressure below is pushing up.

And even now you are still trying to play games focusing on just a tiny part rather than the entire bottom.

The simple fact is there is pressure below pushing up.

No it wouldn't if you pay attention.

It would if you pay attention.
If there is no pressure up from below, then you do not have a push up from below to cause the balloon to rise.

This means you have 2 choices:
1 - Accept there is pressure below pushing up.
2 - Claim there is no way from the helium balloon to rise as there is nothing pushing up from below.

Hiding it as "crushing it up" is just fleeing from the issue.

There isn't one except the problem you're making for yourself in not understanding it.

There quite clearly is one, as demonstrated above.

There is no magic.

There most certainly is.
This can be seen by replacing the object with something like a boat with a hole in it.
We see the water flowing in through the hole. We see that something is pushing the water up.
Likewise, with a balloon we see something pushing it up.

So quite clearly the water normally pushes up from below.
Yet here you are claiming it doesn't happen.

So yes, there is magic, pure magic.
That is what your fantasy relies upon.

It's foundation layering and that foundation layering depends on what is being pushed against it in terms of dense mass of any object.

i.e. in terms of gravity attracting the mass to Earth.
If it was due to the pressure of the water, or air and so on, then the mass would be entirely irrelevant.
It would not matter if the object was more or less dense than the fluid, the same result would be observed.

Without a force like gravity you have no explanation for why a more dense mass should go down and a less dense mass should go up.

All my points come from a dismissal of a spinning global Earth and all the absolute gunk

And notice the key word there?
DISMISSAL!
It doesn't come from evidence, it doesn't come from rational thought.
Instead it comes from you dismissing reality because you don't like it.

Conversely, counter points to it come from rational thought and evidence. Two things your nonsense severely lacks.

Your biggest hurdle is the two brothers who will attempt to ridicule you to force you to weaken.

No, the biggest hurdle is your delusional nonsense not working at all.

It requires you to question and also requires you to still question one specific to allow you to move on to another.

Yes, your typical dishonest BS of trying to come up with an excuse for how something would work in your delusional fantasy, completely devoid of thinking about all other aspects; so you can pretend to have an answer while you have just ended up with a pile of contradictory nonsense.

Honest, rational people will not just consider things in isolation.
Instead they will consider them in association with other things to try to build a coherent model.

This is not to skew things, it is to demonstrate the problems with your model and highlight that you can't just have the air do everything.

If you need to directly contradict yourself to pretend your model works, and ignore that contradiction; then your model doesn't work.

One step forward and 2 back is your way and has been for long enough.

Yes, one step forward to demonstrate we understand, and "2 steps back" when we demonstrate your model doesn't work.
Demonstrating your model doesn't work is not 2 steps back to understanding reality. It is demonstrating a fault with your model. YOU then need to take steps forwards to either admit your model doesn't work, or to explain the problem.

You choose to never pay any attention and this is why you're always back to square one.

Let’s think in terms of reality.

And use this example.

g-force



This top-fuel dragster can accelerate from zero to 160 kilometres per hour (99 mph) in 0.86 seconds. This is a horizontal acceleration of 5.3 g. Combining this with the vertical g-force in the stationary case using the Pythagorean theorem yields a g-force of 5.4 g.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force

In other words.  For something to have weight it must be “constrained” in someway under a force of acceleration.

In den pressure delusion there is no force of acceleration to give weight or “constraine” your “layers”.

The psia at 10,000 feet is 10.12
The psis 9,000 feet is 10.52
https://www.nwflowtech.com/media/0y0aizb3/nwft-barometric-pressure-vs-altitude-table-122120-v2.pdf

There is no force, and no downward force in den pressure delusion.  There is nothing to keep atmospheric pressure of 10.52 psia at 9,000 feet from venting/equalizing to the pressure of 10.12 psia.  And so on

There is nothing in den pressure delusion to “constrain” the atmosphere so it should be a near uniform low pressures.

For the pressure to be greater at 9,000 feet than 10,000 feet, the atmosphere must be “constrained” in some way for it to have pressure. That is the downward acceleration due to earth’s gravity  giving weight to the atmosphere.

What you’re doing sceptimatic is rebranding gravity from earth’s mass as “foundation”, and then acting like gravity doesn’t exist.

Why in den pressure delusion isn’t “foundation” the dome? 

Or why doesn’t the imaginary dome in your delusion act like a giant pressure bottle where the trapped gases of the atmosphere would drive towards uniform density and pressure?