Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 25, 2023, 10:52:53 PM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 25, 2023, 01:27:14 PM

Why can’t I use density to make anything free fall faster than 9.8m/s^2?  Why is that the limit for accelerating an object in free fall?

9.8m/s^2 is poppycock. It's never been observed over any height, it's simply taken from a low height with a certain dense enough object and been offered up as being that.

Why hasn’t it been observed?  In an age of vacuum chambers, radar, and video.  Why can’t it be observed?

Why hasn't gravity been observed? It's because it does not exist.

In an age where acceleration from gravity is used to engineer everything from bridges, buildings, and airplanes.

Then explain how gravity is used to do this.
What gravity tool is used and how is it used?
Let's see if you can answer this instead of saying "uhhh, ermmmm, nobody actually knows but it's real." And all that utter gunk.

What is the acceleration of an airplane based off its density?  Vs the acceleration of a bridge because of its density. It’s meaningless.  It doesn’t have the right units in engineering to make the force of weight.

It's all displacement by the dense mass of the object minus the natural volume within its structure, whether it's a plane, a bridge, a car, or a person...etc.

The measurable acceleration from gravity does make the units of force and weight.  And it’s done off acceleration of mass by gravity.  Not density.

To have weight you need a scale to measure the dense mass displacement of the atmosphere minus the internal volume.
Weight has no meaning unless it is measured.

Again…

You use this as some kind of proof of something and yet it offers nothing.

Why despite their densities, when air resistance is made negligible (by shape or by reducing the density of the atmosphere), do they accelerate down at the same rate.

They simply don't. This is why you use small drops of similar items as if you're offering some kind of proof. It's a big old con job.

Why is it when you reduce the density of atmosphere in a vacuum chamber, the driving force of den pressure , things fall faster and weigh more.  It should be the opposite. The “force” of den pressure delusion is all but removed.

Because, if you reduce the dense mass of the atmosphere you also reduce the resistance to any dense mass object within it but you will always have the same crush on that object from half up to the top of that object which will simply overcome the much less resistance to it below, meaning a faster fall due to that weakened resistance.
No gravity fiction is required.

 

It’s because density isn’t a force.  It’s because gravity is the large mass of the earth acting on the very small masses in comparison of the falling objects. 

Everything is a force and I mean everything.
The differences in forces are numerous and applied energy to any object can make it a larger force but everything is still a force.

Den pressure  is the opposite of what you claim.

You have no clue about denpressure so your words are empty.

  Den pressure  is ignoring what can be witnessed, tested, experienced, recorded, and documented.

Denpressure doesn't ignore anything. What we see and are part of fits denpressure perfectly well. What it doesn't do is fit fictional gravity.

 

What is this force that makes things accelerate down despite changes in pressure (high pressure and low pressure cells) and updrafts.

It’s gravity.

It's denpressure.

 

It’s fairly simple.  You claim density is a force.  And somehow compresses things without gravity?

Fictional gravity is not required.
It's only required to cater for a global con job and all the trimmings associated with that con job.

How is density a force.  How can I use density to accelerate things up.

By adding energy by adding resistance to the dense mass to overcome the resistance of atmosphere and foundation, in terms of moving something over the ground.

  Why can’t I use density to make things accelerate faster than 9.8 m/s^2.

There's no such thing as 9.8 m/s^2
This only works in the fiction stories.

Why can’t I use density to make things accelerate sideways?

You can. You can use your body to push a ball sideways or whatever you are capable of pushing sideways.

That’s the problem with den pressure .

It doesn't have any problems.

You have no explanation what forces gases to bunch up at sea level to overcome their tendency to disperse to equalize pressure potential.
 To flow from high pressure to low pressure despite differences in densities.

I gave you the explanations but I also said it would fly right over your head and I've been proved correct.

Density isn’t a force.

Everything is a force.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 25, 2023, 10:50:32 PM

You change the shape of any same dense mass and you will alter the rate of fall.

Why in den pressure?  With the same volume and mass.

Area of resistance to that dense mass.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 25, 2023, 10:50:32 PM

You know this because atmospheric pressure will resist all in varying ways depending on the shape being resisted.
If you think this wouldn't happen then you only need to do your own little experiments.

Why in den pressure.  It’s the same mass and volume.

The mass is spread out and this means the area of resistance is spread out.

  So why would the driving force of den pressure  act differently if the mass and volume of the difference objects are the same. 

Area of resistance.
I'm repeating it to get it home to you.

Density is supposedly the driving force of your delusion.

Dense mass is the displacement force of molecules.

  If density isn’t changing, then why would changing the shape but keeping the same mass and volume make things fall at different rates.

Area of resistance for the 4th time.

Because density isn’t a force.

Everything is a force.
Just pay attention.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 26, 2023, 12:19:08 AM

Air does not push things up.
It can crush things

This is crushing..

The drum is being crushed and has given way at its weakest point and is crushed down due to its dense mass displacement of atmosphere minus its internal volume.

This is illustrating pushing up..

That's applied energy to push up a spring that is also displacing the molecules its entire dense mass takes up, including the hand and arm movements, not to mention the entire body behind it all. ALl displacing, meaning all compressing, meaning all crushing and being crushed back against.
You just can't understand it, that's all.

As in a balloon of helium has enough buoyant force to give it lift over gravity.

How do you think it rises?
It's crushed up because it can't be crushed down or crushed in situ because the helium molecules are not dense enough to overcome the molecules it is in so the denser molecules it is in try to crush the ballon which only crushes it up until it reaches less and less dense molecules which then allow it to expand a little each time it goes through layers of less dense molecules until it gets to a stage where it cannot be crushed up anymore due to it sitting in near equal layers to the gas which expand to try to equalise and in that process the skin of the balloon is compromised, leaving the skin to overcome the resistance below which is weaker than it while the helium takes its place within the layers that suit its own mass in the stack.

I know I'm wasting my time with you but it doesn't just go for your benefit. Maybe others will understand it. I know you won't.

Vs what it takes to squish a springy air molecule in your delusion..

Again it's applied energy. You're offering nothing.

Without gravity.  There is no reason the atmosphere of your delusion should layer out.  Density isn’t a force.

You seriously don't know what gravity is yet you parrot it without being able to explain it.

I've explained why atmosphere layers in the stack but it just flies over your head.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 25, 2023, 10:53:51 PM

Then don't worry about it if that's what you continually go with.

I'm not worrying. I will just continue to object to your dishonest, delusional BS; until you either give up and stop spouting it; or you do the impossible and explain it.

By all means spend as much time as you wish.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 25, 2023, 10:50:32 PM

You change the shape of any same dense mass and you will alter the rate of fall.

Only when air resistance becomes significant.
This demonstrates the air is NOT what is causing it to fall.

It's the dense mass displacement of it that causes the fall if the resistance below the dense mass is weaker than the dense mass.
Pay attention.

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 26, 2023, 12:03:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 25, 2023, 10:47:26 PM

Because the high pressure is always below. Always a resistance to the above layer all the way up.

Here's an analogy that will likely go so far above your head and be taken literally.
Imagine you are just above ground and someone denser is below you and someone denser is below that person, and so on and so on.
Ok, each person resists the next and you at the very top have very little to resist compared to those below.
All those below are pushing each other and basically trying to resist the dense mass of each other.
You can't push down much but the person below you can push down by resisting you and transferring that resistance into a opposite reaction of a push onto the person below who is trying to resist that push which results in that person pushing harder onto the one below,
Each successive resistance creates a stronger push below by the resistance built up above.
This is why each resistance offers a more denser foundation than the one above.

I know I know, it's a basic analogy and I'm almost certain you'll never get it.

Heres what YOU not getting


Youre basically describung bouyancy in your own denP language.
Except the fact thst bouyancy in the regular sense is the net, the dense mass (dPism) minus the displacement (dPism).

The downward force minus the upwadd force.


So you still, even in your yet again another analogy, havent explained why the dense masses want to go down!!!


Crushed by the air?
No.
Because air pushes things up.
There is no directionality because air knwos the surface.
Not the mass.
Air is blind.
Air is the analogous tennis balls pushing on the nearsst thing, be it the wall, another tennis ball, pr the bowling ball.
The air doesnt know anything except to push.
To crush.

Air does not push things up.
It can crush things up that are less dense than the resistance they are in or they can resist a crush down by a dense mass that overcomes the resistance.

Fine
"Crush".


What is the "resistance"?

Because by all things english:  dense mass that over comes resistance = things fall because theyre heavier than the ability for air to "crush" it up.

And in NO WAY do any format of those words mean that the air "crushes" objects down.

It just means the crush of air overcome by something.
Something else that is not aor.
And somrhing else that you refuse to say.


Because air doesnt know directionality.
It just crushes.
The amount an inch layer of air crushes in relation to the inch layer below it and an inch layer above it - that is what creates the direction.

MORE crush below.
LESS crush above.

So you need to highloght the property of the 'resistance' or explain  it better.

Why hasn’t it been observed? 

It actually has been measure and observed.

From the Cavendish experiment, to how an accelerometer works, to how a Gravitometer works.  To how things fall faster in a vacuum chamber as atmosphere is reduced.  To how weight works. To why an airplane has to generate lift to overcome gravity. 

What is not observed is density acting like a force.

Why hasn't gravity been observed? It's because it does not exist.

What is observed is gravity pulling things down through atmosphere acting to oppose the motion.  Why shapes cause drag to different degrees.


What is not observed, keeping the same mass and volume of a gold dart, gold ball, gold coin where they should fall at the same rate from the same atmosphere displacement acting on the same density and volume.

What is not observed is density acting like a force.

Then explain how gravity is used to do this.
What gravity tool is used and how is it used?
Let's see if you can answer this instead of saying "uhhh, ermmmm, nobody actually knows but it's real." And all that utter gunk.

Like the things already mentioned?  Add in why a dropping ball has kinetic energy vs potential energy.  To regenerative breaking on electric vehicles.  To gravity batteries that uses extra power to lift a weight then lets the weight drop turning electric motors to change potential energy of gravity to kinetic energy to electrical energy.


What is not observed is density acting like a force.


Again.  Takes a force to bunch up air molecules at sea level to overcome their tendency to dissipate to equal potential.  To keep them from flowing from the high pressure of the lower atmosphere to the lower pressure of the upper atmosphere.

Why would anything fall from the less resistance of the upper atmosphere into more resistance, pressure, density of the lower atmosphere.

Density is not a force.

 It's all displacement by the dense mass of the object minus the natural volume within its structure, whether it's a plane, a bridge, a car, or a person...etc.

As pointed out.  It’s an observation.  To displace something it has to be moved by a force.  Density is not a force.  With an engine off in a car, density the car up hill.  Density as a force is meaningless. 

Gravity explains the force that causes things to accelerate down.  Not density. 

To have weight you need a scale to measure the dense mass displacement of the atmosphere minus the internal volume.
Weight has no meaning unless it is measured.

Utter BS.  Weight is the force mass exerts down due to gravity.  Why bridges have weight limits.  Why you need a lift greater than the weight of an airplane for it to gain altitude.


Why if you take almost all the atmosphere out of a chamber the object in the chamber still has all its weight. If not more.  Why the object still exerts a downward force.  A force that could displace a spring of a scale. 

There is a force to be shown independent of atmosphere.  As in gravity isn’t driven by atmosphere.

What is the acceleration due to density of an airplane.  See.  It’s meaningless.

You use this as some kind of proof of something and yet it offers nothing.

It shows things with enough mass to make buoyancy negligible accelerate down at the same rate despite changes in density.

Have you taken the time to record the drop rate between a full liter bottle vs a half full liter bottle as asked by smoke machine.  No.  This you base your delusion off direct observation is a lie. Because they will drop at the same rate from the start showing den pressure delusion to be a false model.  Not useful at predicting reality at all.

They simply don't. This is why you use small drops of similar items as if you're offering some kind of proof. It's a big old con job.

Then why don’t you video record a half liter bottle and a full liter bottle dropped at the same time.

It’s because they do drop at the same rate showing den pressure is a false model.



Again.  Why is the steel ball twenty times more dense than the ping pong ball dropping at the same rate from the very start.  It’s because den pressure doesn’t represent reality. So you have to lie. And not do the simple liter bottle experiment for yourself.

Such a simple experiment and you can’t do it because you know it kills den pressure delusion.

Because, if you reduce the dense mass of the atmosphere you also reduce the resistance

In den pressure delusion atmosphere is supposedly the driving force.  If you reduce the driving force it should fall slower.

So there is a force independent of atmosphere.  It’s called gravity.

to any dense

Supposedly density is a force in your delusion.  Density in not a force driving the falling object, what is.

The atmosphere pushes in on an object from all directions, but pushes up more from the bottom up.

Things should fall up in your delusion.  You still need a force like gravity to pull an object down from low resistance of the upper atmosphere into the greater resistance of the lower atmosphere.

Density isn’t a force. 

I used a rock as an example.  You have yet explained how I can use “rock force” to move the rock itself where everything in your delusion is a force.

The truth is density isn’t a force.  Density doesn’t cause acceleration.  Gravity is what causes a rock to accelerate down and exert force when it sits on a bridge. 

Everything is a force and I mean everything.

Then what is the acceleration of an airplane sitting still on a runway due to density.

By adding energy

But density doesn’t add energy.  It can store thermal energy I guess. But try to density a car up a hill.  I guess the rock of a certain density can be hot enough to boil water to turn a steam drive. But that is brief. And then you have to burn fuel to heat the rock again.  But I digress, what is the acceleration of density.  Why can’t I accelerate a car up hill with density.  Density isn’t a force.

You can. You can use your body to push a ball sideways or whatever you are capable of pushing sideways.

Why do things fall down in atmosphere? Why does that downward force still exist in an up draft.

Why for stable flight of a model rocket the center of mass has to be considered in relation to center of pressure.

Because gravity acting on mass vs pressure through atmosphere are two different forces acting on the rocket accelerating upward. 

I post of reality.

You post in word salad too afraid to do any experiments because it kills den pressure delusion.  You can’t even take the time to record the time it takes to drop a full liter bottle vs a half filled liter bottle because you know they will drop at the same rate.

And that is where you are at sceptimatic, too afraid to record reality.  You are forever doomed to your prison of words.

Where this simply disproves den pressure delusion



And den pressure delusion is forced into lies and denial. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 26, 2023, 12:19:08 AM

Air does not push things up.

Except it is trivial to verify that it does.

Get a tube, sealed at one end and open at the other (the top is open), and place in a ball, creating an air-tight seal, and push the ball down. Then observe the air push the ball UP.

You are comp[ressing the atmosphere inside the tube by your applied energy/force.
It's not a natural sit.
Let the ball sit inside the tube without you pushing it and see what happens.
Exactly, it gets resisted, not pushed up.
Trying to twist it to suit when you can't get around it.

You can use the same tube set up, but now instead of entirely sealing it, attach a valve and hook it up to a pump. Now hold it upside down, so the open end is on the bottom, with the ball just inside the tube. Turn on the pump, and watch the air push the ball UP the tube (unless you want to claim the pump is sucking it up).

You know I never claim anything sucking up so nice try again.

You can also use a flexible membrane instead of the ball, to watch the air push that membrane up, stretching it.

You are still offering applied energy.
How about you push up an object into the membrane and tell me what happens.

So the air quite clearly pushes things up.

It crushes up only when the object in it is less dense than the resistance it is up against.

Denying that is just a pathetic attempt to avoid the fact that the higher pressure below an object should push it up into the lower pressure air above.

Trying to twist is your pathetic attempt.
Try again.

Fine
"Crush".


What is the "resistance"?

Because by all things english:  dense mass that over comes resistance = things fall because theyre heavier than the ability for air to "crush" it up.

And in NO WAY do any format of those words mean that the air "crushes" objects down.

It just means the crush of air overcome by something.
Something else that is not aor.
And somrhing else that you refuse to say.


Because air doesnt know directionality.
It just crushes.
The amount an inch layer of air crushes in relation to the inch layer below it and an inch layer above it - that is what creates the direction.

MORE crush below.
LESS crush above.

So you need to highloght the property of the 'resistance' or explain  it better.

I have told you time and time again what resistance is so either try to get it or carry on pretending I haven't and basically stay at square one which you've been doing for years.

'resistance' is the stacked crush of sponges

which has been disproven with the pressure gradients showing that crushing effect lessens the farther away from teh foundtation you go



so - provide a new explanation

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

Vs what it takes to squish a springy air molecule in your delusion..

Again it's applied energy. You're offering nothing.

No.  What I’m showing is for  something to “compress” it has to push against an equal and opposite, or greater “force”.  Or if it accelerated up fast enough.

A “springy” air molecule isn’t going to compress with greater pressure  pushing up into less pressure where the air molecules above it are free to move. 

To have weight you need a scale to measure the dense mass displacement of the atmosphere minus the internal volume.

You don’t get weight at all.  Do you.


I can take a hanging spring scale in a vacuum chamber and hang a weight on it.  Remove all but the smallest amount of atmosphere.  Making what you call den pressure negligible.  The weight is going to weigh the same or slightly more from losing the buoyant force of atmosphere.  This means the force of weight is going to stretch out the spring as much as before, if not more.  The “driving” force of your model is gone. But the item still has the same weight if not more.   And it can be done with a hanging weight of less density than the steel spring. 

It shows gravity is the driving force of weight, not “den pressure atmosphere”.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on September 25, 2023, 03:42:14 PM

Sceptimatic, put up your umbrella. I'm about to urinate all over denpressure yet again and i don't want you to receive any splashback.

I wouldn't receive any splashback, you will.
I'll be under the umbrella whilst you simply receive back what you offer.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

According to you, Sceptimatic, heavier items based on their density, must fall to the Earth faster than lighter objects, yes?

More dense versus less dense, absolutely.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

So, if I hold a 2kg dumbbell out in my left hand, and a 1kg dumbell out in my right hand, and release them at exactly the same time, according to your denpressure theory, the 2kg dumbell must fall twice as fast as the 1kg dumbell.

To fall twice as fast would be impossible to verify because the height would be impractical to offer overall fall.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

 If the 1kg dumbell takes 2 seconds to hit the ground, then the 2kg dumbell must take one second to hit the ground, because it has twice the mass, has twice the weight, and must move twice as fast. BUT THEY DON'T. They land at exactly the same time. Denpressure debunked yet again - easily. Ziiiiiiiiiiip!

Your offering is pointless.
Dropping from a low height offers nothing.
What you have to understand is what it takes to actually lift those two dumbbells. If you offer them a fall at the same rate under your gravity fiction then you must offer the very same rate of energy to elevate them to whatever height, yet we all know it would take twice the amount of energy to raise the 2kg dumbbell than the 1kg.
Get out of that one.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

It occurs to me, Sceptimatic, you're not talking just about air displacement, when you talk about atmospheric displacement, are you? You're also talking about the displacement of the actual fabric of space which exists between air molecules, aren't you? The actual fabric of space which exists between atoms.

Maybe you can explain what the fabric of space is.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

Ok, experiment time. Sceptimatic, devise for me an experiment where you successfully isolate space, making it free of any pesky atoms, or boofy air molecules. (I would have suggested a vacuum chamber, but you don't seem to want to believe in vacuums, so I'm keen to find out what you'll say.)

I can't isolate space. Space does not exist so, unless you mean something else then it's impossible.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

Once you've done that, devise for me a second experiment where you prove, the fabric of that space you have isolated, can be pressurised. You know - condensed. Your theory does involve condensing actual space, does it not, Sceptimatic?

Again, what is the fabric of space?

Quote from: Smoke Machine

No pressure whatsover, Sceptimatic, take your time. Your theory is all about pressurisation, and you're the expert.

Denpressure is my thought process and yes, it does involve pressurisation at all times, whether low or high pressure, and it all has to do with the displacement of all matter.

 

Quote from: Smoke Machine

I'm yet to hear of one single actual experiment you've done to attempt to prove your own theory, but I'll give you yet another chance.

You don;t give me any chances. I decide what I do, not you.
If you can't get your head around anything I say then that's your issue and if you can't or won't try to grasp anything in order for you to experiment by using your own brain then that's also your issue.
I'm fine with whatever you choose.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

Oh, and ah, if you want to see a pretender, look at the man in the mirror, big guy.

I'm behind you.

Sceptimatic, can you please not stand behind me? It makes me nervous, especially when you have either a gun in your pocket or you're just glad to see me.

Communication is a two way street involving the sender, the receiver, and the message being delivered. If I can't get my head around something you say, it's not necessarily just me that's the problem.

Now you say, space does not exist. I'm not talking about space which surrounds the globe Earth model, here, Sceptimatic. I know you accept air molecules in your denpressure model. I know you accept atoms also. I also know you your theory involves those molecules getting closer together, to be denser. What are they moving through to get closer, if it isn't empty space? What are the air molecules moving around in, if it isn't empty space? Another word for the space I'm talking about, might be emptiness.

So, don't say space does not exist when your own dopey denpressure model, demands that space MUST exist. Without space, there can be no variation in density.

As for those children's experiments with the dumbells, what do you call a "low height"? And, so what if it takes more energy to lift a 2kg dumbell than a 1kg dumbell? We are talking about both being in a state of complete rest before falling towards the Earth. Get out of that one.

You are asking everybody reading this thread to consider the possibility you are smarter than Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. You may be smart, and you most definitely are a smart arse, but I don't see any evidence you are smarter than either Newton or Einstein. Sorry to hurt your superiority complex.

I've already explained why denpressure is erroneous and fails in the real world at the most basic levels that can be easily tested and observed. It's childsplay. If you were actually serious about it though, why have you not copyrighted it? Afterall, denpressure is your very own intellectual property.

You were right about one thing in your last post. Space cannot be condensed, but not because it doesn't exist.

Why hasn't gravity been observed? It's because it does not exist.

It has been observed. Repeatedly.

To have weight you need a scale

No. To MEASURE weight, we need a scale.
Your claim is just as delusional as saying to have height you need a tape measure.
It is ridiculous.

Objects have weight, regardless of it is being measured.
We see this with them accelerating towards the ground, and being hard to lift.

You use this as some kind of proof of something and yet it offers nothing.

It demonstrates how objects behave quite differently in the presence or absence of air.
If air was pushing it down, and air was resisting that push, why the drastic difference.
The only difference should be the overall speed.

e.g. if you take footage from a vacuum chamber, all you should have to do is speed it up to make it match outside the chamber.

They simply don't.

They do. You ignoring that will not change it.

You trying to ignore that is the con-job.
If your BS was true, we shouldn't see such a drastic change between the start and after a considerable drop.

This change shows your claim is nonsense.
It shows something other than the air is pushing it down, and the air is mainly just resisting its motion through it.

if you reduce the dense mass of the atmosphere you also reduce the resistance to any dense mass object within it but you will always have the same crush on that object

No, if you reduce the atmosphere, you reduce the crush.
We can easily see this by sealing a soft container inside a vacuum chamber, and then letting the atmosphere in.
Or using marshmallows.

So either you are reducing both so the exact same thing should be observed, or because your magical crush is more powerful to begin with, the reduction of it should be more significant causing it to fall more slowly.

from half up to the top of that object which will simply overcome the much less resistance to it below

You mean the greater resistance below.

Again, the force above is LESS than the force below. So the "crush" from above is LESS than the resistance below. There is MORE resistance below it, so it CANNOT overcome it.

No gravity fiction is required.

No, just gravity reality, to explain why the downwards force acting on it (which you falsely call the crush) is the same. Because it doesn't come from the atmosphere.

Everything is a force and I mean everything.

And you saying it doesn't make it true.

Denpressure doesn't ignore anything. What we see and are part of fits denpressure perfectly well. What it doesn't do is fit fictional gravity.

Pure BS.
You need to ignore so much. Like why there is a pressure gradient. In attempting to explain it, you implicitly appeal to a force trying to make the air go down, entirely separate from the air around it.
You need to ignore the fact that without this force, which would also be needed to act on all objects, the air should push things up because the pressure is greater below.
All of this points to a downwards force proportional to mass, i.e. gravity.
Your denpressure BS needs to ignore all this, because denpressure simply doesn't work.
But gravity explains it. It doesn't need to ignore any of it.

It's only required to cater for a global con job and all the trimmings associated with that con job.

Again, your delusional BS works BETTER on a RE than a FE.
You have the RE as just another gobstopper, with a solid core and less dense cores around it.
If your delusional BS actually worked, gravity would not be needed for a RE.

Gravity is needed because it actually explains what is observed, unlike your fictional BS.

There's no such thing as 9.8 m/s^2
This only works in the fiction stories.

It also works in simple experiments.
You not liking that wont change it.

You can use your body to push a ball sideways or whatever you are capable of pushing sideways.

That isn't using density. That is using muscles to push.

I gave you the explanations

No, you didn't.
You appealed to all the gas wanting to go down, but didn't have any explanation for why they want to go down, nor how they are going down, what they are pushing off (which cannot simply be the air above) to make the force increase.

Stop saying you have explained when you have not.

The mass is spread out and this means the area of resistance is spread out.

Which should apply to both the downwards force pushing it down, and from the air resistance due to motion.
So why doesn't it?

Just pay attention.

We are paying attention. That doesn't mean we are just going to accept whatever delusional BS you say.

The drum is being crushed and has given way at its weakest point and is crushed down due to its dense mass displacement of atmosphere minus its internal volume.

No, it isn't being crushed down. It is being crushed IN.

That's applied energy to push up a spring

Yes, it is a push up.
Not a crush up.

Understand the difference?
Crush is inwards. Push can be up or down or left or right and so on.

The pressure differential in the air should push things up. Not down.
And crushing would be inwards, not down.

How do you think it rises?

The pressure gradient of the atmosphere pushes it up.
The force due to the pressure gradient is greater than the downwards force due to gravity, so the net force is upwards.
Without gravity, the only force acting would be the force due to the pressure gradient so EVERYTHING should be pushed up.

because the helium molecules are not dense enough to overcome the molecules it is in

i.e. its mass is not great enough for gravity to create a large enough downwards force to overcome the pressure gradient in the atmosphere.

Otherwise, why would any of the molecules be trying to go down?

so the denser molecules it is in try to crush the ballon

No, they push it up.
Crushing it would simply be pushing it inwards from all sides.
You can do this by increasing the pressure outside the balloon.

I know I'm wasting my time

Yes, because you continually avoiding trying to actually explain anything, and instead just look for whatever pathetic excuses you can to avoid these simple issues which demonstrate your model is BS.

I've explained why atmosphere layers in the stack but it just flies over your head.

The closest you have come to explaining it has implicitly appealed to gravity by claiming each layer is trying to push down; not due to a layer above pushing it down, or even it pushing off the layer above. Instead, it is as if some other force (i.e. GRAVITY) is acting on the layer to push it down.

So no, you have NOT explained it, as you are yet to explain what is causing all the layers to try to go down, so they push on each layer below with a greater force.

It's the dense mass displacement of it that causes the fall if the resistance below the dense mass is weaker than the dense mass.
Pay attention.

Follow your own advice.
Stop telling me to pay attention and pay attention yourself.
Pay attention to what I am saying, and try to understand it.

The displacement simply means the air is pushing at it from all around.
It does NOT magically create an additional force at the top pushing it down.
While it is in the air, the only force the air is providing to it is the force from the atmosphere pushing into it.
This force is greater from below meaning it should be pushed up.

And again, dense mass and resistance are not the same unit, so cannot be compared.
It sure sounds like you are yet again appealing to gravity, as if there is a force (gravity) acting directly on this dense mass, proportional to the mass, trying to pull it down to Earth, entirely separate from the air, where if this force (aided by the push from the atmosphere above) is greater than the resistance (i.e. push up) from the atmosphere below, it will fall down.

If you want to explain it, you need to explain how this displacement causes a downwards force.
You are yet to even come close.

You are comp[ressing the atmosphere inside the tube by your applied energy/force.

I no. I am creating a larger pressure below, so this can in turn push the object up.
To clearly demonstrate how the air can push up, contrary to your claim.
It being a "natural sit" is entirely irrelevant.

It clearly demonstrates air pushing from high pressure to low pressure.

Let the ball sit inside the tube without you pushing it and see what happens.

The ball falls down a bit due to gravity, compressing the air some more until the pressure inside is great enough to overcome the downwards force due to gravity to keep the ball up.

Then if you try it outside the tube, we see the air flow around the ball, rather than building up. This also means if you lift a ball up, the air flows around the ball, so lifting it up is entirely irrelevant to why it falls.

Trying to twist it to suit when you can't get around it.

I'm not trying to twist anything.
I am pointing out how you repeatedly contradict reality and even yourself.

Quote from: JackBlack

You can use the same tube set up, but now instead of entirely sealing it, attach a valve and hook it up to a pump. Now hold it upside down, so the open end is on the bottom, with the ball just inside the tube. Turn on the pump, and watch the air push the ball UP the tube (unless you want to claim the pump is sucking it up).

You know I never claim anything sucking up so nice try again.

That is why I put it in brackets, as the only way out.
As you don't, that means the air is pushing up.
Your excuse from above also fails here.
I can even make it fail more by instead of simply pumping the air out, it gets pumped into a tank, so it doesn't even affect the external atmosphere.
Or I can make the tube much longer, and have a valve at the bottom as well, place the ball in the middle, and close that valve. Then there is nothing adding energy to that air. It is just the energy the air naturally has due to being compressed by the weight of all the air above.
I am not providing energy to compress the atmosphere beneath the ball.
Instead, all I am doing is reducing the reducing the push down from above.
This causes the air below to push up.
Again, clearly demonstrating that the air below pushes up.

Again, the air pushes from high pressure to low pressure, including pushing up.

You are still offering applied energy.

No, I'm not.
I'm reducing the energy on the other side, to allow the air to naturally push.
The energy is coming from the atmospheric stack.

Just where do you think this applied energy is coming from?

How about you push up an object into the membrane and tell me what happens.

Depending on the properties of it, something comparable to the air pushing up.
As if the air is pushing up, with the energy from it being pressurised air.

It crushes up

Again, crush is inwards, not upwards.
It PUSHES up, as shown in these examples.
Even if you want to just falsely call that crushing up, then all that means is that the air should "crush" everything up, as the pressure is greater below.
There is no reason at all for the air to push/crush things down when the pressure is greater below.

Trying to twist is your pathetic attempt.

The one trying to twist here is you.
The examples clearly demonstrate that air pushes from high pressure to low pressure, that higher pressure air below an object pushes the object up.
You need to twist this so you can pretend the naturally occurring high pressure air below an object should magically not push it up, so you can avoid admitting that there is a force other than the air trying to move it down.

So again, stop telling me to pay attention, stop falsely claiming I am trying to twist things.
Instead, focus on what these experiments clearly demonstrate.
Air pushes from high pressure to low pressure.
This includes upwards.
You can have air pressure push an object down, if you have it in a sealed tube to create a high pressure above. But if it isn't in a sealed tube, the air flows around the object such that it is at a higher pressure below.
This means you need a force other than the air to explain why things fall.

'resistance' is the stacked crush of sponges

which has been disproven with the pressure gradients showing that crushing effect lessens the farther away from teh foundtation you go



so - provide a new explanation

Yes the crushing effect lessens but the dense mass of the object does not.
The resistance of crush works all ways, no matter how strong or weak that crush is.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 26, 2023, 05:11:12 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022

Vs what it takes to squish a springy air molecule in your delusion..

Again it's applied energy. You're offering nothing.

No.  What I’m showing is for  something to “compress” it has to push against an equal and opposite, or greater “force”.  Or if it accelerated up fast enough.

Yes, always.
What is it you're not getting?

A “springy” air molecule isn’t going to compress with greater pressure  pushing up into less pressure where the air molecules above it are free to move. 

It only pushes up against resistance if there is extra energy/force to push it up, otherwise it stays as part of its layer in the stacking system.
And even after being pushed by added energy/force it would still be crushed back into its original layer unless it was broken down by a much greater force of vibration.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 26, 2023, 04:49:07 AM

To have weight you need a scale to measure the dense mass displacement of the atmosphere minus the internal volume.

You don’t get weight at all.  Do you.

It seems you don't get it.

I can take a hanging spring scale in a vacuum chamber and hang a weight on it.

First of all you must hang it by attaching it to the chamber ceiling along with the dense mass you apply to the spring and remember your scale is under that initial pressure until you shut it all in and start allowing evacuation.

  Remove all but the smallest amount of atmosphere.  Making what you call den pressure negligible.

Denpressure is never negligible if you paid enough attention.

  The weight is going to weigh the same or slightly more from losing the buoyant force of atmosphere.

The dense mass may slightly change due to the less resistance to it from above and below along with the scale itself altering slightly as the pressure upon it is dramatically reduced.
All of it has to be taken into account.

  This means the force of weight is going to stretch out the spring as much as before, if not more.

Very little in this case, which would be expected.

  The “driving” force of your model is gone.

Nope, it's still there and offering the same displacement of atmosphere, albeit with less resistance but the same dense mass and slightly larger area.

But the item still has the same weight if not more.

Overall it will have a reading close to the same, which would be expected.

  And it can be done with a hanging weight of less density than the steel spring.

Not sure what you're getting at with this one.

 

It shows gravity is the driving force of weight, not “den pressure atmosphere”.

It shows gravity does not exist.

Sceptimatic, can you please not stand behind me? It makes me nervous, especially when you have either a gun in your pocket or you're just glad to see me.

I can see you through that mirror.

Communication is a two way street involving the sender, the receiver, and the message being delivered. If I can't get my head around something you say, it's not necessarily just me that's the problem.

It is you that's the problem for you.
If you can't get your head around what I say then try harder or give up.

Now you say, space does not exist. I'm not talking about space which surrounds the globe Earth model, here, Sceptimatic.

Good because both are fiction.

I know you accept air molecules in your denpressure model. I know you accept atoms also. I also know you your theory involves those molecules getting closer together, to be denser.

More compressed or less compressed and more with more layers to the molecule and more with less.
All molecules would be peeling skin layer in so many stages to be uncountable.
The gobstopper analogy doesn't get heeded.

What are they moving through to get closer, if it isn't empty space?

They move through themselves. Never at any time is there any space between any movement or peeling.
Never is there any free space.
To have free space for nothing means there is nothing to the existence of anything.
Put your mind to work.

What are the air molecules moving around in, if it isn't empty space?

Less dense molecules or less resistant molecules. No free space.

Another word for the space I'm talking about, might be emptiness.

If your emptiness is nothing, no molecules or emptiness between scattered molecules as the story goes then it's fiction.

So, don't say space does not exist when your own dopey denpressure model, demands that space MUST exist.

Space does not exist in how you have read the story and go with it.

Without space, there can be no variation in density.

The whole reason for density is because there is no space. Everything has to be attached at all times in whatever forms and dense mass each cluster of molecules is in.

As for those children's experiments with the dumbells, what do you call a "low height"?

In terms of the dumbbells a low height would be below thousands of feet.
For less dense mass objects it can be as low as a 10-storey building to see the change.
The con is the drops from silly small heights with more dense objects of similar size.
It's just a con to keep fictional gravity alive in the minds of those who don't care for alternates.

And, so what if it takes more energy to lift a 2kg dumbell than a 1kg dumbell?

That alone should tell you all you need to know about gravity.
If gravity is the reason for a supposed equal drop of two different dense objects then the energy to go against this supposed gravity would be the same.
Of course, we know it takes twice the energy to lift the 2kg dumbbell than the 1kg dumbbell and that can be explained perfectly well by denpressure.
It cannot be explained by fictional gravity, other than people saying " oh it's gravity because the Earth somehow pulls them to its centre of mass", and yet in the next breath will tell you things falling to the centre of mass of a supposed globe, will float.
It's comical.

We are talking about both being in a state of complete rest before falling towards the Earth. Get out of that one.

Easy.
It can never be in a state of rest.
If you use energy to get it up there it has potential energy meaning it can never be at rest. Something has to hold it, whether it's your arms or a helicopter or a plane or a shelf or a mountain top. Whatever.



 

You are asking everybody reading this thread to consider the possibility you are smarter than Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

No. I don't care for any of them and the offering is entirely down to your own desire to make something up for some reason, which you're entitled to do.
 I do get a smile when you do these things, but it offers you nothing worthwhile.

You may be smart, and you most definitely are a smart arse, but I don't see any evidence you are smarter than either Newton or Einstein.

I'm not interested in who is smarter than who or what yesteryear people were to others.
I am what I am and you're welcome to decide what you think I am, as anyone is, but your interest in it will never be peaked until you actually know.

Sorry to hurt your superiority complex.

If anything you make me smile.

I've already explained why denpressure is erroneous and fails in the real world at the most basic levels that can be easily tested and observed.

You have absolutely no clue about denpressure to even offer that. It's as clear as anything every time you try to argue against it.
I'm sure down the line you'll use something like " OHH sceptimatic I was just pulling your leg and playing games."
I'll just smile.

It's childsplay. If you were actually serious about it though, why have you not copyrighted it? Afterall, denpressure is your very own intellectual property.

Why would you be bothered about that?

You were right about one thing in your last post. Space cannot be condensed, but not because it doesn't exist.

I never mentioned anything like that. Maybe you've been watching too much of the series, The Big Bang Theory or you've taken it from a forum mate of yours on here.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 26, 2023, 04:49:07 AM

Why hasn't gravity been observed? It's because it does not exist.

It has been observed. Repeatedly.

No it hasn't, at all, anytime...ever.

the only time it gets said to be something is when people read the stories and simply believe it exists.
Gravity is the unicorn or the tooth fairy of the Santa claus of the story, except it has adults deciding to hang onto it like a limpet because peer pressure demands it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 26, 2023, 05:13:06 AM

It's the dense mass displacement of it that causes the fall if the resistance below the dense mass is weaker than the dense mass.
Pay attention.

Follow your own advice.
Stop telling me to pay attention and pay attention yourself.

I only tell you because I think one day you might just do that.

No it hasn't, at all, anytime...ever.

Yes it has, repeatedly, plenty of times.
Including the simple observations of weight and things falling, and more complex ones like satellites in orbit and the Cavendish experiment.
You not liking that will not change that fact.

the only time it gets said to be something is when people read the stories and simply believe it exists.
Gravity is the unicorn or the tooth fairy of the Santa claus of the story, except it has adults deciding to hang onto it like a limpet because peer pressure demands it.

That would be your denpressure, your fantasy to prop up a flat Earth.
People stick to gravity, because of all the evidence supporting it, and because it makes sense, unlike your nonsense.

You cling to your nonsense, because you are desperate to reject the RE.

I only tell you because I think one day you might just do that.

No, you only tell me because you need to look for excuses to avoid paying attention yourself and admitting your model doesn't work.

Again, I am paying attention. That is why I can refute your claims so easily.

Again, your "explanation" for why the atmosphere stacks implicitly appeals to something which appears very much like gravity.

Again, pay attention to this simple argument, consider what it is without gravity:

The only thing that each layer of gas can push against, is the layer above and the layer below.
That means each layer is simply transferring the force.
Each layer pushes above and below with the same force.
There cannot be any pressure gradient.

Conversely, this is what you appealed to:

With this, you now have an extra downwards force acting on each layer of gas.
So each layer of gas is trying to go down, independently of pushing on the layer above.
This means that it adds to the force, creating the pressure gradient.

The question for you is what is causing this force?
What is forcing each layer of atmosphere down more than the air above?

The answer to that (if you want to be homeset) is gravity, the same things which is pushing objects down, allowing them to overcome the pressure gradient of the atmosphere.

It only pushes up against resistance if there is extra energy/force to push it up

You don't need any EXTRA energy/force to push it up.

The energy from the pressurised gas in the atmosphere is enough.
What you need is to remove things trying to push it down, like gravity.

It seems you don't get it.

We do get it, we just don't accept your baseless, delusional assertions.
You repeatedly claiming weight needs to be measured doesn't make it true.
We see the effects of weight all the time, not just on a scale.

The dense mass may slightly change due to the less resistance to it from above and below along with the scale itself altering slightly as the pressure upon it is dramatically reduced.
All of it has to be taken into account.

Why would the mass or spring change?
All that is changing is the force of the atmosphere crushing it.

Nope, it's still there

But massively reduced, due to the reduced pressure.
You are displacing less atmosphere (by amount, not by volume).

and offering the same displacement of atmosphere, albeit with less resistance

Again, that "resistance" is the very thing that is meant to be pushing down.

Not sure what you're getting at with this one.

That a low density object is able to pull a more dense object down, rather than being forced up through it.

It shows gravity does not exist.

HOW?
Even if we were to accept your delusional BS, in what way does that show gravity doesn't exist?
The results of the experiment match what is expected for gravity.
You are basically saying that getting the results expected for gravity somehow proves gravity doesn't exist.
That makes no sense at all.

It is you that's the problem for you.
If you can't get your head around what I say then try harder or give up.

No, it is almost entirely you.
We can understand what you are saying. We just recognise you aren't explaining reality, and the closest you ever get is when you implicitly appeal to gravity.
You, and your faulty, fictional garbage are the problems.

Good because both are fiction.

You hating reality doesn't make it fiction.

Never is there any free space.
To have free space for nothing means there is nothing to the existence of anything.
Put your mind to work.

Only in your fantasy.
We have put our mind to work.
The properties of different states of matter, and how they change between it clearly shows there is free space (and pulling forces)

If your emptiness is nothing, no molecules or emptiness between scattered molecules as the story goes then it's fiction.

Why? Because you hate emptiness?

The whole reason for density is because there is no space.

Wrong again.
Space is a very important part of density, as density is mass per unit volume. That volume is space.

Everything has to be attached

That requires a pulling force.

In terms of the dumbbells a low height would be below thousands of feet.
For less dense mass objects it can be as low as a 10-storey building to see the change.

It isn't just the density. It is also the geometry and size.
If you have a small object and a large object, made of the same material, the large object will have a faster terminal velocity.

The con is the drops from silly small heights with more dense objects of similar size.
It's just a con to keep fictional gravity alive in the minds of those who don't care for alternates.

No, the con is ignoring the initial motion at all costs and trying to focus on when air resistance becomes significant.
The entire path is what is expected with gravity and air resistance.
But you need to ignore the start, because it shows your model is BS.

That alone should tell you all you need to know about gravity.

That it is a force proportional to mass, so the energy required to lift objects is proportional to mass.

If gravity is the reason for a supposed equal drop of two different dense objects then the energy to go against this supposed gravity would be the same.

No, it wouldn't. It has been explained why that is BS, yet you ignore it.
Again, the force is proportional to mass, so opposing double the mass would require double the force and therefore double the energy.
This is even shown with kinetic energy being 0.5*m*v^2.

Your insanity is like saying a tiny motorbike accelerating at some rate would require the same energy as a massive train accelerating at the same rate.
It is insane.

Of course, we know it takes twice the energy to lift the 2kg dumbbell than the 1kg dumbbell and that can be explained perfectly well by denpressure.
It cannot be explained by fictional gravity

Again, pure BS.
You cannot explain why it takes energy to lift things at all.
With higher pressure below it should naturally be pushed up by the air.
Conversely, gravity explains it just fine.

If you use energy to get it up there it has potential energy meaning it can never be at rest.

GRAVITATIONAL potential energy.
And no, potential energy doesn't mean it cant be at rest.

Something has to hold it, whether it's your arms or a helicopter or a plane or a shelf or a mountain top. Whatever.

Why?
What force is acting to push it down?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 27, 2023, 01:03:09 AM

No it hasn't, at all, anytime...ever.

Yes it has, repeatedly, plenty of times.

No, it hasn't.

It only pushes up against resistance if there is extra energy/force to push it up, otherwise it stays as part of its layer in the stacking system.
And even after being pushed by added energy/force it would still be crushed back into its original layer unless it was broken down by a much greater force of vibration.

That’s not the issue.


It comes down to this.

This is how something is “compressed”.



It takes energy to displace or move the air molecules together.

It takes something trapping the air molecules so they can only displace so much. As in they have to have something containing them so they are fixed to a point they only can push back with equal and opposite force.


This is your open atmosphere.  Remember there is no downward force of gravity in your delusion.



There is nothing to “fix” your air molecules in space so there is resistance to push back against.

Gas molecules seek to dissipate from high pressure to low pressure to equalize the potential / pressure.

In your delusion there is no reason the atmosphere shouldn’t reach near equilibrium potential / pressure.

The gas molecules are free in your delusion to move upwards from high pressure to low pressure. There is nothing to fix air molecules so they have something up above to press against.  A air molecule shoots up in den pressure delusion, so what.  The other air molecules just move out of the way.  Or one air molecule bumps into one above and that air molecule shoots up.  In a collision after one item stops and the other moves on.  Or both move along in somewhat the same direction.


You need a upper foundation to  “fix” air molecules in space so they can compress and make “fix” layers in your atmosphere.  There is no reason in your delusion gas molecules shouldn’t reach near equal pressure throughout.  The upper atmosphere has nothing to push back down with.  Or air molecules as they bump up against the next highest air molecules should shoot that air molecule up.
It would be a process until pressure potential is equalized.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 27, 2023, 12:57:36 AM

It is you that's the problem for you.
If you can't get your head around what I say then try harder or give up.

No, it is almost entirely you.

Nah, it's definitely you lot.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 26, 2023, 11:56:03 PM

It only pushes up against resistance if there is extra energy/force to push it up, otherwise it stays as part of its layer in the stacking system.
And even after being pushed by added energy/force it would still be crushed back into its original layer unless it was broken down by a much greater force of vibration.

That’s not the issue.


It comes down to this.

This is how something is “compressed”.

And that is exactly what molecules are doing all around each other, which is what I've been trying to tell you for so long.
You just can't get it.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 27, 2023, 03:22:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 27, 2023, 01:03:09 AM

No it hasn't, at all, anytime...ever.

Yes it has, repeatedly, plenty of times.

No, it hasn't.

Back to me pushing a car.  The engine is off and in neutral gear.


I can push a car all day long on a flat horizontal surface.  I can push it against what would be literally thousands of miles thick atmosphere.

I can take my car to the top of Mount Everest where the atmosphere is only 5 psia.  If I had a hill or ramp all the way to sea level, I could push the car down and it would pick up speed and reach sea level.  It would travel and accelerate from 5 psia into  14.7 psia of pressure annd resistance.  And if there was like a giant Mount Everest skateboard park with a continuing up ramp on the opposite side.  That car would continue to coast up hill for a good while.


But if I’m a few feet from the summit of Mount Everest, there is no way I could push my car up the summit ,up hill from 5.5 psia to 5 psia.


There is quite clearly a downward force we call gravity that is not effected by atmosphere.  But gravity does drive atmosphere.  Along with energy from the sun. 

And that is exactly what molecules are doing all around each other, which is what I've been trying to tell you for so long.
You just can't get it.

What you can’t show without gravity is why they compress.

Air molecules should do this until the atmosphere reaches equal pressure and potential in your delusion




And even then it wouldn’t be a matter of “compression” in your delusion.

Gas moves from high pressure to low pressure.  From high potential to low potential until the potential/energy imbalance is gone.

The air molecules would simply spread out to equal pressure and density until there was no longer any differences in pressure to drive them.

Remember.  There is no gravity and attractive forces in your delusion.  Density isn’t a force. 


There is no reason in your delusion air molecules would compress.  There is every reason air molecules would spread out until there is no pressure potential/ differences in pressure to drive them.  And the atmosphere in your delusion would seek to continuously to eliminate any imbalance. 

Quote from: JackBlack on September 27, 2023, 03:22:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 27, 2023, 01:03:09 AM

No it hasn't, at all, anytime...ever.

Yes it has, repeatedly, plenty of times.

No, it hasn't.

If there is no force of gravity.  Why can I hold my arm straight out shoulder high no problem.

I can use that same arm to pick up and hold a 50 pound dumbbell close to my chest.


But if I try to hold the same 50 pound dumbbell at arms length at shoulder high my arm, shoulder, and back muscles fail to hold up the 50 pounds.  Same weight density volume mass I can pick up and hold to my chest.  But I extend that mass at arms length where my arm acts like a lever, the force on my arm and shoulder is multiplied. 

That only occurs because of gravity.