Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

You'll never experience anything

Or there is nothing to experience? 

Pay attention.

Back to the hose example and equilibrium.

The hose is sitting there.  Hook it up to the water faucet,  turn on the water.  The hose initially expands until the water pressure reaches equilibrium with the elasticity of the rubber of the hose.  If it didn’t, the hose would never stop expanding. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2023, 05:07:52 AM

Pay attention.

Back to the hose example and equilibrium.

The hose is sitting there.  Hook it up to the water faucet,  turn on the water.  The hose initially expands until the water pressure reaches equilibrium with the elasticity of the rubber of the hose.  If it didn’t, the hose would never stop expanding.

There's never an equilibrium.

you said there's always equilibrium
reaction-action
crush on resistive crush

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on July 26, 2023, 08:37:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2023, 05:07:52 AM

Pay attention.

Back to the hose example and equilibrium.

The hose is sitting there.  Hook it up to the water faucet,  turn on the water.  The hose initially expands until the water pressure reaches equilibrium with the elasticity of the rubber of the hose.  If it didn’t, the hose would never stop expanding.

There's never an equilibrium.

Then way does the hose only expand so much by water pressure then stops? If it didn’t reach an equilibrium it would continue to expand.

I guess you could use a balloon too.  Why does a few breaths partially fill a balloon, and many breaths make it bigger. What causes the balloon to stop expanding?  If it never reached equilibrium, one breath would cause it to continue to expand and burst. 

There's never an equilibrium.

Then way does a relatively light weight compress a vertical spring a little bit and stop?  But adding a little more weight makes the spring compress a little more then stop? 

As per globe Earth scientific measurements?
You mean as per indoctrinated schooling that you followed and believed and basically followed the patterns schooled into you to gain what you already believed.

No, as per measurements.
You not liking reality doesn't make it indoctrination.

The idea of this is you can look at the model and test it, and see how well it matches reality.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

As for other physical experiments do with Earth shape, I've done the usual. I've watched hundreds of ships and boats disappear over the horizon bottom first.

No, you haven't.

And there you go with wilful rejection of reality.
Plenty of people have watched this, confirming the shape of Earth, rather than merely beleiving what they are told.
Your pathetic lies do not chanege that.

You put far too little emphasis on atmosphere creating a block

Because that would produce a fundamentally different result.

If the atmosphere was blocking the view then the bottom would fade to a blur. The object would not appear to sink as it is routinely observed to.

You put far too much emphasis on doing whatever you can to pretend Earth is flat, to pretend an explanation works, while ignoring major aspects of it.
Like here, where you put far too much emphasis on the bottom disappearing and entirely ignore how it disappears.

If you were honest, and put your mind to it, you would realise that it isn't just the bottom being blocked from view by the atmosphere, instead it is the object appearing to sink and being obstructed from view by Earth.

But sure, keep spouting your pathetic lies to show just how dishonest you are.

Likewise, this would NOT create a horizon line. It would create a blur.
To get an idea of what would happen, just look on a foggy day.

This also means your crap about the sun is wrong as well.
Especially as the change in atmospheric density is quite small at the height scales required.

Nothing works because you've been handed one thing on a plate that's had so much shoehorning to make it appear to be what you're told you actually see.

No.
Nothing works, because the FE model doesn't work to describe reality.
It cannot explain so many things it isn't funny.

The RE model actually working, and being supported by countless people who have worked on it is not a problem with the RE model, nor does it make a FE model any more realistic.

You don't seem to pay any real attention to any possibility of alternates

And more BS.
The issue is just how possible they are.
Paying attention the possibility of alternatives doesn't mean just blinding accepting whatever delusional BS some nutter comes up with.
It means actually thinking about it and seeing how it would work.

Take your delusional BS for example.
We can consider it. Quite easily in fact.
You claim the air pushes things down.
However, the way air works is quite well established. You even admitted it.
Air pushes from high pressure to low pressure.

And the pressure gradient of the atmosphere is a quite well established fact as well.
The pressure is greater the lower down you are.
This includes around an object.
This means the air (or any fluid in fact) will push an object UPWARDS. Not downwards.
This means your model fails.
Us accepting this FACT does not mean we don't consider alternatives.
What it means is that we don't accept delusional BS which doesn't work.
And that is because we aren't desperate to reject reality at all costs like you.

It does change size based on atmospheric conditions

The change in size of the sun and moon over a 24 hour period is negligible.
What will change dramatically is the glare from the sun, but not the sun itself.
And the math is trivial to find out how much it should be changing size for a FE.

It's utter gunk to be fair, in my opinion, but you're more than welcome to follow the schooling.

And your opinion is entirely worthless as it is just wilful rejection of reality.
You cannot demonstrate any fault.
You cannot provide any evidence to refute it.
You cannot provide a viable alternative, nor can you provide evidence to support your delusional BS either.

You can't even commit enough to provide an experiment which would be able to distinguish between your delusional BS and the mainstream model, because you know if you do, your BS fails.

I mean anyone can make any model if they have all the instructions at hand.

And the question is if that model actually matches reality.

The RE model does. Your delusional nonsense doesn't.

I'd say the feeling secure comes from your side.

And just like so many things, you are full of shit.

The feeling comes from FEers, and other similar people desperate to reject reality.
They can't handle the universe being massive, and Earth being an entirely insignificant point in the vast cosmos.
They much prefer to think of Earth being the vast majority of the universe, with everything else being tiny in comparison.
This is also what leads so many people to cling to a god, so they can think the universe was made for them (or humanity in general), as well as several other things.

That is the safety blanket.

Accepting what all the evidence demonstrates is not a safety blanket. That is called being rational.

People still need to think to defend the RE and refute the FE.
Otherwise, we would just be saying you are wrong, without providing any explanation of why.

But we do provide an explanation of why, demonstrating we are thinking.
As above, by thinking about your claims, we recognise what air pressure should be doing and can explain what should occur in your fantasy, and explain how that doesn't match reality.

Us explaining why you are wrong, does NOT mean we are just blindly accepting schooling without thinking.
That is just more dishonesty from you, tying into your safety blanket.
Where anyone who doesn't agree with you is dismissed as an indoctrinated fool that can't think for themselves.
That way you can ignore anything you want, regardless of how wrong you are and how clearly the thing you are ignoring demonstrates that.

The only people being fooled are those like yourself who are fooled into thinking Earth is a spinning globe.

So is "fooled" and "think" and "fiction" other words you are lying about the meaning of?

All the available evidence demonstrates beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round, and rotating.
It is not foolish to accept this evidence.

Or an extra layer.
Put your thinking cap on.

Try putting yours on.

Heavy water behaves in almost all ways just like normal water.
The main distinction is a different density and a different reduced mass giving different IR absorptions, a different response to magnetic fields for things like NMR, and a kinetic isotope effects.

Why isn't it a fundamentally different species, like the difference between water and ammonia, or water and HF?

The force is the sled itself displacing the atmosphere by its entire dense mass minus its natural volume of atmospheric layers.

And that displacement results in an upwards force due to the greater below the sled; which should make it naturally fly up into the air.

I explained this before but as I knew, you took no notice because you do not have the ability to think.
All you can do is just wilfully reject reality and ignore all the problems with your delusional BS.

I do and this is where I'm at with you two brothers. Neither of you is capable of understanding anything unless it's at your fingertips.

No, you don't.
You continually lie, insult people, deflect, refuse to think and so on.

So much of what you accuse us of, actually applies to you.

I am capable of understanding. Quite well. Which is why at times I have explained why people were wrong with their objections to your delusional BS.
But because you can't defend your delusional BS against rational enquiry, you need to insult those who object to it and question it.
Where instead of even attempting to address the faults, you just accuse of us not being able to understand.

Just what part do you think I am not capable of understanding?
Note: pointing out that your model doesn't work does not mean I don't understand.

Again, if it is all push, and it all the air, then objects should be pushed upwards by the pressure gradient, and the mass and density of the object should be entirely irrelevant.
This is what understanding actually means.
It means I understand that when you put an object in air (or it is already in there), it will displace some amount of air and the air will apply a force on the object.
As the air is free to flow around the object it will do so, and we end up with the air pressure being greater below (which you still can't explain what magic causes this) and pushing the object up.
This should apply regardless of if it is a helium filled balloon or a lead sphere.

If instead it works like magic where the layers are magically held together, then pushing an object up to compress the air and have it spring back down should work the same for both a lead sphere or a helium filled balloon.

Even ignoring those massive problems with your delusional BS, we can consider other things.
If increasing the amount of air displaced will increase the downwards force then an airtight container should weight more as air is pumped out (i.e. so it displaces more air), but instead it weighs less.
Likewise, if you take a weather balloon (initially empty) and a tank of helium, it should remain on the ground, even if you inflate the balloon, as the same amount of air is displaced in your model where mass magically equates to the air displaced; and more air is displaced it should be pushed down more if we accept the reality of air displacement.

53 pages and still not a single experiment suggested that could support denpressure over gravity.
Still zero attempt to explain why down, why that direction.  Not that the air is somehow "stacked" instead of just using common terms like gradient.  No attempt to explain why the gradient exists. 
See kids, drugs are bad.

you said there's always equilibrium
reaction-action
crush on resistive crush

No I didn't. I said there can never be equilibrium.

Action and equal and opposite reaction to that action does not offer equilibrium. It offers an equal reaction to any action, directly and indirectly.
Crush on crush or resistance against resistance is the same thing in terms of equal reaction to action.

No equilibrium.

Then way does the hose only expand so much by water pressure then stops? If it didn’t reach an equilibrium it would continue to expand.

You know any material will always be expanding and contracting, at all times. It doesn't matter how much or how little, what matters is, they do.
This means they are always in a phase of action and reaction. Always movement of expansion and equal contraction to follow.

I guess you could use a balloon too.  Why does a few breaths partially fill a balloon, and many breaths make it bigger. What causes the balloon to stop expanding?
 If it never reached equilibrium, one breath would cause it to continue to expand and burst.

This is the same as above.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2023, 10:20:56 AM

There's never an equilibrium.

Then way does a relatively light weight compress a vertical spring a little bit and stop?  But adding a little more weight makes the spring compress a little more then stop?

They never stop. There's always stress. Always a variation in expansion and contraction at all times.
As above.

If the atmosphere was blocking the view then the bottom would fade to a blur. The object would not appear to sink as it is routinely observed to.

The atmosphere doesn't block all the view, it shuts out the light back to the eye due to the reverse telescope image, meaning it offers a vanishing point to a pinpoint view or a horizon (theoretical) line to a wider-eyed view.

This is because light from above gets back to the eye and light below does not because it's canceled out.
This is why ships disappear from the bottom up because the light back to the eye diminishes below first then above later as the ship moves away creating less light back to the viewer.


It gives the perception of sinking but reversing that view by using a telescope offers more light from the wider view to the wider lens back to the smaller lens against the eye brining the ship or object back into view.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2023, 04:52:38 AM

The only people being fooled are those like yourself who are fooled into thinking Earth is a spinning globe.

So is "fooled" and "think" and "fiction" other words you are lying about the meaning of?

No. They explain a lot.

All the available evidence demonstrates beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round, and rotating.
It is not foolish to accept this evidence.

There is no genuine evidence that demonstrates Earth is supposedly a spinning globe.
It's far from foolish to accept this when you're a child at school who has been severely indoctrinated into that mindset and also further indoctrinated by the parents who themselves stayed with that mindset.
It becomes foolish when you actually take the time to realise it's a big old fictional storytelling by actually taking the time to question.

You have no intention of doing that and you're not alone.
It's like religion. It doesn't matter if there's no proof, it comes down to mass acceptance of a story and the mindset of each person to hold it dear so as not to be swerved from it.

Heavy water behaves in almost all ways just like normal water.
The main distinction is a different density

I do keep trying to explain but it just flies overhead.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2023, 04:58:25 AM

The force is the sled itself displacing the atmosphere by its entire dense mass minus its natural volume of atmospheric layers.

And that displacement results in an upwards force due to the greater below the sled; which should make it naturally fly up into the air.

What is below the sled is offering nothing other than resistance.
Anything above up to halfway is offering a crush/push.
Anything halfway upwards offers above displacement and that displacement is more compression by the dense mass of that sled, minus the natural sled volume.
This means the sled is rushed down by its own dense mass displacement of atmosphere which overcomes the resistance of the atmosphere below in the layers.


You'll never understand it because you refuse to.

53 pages and still not a single experiment suggested that could support denpressure over gravity.
Still zero attempt to explain why down, why that direction.  Not that the air is somehow "stacked" instead of just using common terms like gradient.  No attempt to explain why the gradient exists. 
See kids, drugs are bad.

When you fail to understand because you're too arrogant to want to then you end up typing stuff like this regularly.

You're not alone so don't fret.

You know any material will always be expanding and contracting, at all times.

Which doesn’t answer.

Why the hose doesn’t keep expanding past a certain point.

It doesn’t explain why a few breaths of air fills a balloon to certain size, then it stops expanding.  Then a few more breaths makes the balloon expand a bit more then stops at its new size.

It doesn’t explain why a little weight compresses a spring a bit then stops.  Then a bit more weight compressed the spring more then it stops compressing.

The hose and balloon reach equilibrium with pressure. 

The spring pushing up reaches equilibrium with the force of gravity pulling down.

If there wasn’t equilibrium, the hose and balloon would never stop expanding outward.

Equilibrium doesn’t mean static or zero force.  It just means balanced or in the case of forces they add up to a net value of zero.


For the flow of the hose example.  If the flow going in didn’t equal the flow going out.  As in the flow going out was less than the flow going in, the hose would have to accumulate mass over time.  If the hose isn’t ballooning up, it’s not retaining the mass of the water. The water leaving the hose is balanced or in equilibrium with the water entering the hose.  The value of the water leaving the hose is equal to the amount entering the hose.  The going ins is in equilibrium with the going outs. 


Or take this balancing act.




As long as it sits on a countertop barring any natural disasters.  Or someone goes to drink it. The “system” despite temperature changes and turning on the ceiling fan is going to sit there day in and day out in balanced equilibrium.  Doesn’t mean the system is static, just means forces will balance out so the net value is zero.  The holder and the bottle stay balanced with net zero forces as conditions change.

No. They explain a lot.

Then if there are no forces of attraction, what fuels things to squeeze against each other. 

Why would a magnet work if there is zero absolutely no forces of attraction in your delusion.


If there is no force of attraction, what fuels the “atmosphere to squeeze”? 

The atmosphere doesn't block all the view, it shuts out the light back to the eye due to the reverse telescope image, meaning it offers a vanishing point to a pinpoint view or a horizon (theoretical) line to a wider-eyed view.

No, that is magic, not the atmosphere blocking the view.

In order to have it appear to sink, you need something to cause it to appear lower than perspective alone.
If the atmosphere "shut out the light back to the eye" it would simply mean you don't get light from that region.

So objects would still disappear from the bottom up, but they wouldn't appear to sink into Earth and have Earth appear to obstruct the view.

So yet again, you don't bother considering what your claim would actually mean.
You just look for whatever excuse you can to pretend it should work on a FE.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 26, 2023, 03:06:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2023, 04:52:38 AM

The only people being fooled are those like yourself who are fooled into thinking Earth is a spinning globe.

So is "fooled" and "think" and "fiction" other words you are lying about the meaning of?

No. They explain a lot.

So you are just lying about people being fooled into a globe.
It isn't being fooled if you are accepting reality, especially not if it is based upon evidence.

There is no genuine evidence that demonstrates Earth is supposedly a spinning globe.

You mean there is no evidence you will accept. As you will simply reject any evidence that shows your fantasy is wrong, or lie and pretend that it would still be caused by your fantasy.

You not liking it doesn't mean it isn't genuiene.

It becomes foolish when you actually take the time to realise it's a big old fictional storytelling by actually taking the time to question.

No, it becomes foolish when you think that because you are desperate to reject reality.
It becomes foolish when you cannot demonstrate any fault with it or show why the evidence is wrong and refuse to obtain your own evidence and resort to lies to dismiss all the evidence as fake without any sane justification.
It becomes foolish to try to replace it with pure nonsense which you have no justification for at all, and which is refuted by even a modest amount of thought.

You have no intention of doing that and you're not alone.

I do question, but that doesn't mean rejecting it.
I can question, investigate, realise the RE model works, matches observations and is supported by evidence, and continue to accept it.

It's like religion. It doesn't matter if there's no proof

That would be your fantasy, not the RE.
There are mountains of evidence for the RE. But there is none for your fantasy.
When people start to question it, you just insult them.

I do keep trying to explain but it just flies overhead.

No, you don't.
You deflect from explanation, at best trying to focus on a tiny little bit to hide the rest which destroys that explanation.

What is below the sled is offering nothing other than resistance.

WHY?
What magic causes the greater pressure below to only offer a resistance, while the pressure above magically pushes down?

The pressure below is GREATER!
This means it should be pushing up.
And even if you magically stop it, that resistance is greater than the force above pushing down, so it still shouldn't go down.

But more importantly, why should this magically switch as soon as you go to something like a helium filled balloon; so then, all of a sudden as if by pure magic, it magically switches so the air below is now pushing up?

Anything halfway upwards offers above displacement and that displacement is more compression by the dense mass of that sled, minus the natural sled volume.

Again, why the magic?
Why doesn't below halfway offer displacement?

Your fantasy relies upon so much pure magic it isn't funny.

The entire sled displaces the atmosphere. This includes bother below and above the halfway point.
The atmosphere all around pushes in towards the sled.
And the pressure below is greater.
That means the atmosphere pushes the sled up.

You need something else to make it go down.

You'll never understand it because you refuse to.

No, I will continue to point out why it is pure BS, because you keep avoiding the issue and trying to appeal to gravity implicitly by appealing to the mass of the object as if it is trying to go down.

In order for me to "understand" by which you really mean accept, I would either need to not think about it at all and just act like an indoctrinated fool. Or you would need to explain the magic, explain why the air below, which is at a greater pressure, magically doesn't push up; you would need to explain why the air above, being a lower pressure than the air below, magically pushes through this higher pressure air below to push the object down; you would need to explain why this magically reverses for a helium filled balloon; and then you need to explain why this doesn't work for wind or otherwise compressing air such as in a half open tube where the object creates a seal, i.e. why doesn't wind such dense objects into it and blow away low density objects? After all, the wind works by the pressure gradient.

Again, actually honestly thinking about it results in a trivial result.
The air pressure is greater below, so it pushes up.
And this happens regardless of what object is there.
You need to explain why this understanding is wrong, even though it is backed up by mountains of evidence and mountains of experiments.

And that doesn't mean just baselessly asserting what amounts to pure magic like the air below magically doesn't push for no reason at all.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on July 26, 2023, 02:29:14 AM

Does anybody else despise long posts as much as I do? This is one of those posts. Sceptimatic, I have done my own earth shape experiments.
I had a nice Earth and moon scale model I had made, using an Earth globe and a ping pong ball. It was set up across my verandah and was perfectly to scale, size and distance wise, as per globe earth scientific measurements.

As per globe Earth scientific measurements?
You mean as per indoctrinated schooling that you followed and believed and basically followed the patterns schooled into you to gain what you already believed.
That's simply regurgitation and re-enactment of models already implanted for you.
Physically you know nothing of Earth in terms of shape but hypothetically you believe you do.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

The beauty of it all being to scale, is I could bring my eye to close to the side of the Earth closest to the moon model and look at the moon, and confirm the moon looks the same size as it does when viewing the moon at night, in real life.

As above.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

I also had a smaller Earth and moon model setup, to scale, ofcourse, showing the elliptical orbit of the moon with perigee and apogee. It worked quite well. I was going to add in the sun, but it starts to get tricky.

As above, once again.

 

Quote from: Smoke Machine

As for other physical experiments do with Earth shape, I've done the usual. I've watched hundreds of ships and boats disappear over the horizon bottom first.

No, you haven't. You believe you have because that's what you were schooled into.
You put far too little emphasis on atmosphere creating a block out over distance due to light not being able to get back to your eyes, so losing light bottom first then top last as you would expect as the sea and sky hypothetically merge to create your hypothetical horizon line.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

I've layed flat on the sand facing East and watched the first glimmer of the sun's rays as they peaked over the horizon at sunrise, then jumped up, and ran up the steps of a steep cliffside, and watched the sunrise all over again from the very first glimmer of rays. You can't do that on a flat Earth, pal.

Yep you would expect this to happen because, as I said in the quote just above this, you lose light bottom first before the top of your eye. Consider the shape of your eye and you'll get why.
So seeing the light fade as the sun moves over and away from you and then getting up higher and looking pinpoint direct, you will bring back the light to the bottom of your eye much more depending on the height.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

I've tried to make a flat Earth model  but there's nowhere to start when it comes to scale. Just, nothing works. It can't be done. Even a sun and moon hovering over a white plate, doesn't work, because some days when you look up in the daytime sky, you can see where the sun is, and not far away, you can see where the moon is, with the sun lighting up one side of the moon, just like a sun lights up one side of a ball.

Nothing works because you've been handed one thing on a plate that's had so much shoehorning to make it appear to be what you're told you actually see.
You don't seem to pay any real attention to any possibility of alternates, you just pretend you have.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

I've also observed the setting sun, and the way the size of the sun does not change as it approaches the Western horizon, just as I'd expect if earth were a globe.

It does change size based on atmospheric conditions and the movement of the reflection to any person at specific spots.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

At those times, I've become aware the sun was not setting at all, but Earth's Western horizon was moving up as I was going backwards, as if standing on a giant beach ball rolling me backwards.

You became aware that your schooling kicked in and your belief of a globe and distant sun some 93 million miles away and a few million miles in circumference in a vacuum was being seen to appear or disappear from your view based on whether your belief was you standing on a spinning ball taking you backwards away from it or forward towards it to create what you're told are your sunsets and sunrises, respectively.

It's utter gunk to be fair, in my opinion, but you're more than welcome to follow the schooling.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

It's all relative, and to us here on Earth, the Sun is stationary, and it is Earth doing all the moving.

Or the sun is a moving reflection with its energy base in the centre of Earth. Obviously not to you and your schooling.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

Ofcourse, I made a scale model to demonstrate that, as well.

Of course. I mean anyone can make any model if they have all the instructions at hand. And you are in abundance of instructions.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

You can call my words gunk as much as you like, it doesn't change the fact you admit denpressure equals atmospheric pressure, and when you remove any atmospheric pressure around an object and test it, like in a vacuum chamber or extraction chamber, another force still brings that object towards the ground. Denpressure can't be the cause of it.

It doesn't change the fact that you have absolutely no clue about denpressure and are trying to offer up anything to make out you know something. It's as clear as anything you have no clue.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

I've done my own homework and tested things for myself. But, I can see the appeal flat earth may offer at face value, in the context of feeling secure.

I'd say the feeling secure comes from your side. Adherence to mass acceptance and opinion based on massive peer pressure and a comfort blanket of appealing to authority to appear to offer something backed entirely by that, against those who actually dare to think for themselves.

The comfort for you is knowing your homework is done for you and all you have to do is spew it out and not really have to think. This is why most of you never have a clue about other thoughts because you struggle to change your mindset to dare to brush the ready-prepared homework aside, knowing the marks you get for it offer you a leg up in your mind.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

I've been busier than a one legged man in an arse kicking competition, but when I'm less busy, I will flick the switch in my head and live my life for a week as a flat earther, as I said, and try hard to see why you love it so much.

You have no chance of flicking any switch in your head to look at anything alternate to your spinning globe and that is as clear as anything in this post of yours.

This will be my long reply to your long reply, Sceptimatic. As such, I will modify this post throughout the day instead of spending half an hour, again, only to post and lose the whole lot. Do not reply, until I say it's finished.

So, yes, I have all the instructions provided by science of the sizes and distances of the globe Earth, moon, and sun system, to build an accurate to-scale model of this system, and I have done so. (Doing it yourself, you get perspectives you just don't get from buying any such model from a shop, where size and scale are sacrificed)

So now it's your turn, Sceptimatic. Provide me with the instructions to make an accurate to-scale model of the flat Earth. You know your own model of the flat Earth, yeah? So, my request shouldn't be a problem for you. I have a large flat desk, so I'll start by laying a 2 metre by 2 metre piece of flat ply wood. This will form the surface of my flat Earth model and the base for the model. So hit me with the flat Earth shape, flat Earth size, flat Earth sin size, flat Earth moon size, flat Earth distances to each, and flat Earth dome or membrane ceiling height and shape. I await your flat Earth instructions, Sceptimatic, and I will build your flat Earth to-scale model, just for you.

In the meantime ( I won't be holding my breath waiting for your answers), let's use that ply wood and conduct a flat earth experiment...

What looking up some items.

Thought this was cool.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 27, 2023, 08:49:49 AM

No. They explain a lot.

Then if there are no forces of attraction, what fuels things to squeeze against each other.

Expansion. Decompression.

Why would a magnet work if there is zero absolutely no forces of attraction in your delusion.

As above.

If there is no force of attraction, what fuels the “atmosphere to squeeze”?

As above.

This will be my long reply to your long reply, Sceptimatic. As such, I will modify this post throughout the day instead of spending half an hour, again, only to post and lose the whole lot. Do not reply, until I say it's finished.

So, yes, I have all the instructions provided by science of the sizes and distances of the globe Earth, moon, and sun system, to build an accurate to-scale model of this system, and I have done so. (Doing it yourself, you get perspectives you just don't get from buying any such model from a shop, where size and scale are sacrificed)

So now it's your turn, Sceptimatic. Provide me with the instructions to make an accurate to-scale model of the flat Earth. You know your own model of the flat Earth, yeah? So, my request shouldn't be a problem for you. I have a large flat desk, so I'll start by laying a 2 metre by 2 metre piece of flat ply wood. This will form the surface of my flat Earth model and the base for the model. So hit me with the flat Earth shape, flat Earth size, flat Earth sin size, flat Earth moon size, flat Earth distances to each, and flat Earth dome or membrane ceiling height and shape. I await your flat Earth instructions, Sceptimatic, and I will build your flat Earth to-scale model, just for you.

In the meantime ( I won't be holding my breath waiting for your answers), let's use that ply wood and conduct a flat earth experiment...

I wouldn't hold your breath.
You're massively indoctrinated to such an extent that your own arrogance will never let you think alternately, so my advice is to just carry on as you do, playing pyschology games and pretending.

You're massively indoctrinated to such an extent that your own arrogance will never let you think alternately, so my advice is to just carry on as you do, playing pyschology games and pretending.

And there you go with more projection.
Again, not accepting your baseless BS which you refuse to explain does not mean we are indoctrinated.
Us accepting what the evidence supports does not mean we are indoctrinated.

Stop just insulting those who demonstrate your claims are wrong.

Again, if it is just air, and just push, the higher pressure air below pushes the object up, and the mass/density of the object doesn't matter at all.

To explain reality, you need a force proportional to mass.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on July 27, 2023, 03:37:19 PM

This will be my long reply to your long reply, Sceptimatic. As such, I will modify this post throughout the day instead of spending half an hour, again, only to post and lose the whole lot. Do not reply, until I say it's finished.

So, yes, I have all the instructions provided by science of the sizes and distances of the globe Earth, moon, and sun system, to build an accurate to-scale model of this system, and I have done so. (Doing it yourself, you get perspectives you just don't get from buying any such model from a shop, where size and scale are sacrificed)

So now it's your turn, Sceptimatic. Provide me with the instructions to make an accurate to-scale model of the flat Earth. You know your own model of the flat Earth, yeah? So, my request shouldn't be a problem for you. I have a large flat desk, so I'll start by laying a 2 metre by 2 metre piece of flat ply wood. This will form the surface of my flat Earth model and the base for the model. So hit me with the flat Earth shape, flat Earth size, flat Earth sin size, flat Earth moon size, flat Earth distances to each, and flat Earth dome or membrane ceiling height and shape. I await your flat Earth instructions, Sceptimatic, and I will build your flat Earth to-scale model, just for you.

In the meantime ( I won't be holding my breath waiting for your answers), let's use that ply wood and conduct a flat earth experiment...

I wouldn't hold your breath.
You're massively indoctrinated to such an extent that your own arrogance will never let you think alternately, so my advice is to just carry on as you do, playing pyschology games and pretending.

I know. I'd die from lack of oxygen. My reply was a lot lot longer, but the site wouldn't let me post it all. I think alternatively all the time, and despite my arrogance, I kept an open mind with flat earth for a period.

Don't you think it's strange you believe so strongly in the Earth being flat, but can't supply even one piece of flat earth size or distance, for me to begin work on my to-scale, flat earth model? I know what this tells me. What does it tell you? 

It tells me you have no idea about the physicality of the one thing you believe in so strongly. You haven't got the faintest idea. It's all just a mystery to you, isn't it?

There's no need to give me any advice. I'm not asking for any advice. This isn't a game, and I'm not pretending to be anything I'm not. I may be indoctrinated into the globe earth, or I may just be someone who asks questions and do my own experiments. Don't run away from my to-scale flat earth model challenge, and don't get angry - embrace it and ponder it. You think im indoctrinated and i think you're indoctrinated in the flat earth subculture.

Denpressure might work extremely well in the world of make believe, or a comic book, or a sci fi movie, or a flat earth conference promotional video, or at a Mark Sargent nudist colony camp, but not so well in the actual real world.

During that week I immerse myself in the flat earth subculture, if something truly unexpected happens, like I have a profound insight about our planet, or your subculture, or I win the lottery, or something else, I will promote the merits of flat earth. You have my word.

Expansion. Decompression.

What fuels this.  It takes a compressor with an external power source to work a machine to force gas molecules together to flow/press up in to a pressure tank. To “squeeze” the gas molecules into the tank.  Then if a valve is open on the pressurized tank, the pressure flows out from high pressure to low pressure.

What in the atmosphere fuels the gas molecules to overcome their tendency to dissipate and bunch up at sea level.

Why does it generate a pressure of about 14.7 psi at sea level.  Why not 5 psi.  Why not 20 psi.  I can compress atmosphere into a chamber for a pressure over 1000 psi.  I can evacuate atmosphere out of a chamber to a fraction of the earth’s atmospheric pressure. 

What fuels the ability of the atmosphere to “squeeze”.

Why the sea level pressure of 14.7 psi. 

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 26, 2023, 05:12:53 PM

53 pages and still not a single experiment suggested that could support denpressure over gravity.
Still zero attempt to explain why down, why that direction.  Not that the air is somehow "stacked" instead of just using common terms like gradient.  No attempt to explain why the gradient exists. 
See kids, drugs are bad.

When you fail to understand because you're too arrogant to want to then you end up typing stuff like this regularly.

You're not alone so don't fret.

So you agree, good.

Stop just insulting those who demonstrate your claims are wrong.

Maybe stop projecting.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 28, 2023, 05:15:27 AM

Stop just insulting those who demonstrate your claims are wrong.

Maybe stop projecting.

Maybe you should address your issues.

Gas molecules want to dissipate from one another.  What force overcomes this to bunch gas molecules at sea level.  And why does it generate a pressure of 14.7 psi at sea level.  Why not 5 psi?  Or why not 20 psi.  I can pressure up atmosphere to a pressure greater than 14.7 by using an air compressor.  I can evacuate atmosphere from a chamber to make pressure less than 14.7 psi.

Why does the atmosphere by all practical purposes have an equilibrium of 14.7 psi at sea level?  And that pressure reduces with altitude.  If den pressure delusion was true with no downward force of gravity.  No weight.  The atmosphere should be of uniform pressure.  There would be no pressure gradient in den pressure delusion. 

Maybe stop projecting.

Good advice, you should try following it some time. Just like your advice to think.

When you do, you can start by trying to explain how the low pressure air above magically pushes an object down against the higher pressure air below; in direct defiance to all known laws of gasses.

And still we have no attempt to provide an experiment that would support the denpressure model.