[Geezer]

Nice picky!

I don't think I fully understand the entire concept yet, but I did notice this:

"The atmosphere enters only a small 3/16" hole from the sky, so the standing pressure on the mercury is very small under a 3/16" entry port, which is only 3/16ths of 1 square inch, so the standing pressure down the small hole is only 2.76 lbs., not 14.7 lbs."

I believe there is a problem with that. Assuming the system is static (there is no air rushing in or out) the air pressure will still be around 14.7 lbs per square inch even if your chamber is only connected to the atmosphere by a 3/16" port, or any other size of port come to that.

The pressure within any fluid (including mercury) has a nasty habit of equalizing the pressure at a certain depth if it has any opportunity to do so.
 

[fleep (OP)]

Good morning;

I didn't explain that part very well, I guess.
The standing pressure through a tiny hole doesn't mean that the vessel would not get "filled" to the full 14.7 psi at sea level. Think of the situation as if the vessel was a vacuum that "suddenly popped open" at the small hole. The total gas-admission would be 14.7 in an instant, but it would have been admitted to equalization at the diminished rate of the the opening's possibility. The "gas-rush" and equalization would take a millisecond, but certainly, the vessel has to equalize to that of the common plane.

Thanks.

Fleep

[Bored chemist]

I'm still not sure what you are on about.
Does this "I went to my shop and looked at my model with the wide open top that is the resemblance of the upside down pyramid, (the hole in the rock), and the mercury is "folding down" about 3/32 of an inch all around the perimeter of the mercury. The atmosphere is hitting the rim of the glass pyramid, and concentrating pressure down the angled walls, so the unfolded center of the mercury, or about 98% of the surface, is bulged upwards just a bit, ringed by an atmospheric concentration of pressure that's trying to get past the fluid mercury, so it's pushing the perimeter downwards. "
refer to the fact that mercury has a nice obvious meniscus?


If so then it has nothing whatsoever to do with the atmosphere.


It would still have a practically identical curved meniscus in a vacuum.

Anyone who still has an old fashioned mercury barometer can confirm this for you.
It has little or nothing to do with  gravity or the tides.

[Geezer]

Rats! BC beat me to it.

I remember experiments we did in school with mercury (when it was still legal to do so) where a simple barometer was constructed from a straight glass tube sealed at one end, filled with mercury and inverted with the open end in a beaker of mercury.

The space above the column is a rather good vacuum and yet the meniscus is clearly convex, just as it is when exposed to atmospheric pressure.

[fleep (OP)]

Hi;

I'm tired. been working on this since about noon. It's 10:40 PM now. Here goes.


           The Gentle Debate – Einstein vs. Newton
Gentlemen:

Can you see that in a vertical-sided tube, there is a downturn at the outer edges, whether the vessel is a beaker, or a test tube? Also, when you have a flare-topped vessel, such as seen at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)
the  edges are prominently seen to be well “bent” downwards. Look at the picture down the page with the pound coin sitting on the mercury.

Firstly, the coin has absolutely nothing to do with the perimeter condition or with anything else but the photo-maker’s display of how something “floats” on mercury, (and a pound coin was chosen, and (thus), the coin is redundant here).

Secondly, Mercury is diamagnetic. The Force of the Cosmological Constant is diamagnetic also. There is a “current” of positivity that must constantly exist between the two negativities, because that is what the job of the Constant (Force) does: It converts negativity to positivity, like a magnet does, as it slides slowly down inside a copper tube. I won’t take time trying to figure out what it’s doing to the coin because as I said, the presence of the coin is innocuous, but also, I don’t know the coin’s metallic composition.

Thirdly: Because there is a positive energy separation between the Constant and the mercury, we know that its energy-plane exists across the entire surface, right out to the edges, in all flat directions. Now, that is important.
Conclusion: Because the energy-plane goes all the way out to the edges, and it’s a repulsive energy because it has to be, (separating the redundant coin from the mercury as it does), then when it comes to the glass perimeter, it has a “push-down advantage, and it uses that advantage to round the metal’s edges down, The “advantage” stated, is that immediately at the glass, the fractional quantity of mercury that exists right against the uncaring glass’ chemistry, just “submits” to the energy’s strength, and “allows” itself to get “bent down” quite easily. The “energy-plane separator”, (if it could be seen) would look like a flat-topped surface with a convex underside. The edge height would depend on the how “thick” the energy plane would physically have to be “made” (by conversion), to do what it does in only this particular case of “work-needing- to- be- done”.
That takes care of what’s happening in vertical-walled and flare-walled (glass) vessels, and so, the other (tiny-opening in the top) vessel should now be a breeze to figure out. (I hope).

The flared-down vessel has a surface energy plane also, because it has to, (to separate the 2 diamagnetisms, as explained above). The surface pressure inside the vessel has to be the same as outside; 14.7 psi, (assuming we are performing at Datum). Regardless of the fact that the top opening is tiny, inside the flared-down vessel, there is no vertical “access” to the mercury’s surface at the point around the perimeter where the surface meets the glass. That is because the perimeter’s flare reaches up and away from the glass wall of the vessel. No extra energy is needed to push down the edges, so the Constant only has to convert enough energy (to positivity) to make the energy-plane “flat”, looking much like the edge profile of a coin that is as big as the inside perimeter of the vessel. The two diamagnetic “quantities” are thus held apart from each other, and so, the surface is flat, all the way across, in all directions.
(Some sophisticated university lab should be able to prove this with their multi-million dollar “tool-kits” and their abundance of genius.)
==================================================================
As far as your question about the mercury barometer goes, I guess this will turn out to be another surprise if what we’ve found so far is true. I just checked Wiki, and, glass is also diamagnetic. I suspected that it had to be, because if you fill a test tube with mercury and flip it fast into the open dish of mercury, guess what happens, (as I see it).
The glass and the mercury are both diamagnetic, so, the entire surface of all the glass is repelled by all the adjacent mercury, so there is an invisible “film” of energy (converted by the Constant), slipping all the way around and up the film from the open atmosphere, down through the “pond-dish, and up into the closed end of the inverted test tube, There is no vacuum in that space you see at the top of the barometer. It’s air.
==================================================================
With all due respect to Henry Cavendish’s elaborate experiment, it now seems clear that the two lead balls of great and tiny size were being “moved” by nothing but their mutual diamagnetism, which when twisting into motion, converted negative energy into positivity between them, thus making them seeming to be “attracted” by gravity, (or some such thing I will not pursue).
===================================================================

About home-made barometers: Obviously, I now do not agree, but here is what Wiki says is going on:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)

“A mercury barometer has a glass tube of at least 33 inches in height, closed at one end, with an open mercury-filled reservoir at the base. The weight of the mercury actually creates a vacuum in the top of the tube. Mercury in the tube adjusts until the weight of the mercury column balances the atmospheric force exerted on the reservoir. High atmospheric pressure places more force on the reservoir, forcing mercury higher in the column. Low pressure allows the mercury to drop to a lower level in the column by lowering the force placed on the reservoir. Since higher temperature at the instrument will reduce the density of the mercury, the scale for reading the height of the mercury is adjusted to compensate for this effect.”

Torricelli documented that the height of the mercury in a barometer changed slightly each day and concluded that this was due to the changing pressure in the atmosphere.  He wrote: "We live submerged at the bottom of an ocean of elementary air, which is known by incontestable experiments to have weight".”
I obviously also agree with Wiki and Torricelli about what he wrote in the last sentence.
================================================================

If you’re surprised, think how much I will be if I’m right.

Do you believe any of this yet, or do we have to dig deeper? If you don’t want to contest this, because you might not know enough about Einstein’s Cosmological constant, and/or the Standard Model and the like, then am I finished please? I’m getting old and forgetful, really fast.

Good night. Thanks for the help, my friends.

Fleep

[Bored chemist]

Well Fleep,
You have wasted a lot of time
If the person who took that picture had carefully cleaned the coin first it would have saved me a bit of effort but never mind.
Here are two images. One is a piece of zinc in a small bottle of mercury. The other is of a candle in a jar of water.
I have dyed the water pink to make it a bit clearer.
In the case of the mercury you can see that the meniscus is curved where it meets the glass or the zinc.
It curves up to meet the zinc and down (just like the pic you posted from WIKI) where it meets the glass of the bottle.

In the other picture things are the other way round. The water curves down where it meets the candle but up where it meets the glass.



Gravity is the same in all cases. All the materials (zinc, mercury, glass,wax, and water) are diamagnetic.

Clearly all these meniscus effects are nothing to do with paramagnetism or diamagnetism.

If you made a barometer tube from zinc (or copper or quite a lot of other metals but not steel- even non-magnetic stainless steels) the meniscus would curve the other way, just like it curves up to meet the zinc in my picture.
Of course, you would need to xray the barometer to read it- that's why they use glass.

Also, while Cavendish used mercury the experiment has been repeated many times since and with other materials.
Also it's relatively easy to measure the diamagnetism of mercury and allow for any effect it would have.
The most important point here is that the diamagnetic effect would not be an inverse square law.
Gravity gives an inverse square relation between the force and the distance (as  measured in experiments like Cavendish's) so gravity is clearly nothing to do with magnetism.

[fleep (OP)]

Good morning;

A couple of things dogging me about your answer:

Right at the start since my inglorious return on March 11, you have been missing what I regard to be my “indisputable” statements, like:

“1)   Fact – Mercury is a metal, in a fluid state, at room temperature.
2)   Fact -  Mercury’s fluid properties are understandably different than other fluids.”

And – “We're not talking about "wet fluids" here. Mercury is a metal. It's not water, or oil, or any thing of any organic origin, or anything like these.”

And – “The experiment explains itself, and the claims that you made about surface tension have nothing to do with metals. That phrase just gets tossed around like it had real meaning. Well, "surface tension" means nothing, in the case of the only metal that exists at room temperature in a fluid state.”

So why are you introducing wax and “pink water”? They are a couple of non-sequiturs in this discussion. I’m not wasting another day trying to go back and re-prove what I re-opened with, in March 2010, that has become obvious over my long (hard-working) absence. If you’re going to disprove something, then go for my throat with real evidence please. Unproven opinion is where I started from, and I’m not going back to Sept 2007 when this thing started.

I’m dealing in Mercury, and that’s all. Sorry. No wet fluids. Soak it up.

 I will consider your statements like: “If you made a barometer tube from zinc (or copper or quite a lot of other metals but not steel- even non-magnetic stainless steels) the meniscus would curve the other way, just like it curves up to meet the zinc in my picture.” (I’ll think about what that means to my argument.)


Just think of it. I’m fighting with a proven Constant, and you are fighting with a theory that’s over 300 years old, and still remains one. Technology has GROWN. Each giant that stood on each other’s shoulders didn’t have to look as far back to see what was over the old horizons. I don’t know how tall Einstein was, or Newton either, but I’m sure one of them was a shorter giant. Understanding has nothing to do with physical stature.



 Sorry again. Now. About the Mercury and zinc. I can’t zoom or edit your picture of mercury and zinc, to clean it up. I use a jeweller’s “loop” to improve my old vision. I’ll have to test that myself so I can see what’s going on. I’ll get back. I still don’t claim that I’m absolutely spot-on, and if I hit the wall, then that’s my problem. Don’t send anything else until I address this please. It just confuses all directions.

Thanks. (Without malice).

Fleep

[Bored chemist]

Ho Hum
There's no such thing as a "wet" liquid.
You need to consider the thing they are wetting (or not).
Water wets glass, but not wax.
Mercury wets zinc but not glass.
Also, you say "Well, "surface tension" means nothing, in the case of the only metal that exists at room temperature in a fluid state.”"
Nonsense. the surface tension of mercury is about 485 mN per metre.
Perfectly real, meaningful and measurable.

In a slightly warm room gallium also is a liquid and it stick to glass like there's no tomorrow. The same is true for gallium indium alloys that are liquid at lower temperatures.

[Geezer]

I used to solder printed circuit boards by dipping them into a bath of molten solder. That was forty years ago, but unless my memory is playing tricks on me, the liquid solder (tin/lead alloy) behaved just like liquid mercury.

[Bored chemist]

Good point. Molten solder doesn't stick very well to the plastic the boards are made from, but it does wet the copper tracks.

I'm still not sure what evidence Fleep is after.
I posted a picture that shows that mercury wets zinc.
That kills his idea that " Mercury’s fluid properties are understandably different than other fluids."

In any event you can get a positive or negative meniscus with mercury and other liquids, even when all the materials are diamagnetic.

[fleep (OP)]

Hey!

Now that's what I like. A paltry alliance of 2 guys devoted to misleading semantics. just because they won't admit to not understanding something or all of the Cosmological Constant, and/or, The Standard Model. Either that, or they're just unchanging old philosophers who pretend to be "scientists" that will help a raw student (like me), who wildly seeks to find out what is truth.

If you're going to quote from Wiki, say the whole thing:

"mercury is one of six chemical elements that are liquid at or near room temperature and pressure,[1][2] the others being caesium, francium, gallium, bromine, and rubidium. Mercury is the only metal that is liquid at standard conditions for temperature and pressure."

"the others" (above) are boondoggles.

Stay on a topic, and don't throw in red herrings. I'm sure there must be at least a few serious debaters out there that know something about the Einstein Constant, the Standard Model, and how to stick to a prime topic. Where are you please?

With apologies fellows, I'm gone until they show up,or you get serious.

Bye.

Fleep

[Geezer]

Fleep:

I get it. You're saying your theory only applies at room temperature (whatever that is) and at sea level when atmospheric conditions are "just right", or is that just another red herring?

Oops! I forgot you won't be replying, so please ignore my question.

[Bored chemist]

He never answered questions reliably anyway.
I think he has gone off to sulk because he has realised that there's nothing "magic" about mercury.
Do you think he realises that there are "standard" conditions is precisely the same reason that those conditions are arbitrary.

[Paradigmer]

Stay on a topic, and don't throw in red herrings. I'm sure there must be at least a few serious debaters out there that know something about the Einstein Constant, the Standard Model, and how to stick to a prime topic. Where are you please?

With apologies fellows, I'm gone until they show up,or you get serious.

Bye.

Fleep

Hey! Come back!

Recently I was following your thread and did not want to barge in at the midst of your discussions.

In GR, gravity is a fictitious force, therefore you are right on from this perspective. Gravity in classical physics is merely a philosophical identity for subjective study of motion without addressing its causality.

I agree with your postulation for push effect of negative pressure in an electric universe and this could render the phenomenon of gravity. I am a fan of Hanes Alfven and your plasma sphere hypothesis also resonates with me. There was a group of researchers from The Electric Universe, but they were generally anti-Einstein, you are for Einstein and this makes you different from them and I agree with you on this.

I see you are trying to explain here the push effect that render the phenomenon of meniscus, generally, I think you are on the correct path, but the details would need to be ironed out, IMHO, diamagnetisms should not be mixed with the effects of gravitational force, despite they might be evolved from the same origin of cosmological constant like how you put it. I agree with your push explanation for tides and tidal force and I believe this is the reality; attraction force of gravity is as a result of an apparent paradoxical effect that is rendered in a delusion.

IMHO, motion would produce kinetic energy that could be converted into electrical energy, from this perspective where I am coming from, there is no conflict. This is where I would like to engage you in the discussion to address the causality of the electric universe or the plasma sphere cosmology.

What is your definition for field and how does it come about into existence and what is its causality?      

[fleep (OP)]

Vincent!

Where have you been?

It's too late now. I've purged my latest messages, and I'm abandoning the search. If you chase me down, I'll talk to you, but I won't waste a minute more in limbo.

Thank u for the lifeline, but I think I may have drowned already.

Fleep

[fleep (OP)]

Vince:

Pls purge your message. Mine are gone.

Thanks

Fleep

[Geezer]

Fleep:

I think it's extremely bad form to delete all your posts from a thread. I will discuss your actions with the other mods.

I have restored your deleted posts, and I have also banned you.

[syedbukhari39]

I want to start this topic once again to conclude a final result

[peppercorn]

I want to start this topic once again to conclude a final result

You've already got your own running along very similar lines:
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=35194

For this reason alone this one will be locked.