Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 05:05:16 AM

he force of W is what?

Please don't say weight, because weight is a human-made measurement of any dense mass displacement by use of a resistance foundation to that dense mass displacement of atmosphere.

What if it is weight.  How does a 10 pound foam block make a more dense steel spring in a vertical hanging spring scale elongate in accordance with Hooke’s law. 

And what you're offering is not gravity.
The force is resistance to dense mass objects in any way shape or form.
Weight is meaningless unless you use a scale to measure the resistance of any object against atmospheric decompression after the object has displaced its own dense mass of atmosphere minus the natural volume within.

What applied force makes your molecules act like springs.

The molecules themselves displacing other molecules.

  Where you can’t even prove that molecules change size with pressure.  With evidence to the contrary.

If all molecules stayed the same there would be no movement of anything. No life. Nothing.

Ok.

Say you have a tube with two halves separated by a membrane that has pore size just big enough to let air molecules pass freely through it at 14.7 psi, pressure at sea level.  Then a pump is attached to one end of the tube to evacuate atmosphere from one side of the membrane.

Something like this.



In your den pressure delusion of expanding molecules. At what pressure would the O2 molecules be too expanded to pass through the membrane.  Where there should be greater pressure on the left side of the membrane, less pressure on the right side / pump side of the membrane.  And there will always be a differential pressure across the membrane because the expanded molecules cannot pass.

First of all you should've paid better attention to how the molecules expand.
Remember when I told you about peeling?

Remember the gobstopper analogy?

Well, let's make this analogy a little bit easier to understand. (I'm guessing you'll turn this into me saying it's a reality but it's no surprise).
Imagine putting a balloon within a balloon, within a balloon until (just for instance) you had 100 balloons inside one.
Which one is the most expanded?

The last one holding the rest, right?
Now imagine those balloons inside one balloon being one of thousands of others all cramped into a room.


What if you could pop a few of those balloons in that room, You would lose/peel one, but imagine if the balloon didn't go bang but instead just peeled down the side against other balloons doing the same. Not only do you have smaller attached peeling layers but you also have a re-expansion of the rest of the layered balloons.

This is just the first explanation to see how much you grasp. My guess is absolutely nothing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 08, 2023, 05:44:03 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

 how a carburetor works with a vacuum and a Venturi to mix fuel with air, to the close loop of an AC unit that never generates helium.

Why should it generate helium?

Ever going to clarify how helium is made in your delusion, how it’s renewable, and why a closed system AC unit wouldn’t convert its refrigerant into helium in your delusion in a day or two.

Or what den pressure lab that would let one experience helium skin and a helium dome.

Again..


What is your claim about helium, how it’s made, and why you think it’s a renewable resource?

In your delusion, why wouldn’t a closed loop AC system dropping the entire mass of the refrigerant progressively over the course of a minute or two repeatedly across an expansion valve dropping pressure result in all the Freon being converted to helium in a day or two?

It's hard offering basics to you and your ready-at-hand books, so don't waste your time coming out with this stuff.
It doesn't make you smart.

The force is resistance to dense mass objects in any way shape or form.

Then how does less dense foam make a more dense steel spring stretch in accordance to Hooke’s law.



How does this relate to the scale?

It won't unless you push away the higher mass.

Why does a larger ping ping ball  accelerate at the same rate as a steel ball a quarter of its size.  How do they accelerate when dropped without a force like gravity to accelerate them.

Weight is meaningless unless you use a scale to measure the resistance of any object against atmospheric decompression after the object has displaced its own dense mass of atmosphere minus the natural volume within.

Meaningless word salad that doesn’t explain how a less dense foam block makes a more dense steel spring elongate where it takes a force in accordance with Hooke’s law. 

The molecules themselves displacing other molecules.

It takes a force to compress or elongate a spring.  It takes gravity to give weight to molecules. 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

  Where you can’t even prove that molecules change size with pressure.  With evidence to the contrary.

If all molecules stayed the same there would be no movement of anything. No life. Nothing.

Molecules are not a force, and lots of things accelerate without a change in density/size like a bullet from a gun.  Molecules don’t need to change size to be accelerated or moved by a force to act like little bullets or BB’s. 

What makes molecules want to over come their tendency to dissipate, accelerate down towards earth to bunch up at sea level.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 12, 2023, 05:54:21 AM

Ok.

Say you have a tube with two halves separated by a membrane that has pore size just big enough to let air molecules pass freely through it at 14.7 psi, pressure at sea level.  Then a pump is attached to one end of the tube to evacuate atmosphere from one side of the membrane.

Something like this.



In your den pressure delusion of expanding molecules. At what pressure would the O2 molecules be too expanded to pass through the membrane.  Where there should be greater pressure on the left side of the membrane, less pressure on the right side / pump side of the membrane.  And there will always be a differential pressure across the membrane because the expanded molecules cannot pass.

First of all you should've paid better attention to how the molecules expand.
Remember when I told you about peeling?

Remember the gobstopper analogy?

Well, let's make this analogy a little bit easier to understand. (I'm guessing you'll turn this into me saying it's a reality but it's no surprise).
Imagine putting a balloon within a balloon, within a balloon until (just for instance) you had 100 balloons inside one.
Which one is the most expanded?

The last one holding the rest, right?
Now imagine those balloons inside one balloon being one of thousands of others all cramped into a room.


What if you could pop a few of those balloons in that room, You would lose/peel one, but imagine if the balloon didn't go bang but instead just peeled down the side against other balloons doing the same. Not only do you have smaller attached peeling layers but you also have a re-expansion of the rest of the layered balloons.

This is just the first explanation to see how much you grasp. My guess is absolutely nothing.

Just more meaningless word salad that doesn’t answer the question.


At what pressure will the oxygen molecules expand to the point they can no longer pass through the pores of the membrane.  At what pressure will the oxygen molecules expand to the point the porous membrane acts like an air tight seal against the expanded molecules. 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 12, 2023, 06:03:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 08, 2023, 05:44:03 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

 how a carburetor works with a vacuum and a Venturi to mix fuel with air, to the close loop of an AC unit that never generates helium.

Why should it generate helium?

Ever going to clarify how helium is made in your delusion, how it’s renewable, and why a closed system AC unit wouldn’t convert its refrigerant into helium in your delusion in a day or two.

Or what den pressure lab that would let one experience helium skin and a helium dome.

Again..


What is your claim about helium, how it’s made, and why you think it’s a renewable resource?

In your delusion, why wouldn’t a closed loop AC system dropping the entire mass of the refrigerant progressively over the course of a minute or two repeatedly across an expansion valve dropping pressure result in all the Freon being converted to helium in a day or two?

It's hard offering basics to you and your ready-at-hand books, so don't waste your time coming out with this stuff.
It doesn't make you smart.

How is helium created and a renewable resource in your delusion.  Why can’t I turn an AC unit into a helium generator. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 07:54:33 AM

The force is resistance to dense mass objects in any way shape or form.

Then how does less dense foam make a more dense steel spring stretch in accordance to Hooke’s law.



How does this relate to the scale?

Explain what you mean with the foam.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 07, 2023, 08:14:34 AM

It won't unless you push away the higher mass.

Why does a larger ping ping ball  accelerate at the same rate as a steel ball a quarter of its size.  How do they accelerate when dropped without a force like gravity to accelerate them.

They don't fall at the same rate, they just appear to when the little con job is shown over short drops.
When it's shown in atmosphere the argument then comes to " yeah but the steel ball fell faster because the ping pong ball hit air resistance. Well, guess what? So did the steel ball but its dense mass displacement is far greater and its volume is far less.

And when we get shown a big supposed chamber that we are told is a vacuum and these feathers and balls are dropped, people like yourself shout out, "See, look what happens in a vacuum."
It's a little belief system you people have and I can't do anything about that other than let you get on with it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 07:54:33 AM

Weight is meaningless unless you use a scale to measure the resistance of any object against atmospheric decompression after the object has displaced its own dense mass of atmosphere minus the natural volume within.

Meaningless word salad that doesn’t explain how a less dense foam block makes a more dense steel spring elongate where it takes a force in accordance with Hooke’s law.

As above, explain. Give me an example of this and I'll answer it because I'm not sure what you're offering up.

 

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 07:54:33 AM

The molecules themselves displacing other molecules.

It takes a force to compress or elongate a spring.  It takes gravity to give weight to molecules.

It takes force to compress anything, whether it's a spring a beach ball or a tin can, etc. Or even a molecule.
It takes resistance to force or resistance to resistance or pushes on push to use a moving foundation to offer measurement on a human-made scale to give a weight reading to that effort and it all comes down to displacement.
 

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 07:54:33 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

  Where you can’t even prove that molecules change size with pressure.  With evidence to the contrary.

If all molecules stayed the same there would be no movement of anything. No life. Nothing.

Molecules are not a force, and lots of things accelerate without a change in density/size like a bullet from a gun.

Everything is a force because everything is a resistance to everything.
You can't accelerate anything unless you offer a resistance to something, meaning you can offer an expansion to create a compression to create an expansion and so on and so on, to move a denser object/projectile in the opposite direction.

Molecules don’t need to change size to be accelerated or moved by a force to act like little bullets or BB’s.

They have to change size by expansion as I explained with the balloons within balloons analogy. Or the gobstopper analogy.
Marry both and still be baffled as I know you will be.

 

What makes molecules want to over come their tendency to dissipate, accelerate down towards earth to bunch up at sea level.

Themselves. The balloons within the balloons or the gobstopper layering.
More layers at the ground against a denser mass resistance to the lesser layering of molecules above and lesser above and so on and so on. All less dense layering.

It's been explained but taken no notice of which makes me wonder why. Maybe you just like to type the same thing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 08:09:19 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 12, 2023, 06:03:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 08, 2023, 05:44:03 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

 how a carburetor works with a vacuum and a Venturi to mix fuel with air, to the close loop of an AC unit that never generates helium.

Why should it generate helium?

Ever going to clarify how helium is made in your delusion, how it’s renewable, and why a closed system AC unit wouldn’t convert its refrigerant into helium in your delusion in a day or two.

Or what den pressure lab that would let one experience helium skin and a helium dome.

Again..


What is your claim about helium, how it’s made, and why you think it’s a renewable resource?

In your delusion, why wouldn’t a closed loop AC system dropping the entire mass of the refrigerant progressively over the course of a minute or two repeatedly across an expansion valve dropping pressure result in all the Freon being converted to helium in a day or two?

It's hard offering basics to you and your ready-at-hand books, so don't waste your time coming out with this stuff.
It doesn't make you smart.

How is helium created and a renewable resource in your delusion.  Why can’t I turn an AC unit into a helium generator.

Too dense a mass at sea level.

Pay better attention to what I'm saying.

what would be nice is if

you could explain how buildings have force transfers vertically, meaning the foundation stacks UP in order to fight against the DOWN force.

yet your model uses a DOWN force applied from ABOVE.

can we just focus up on this?
get a consensus from DataFlow instead of all this obscure references that allow specccy to dance around and around and around?

Explain what you mean with the foam.

Like what is found in packaging.  I usually use the term styrofoam.

They don't fall at the same rate,

A ping pong ball and a steel ball a quarter of its size.  Yeah.  They do fall at the same rate.  Your delusion is based on lies, or misconceptions. 

It takes force to compress anything,

Molecules are not a force.  What “forces” molecules to overcome their tendency to disperse and bunch up at sea level.  What makes molecules move in atmosphere in the first place.  What gives them kinetic energy.  It’s stats from unfreezing a solid. 


 

Everything is a force

ahh..No.  Not in reality.  Mass your car up a hill.

Physic definition of force.

n physics, a force is an influence that can cause an object to change its velocity, i.e., to accelerate, unless counterbalanced by other forces.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

because everything is a resistance to everything.

In what context.

In your delusion.  Why would a feather fall increasingly faster as atmosphere is increasingly evacuated from a chamber.  To the point a coin and feather fall at the same rate.  The force isn’t atmosphere, it’s gravity pulling objects down through atmosphere. 

You can't accelerate anything unless you offer

How do your resistance anything into accelerating without a force.  I got one brake applied to a car.  I can make it accelerate by applying a second brake.  Or does it now take twice the force to accelerate the car.  Or I have a car traveling at the same speed.  You think it will accelerate by applying more resistance.  It can only accelerate by applying more force.

They have to change size

No.  They don’t.  You can’t offer any evidence they do.  And molecular sieves, membranes, air tight containers staying airtight over a range of pressures proves molecules don’t change size with pressure in the way you need for your delusion. 
 

Themselves. The balloons within the balloons or the gobstopper layering.
More layers at the ground against a denser mass resistance to the lesser layering of molecules above and lesser above and so on and so on. All less dense layering.

It's been explained but taken no notice of which makes me wonder why. Maybe you just like to type the same thing.

Let’s take a table.  There are more air molecules per volume of space under the table than above.  Is that false.  That means more air molecules are bouncing off the bottom of the table and bouncing downward than air molecules hitting the top of the table and bouncing upwards in your delusion.  You don’t have gravity.  (And there is every indication air molecules are bouncing around like little BB’s in random directions with space in between.  Not some all encompassing jam taking up all space and filling everything with its mass.) The table offers the same resistance.  There is less resistance above the table.  No gravity in your delusion.  The table in den pressure delusion should be falling up.  Even if you want to play a sea of layers.  There is still more pressure under than above with no gravity, the table should move up.  Like if hit by a wind, but just slower.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 12, 2023, 08:24:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 08:09:19 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 12, 2023, 06:03:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 08, 2023, 05:44:03 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

 how a carburetor works with a vacuum and a Venturi to mix fuel with air, to the close loop of an AC unit that never generates helium.

Why should it generate helium?

Ever going to clarify how helium is made in your delusion, how it’s renewable, and why a closed system AC unit wouldn’t convert its refrigerant into helium in your delusion in a day or two.

Or what den pressure lab that would let one experience helium skin and a helium dome.

Again..


What is your claim about helium, how it’s made, and why you think it’s a renewable resource?

In your delusion, why wouldn’t a closed loop AC system dropping the entire mass of the refrigerant progressively over the course of a minute or two repeatedly across an expansion valve dropping pressure result in all the Freon being converted to helium in a day or two?

It's hard offering basics to you and your ready-at-hand books, so don't waste your time coming out with this stuff.
It doesn't make you smart.

How is helium created and a renewable resource in your delusion.  Why can’t I turn an AC unit into a helium generator.

Too dense a mass at sea level.

Pay better attention to what I'm saying.

Now you’re just making shit up. 

I can control the density and pressure drop in the closed system of the AC unit.  And I don’t have to run Freon.  I can run many different gasses.  Might be hard on the seals. And will not cool worth a darn. 

By even with Freon.  Why would “density” be too great at the pressure drop across the expansion valve.  In the closed system isolated from the density of the atmosphere outside the system.


Or, what gas can I run at what pressure / density to create more helium than I started with in your delusion in a closed compression / expansion loop. 

Note.  Added after thought.  I guess we are back to why I don’t end up with more helium than I started with evacuating air out of a chamber.  I can collect the evacuated air, then feed it really slow back into the chamber.  I can even use a flow orifice to control feed rate into the chamber and make the pressure drop.  In den pressure delusion I should eventually convert all the air to helium if in a closed loop. Running it over and over through the pressure drop.   In reality, I end up with as much helium in the system as I started with.  With no conversation of the air. 

After after thought.

I can have an oxygen system filled with oxygen gas.  The oxygen can be a relative high density with system pressure at 100 psi.  Or an oxygen system with oxygen gas can be of low density with pressure  near perfect vacuum. All isolated from being contaminated with atmosphere.  I know from experience the oxygen stays oxygen at all pressures and densities. 

For den pressure delusion, for an oxygen system.  What’s the lowest density / pressure one can have before oxygen changes to helium in your delusion. 

You cannot have a force without having a dense mass.

Which in no way allows you to compare density to force to say the density is greater than the force.

The point is, YOU NEED A FORCE!

You must have a dense mass at all stages for a force to be applied, otherwise, there is nothing.

You must have mass. You can ditch the dense part.
All mass offers resistance.

And the question how does it interact?

Your free space is a classic example of nothing which would be devoid of anything, which means there is nothing. Nothing can exist to be anything.

This is just another classic example of your dishonesty.
It is not completely free space, with nothing at all in it.
It is molecules which are separated by free space.
Molecules are still present.
But between the molecules, it is free space.

That free space is not an object, it is space, which is empty.

As above.

And as above, you need a force, not just density.

The displacement of the entire dense mass of any object/matter of what it is in. In this case, atmosphere.

Displacement is not a force.
Displacement simply means that it has moved the air/fluid around.
This still leaves a greater pressure below the object pushing up.
So it cannot be the reason the object is pushed down.
You need something else.

So again, what FORCE (notice the key word, FORCE, displacement is not a force) is acting to push the object down?
This has to be a force in addition to the air/fluid, because the fluid is not enough, because it is a lower pressure above the object and a higher pressure below.
That means that if that is all there is, the air/fluid will push UP, not down.

So again, what is this force?

It's more force than what the below resistance is

Pure BS.
It is measurable that the force from the air above is LESS than the force from the air below.
Blatantly lying like that just shows how little you care about reality.

So no, IT IS NOT more force.

coupled with the dense mass displacement which you have been told about but can't understand for some strange reason.

Again, you conflate understand with blindly accept your delusional BS.
I understand you claim the air is displaced by the dense mass. I even understand that you claim this displacement is directly proportional to what most people would consider mass, with different objects with different masses by the same apparent volume (e.g. a 10 cm cube of steel vs a 10 cm cube of aluminium) displacing a different amount of air, with the amount displaced based upon the mass.
But this displacement doesn't just magically add an additional force to the top of the object pushing it down.

Quote from: JackBlack

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 10, 2023, 05:00:56 AM

You can't have resistance without having a force.

So you admit that the pressure below, in order to have resistance, must be a force, a force which is pushing up on objects?

I've explained you can't have a force without a dense mass. You can't have resistance without resistance, which is all force.

Which in no way addresses the question.
Again, do you admit the pressure below pushing up on the object (which you call resistance) is a force, a force that is pushing the object up?

I did but you chose to ignore it. I simply told you two objects cannot occupy the same place in any situation.

No, you didn't.
Previously you made a pathetic attempt at engaging which was just repeating the assertion with no explanation.
Saying two objects cannot occupy the same place does tell me why.
So why can't 2 objects occupy the same space.
Say I have 2 balls, and I go to push them together. What stops them overlapping?

Just saying they can't doesn't explain it at all.

I explain enough. You and others refusing to see an explanation is your issue, not mine.

No, you don't.
You explain so little it is pathetic.
You only explain what you trivially can, for things which would work the same for your delusion or reality.
But when it comes to the real issues you refuse to explain at all.

You have no explanation for why there is pressure gradient in the first place. The closest you have gotten is claiming that the low density air above can't push the higher density air out of the way. Not only is this factually incorrect, as what matters is force not density, it doesn't explain the pressure gradient at all. As explained before, this would just mean the denser air remains in place. You need a force acting to try to have that dense air go down. Which your delusional fantasy does not have. And you have no explanation for why this pressure gradient is proportional to the mass of the fluid.

You have no explanation for why things fall. You appeal to dense mass displacement, but that doesn't provide any reason for objects to fall. Displacement alone is not a force. You need something pushing back. Displacement is not intrinsically directional. If you push something into a fluid, the fluid flows around the object, to push back on it from all sides. And the fluid, having greater pressure below, should push up based upon the pressure gradient and volume of fluid displaced (equal to the weight of the fluid displaced). It cannot push down.

You also have no explanation for why this should depend upon the density of the object at all, with some things sinking while others float or rise up. If it is a simple case of displacing air causes a downwards force, then that should occur regardless, as you claim that objects of different densities simply have different porosity so they displace a different amount of air.
But that means 1 kg of helium, should displacement the same amount of air and be subject to the same forces as 1 kg of steel.
So either both should fall or both should rise.

You also have no explanation for why taking an air-tight container, and removing air from it causes it to weigh less, even though it is displacing more air.

You also have no explanation for why most objects initially accelerate at virtually the same rate, yet then approach a terminal velocity which is drastically different.

You have no explanation for how a mercury filled barometer works, where the height of the column (not its length) is proportional to air pressure.

No, I'm not confusing anything.

So you are just knowingly lying then?

Because what you said is pure BS.

Again, what matters is people trying to have a model which matches reality.
Your delusional BS does not come close.
People can reach this conclusion without any need to appeal to gravity or the RE.

If data is not your twin then maybe just brother or at the very least a mimicking good friend.

Or maybe that is just a pathetic fantasy of yours, to try to dismiss us.

And you are a purist.

No, I'm not.
I reject plenty of traditional BS.

The issue for you is that I care about the truth and having models which match reality, and I can think for myself and realise your claims are BS.

In your mind it can make sense and have evidence only because you accept it to be so, without any physical proof for it.

Repeating the same lie wont help you.
Again, I have obtained evidence myself.

I am not just blindly accepting everything.

Such as?

Stuff which has already been explained to you repeatedly.
Observations of the horizon, including objects going over the horizon and how the horizon varies with altitude.
Observations of celestial objects, including how their apparent position and size and so on vary over time and with location.
Foucault's pendulum, and a laser ring gyroscope.
Experiments with air pressure, such as seeing how pressure relates to volume of contained gas, observing how fluids push from high pressure to low pressure and so on.
Experiments with changing state of matter and seeing how the properties vary, and how changing conditions can change the point at which it varies. e.g. reducing pressure will lower the boiling point.
Measuring the density of fluids, including air, in a manner which does not require you to measure their weight.

And measuring the coefficient of expansion of negative coefficient of thermal expansion materials, which make no sense at all in your fantasy.

It's easy to dismiss you because you spend far too much time trying to ridicule and go into a frenzy when you get a little bit of a dig back.
You're simply a regurgitator and ruin any smartness you may possess with how you go on.
Just my observation and it can mean nothing to you.

Again, pure BS.
It isn't an observation, it is a blatant lie.
Yet again you cling to a fantasy.
I rarely regurgitate anything. But you need to pretend I do to have an excuse to dismiss me.
Instead, I ask simple questions which come from myself. Questions you are entirely incapable of answering because you know they destroy your delusional BS.

Maybe change it up a little to take the boredom out of it.

Follow your own advice.
Stop repeating the same pathetic BS which doesn't work and has been refuted countless times.

The gobstopper analogy is simply just that.

A pathetic analogy which explains nothing?

That's because you have absolutely no clue about it.

No, that is because you have no explanation.
You don't look for or try to come up with explanations because you know you can never get them.
Instead, you look for pathetic excuses to dodge questions.

understand it's only valid to you and those who parrot the same stuff as you

Again, you conflate "understand" with "blindly accept pure BS.
My objections are valid to anyone who actually cares about the truth and wants a model to match reality.
So clearly not you.

The force of all the resistance of all the stacked layers.
Pay attention.

You pay attention.
That explains NOTHING!
You need an additional force acting on each layer to make the pressure gradient.
Without it, there is none.
If I get a collection of springs, lay them sideways and press them together, there is no pressure gradient, even though there are layers of springs, and resistance from each one.
What I need to do to get a pressure gradient is make something independently push on each spring in a particular direction.
Then the pressure increases in that direction.
Or alternatively, I need to apply a force to accelerate all the springs, with it not necessarily held at the other end; and the inertia of the springs provide resistance, with the force to accelerate the spring needing to be provided through all the springs before it, with the force diminishing as you move in the direction of the acceleration.
Measuring the weight of objects with a spring scale, and immersing those objects in fluids of different densities, to observe how the weight varies, with the weight reducing based upon the weight of fluid displaced, indicating an upwards force from displacing the fluid.
By measuring the weight of objects, and then evacuating the air from inside, and measuring it to observe that with more air displaced, it weighs less.

But your delusional BS has neither of that.

So again, WHAT MAKES THE PRESSURE GRADIENT?

This has been explained many times and you simply bypass it.

No, it has NEVER been explained, because you can't explain it.

What you do think is your issue?

That I care about reality and having a model which works to match reality.
That I wont just blindly accept empty claims which make no sense.

I really don't care nor expect you to even try and understand my points. Why should you? That's not your modus operandi.

And more delusional BS.
I do my best to understand your points. I then use that against you to show your model doesn't work.

The object itself by displacement of the atmosphere by the object's own dense mass, minus its natural volume.

Is it the object itself, or is the atmosphere?

If it is the object itself, then you don't need the atmosphere at all, and the object would fall in the absence of an atmosphere. Such as due to a force like gravity.
If it is the atmosphere, then you have the massive problem which you keep on ignoring of the pressure above being less than the pressure below, meaning it should push up, not down; and it shouldn't matter what the density is.

Again, the closest you have gotten to explaining it is by directly appealing to the dense mass as if it itself is trying to go down, and all the air above does is assist this already existing downwards force from the mass to overcome the push up from below. But that sure sounds like an appeal to gravity as the mass itself is trying to go down.

You're offering nothing whatsoever that validates this fictional gravity and for good reason. It does not exist. It's a con job.

Because gravity is not fictional. It is real, and this experiment validates the existence of this real gravity.
Your "fictional gravity" is the con job, just like the rest of your delusional BS.

The experiment clearly demonstrate the existence of an attractive force between masses.

The force of W is what?

Gravity, that is made clear.
It is commonly called weight.
But it is a downwards force proportional to the mass of the air layer. And importantly it acts directly on the air, not from the air above or below, but directly on it.

Please don't say weight, because weight is a human-made measurement of any dense mass displacement

Pure BS.
Weight is a downwards force due to gravity.
It is not a simply a man made measurement.
If it was just a measurement, it wouldn't make things fall.
It is something real.

Your hatred of reality will not change that.

Your gravity fiction has to use this to give it some kind of relevance but there's literally no explanation for it.
You certainly can't explain it.

Again, one step at a time.
The use of gravity explains the pressure gradient; your delusional BS can't. We can get to what gravity is once you can accept this fact.

Weight is meaningless unless you use a scale to measure

Or you observe something fall.
Or even just try to lift something.

If all molecules stayed the same there would be no movement of anything. No life. Nothing.

And more dishonest BS.
It isn't molecules staying the same, it is staying the same size.
Molecules react.
Life is based upon these reactions.
These reactions do not mean molecules magically expand and contract.

When it's shown in atmosphere the argument then comes to " yeah but the steel ball fell faster because the ping pong ball hit air resistance. Well, guess what? So did the steel ball but its dense mass displacement is far greater and its volume is far less.

And the question is why does it change so dramatically over time?
Why isn't the ping pong ball pushed down far less into comparable resistance and so accelerate slowly from the start?

It's a little belief system you people have and I can't do anything about that other than let you get on with it.

No, it is evidence, evidence that shows you are wrong, which you need to dismiss because you can't stand being wrong.

As above, explain. Give me an example of this and I'll answer it because I'm not sure what you're offering up.

You have an example.
Low density foam is attached to a spring scale, which uses a spring which is more dense than the foam.
The spring scale is observed to elongate.
WHY?
What magic pushes this foam down to cause the spring to elongate?

measurement on a human-made scale to give a weight reading to that effort and it all comes down to displacement.

No, that doesn't come down to displacement. It primarily comes down to gravity.

But a weight reading is not needed for weight.
Just like we don't need to measure mass for it to exist, we don't need to measure weight for it to exist.

They have to change size by expansion as I explained with the balloons within balloons analogy. Or the gobstopper analogy.

No, they don't.

Your baseless assertions do not amount to something having to happen in reality.

what would be nice is if

you could explain how buildings have force transfers vertically, meaning the foundation stacks UP in order to fight against the DOWN force.

yet your model uses a DOWN force applied from ABOVE.

can we just focus up on this?
get a consensus from DataFlow instead of all this obscure references that allow specccy to dance around and around and around?

If we want to focus on this then focus on what I've been saying.


The downforce is created by the displacement of anything pushing up into the atmosphere which compresses it and the overall reaction to that is for the atmosphere to decompress or try to against whatever it is that displaces it by its own dense mass minus the volume within.

I explained this and it's down to you to understand what's being said. or at least try to.

You've been told about the layering and the stacking of atmosphere.

Put some effort in.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 08:37:55 AM

Explain what you mean with the foam.

Like what is found in packaging.  I usually use the term styrofoam.

So what is your argument in using this?
What is the setup?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 08:37:55 AM

They don't fall at the same rate,

A ping pong ball and a steel ball a quarter of its size.  Yeah.  They do fall at the same rate.  Your delusion is based on lies, or misconceptions. 

I think the one you go with is based on deceptions.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 08:37:55 AM

It takes force to compress anything,

Molecules are not a force.  What “forces” molecules to overcome their tendency to disperse and bunch up at sea level.

Everything is a force because everything is under pressure and is potential energy but always under resistance and any resistance to anything is a force.
You just can't marry it up.

What makes molecules move in atmosphere in the first place.

Decompression and compression. They work in near unison.

What gives them kinetic energy.  It’s stats from unfreezing a solid. 

There's always kinetic energy.
The only difference in what you see against what is happening at the molecular level is simply perceived movement. For example, you can see the effort of a moving object by eye but won't generally acknowledge the attempted decompression and compression of molecules, yet they are all moving, only this is generally agitation/friction and unseen in many instances.

 

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 08:37:55 AM

Everything is a force

ahh..No.  Not in reality.  Mass your car up a hill.

Physic definition of force.

Quote

n physics, a force is an influence that can cause an object to change its velocity, i.e., to accelerate, unless counterbalanced by other forces.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

To make a mass go uphill you simply apply more force, meaning to offer more resistance to everything.
You just need to understand why. It's pretty simple if you take the time to understand.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 08:37:55 AM

because everything is a resistance to everything.

In what context.

In your delusion.  Why would a feather fall increasingly faster as atmosphere is increasingly evacuated from a chamber.

The feather is under less resistance above and below but its own dense mass is still displacing and because of that it still gets crushed down against less resistance, meaning it will overcome below resistance much quicker.

  To the point a coin and feather fall at the same rate.

They never will fall at the same rate. They may appear to but that's mainly because of the short distance.

You can make anything appear to be similar if you shorten the fall.

The force isn’t atmosphere, it’s gravity pulling objects down through atmosphere. 

It's the atmosphere and you know how strong the atmosphere is when it suits but you will categorise it as nothing when your fictional gravity is under scrutiny.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 08:37:55 AM

You can't accelerate anything unless you offer

How do your resistance anything into accelerating without a force.

Resistance is the force.
You can't accelerate anything without using more resistance to something.
Think very carefully about it.

I got one brake applied to a car.  I can make it accelerate by applying a second brake.  Or does it now take twice the force to accelerate the car.

Not sure what it is you're trying to get at with this.

Or I have a car traveling at the same speed.  You think it will accelerate by applying more resistance.

Absolutely it will.

  It can only accelerate by applying more force.

Abnd that force is resistance.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 08:37:55 AM

They have to change size

No.  They don’t.  You can’t offer any evidence they do.  And molecular sieves, membranes, air tight containers staying airtight over a range of pressures proves molecules don’t change size with pressure in the way you need for your delusion. 

They're always going to change size or if containerised they will still change shape all of the time by simply trying to decompress and compress. It's called agitation..

 

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 08:37:55 AM

Themselves. The balloons within the balloons or the gobstopper layering.
More layers at the ground against a denser mass resistance to the lesser layering of molecules above and lesser above and so on and so on. All less dense layering.

It's been explained but taken no notice of which makes me wonder why. Maybe you just like to type the same thing.

Let’s take a table.  There are more air molecules per volume of space under the table than above.  Is that false.

False.
There are more denser molecules below but you have a whole sky above.
If you want to argue the table is 2 inches from a ceiling and we are counting atmosphere then you would be correct, there would be more below the table than above the table to that ceiling.

  That means more air molecules are bouncing off the bottom of the table and bouncing downward than air molecules hitting the top of the table and bouncing upwards in your delusion.

Remember the stacking and layering.
The molecules directly under the table up to the underside are simply layered. the table simply sits on the last layer with all other layers under that to the ground.
At the edge of the table, there will be a lot of other layers up to that edge, horizontally.
Above the table will be the next layers resting on top of that table with the table acting as a foundation for them and the last layers will be at the ceiling.

Now here's the key.

The table itself has also displaced the atmosphere by its own entire dense mass and that atmosphere has to be compressed by that amount of which the table took up.
This is added to the atmosphere and also back to the table. This means the table is clamped all around in a sort of vice-like grip of atmosphere.

  (And there is every indication air molecules are bouncing around like little BB’s in random directions with space in between.

There's no random direction. They are simply under agitation based on whatever energy is on offer at the time, whether it's the movement of some object or the movement of the sun, clouds, wind, or whatever.
Molecules don't just simply bounce around into nothing and have no purpose.

Not some all encompassing jam taking up all space and filling everything with its mass.)

You mention jam, not me.

The table offers the same resistance.  There is less resistance above the table.  The table in den pressure  should be falling up.

There is more resistance above than below, which is why the table stays on the ground. The only time that will change is if you prefer higher resistance to the floor and the table to overcome the above resistance.

  Even if you want to play a sea of layers.  There is still more pressure under than above with no gravity, the table should move up.  Like if hit by a wind, but just slower.

It it was hit by a higher force of resistance then it would but it wouldn't if that wasn't the case.

Note.  Added after thought.  I guess we are back to why I don’t end up with more helium than I started with evacuating air out of a chamber.  I can collect the evacuated air, then feed it really slow back into the chamber.  I can even use a flow orifice to control feed rate into the chamber and make the pressure drop.  In den pressure delusion I should eventually convert all the air to helium if in a closed loop. Running it over and over through the pressure drop.   In reality, I end up with as much helium in the system as I started with.  With no conversation of the air. 

Unless you break molecules down into their respective elements you will never alter anything.

After after thought.

I can have an oxygen system filled with oxygen gas.  The oxygen can be a relative high density with system pressure at 100 psi.  Or an oxygen system with oxygen gas can be of low density with pressure  near perfect vacuum.

And you can break it down further.
All elements can be broken down. To what overall end product I don't know.
Up to now, we have helium and hydrogen but I think it can go further but we will maybe never know how much further.

 All isolated from being contaminated with atmosphere.  I know from experience the oxygen stays oxygen at all pressures and densities. 

Let's go the simple route for pressures.
Let's take a simple compressor.
You push the atmosphere into it and you get a more pressurised atmosphere from it. You also get that atmosphere broken down into layers with the denser layers becoming water. You have to drain that at times, right?
In that water you know there are other elements just as there is in the atmosphere you compressed.

In different kinds of setup, you can do this with all kinds of elements to separate, which is why we have what we have.

For den pressure delusion, for an oxygen system.  What’s the lowest density / pressure one can have before oxygen changes to helium in your delusion. 

Extreme.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 04:51:03 AM

You cannot have a force without having a dense mass.

Which in no way allows you to compare density to force to say the density is greater than the force.

The point is, YOU NEED A FORCE!

I never said density is greater than the force. It depends on what force and what density.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 04:51:03 AM

You must have a dense mass at all stages for a force to be applied, otherwise, there is nothing.

You must have mass. You can ditch the dense part.
All mass offers resistance.

And the question how does it interact?

And all mass has a density, hence a dense mass. You don't need to follow dense mass but I do and for good reason.
As you say, all mass offers resistance to itself and to whatever that mass is in. Meaning, what that mass is displacing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 04:51:03 AM

Your free space is a classic example of nothing which would be devoid of anything, which means there is nothing. Nothing can exist to be anything.

This is just another classic example of your dishonesty.
It is not completely free space, with nothing at all in it.
It is molecules which are separated by free space.
Molecules are still present.
But between the molecules, it is free space.

That free space is not an object, it is space, which is empty.

There can never be free space no matter how hard you try to dress it up.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 04:51:03 AM

The displacement of the entire dense mass of any object/matter of what it is in. In this case, atmosphere.

Displacement is not a force.
Displacement simply means that it has moved the air/fluid around.

And that means it is a force, which means it is a resistance because resistance and force and mutually in action.

This still leaves a greater pressure below the object pushing up.

No, it doesn't.
It means it's more densely stacked layerings resisting the displacement and the pressure from it.

So it cannot be the reason the object is pushed down.
You need something else.

I don;t need anything else. Your not understanding it does not negate it. It may be for you but that's irrelevant to me.

So again, what FORCE (notice the key word, FORCE, displacement is not a force) is acting to push the object down?

The displacement of the object of its own dense mass of the atmosphere, regardless of you trying to dictate what you want.

This has to be a force in addition to the air/fluid, because the fluid is not enough, because it is a lower pressure above the object and a higher pressure below.

No it's not.
The object itself changes all that and so does the overall stacked layering of atmosphere above.

That means that if that is all there is, the air/fluid will push UP, not down.

Nope, it will resist and only push up if it can overcome the object with extra effort.

So again, what is this force?

Any movement of molecules by displacement.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 04:51:03 AM

It's more force than what the below resistance is

Pure BS.
It is measurable that the force from the air above is LESS than the force from the air below.

I think you mean the layerings are less dense. There is a difference.

I understand you claim the air is displaced by the dense mass. I even understand that you claim this displacement is directly proportional to what most people would consider mass, with different objects with different masses by the same apparent volume (e.g. a 10 cm cube of steel vs a 10 cm cube of aluminium) displacing a different amount of air, with the amount displaced based upon the mass.
But this displacement doesn't just magically add an additional force to the top of the object pushing it down.

It massively does.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 04:51:03 AM

Quote from: JackBlack

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 10, 2023, 05:00:56 AM

You can't have resistance without having a force.

So you admit that the pressure below, in order to have resistance, must be a force, a force which is pushing up on objects?

I've explained you can't have a force without a dense mass. You can't have resistance without resistance, which is all force.

Which in no way addresses the question.
Again, do you admit the pressure below pushing up on the object (which you call resistance) is a force, a force that is pushing the object up?

In the case of the table there is below resistance and a push if you like, but not a push-up, only because the squeeze down overcomes that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 04:51:03 AM

I did but you chose to ignore it. I simply told you two objects cannot occupy the same place in any situation.

No, you didn't.
Previously you made a pathetic attempt at engaging which was just repeating the assertion with no explanation.
Saying two objects cannot occupy the same place does tell me why.
So why can't 2 objects occupy the same space.
Say I have 2 balls, and I go to push them together. What stops them overlapping?

Overlapping is not occupying the same place. It's occupying one place and another place separately.

Just saying they can't doesn't explain it at all.

It does but it just requires a little pondering by those who can think.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 04:57:42 AM

The object itself by displacement of the atmosphere by the object's own dense mass, minus its natural volume.

Is it the object itself, or is the atmosphere?

It's both.

So what is your argument in using this?
What is the setup?

I stated it clearly.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 05:05:16 AM

he force of W is what?

Please don't say weight, because weight is a human-made measurement of any dense mass displacement by use of a resistance foundation to that dense mass displacement of atmosphere.

What if it is weight.  How does a 10 pound foam block make a more dense steel spring in a vertical hanging spring scale elongate in accordance with Hooke’s law. 

Quote

Hooke's Law is a principle of physics that states that the force needed to extend or compress a spring by some distance is proportional to that distance.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-law.amp

What applied force makes your delusional molecules act like springs in accordance with Hooke’s law.  Where you can’t even prove that molecules change size with pressure.  With evidence to the contrary.

I think the one you go with is based on deceptions.

Sorry.  A basket ball, baseball, a ping pong ball, a steel ball a quarter the size of the ping pong ball fall at the same rate.

The fact you have to deny reality makes you and your model a fraud.


These people sound like you. Just plane ignorant from lack of real world experience.

And you can break it down further.

It’s not what I stated and asked.  I never seen oxygen change to helium.


In your delusion, if you think helium is a renewable resource created literally from thin air.  There is a breakpoint density in your delusion no oxygen molecules can exist, and only helium molecules can exist.  At what density is the breakpoint where oxygen cannot exist and be nothing by helium. 

You just need to understand why.

Resistance is only offered if a force is applied.  Pressure is created by applying a force like driving a piston in a trapped volume of gas.

Or gravity fueling a pressure gradient. 

For your springs of molecules in your delusion to be driven there must be an applied force.  They would comply with Hooke’s law.

Atmospheric pressure is a result of gravity being applied.  No gravity, no pressure, no resistance.  The atmosphere equalizing and drifting off into space.  In your delusion there is no upper foundation anyway. 


What force causes gas molecules to overcome their natural tendency to disperse/spread out to uniform potential to bunch up with weight at sea level.

Density isn’t a force.

Gravity is a property of mass as shown in the refined and repeatable Cavendish Experiments.

As seen in your cell phone accelerometer. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 11:15:34 PM

And you can break it down further.

It’s not what I stated and asked.  I never seen oxygen change to helium.


In your delusion, if you think helium is a renewable resource created literally from thin air.  There is a breakpoint density in your delusion no oxygen molecules can exist, and only helium molecules can exist.  At what density is the breakpoint where oxygen cannot exist and be nothing by helium.

Are you of the opinion protons and netroms arent a thing?

The downforce is created by the displacement of anything pushing up into the atmosphere

What magic causes it to magically only push up?

Put some effort in.

Follow your own advice.

I think the one you go with is based on deceptions.

Yet you can't show any.

Everything is a force

No, not everything is a force.
There may be a force acting on all matter, but that does not make everything a foce.

The feather is under less resistance above and below

And that means overall the air is pushing on it less.
But this is pointless until you can explain what is forcing it down in the first place.

You can make anything appear to be similar if you shorten the fall.

No, you can't.
If you had 2 balls, where one accelerated at a rate of 3 m/s^2 and the other accelerated at 9.8 m/s^2; unless you only showed a still image, or 2 frames, you can't make them appear to fall at the same rate.

It's the atmosphere and you know how strong the atmosphere is when it suits but you will categorise it as nothing when your fictional gravity is under scrutiny.

We know how strong it is, when it is pushing against a vacuum on the other side. But we also know how weak it is when pushing against an object with basically the same pressure inside.
More importantly, we know in general it pushes up.

They're always going to change size or if containerised they will still change shape all of the time by simply trying to decompress and compress. It's called agitation.

No, they wont. That is your entirely baseless claim which is supported by nothing.

There are more denser molecules below but you have a whole sky above.

You were asked about per unit volume.

Remember the stacking and layering.

Which just further destroys your position.
The layer below is pushing up more than the layer above is pushing down.

The molecules directly under the table up to the underside are simply layered. the table simply sits on the last layer with all other layers under that to the ground.

Why?
What magic causes the layer below to not push up?

This is added to the atmosphere and also back to the table. This means the table is clamped all around in a sort of vice-like grip of atmosphere.

All around, not magically just pushing down from above.

Molecules don't just simply bounce around into nothing and have no purpose.

No, they bump into other molecules.

There is more resistance above than below

No, there is more resistance (i.e. a greater pressure) BELOW.
That is a key part of reality you need to keep fleeing from.

You push the atmosphere into it and you get a more pressurised atmosphere from it. You also get that atmosphere broken down into layers with the denser layers becoming water. You have to drain that at times, right?

The water was already in the atmosphere. But in forcing the molecules closer together you allow the attractive forces to take over and pull the water molecules together to form droplets.

No magical transmuting elements, or even converting molecules.
And if you start with dry air, you don't have that problem.

I never said density is greater than the force. It depends on what force and what density.

Yes you did. Lying wont save you:

Anything more dense can push anything away with less density and resistance than it.

There you are comparing density to resistance, which you admit is a force.

And all mass has a density

And you still aren't aswerign ho wit interacts.

There can never be free space no matter how hard you try to dress it up.

Again, that is your pathetic assertion which is in no way justified.
All you can do is reject it.
You have no rational objection to it at all.

And that means it is a force

No, that means it is not a force.
The air/fluid pushing on it is a force. Not displacement.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.
Rejecting directly measurable reality will not save you.

The pressure is greater below.
This means there is a greater force pushing up from below than pushing down from above.
That is a fundamental fault for anyone trying to claim the air magically pushes things down.

I don;t need anything else. Your not understanding it does not negate it. It may be for you but that's irrelevant to me.

Again, I do understand.
I understand your claim is pure BS.
I understand the air will push you.
Something else is needed to explain why things fall.
You not liking that will not magically change it.
Your pathetic, baseless, useless assertions will not change that.

If you want to change it, then you need to explain how the low pressure air above overcomes the higher pressure air below to push an object down.

The displacement of the object of its own dense mass of the atmosphere, regardless of you trying to dictate what you want.

I'm not dictating anything. Reality is.
The displacement of the fluid merely means the fluid is contacting it to push it; and due to the pressure being greater below, it pushes up, not down.

So again, what is pushing it down?
We know it cannot be the air above, because it is not a great enough force to overcome the higher pressure below.

The object itself changes all that and so does the overall stacked layering of atmosphere above.

No, it doesn't. The pressure is still greater below the object.

Nope, it will resist and only push up if it can overcome the object with extra effort.

What is there to overcome?
The low pressure air above?
If so, the high pressure air below can easily do that.

I think you mean the layerings are less dense. There is a difference.

And you think wrong.
I mean the force from the air pushing the object down from above is less than the force from the air pushing the object up from below.

It massively does.

No, it doesn't.
And you repeated pathetic assertions with no explanation at all, just shows how desperate you are.

In the case of the table there is below resistance and a push if you like, but not a push-up

So you have the air below the object pushing on it.
If that isn't a push up, then in what direction is it pushing?

only because the squeeze down overcomes that.

No, it doesn't. As explained repeatedly, the push down from above is less.

Overlapping is not occupying the same place.

Overlapping in general is vague. In this case, I meant directly occupying the same space.
The question is why can't it? What is stopping it?
You just saying it can't is not an answer.

It does but it just requires a little pondering by those who can think.

Which is just a fancy way of saying it doesn't explain anything at all, and instead you need people to actually think about it (something you refuse to do) to realise why.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 12, 2023, 03:54:16 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 04:57:42 AM

The object itself by displacement of the atmosphere by the object's own dense mass, minus its natural volume.

Is it the object itself, or is the atmosphere?

It's both.

So the object itself is trying to go down, and in addition to that, you have the atmosphere pushing on it.
This means there is a force acting directly on the object, which doesn't come from the air.
That force is gravity.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 11:05:08 PM

So what is your argument in using this?
What is the setup?

I stated it clearly.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 12, 2023, 05:37:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 05:05:16 AM

he force of W is what?

Please don't say weight, because weight is a human-made measurement of any dense mass displacement by use of a resistance foundation to that dense mass displacement of atmosphere.

What if it is weight.  How does a 10 pound foam block make a more dense steel spring in a vertical hanging spring scale elongate in accordance with Hooke’s law. 

Quote

Hooke's Law is a principle of physics that states that the force needed to extend or compress a spring by some distance is proportional to that distance.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-law.amp

What applied force makes your delusional molecules act like springs in accordance with Hooke’s law.  Where you can’t even prove that molecules change size with pressure.  With evidence to the contrary.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 11:05:08 PM

I think the one you go with is based on deceptions.

Sorry.  A basket ball, baseball, a ping pong ball, a steel ball a quarter the size of the ping pong ball fall at the same rate.

The fact you have to deny reality makes you and your model a fraud.


These people sound like you. Just plane ignorant from lack of real world experience.

I'm not denying reality, you are.
I told you time and again how the short drop is a big con and if done from a higher genuine elevation they will fall at different rates. You know this but you choose to go with the silly short drops all the time.

This will likely be the step where you offer up the fake vacuum chamber with the bowling ball and the feathers. Don't bother if you were thinking it.

We are talking about the atmosphere, not a fake vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 11:15:34 PM

And you can break it down further.

It’s not what I stated and asked.  I never seen oxygen change to helium.


In your delusion, if you think helium is a renewable resource created literally from thin air.  There is a breakpoint density in your delusion no oxygen molecules can exist, and only helium molecules can exist.  At what density is the breakpoint where oxygen cannot exist and be nothing by helium.

I'll let you ponder this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 11:05:08 PM

You just need to understand why.

Resistance is only offered if a force is applied.

You can't have a force without resistance.

Pressure is created by applying a force like driving a piston in a trapped volume of gas.

The piston needs a resistance in order to work.

 

Or gravity fueling a pressure gradient.

Gravity is fiction.

 

For your springs of molecules in your delusion to be driven there must be an applied force.

There is always a force. It's always a resiatance.

Atmospheric pressure is a result of gravity being applied.

Gravity is fictional.

  No gravity, no pressure, no resistance.

Gravity is fiction.

  The atmosphere equalizing and drifting off into space.  In your delusion there is no upper foundation anyway.

Nothing drifts off into space because the space we are told about does not exist.
 

What force causes gas molecules to overcome their natural tendency to disperse/spread out to uniform potential to bunch up with weight at sea level.

The resistance of other molecules. The resistance is the force applied by each molecular layering onto the next.

Density isn’t a force.

Density is always a force and resistance. It always displaces.

Gravity is a property of mass as shown in the refined and repeatable Cavendish Experiments.

Gravity is simply fiction storytelling.

As seen in your cell phone accelerometer.

It doesn't show anything of the sort except for you to believe a story.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 13, 2023, 01:34:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 11:15:34 PM

And you can break it down further.

It’s not what I stated and asked.  I never seen oxygen change to helium.


In your delusion, if you think helium is a renewable resource created literally from thin air.  There is a breakpoint density in your delusion no oxygen molecules can exist, and only helium molecules can exist.  At what density is the breakpoint where oxygen cannot exist and be nothing by helium.

Are you of the opinion protons and netroms arent a thing?

What do they do in your opinion?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 12, 2023, 11:40:56 PM

I never said density is greater than the force. It depends on what force and what density.

Yes you did. Lying wont save you:

Nor will continually offering it help you.