Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?

Quote from: JackBlack on October 03, 2023, 04:48:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 02, 2023, 09:07:39 PM

The car has no weight until you put it on a scale

Why do you insist on repeating this pure BS?
That is like saying you have no height until someone places a ruler beside you to measure it.

Unless you can tell me how you can offer weight to something without a scale measurement.
I'll leave that with you.

Why do you think if you never measure it doesnt exist?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2023, 08:12:59 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 03, 2023, 04:48:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 02, 2023, 09:07:39 PM

The car has no weight until you put it on a scale

Why do you insist on repeating this pure BS?
That is like saying you have no height until someone places a ruler beside you to measure it.

Unless you can tell me how you can offer weight to something without a scale measurement.
I'll leave that with you.

If you never measure it does it stilll exist?

No. It's simply a dense mass.
To have weight you have to have a reading for a dense mass.

Unless you can think of a way where it can bypass that. Can you?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2023, 08:12:59 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 03, 2023, 04:48:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 02, 2023, 09:07:39 PM

The car has no weight until you put it on a scale

Why do you insist on repeating this pure BS?
That is like saying you have no height until someone places a ruler beside you to measure it.

Unless you can tell me how you can offer weight to something without a scale measurement.
I'll leave that with you.

Why do you think if you never measure it doesnt exist?

Because static load, weight, still can cause something like a jack stand, floor, or bridge to collapse.  Why a house, building, or bridge needs a good foundation. 

Like it or not.  Static objects still have weight regardless if being measured or not. 


Den pressure delusion is stupid. 

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 03, 2023, 08:56:53 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2023, 08:12:59 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 03, 2023, 04:48:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 02, 2023, 09:07:39 PM

The car has no weight until you put it on a scale

Why do you insist on repeating this pure BS?
That is like saying you have no height until someone places a ruler beside you to measure it.

Unless you can tell me how you can offer weight to something without a scale measurement.
I'll leave that with you.

If you never measure it does it stilll exist?

No. It's simply a dense mass.
To have weight you have to have a reading for a dense mass.

Unless you can think of a way where it can bypass that. Can you?

How is it as atmosphere is evacuated from a chamber, where the object displaces less and less den mass of atmosphere, the weight stays the same.  Or increases slightly from losing the buoyant force of atmosphere.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2023, 08:12:59 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 03, 2023, 04:48:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 02, 2023, 09:07:39 PM

The car has no weight until you put it on a scale

Why do you insist on repeating this pure BS?
That is like saying you have no height until someone places a ruler beside you to measure it.

Unless you can tell me how you can offer weight to something without a scale measurement.
I'll leave that with you.

Why do you think if you never measure it doesnt exist?

Jack answers you question jackass quiet pointedly.

That is like saying you have no height until someone places a ruler beside you to measure it.

Things have these properties regardless of if they are measured.

Objects have weight regardless of if it is measured.

At least Jack answered your question twice.

Unless you can tell me how you can offer weight to something without a scale measurement.
I'll leave that with you.

In the exact same way you can "offer" height to something without a measurement.
In the exact same way you can "offer" dense mass to something without a measurement.

You not measuring something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

How do you think measuring it magically results in it existing?

Two simple scales work on the same principle, a force changing the length of a spring.
Either the spring is below the object and is compressed, or it is above the object and is stretched.
Weight is the downwards force which causes this change in length of spring.
Without weight, the spring would remain the same and you would not be able to measure it.
You need weight to exist to be able to measure it.

Measuring something does not magically change the properties of it.

No. It's simply a dense mass.

But if you don't measure it, how does dense mass exist?
Unless you can think of a way where it can bypass that. Can you?

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 03, 2023, 08:42:56 AM

Jack is the wall.
Data is the top air.

According to you data makes jack move.

You're not being specific.
Be more specific.

how much more specific can i be?

DataF is the air above
I am the air below.
Jack is an object with dense-mass-displacing-atmosphere.


jack has displaced an amount of DataF.
DataF is crushing back on Jack with some energy.
I am below and crushing back on Jack with MORE energy than DataF, because i am below.


So
which way does jack move?
up or down?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2023, 08:12:59 AM

Unless you can tell me how you can offer weight to something without a scale measurement.
I'll leave that with you.

In the exact same way you can "offer" height to something without a measurement.
In the exact same way you can "offer" dense mass to something without a measurement.

You not measuring something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

How do you think measuring it magically results in it existing?

Two simple scales work on the same principle, a force changing the length of a spring.
Either the spring is below the object and is compressed, or it is above the object and is stretched.
Weight is the downwards force which causes this change in length of spring.
Without weight, the spring would remain the same and you would not be able to measure it.
You need weight to exist to be able to measure it.

Measuring something does not magically change the properties of it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2023, 09:04:13 AM

No. It's simply a dense mass.

But if you don't measure it, how does dense mass exist?
Unless you can think of a way where it can bypass that. Can you?

amazing...

simply amazing

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 02, 2023, 05:08:48 PM

No experiment idea has been presented in this thread to prove denpressure. None. Zero. Zilch. That's from either yourself or anybody contributing into this thread. That's a reality.

What I've offered and what is taken from it is not my issue.
If you can't grasp any of it then it's not an issue for me.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

You've done your best to produce a gravity style model which is palatable to the alternate Earth shape crowd, but it is all theoretical with words. It doesn't even translate into diagrams!

I've shown gravity is nonsense but obviously you're welcome to believe in something you absolutely cannot understand, nor prove.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

There is nothing wrong with my visualisation skills. When you say you don't believe in space between molecules yet your molecules get closer together and farther away, something is clearly amiss with your own visualisation skills. You don't even have an explanation.

The fact you're saying this tells me you have no clue. You simply spout off for the sake of it.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

Use your brain, Sceptimatic. Space is not nothing. Two objects in a vacuum chamber with all air removed, are separated by something. Empty space is something. We can detect it with our senses. Space is actually the most subtle form of matter we humans can detect. It is the backdrop for everything.

If empty space is something then it is not empty space.


 

Quote from: Smoke Machine

You say pressure is in everything and air molecules are in everything. Not quite, but your idea is close. It's actually space that is in everything. Good ol empty space between molecules and atoms. It's good ol empty space that is within all matter and around all matter, which bends with density of a mass, to create gravity.

Bends as in how?
What is bending it?

Quote from: Smoke Machine

Some religious people argue that God is within everything. So, is God actually empty space? Something to consider.

I don't believe in any invisible god.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

I get lost trying to work out your agenda for arguing your denpressure idea here, Sceptimatic.

You get lost because you can't understand it and that's as clear as anything.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

Your maniacal grasp on scepticism is your Achilles heel.

And yet you can't do what Jason did in the tale.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

 You still don't seem to understand the concept of evidence and what that means.

That depends on what evidence is and how it's taken.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

 When sailors circumnavigated and mapped the South pole and the North pole, not once, but repeatedly, along with circumnavigating and mapping every other continent, that created evidence to Earth being a globe.

No. Circumnavigation does not mean a globe. Think about it.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

We live on the skin of a globe, Sceptimatic - the outer shell of a sphere - the surface area of a sphere.

The story you're told and sold is why you believe this nonsense and that's fine. You're not alone in the massive indoctrination system. We are all brainwashed with all kinds. It's just a case of stepping aside some of it.
You clearly struggle.
 

Quote from: Smoke Machine

If you one day circumnavigated and mapped all the great continents yourself, maybe that's what it would take for you to finally accept the reality of the true shape of your home world?

This offers you nothing.
When you go into your space and look back at your Earth as you're told, then and only then do you have the authority to argue your point.
As it stands you are arguing your points based entirely on appeals to what you believe is your accepted authority.

Sceptimatic, I am arguing my points based on what I see with my own eyes.

I get lost because I can't understand your denpressure, and literally nobody else seems to understand it either.

Ofcourse circumnavigation alone doesn't prove the globe. But mapped circumnavigation of the continents combined with mapped distances to travel between continents, most certainly does prove the globe. Use your brain and think on that a bit.

Name one other person on this board or anywhere else in your life, who backs your denpressure model? Because I haven't seen anybody. You seem to be on an island like Robinson Crusoe. Alone. Maybe you are like Tom Hanks character in Castaway and have named your coconut who you talk to, "denpressure"?

I'm not actually a scientist, Sceptimatic, and clearly, neither are you. You and I are both floundering around tossing scientific terms, and that's bullshit you haven't gleaned your scientific terms from books. You clearly haven't gleaned it from any practical experiments, so it has to be from books. I see right through your hypocrisy.

I don't know exactly what gravity is, but I sure as shit know what it is not. It isn't anything close to your swiss cheese denpressure model.

As for space - empty space, is space empty of gross physical matter. I've seen it through a microscope with my own eyes. Space itself is fine matter - most likely the pre-cursor to all gross physical matter. Maybe its first matter and all gross physical matter as we know it, is secondary matter? Yeah, I read that somewhere, it isn't an original thought of mine. 

Sceptimatic, your lower self - aka your subconscious, just runs the show in your life, doesn't it? You take all your commands from your dopey subconscious, and never dare try to steer the ship yourself.

The car has no weight until you put it on a scale to measure .

Weight is a factor in a structure even if it’s not being measured.  A building can be too heavy for itself.

Finally, There's Hope For UConn's Library


The cantilevers started to shift; walls cracked. The skin of the building -- the concrete and bricks -- was too heavy to be supported by the building itself, Mr. Kobulnicky said.

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/26/nyregion/finally-theres-hope-for-uconns-library.html

Royal Plaza Hotel, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand

In less than 10 seconds, the Royal Plaza Hotel building collapsed and “transformed the 6-story complex into a pile of rubble”, leaving only the front elevator hall, which was separately built from the rest of the structure. Gradual deformation due to creep weakened all the ground floor support columns, and when one failed, the rest rapidly followed, resulting in an almost complete vertical collapse.

The main reason for the collapse was the addition of floors without adequately considering the strength of the structure and soil stability. There were many errors, including not strengthening foundations and columns and not assessing the power of the existing columns, which later culminated in one of the worst building collapses in Thailand.

https://www.arch2o.com/10-worst-building-collapses-in-the-world/

Weight matters even when not on a scale. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 02, 2023, 09:07:39 PM

The car has no weight until you put it on a scale to measure .

The car always has weight. Added.  Except if in free fall.  However, the car has weight when sitting there. To using a jack to raise it to work under. The entire time the car is raised by the jack.  The whole time it sits on jack stands to make it safe to work under with the jack removed.  The reason why you wouldn’t use jack stands rated for 1 ton to work on a 10 ton fork truck.

It doesn't matter what you offer, you do not get weight unless you can measure the dense mass object displacement of the atmosphere by using a scale purposely to do that.
You can't get to a ton unless you know what a ton is. How do you know what a ton is?

A little common sense from real world experience goes a long way.

Again…

Common sense, what exactly does that mean? Common?
Can common sense also mean mass acceptance of something?
In terms of theoretical acceptance by the masses against not being accepted by a minority, does that mean it's common sense?
If so then it becomes mass acceptance of what people believe is their senses.
Think on it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 02, 2023, 08:07:11 AM

It works absolutely fine and gets stronger by the day.

Oh.  No.


If you take a chamber and remove most of the atmosphere so there is less atmosphere to displace in the chamber, a weight hanging down off a hanging spring in the chamber has the same weight.  If not more weight from the loss of buoyancy of atmosphere.

The amount of atmosphere to displace is greatly reduced but the weight of the object hanging off the spring still pulls down and elongates the spring the same amount if not more.  Less atmosphere to displaced, but the downward force of the object is the same or slightly more. 

If you take a balloon and put a little atmosphere in it then place it in a chamber and allow evacuation of pressure, the balloon expands. Not by being pulled but by the denser makeup of the atmosphere inside that balloon being allowed to decompress against a lower external (to the balloon) pressure, meaning the balloon skin will be stretched. It does this by molecules breaking down by expansion/decompression.
This is due to less resistance to the denser mass within that balloon.

Less resistance which also works for your hanging spring holding a denser mass than the resistance below coupled with a lesser resistance above to crush, meaning little change noted, generally.

There is clearly a force pulling down on the weight in the chamber with the evacuated atmosphere hanging down from the spring that isn’t from the atmosphere.  That would be gravity.

There's no gravity and the force is clearly a crushing force. It's plain to understand by just observing what happens in many aspects of normal life, such as a glass of water upturned and stopped by a beer mat from falling to the ground.
If gravity was a reality it would pull (your word)it to the ground.
The reason it doesn't fall is down to it being unable to be crushed down.
Just put your mind to it and have a real think on it instead of hand waving it away.

Den pressure is dead.  It’s only alive as a delusion in your con job.

Denpressure is alive and kicking. Gravity is a dead stick.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 02, 2023, 09:27:00 PM

The only questions I bypass are the very same questions

The very same questions you repeatedly refuse to answer, because you know you can't.

I answer and you refuse it. It's that simple. It doesn't mean I don't answer and you simply waste a lot of your time typing like this which is why I simply overlook a lot of your posts basically because they offer nothing more than was answered a while ago.

Try on thing at a time and stick to it, instead of going off on a tangent most of the time.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2023, 08:12:59 AM

Unless you can tell me how you can offer weight to something without a scale measurement.
I'll leave that with you.

In the exact same way you can "offer" height to something without a measurement.

You can't offer height to anything unless you can measure it.
You can say it's high but you can't offer a height unless you can offer me a height to something without it being measured. Can you?

In the exact same way you can "offer" dense mass to something without a measurement.

A dense mass is a visual of an object. A saying without the need to measure.
To measure a dense mass you need to see what it can displace by using a movable foundation that gives a human-made reading.

You not measuring something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It's not about existing. It's about an object having no weight or height without human-made measuring of the dense mass.

How do you think measuring it magically results in it existing?

Again it's not about existing. I can see you're stumped on this and this is why you're trying your best to twist it to something that hasn't been said.
It makes you look weaker than you are.

Two simple scales work on the same principle, a force changing the length of a spring.

A force, yes. You offer nothing specific.

Either the spring is below the object and is compressed, or it is above the object and is stretched.

Stating the obvious. You're struggling.

Weight is the downwards force which causes this change in length of spring.

Weight is the scale measure of displacement by a dense mass object of atmosphere when placed upon the moveable foundation.

Without weight, the spring would remain the same and you would not be able to measure it.

There is no weight until it can be measured. It simply becomes an object of dense mass. How dense comes down to how it measures to give a reading known as weight.

You need weight to exist to be able to measure it.

No, you need a dense mass to exist to measure it to become a weight.

Measuring something does not magically change the properties of it.

Correct it doesn't but then again this isn't what's being argued. All measuring will do is offer a reading to that dense mass.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2023, 09:04:13 AM

No. It's simply a dense mass.

But if you don't measure it, how does dense mass exist?

Because it is there.

Unless you can think of a way where it can bypass that. Can you?

No need. It's there to see as a dense mass. To find out what it is against another dense mass in terms of a reading, is to scale measure by seeing what displacement it can offer onto a moving foundation for a reading of measurement.

How is it as atmosphere is evacuated from a chamber, where the object displaces less and less den mass of atmosphere, the weight stays the same.  Or increases slightly from losing the buoyant force of atmosphere.

Let's get this straight. The buoyant force is simply a resistance below any object that can arrest the squeeze down from above half of that object which displaces that stacked layering it is in.

There is never any push-up on something that is deemed buoyant, as in, as we deem floating. All you get is a below-resistance squeeze to the squeeze from above.

If one has less resistance to a squeeze then the object will be squeezed down or up depending on the dense mass displacement.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2023, 08:45:30 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 03, 2023, 08:42:56 AM

Jack is the wall.
Data is the top air.

According to you data makes jack move.

You're not being specific.
Be more specific.

how much more specific can i be?

DataF is the air above
I am the air below.
Jack is an object with dense-mass-displacing-atmosphere.


jack has displaced an amount of DataF.
DataF is crushing back on Jack with some energy.
I am below and crushing back on Jack with MORE energy than DataF, because i am below.


So
which way does jack move?
up or down?

If you crush Jack more than Data can crush Jack then Jack is crushed up by you and as long as your energy crush is greater than Data's energy crush then Jack will rise until there is little difference is resistance between both of you, leaving Jack floating.


If this isn't a good enough answer then be a bit more specific.

Sceptimatic, I am arguing my points based on what I see with my own eyes.

No you aren't. You're arguing your points based on what you're told you see with your own eyes.

I get lost because I can't understand your denpressure, and literally nobody else seems to understand it either.

And yet you argue against it and tell me you know it and know it can't be realistic without having a clue about it. That's what's mildly amusing. You fell into the trap of wanting to argue for the sake of it because you see a posse taking on a lone wolf and think it's much easier to be part of that to give yourself some kind of credence.
This is how I see it and by all means, deny it but this is how you come across.
You're smart enough but not brave enough to take steps outside of that box. You're not alone.

Ofcourse circumnavigation alone doesn't prove the globe.

Of course it doesn't.

But mapped circumnavigation of the continents combined with mapped distances to travel between continents, most certainly does prove the globe.

It certainly does not. You believe that because you simply adhere to whatever stories offer you that channel.

Use your brain and think on that a bit.

I have. I may end up wrong on many things but one thing I'm 1005 sure of is, that we do not live atop a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

Name one other person on this board or anywhere else in your life, who backs your denpressure model?
Because I haven't seen anybody.

I absolutely do not care who believes anything I say.
All I say to anyone is, try to understand it from my side even if you think I'm a lunatic idiot Billy no mates. It isn't about me, it's about people taking a step outside the box and having a go.
The issue with that is, that very few dare to do it because most people fear ridicule and would prefer the easy life of following mass opinion as fact regardless of what the minority alternates may be
An I don;t blame people for that.
Most peiople choose not to take their time to delve into anything and prefer to go about their life without those thoughts.
Those who choose to think alternately to toeing the party line will immediately be thrown into the conspiracy nutter pile by mass peer attacks which generally make many melt back into the bushes, Homer Simpson style. 

  You seem to be on an island like Robinson Crusoe. Alone. Maybe you are like Tom Hanks character in Castaway and have named your coconut who you talk to, "denpressure"?

If that's how you think about me then who am I to crush that dream of yours.

I'm not actually a scientist, Sceptimatic, and clearly, neither are you.

We are all scientists.
Anything you do in life in terms of observing or finding out things in nature is all about being a scientist because Earth itself is the science.
The issue we have is, that some people tell stories to others that offer potential fiction to a science and it's all about finding the true nature of what the story pushes to gain any insight into any reality of it.

You and I are both floundering around tossing scientific terms, and that's bullshit you haven't gleaned your scientific terms from books.

We re entitled to offer anything.
the key to it all is in the thought process and how those thought processes can marry anything up to be a potential reality.
You don't have to have a badge on a white coat to be a natural scientist.

You clearly haven't gleaned it from any practical experiments, so it has to be from books. I see right through your hypocrisy.

What I've gleaned or not is something you can only guess, which is fine.

I don't know exactly what gravity is, but I sure as shit know what it is not.

You don't know what it is so you don't know what it's not.
You just choose to argue against something you don't know about because peer pressure ensures you follow that mindset and you naturally argue against anything alternate to it regardless of not knowing what it is you are championing.

It isn't anything close to your swiss cheese denpressure model.

In your mind.

As for space - empty space, is space empty of gross physical matter. I've seen it through a microscope with my own eyes.

But you know what you see through a microscope is seeing past molecules to see what it is in that microscope. It's matter.
You can see a house through a windy street but you know the wind can knock you over yet you see the house reagrdless.
Isthe wind nothing?
Or is it a mass of molecules/matter?

Space itself is fine matter - most likely the pre-cursor to all gross physical matter. Maybe its first matter and all gross physical matter as we know it, is secondary matter? Yeah, I read that somewhere, it isn't an original thought of mine.

Explain space as fine matter.

 

You take all your commands from your dopey subconscious, and never dare try to steer the ship yourself.

It doesn't matter where it's from. What matters is finding the reality or potential reality of the stories told.

It doesn't matter what you offer, you do not get weight unless you can measure the dense mass object displacement of the atmosphere by using a scale purposely to do that.
You can't get to a ton unless you know what a ton is. How do you know what a ton is?

You’re just stupid at this point.

As jack pointed out you didn’t lose the property of height or length because you don’t have a ruler.

My examples are still valid also.  The way to how a hydraulic jack works, to why jack stands are used to support a car and why the jack stands are rated.  Jack stands are used to work safely under a car.  You don’t have to worry about the pressure in the jack blessing off or seals blowing out under the weight of the car once the car is on the stands.  The jack stands are rated to indicate the weight they can safely support.  You wouldn’t use a 1 ton jack stand to support a 10 ton fork truck.

Then it goes into my examples of building deformation and failures because foundations and walls couldn’t bare the weight of the structure. 

If you take a balloon and put a little atmosphere in it then place it in a chamber and allow evacuation of pressure, the balloon expands.

My example isn’t about changing the subject by adding pressure back to the chamber.

My example is this.  We can shield a hanging spring scale and a weight hanging from that scale from the atmosphere in a chamber of low pressure.  A chamber with evacuated atmosphere.  A chamber airtight that is a closed system from the outside atmosphere and holds this new low pressure atmosphere.

Why is it the amount of atmosphere displaced is lessened, but the length the spring is elongated is the same.  The weight of the object hanging from the spring is the same.  Or only slightly more from the loss of a buoyant fore. 

Ok.  Say it’s a ten pound weight hanging from the spring.  A balloon magical appears in the chamber and expands, and the chamber is big enough the ballon doesn’t contact the scale and weight.  Scales don’t work well if you figuratively have your “thumb on the scale”.  The 10 pound weight is massive enough, the buoyant force is negligible.  The weight indicated by the scale remains the same.

You just further drove home there is a force separate from atmosphere that is labeled gravity.


Sorry.  Den pressure delusion is dead as long your don’t lie and cheat and put your “thumb on the scale” to ignore the results you can’t accept. 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on October 03, 2023, 10:12:03 AM

How is it as atmosphere is evacuated from a chamber, where the object displaces less and less den mass of atmosphere, the weight stays the same.  Or increases slightly from losing the buoyant force of atmosphere.

Let's get this straight. The buoyant force is simply a resistance below any object that can arrest the squeeze down from above half of that object which displaces that stacked layering it is in.

There is never any push-up on something that is deemed buoyant, as in, as we deem floating. All you get is a below-resistance squeeze to the squeeze from above.

If one has less resistance to a squeeze then the object will be squeezed down or up depending on the dense mass displacement.

Meaningless word salad as indicated by things with little enough mass where buoyant force isn’t negligible weigh more and more as pressure is reduced below atmospheric pressure.  As in they place more force down.  You could even say they place more force to the foundation of the bottom floor of the chamber. 


Less atmosphere to displace, things weigh the same or more.  It shows there is a separate downward force that isn’t atmosphere. 

I answer and you refuse it.

No, you don't.
Just like you have done now, you provide a BS non-answer and entirely ignore the response.

Again, you are yet to explain how the air magically has a pressure gradient. You are yet to answer what is pushing each layer of air down more than the air above.
This is because doing so requires admitting there is a force other than air which acts on objects to try to make them go down.
That kills your delusional BS.

You are yet to explain how the air is sentient to magically have displacement cause objects denser than the air to magically be pushed down by the air in direct defiance of the pressure gradient of the atmosphere; while still pushing objects less dense than the air up.

All you can do is repeatedly contradict yourself or offer a pathetic displacement causes the atmosphere to crush it down.
That is not an answer.
To answer you would need to explain how displacing the atmosphere causes that atmosphere to react to push the object down, not merely stating that it does.

Try on thing at a time and stick to it, instead of going off on a tangent most of the time.

Again, I have.
You then proceed to try at all costs to change topic to flee from the issue you can't address, or just start ignoring me or insulting me.

You can't offer height to anything unless you can measure it.
You can say it's high but you can't offer a height unless you can offer me a height to something without it being measured. Can you?

The object has a height regardless of if it has been measured.
Me not being able to tell you it has a height does not mean it doesn't have one.
Measuring it is just to find out what that height is. It does not magically create it.

If I measure the weight and height of something, but don't tell you it, then I know it weighs and what its height is, but you don't.
That means you can't tell me the weight or height. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have it.
Your inability to tell me what the weight or height is does not mean the object does not have weight or height.
And by extension, even if no one knew what the weight or height was, that does not mean the object does not have weight or height.
Your ignorance of something doesn't make it cease to exist.

But according to your insanity, you not knowing what its height or weight is so you cannot tell me it magically means it doesn't have height or weight, even though I have measured it and know what it is.
Your nonsense makes no sense at all.

A dense mass is a visual of an object. A saying without the need to measure.

But you can't tell me how much dense mass it has without measuring it.
So by your ridiculous BS, it can't have dense mass.
You need to measure how much it has before you can say it has it.

It's not about existing.

Yes, it is.
You are claiming something doesn't exist just because it isn't measured.
Objects have height and weight and dense mass and so on, without being measured.

I can see you're stumped on this and this is why you're trying your best to twist it to something that hasn't been said.

Quite the opposite.
You are the one who is stumped, and now need to twist it to whatever dishonest BS you can.
You didn't merely claim that its weight is unknown, you claimed that it doesn't have weight.
That is you claiming that weight doesn't exist until it is measured.
So yes, this IS about existence, specifically the existence of weight.

Because you know how insane that is, you are now trying to twist it to us not knowing the weight.
But us not knowing it doesn't mean it doesn't have it.

You lying like this, just shows how weak and pathetic and dishonest you are.

Weight is the scale measure of displacement by a dense mass object of atmosphere when placed upon the moveable foundation.

No, weight is the downwards force. The scale merely measures that.

There is no weight until it can be measured.

Repeating the same lie will not make it true.
Again, if there was no weight, it would be unable to change the length of the spring to produce a reading. So it would be impossible to measure it.
Just like if an object didn't have height, you would not be able to put a ruler against it and measure the height.

The property needs to exist to be able to be measured. Measuring it does not create that property.

Correct it doesn't but then again this isn't what's being argued.

Yes it is. That is exactly what is being argued.
Weight is a property of the object.
You are falsely claiming that measuring it magically creates that property.
So yes, you are arguing that measuring something changes its properties.

All measuring will do is offer a reading of that property. It wont magically create it.

Quote from: JackBlack

But if you don't measure it, how does dense mass exist?

Because it is there.

Just like weight.

Quote from: JackBlack

Unless you can think of a way where it can bypass that. Can you?

No need. It's there to see as a dense mass.

Just like it is there to see as having weight.
Especially if you go to pick it up.

You don't know just by looking how much dense mass just by looking at it, or how much weight; but it has it without you knowing.

It doesn't matter what you offer, you do not get weight unless you can measure the dense mass object displacement of the atmosphere by using a scale purposely to do that.

We are not measuring the dense mass object displacement of the atmosphere.
We are talking about weight, something which clearly is not a measure of the displacement of the atmosphere.

You can't get to a ton unless you know what a ton is. How do you know what a ton is?

That is discussing what you know, not what it has.
If an object weighs a ton, it weighs regardless of if you know that.
You do not need to put it on a scale for it to weigh a ton. You only need the scale for you to find out it weighs a ton.

Just like not having a ruler doesn't magically mean you don't have height, or not having something to measure mass doesn't mean you don't have mass.

Do you think that if you put something in a fire it wont get hot so you can then easily hold it with your hand; as long as you don't measure its temperature with a thermometer?

The object has these properties regardless of if they are measured.

Common sense, what exactly does that mean? Common?
Can common sense also mean mass acceptance of something?

Common sense can lead to mass acceptance. e.g. most people accept that the sky appears blue during the day.
That is not merely indoctrination. It is multiple people accepting the truth.

If you take a balloon and put a little atmosphere in it then place it in a chamber and allow evacuation of pressure, the balloon expands. Not by being pulled but by the denser makeup of the atmosphere inside that balloon being allowed to decompress against a lower external (to the balloon) pressure

Yes, the atmosphere around the balloon is pushing less.
So if the atmosphere was pushing it down, it would push down less when you reduce the pressure.

This is due to less resistance to the denser mass within that balloon.

No, it is due to the pressure of the air inside pushing the balloon out, against the tensile stresses holding the balloon together and the atmosphere outside the balloon trying to crush it.
The balloon changes volume to equilibrate that. As it expands, the pressure inside the balloon reduces. It will expand until that pressure inside is balanced by the tensile forces of the skin of the balloon and the outside pressure pushing in.

There's no gravity

Then what makes things fall?
It clearly isn't the air.

the force is clearly a crushing force.

No, it isn't.
A crushing force in inwards, not downwards.

It's plain to understand by just observing what happens in many aspects of normal life

Yes, such as the weight of an object being reduced by displacing water.
By playing around with air, such as by blowing on things, or by getting tubes, sealed at one end and trying to push objects in creating a seal.

We understand that fluids push from high pressure to low pressure, so in something with a pressure gradient like the atmosphere where the pressure is greater below, the atmosphere will be pushing up, with a force proportional to the pressure gradient and volume of air displaced.
And by playing around with different fluids and different objects with different shapes and masses and densities, we can easily tell that there is a downwards force proportional to the mass of the object. This force is NOT coming from the air.

It doesn't mater if I take a helium filled balloon or a steel ball bearing, blowing on it with wind pushes from high pressure to low pressure. It doesn't magically suck the steel ball bearing in.
So the atmosphere should do the same, pushing both up.

such as a glass of water upturned and stopped by a beer mat from falling to the ground.
If gravity was a reality it would pull (your word)it to the ground.

No, if gravity was THE ONLY FORCE, it would pull it to the ground. But it isn't.

Instead other forces are at play. Such as the atmosphere below pushing up, especially on the partial vacuum in the top of the glass.
Another force is surface tension.

Conversely, if the air magically pushes things down, and can magically go through any obstruction, then why isn't it falling?

Just put your mind to it and have a real think on it instead of hand waving it away.

We have, which is why we discard your delusional BS.

Why don't you try having a real think about it, instead of looking for whatever excuse you can to ignore things which show problems with your fantasy?

Let's get this straight. The buoyant force is simply a resistance below any object that can arrest the squeeze down from above half of that object which displaces that stacked layering it is in.

There is never any push-up on something that is deemed buoyant, as in, as we deem floating.

If there is never any push-up, then how it is pushed up? How does it move up?

So how about we get it actually straight? The buoyant force is the upwards due to a pressure gradient due to gravity.

If you crush Jack more than Data can crush Jack then Jack is crushed up by you and as long as your energy crush is greater than Data's energy crush then Jack will rise until there is little difference is resistance between both of you, leaving Jack floating.


If this isn't a good enough answer then be a bit more specific.

That is good enough.
Notice how it doesn't matter what Jack is in this.
If the force from below pushing up (or crushing up as you say) is greater than the force pushing down, the object goes up.
It doesn't matter if that object is more or less dense than the atmosphere. What matters is the force pushing.
So the atmosphere pushing up more from below than down from above will push the object down.

No you aren't. You're arguing your points based on what you're told you see with your own eyes.

The level of wilful rejection of reality needed for this is insane.

You can't respond to what we see so you need to reject it as just us listening to what we are told rather than looking.
We know what we see.
We see objects defy the pressure gradient and fall.

It certainly does not. You believe that because you simply adhere to whatever stories offer you that channel.

It does.
The size and shapes and distances do not work on a flat surface. They need a round surface, like a globe.

If you want to reject it, you need to reject the circumnavigation and measurements; not that they show Earth is round.

I have. I may end up wrong on many things but one thing I'm 1005 sure of is, that we do not live atop a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

You clearly haven't.
If you had, you would realise that if it is just push-on-push and just the air, then the pressure gradient would push things up, including the air itself to remove that pressure gradient, meaning your model is DOA.
So you clearly haven't thought about it.
Instead, you have an irrational hatred of the globe and have clung to this idea to try to dismiss the globe, so you don't think about it because that could lead you to losing your excuses against the globe.
And what you are clearly not sure at all on is that we do not live atop a spinning globe in a space vacuum (other than the technicalility of what exactly is meant by "atop"; and your dishonest BS to try to redefine a vaccum. If you were honest and consistent you wouldn't call it a vacuum, you would call it extreme low pressure.
But you aren't honest or consistent, so you will pretend a vacuum needs to be perfect to be a vacuum so you can pretend space has to be a perfect vaccum so you can pretend it can't exist). You have no evidence it isn't, nor any rational objection to it, you can't show any fault with it, nor can you provide a viable alternative (i.e. an alternative explanation for the evidence).

It also shows your claims about not stating things as facts is pure BS, as here you are presenting your baseless belief that Earth is not a spinning globe in space as a fact.

All I say to anyone is, try to understand it from my side even if you think I'm a lunatic idiot Billy no mates.

And then when they do, you just insult them; claiming they are brainwashed, claiming they can't understand, that they are refusing to and so on.
You typically refuse to listen or consider what people are saying, and instead just dimiss them as quickly as possible.
You refuse to think outside of your denpressure, to take a look at it objectively to see if can actually work, or if it is DOA.

We are all scientists.

No, you aren't.
Scientists try to understand how reality works. You don't.
You reject reality at all costs to cling to a fantasy, without trying to understand how any of it works.

Scientists follow the evidence to where it leads. You don't.
You reject the evidence that doesn't fit your fantasy.

Scientists consider criticism of their ideas and take it on board to try to improve a model, or find it flawed and reject it. You don't.
You ignore problems with your model even when it makes your model impossible.

Scientists use terminology in a manner to communicate with others, accepting the meaning of the words. You don't.
You reject the meaning and substitute your own fantasy in their place. All so you can try to dismiss reality.

You are not a scientist. You are not even close.

You just choose to argue against something you don't know about because peer pressure

No, we argue against your model because it makes no sense.

It doesn't matter where it's from. What matters is finding the reality or potential reality of the stories told.

Yet you refuse to do so. Instead you cling to your stories.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 02, 2023, 09:07:39 PM

The car has no weight until you put it on a scale to measure .

Weight is a factor in a structure even if it’s not being measured.  A building can be too heavy for itself.

Quote

Finally, There's Hope For UConn's Library


The cantilevers started to shift; walls cracked. The skin of the building -- the concrete and bricks -- was too heavy to be supported by the building itself, Mr. Kobulnicky said.

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/26/nyregion/finally-theres-hope-for-uconns-library.html

Quote

Royal Plaza Hotel, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand

In less than 10 seconds, the Royal Plaza Hotel building collapsed and “transformed the 6-story complex into a pile of rubble”, leaving only the front elevator hall, which was separately built from the rest of the structure. Gradual deformation due to creep weakened all the ground floor support columns, and when one failed, the rest rapidly followed, resulting in an almost complete vertical collapse.

The main reason for the collapse was the addition of floors without adequately considering the strength of the structure and soil stability. There were many errors, including not strengthening foundations and columns and not assessing the power of the existing columns, which later culminated in one of the worst building collapses in Thailand.

https://www.arch2o.com/10-worst-building-collapses-in-the-world/

Weight matters even when not on a scale.

Dense mass matters.
Weight means nothing unless it is measured on a scale. And by measuring the dense mass displacement of the atmosphere by any object's entire structure minus its natural volume against a resistant and movable foundation
such as a scale plate or hanging hook scale, then and only then can you get a reading you can call a weight reading of that dense mass structure.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2023, 10:42:04 PM

It doesn't matter what you offer, you do not get weight unless you can measure the dense mass object displacement of the atmosphere by using a scale purposely to do that.
You can't get to a ton unless you know what a ton is. How do you know what a ton is?

You’re just stupid at this point.

As jack pointed out you didn’t lose the property of height or length because you don’t have a ruler.

My examples are still valid also.  The way to how a hydraulic jack works, to why jack stands are used to support a car and why the jack stands are rated.  Jack stands are used to work safely under a car.  You don’t have to worry about the pressure in the jack blessing off or seals blowing out under the weight of the car once the car is on the stands.  The jack stands are rated to indicate the weight they can safely support.  You wouldn’t use a 1 ton jack stand to support a 10 ton fork truck.

Then it goes into my examples of building deformation and failures because foundations and walls couldn’t bare the weight of the structure. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2023, 10:42:04 PM

If you take a balloon and put a little atmosphere in it then place it in a chamber and allow evacuation of pressure, the balloon expands.

My example isn’t about changing the subject by adding pressure back to the chamber.

My example is this.  We can shield a hanging spring scale and a weight hanging from that scale from the atmosphere in a chamber of low pressure.  A chamber with evacuated atmosphere.  A chamber airtight that is a closed system from the outside atmosphere and holds this new low pressure atmosphere.

Why is it the amount of atmosphere displaced is lessened, but the length the spring is elongated is the same.  The weight of the object hanging from the spring is the same.  Or only slightly more from the loss of a buoyant fore. 

Ok.  Say it’s a ten pound weight hanging from the spring.  A balloon magical appears in the chamber and expands, and the chamber is big enough the ballon doesn’t contact the scale and weight.  Scales don’t work well if you figuratively have your “thumb on the scale”.  The 10 pound weight is massive enough, the buoyant force is negligible.  The weight indicated by the scale remains the same.

You just further drove home there is a force separate from atmosphere that is labeled gravity.


Sorry.  Den pressure delusion is dead as long your don’t lie and cheat and put your “thumb on the scale” to ignore the results you can’t accept.

I've just explained all that to you and you choose to go over the same stuff.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2023, 10:45:19 PM

I answer and you refuse it.

No, you don't.

I actually do.
You just don't do yourself any favours but I don't think you have an issue with that because you seem to just like typing the same stuff and you wonder why you get bypassed..

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2023, 10:42:04 PM

It doesn't matter what you offer, you do not get weight unless you can measure the dense mass object displacement of the atmosphere by using a scale purposely to do that.

We are not measuring the dense mass object displacement of the atmosphere.
We are talking about weight, something which clearly is not a measure of the displacement of the atmosphere.

When you want to talk about weight you need to know what weight is.
I say it's the dense mass displacement of the atmosphere by any object's entirety of structure minus its natural volume.
You think it's a fictional gravity which you absolutely cannot explain as to what this fictional gravity is.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 04, 2023, 01:02:46 AM

No you aren't. You're arguing your points based on what you're told you see with your own eyes.

The level of wilful rejection of reality needed for this is insane.

I think the very same about you and people like yourself.

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 03, 2023, 02:12:11 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2023, 08:45:30 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 03, 2023, 08:42:56 AM

Jack is the wall.
Data is the top air.

According to you data makes jack move.

You're not being specific.
Be more specific.

how much more specific can i be?

DataF is the air above
I am the air below.
Jack is an object with dense-mass-displacing-atmosphere.


jack has displaced an amount of DataF.
DataF is crushing back on Jack with some energy.
I am below and crushing back on Jack with MORE energy than DataF, because i am below.


So
which way does jack move?
up or down?

If you crush Jack more than Data can crush Jack then Jack is crushed up by you and as long as your energy crush is greater than Data's energy crush then Jack will rise until there is little difference is resistance between both of you, leaving Jack floating.


If this isn't a good enough answer then be a bit more specific.

Cool
Of i-the-air-below, crush more than data-the-air-above, then jack goes up.

Always?
No matter what jack does?




What about Smoke-the-2nd-object?
Sceppy the human is holding Smoke in one hand and Jack in the other hand
Sceppy lets go of both objects.
Data is crushing on both Smoke and Jack from above.
Kabool is crushing MORE from below.

One is observed to fall and the other floats up.
What measurable feature dictates this action (Jack vs Smoke; kabool vs data; jack-data vs smoke-data)?
Is Data crushing differently between javc vs smoke?
What?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 04, 2023, 12:26:58 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 03, 2023, 02:12:11 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 03, 2023, 08:45:30 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 03, 2023, 08:42:56 AM

Jack is the wall.
Data is the top air.

According to you data makes jack move.

You're not being specific.
Be more specific.

how much more specific can i be?

DataF is the air above
I am the air below.
Jack is an object with dense-mass-displacing-atmosphere.


jack has displaced an amount of DataF.
DataF is crushing back on Jack with some energy.
I am below and crushing back on Jack with MORE energy than DataF, because i am below.


So
which way does jack move?
up or down?

If you crush Jack more than Data can crush Jack then Jack is crushed up by you and as long as your energy crush is greater than Data's energy crush then Jack will rise until there is little difference is resistance between both of you, leaving Jack floating.


If this isn't a good enough answer then be a bit more specific.

Cool
Of i-the-air-below, crush more than data-the-air-above, then jack goes up.

Always?
No matter what jack does?

If Jack wore a jet pack or flew a helicopter or used something to push through the atmosphere then things would change. But we are talking about just the dense masses as it is, right?

What about Smoke-the-2nd-object?
Sceppy the human is holding Smoke in one hand and Jack in the other hand
Sceppy lets go of both objects.
Data is crushing on both Smoke and Jack from above.
Kabool is crushing MORE from below.

One is observed to fall and the other floats up.
What measurable feature dictates this action (Jack vs Smoke; kabool vs data; jack-data vs smoke-data)?
Is Data crushing differently between javc vs smoke?
What?

The one falling is more dense mass than the one being crushed up, so Data would be displaced much more by the overall dense mass.
You would certainly feel the difference by holding both because one would be causing your arm to be crushed down and the otehr would simply be crushed up leaving your arm under no more stress than the arm itself.

Weight means nothing unless it is measured on a scale.

Which is a lie.  From why a building needs a foundation. Why you can’t just keep adding floors/stories to an already built building with no changes in foundation, or no understanding the ground it is built on.  Why a duallly pickup truck matters for pulling heavy loads.  To why it matters if a heavy weight boxer goes against a flyweight boxer.  Weight classes in wrestling.  To why an under weight 5 foot person trying carry out an incapacitated muscular 6 foot person from a fire matters.  To why bridges have weight limits.  To why truck axles and trailers have weight limits. 


Den pressure delusion is just the point of stupid now. 

And by measuring the dense mass displacement of the atmosphere by any object's entire structure minus its natural volume against a resistant and movable foundation
such as a scale plate or hanging hook scale, then and only then can you get a reading you can call a weight reading of that dense mass structure.

If your model was true.  As the amount of atmosphere is evacuated from a chamber, the density or actual mass of atmosphere a hanging spring scale and weight displaces is less and less.   Then the amount the spring is elongated should reduced.  It doesn’t.  The spring stays the same amount of extended, or extends slightly more. 


As the atmosphere is reduced in your delusion, the force extending the spring and weight should reduce.  The spring should contract as the atmosphere is evacuated. As the “force” of your delusion is reduced.  It doesn’t.  The spring stays the same length extended, or even extends slightly more.

This proves there is a force separate from atmosphere we call gravity. It takes a force to extend the spring.  (It takes an unbalanced force to accelerate an object down.  The only force in your model is high pressure from below pushing objects up into less pressure above.)


It’s the same reason objects like airplanes and rockets have to consider center of gravity and the separate effects of atmosphere called center of pressure in their designs.

There is a separate force than “atmosphere”.  It’s gravity. 

I’m sorry sceptimatic that you are reduced to just stupid arguments and lies to keep your con going. 

You just choose to argue against something you don't know about because peer pressure

Smoke machine asked you to document and record dropping a full liter bottle of coke, and half litter bottle of coke.  Compare the times it takes to drop from the same height.  Very easy to do in the age of video.

But you refuse to sceptimatic.  Seems like you are the one that doesn’t want to seek the truth.  You just want to hide in your word salad.  What is this hyperbole you base things of your own experiences is just utter bullish now?  When you are not even willing to do the most basic experiments.  You keep saying “we” offer nothing?  But you keep derailing this thread of “Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?” by offering no experiments.  None. 

It’s just stupid at this point.