Official Outer Limits/Debunking Thread
View Poll Results: How would you want to go if the world had to end?
Zombie apocalypse
20
18.02%
Meteor collides into the earth
30
27.03%
Alien invasion
58
52.25%
Nuclear disaster, either from war or accident
3
2.70%
Quote:
Originally Posted by PairTheBoard View Post
The container we're talking about is a 1000 foot tall closed gas containing cylinder placed vertically on the ground. The pressure will reach an equilibrium where the gas pressure (force per area) is equal throughout the container. Correct? Yes or No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1&onlybillyshears View Post
Yes.
Resolve this difference. Thanks.
Originally Posted by PairTheBoard View Post
The container we're talking about is a 1000 foot tall closed gas containing cylinder placed vertically on the ground. The pressure will reach an equilibrium where the gas pressure (force per area) is equal throughout the container. Correct? Yes or No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1&onlybillyshears View Post
Yes.
Resolve this difference. Thanks.
In the demonstration you have an equal temperature throughout and no additional gases, therefore given the correct time the gas will disperse fully. Is this the same as the atmosphere? Clearly not, you have a dynamic system with temperature differences and gases constantly being produced and absorbed, multiple gas cycles and so on. The processes take place mainly at the surface.
Gas pressure gradient requires gas pressure, gas pressure requires container.
Yes
Actually the model of gravity does explain the air pressure differential from lower to higher altitudes. Your "logic" against the model's explanation is your assertion that gas molecules do not exhibit the same phenomenon of accelerating downward if unimpeded that they do if part of a solid or liquid. You refuse to allow that part of the model. You have no evidence to support that refusal yet you insist it "logically" rules out even the possibility that gravity does in fact produce a "container" for the atmosphere.
You are now stuck contending that gas pressure equalizes in the 1000 foot tall container I described yet air pressure fails to equalize in the non-gravity "container" you "believe" contains the atmosphere.
You are now faced with your failed logic. I predict you will resort to repetition of your initial barrage of argumentative verbiage, designed to illicit weak responses you can snipe at.
PairTheBoard
You are now stuck contending that gas pressure equalizes in the 1000 foot tall container I described yet air pressure fails to equalize in the non-gravity "container" you "believe" contains the atmosphere.
You are now faced with your failed logic. I predict you will resort to repetition of your initial barrage of argumentative verbiage, designed to illicit weak responses you can snipe at.
PairTheBoard
More burden of proof reversal. I do not need to show how 'gravity' - 4 dimensional spacetime curvature - does not cause gases to bend and fall. It is your claim to support that it does. You come up with a just so story about a gravity container, which is a joke and requires a citation btw, and then expect me to disprove it. Obviously I can, and I have, with any demonstration of the second law that gas moves to lower pressure which collapses your just so story into deepest humiliation.
Using your false equivalence fallacy and still calling it an experiment, this is what you have. You believe a container which has the same temperature throughout and no additional gas is the same as the atmosphere.
Right, I am designing weak responses. Could this be because my arguments are strong?
Terminating taking 1&onlybillyshears seriously. Malignancy in our sights. It ends now.
Anyone here that sees remotely anything interesting in this joke of an experiment in tilting is a lost cause as well.
The guy calls gravity by Newton pseudoscience lol. Einstein generalized it and didnt kill its applications to daily events and most solar system phenomena. Both prove fine daily, one a lot better but so harder to solve to even do basic daily things but it will gladly let Newton play the game there as post Newtonian approximation is not important always. And both will fail at the level the next breakthrough will illuminate, precisely because they existed and lead the way.
He speaks of walls and containers as if they are Gods of the concept of pressure because the idiotic books out there use walls, that only serve a simplistic derivation purpose which proper kinetic theory doesnt need, because the only true permanent "wall" effectively is the statistical army or random particles against which you have to travel to actually hit the geometrically understood wall. Ie the standard particle almost rarely hits the wall or goes from one end to the other in one move (like 1 in a trillion chance really or less in standard rooms). Introductory books do not have what it takes to do a bloody good proof of the distribution of velocities right away and then introduce a surface that molecules strike arbitrarily in a space they fill, hitting each other, and establish pressure there statistically.
He doesnt have a degree in physics or remotely understand differential equations and diffusion theory and probability distributions oh but is so sure you need a wall to prevent particles moving 10 times lower than escape velocity from leaving a planet that loves them so much that will liberate them only if magically they get to 11.2km/sec and hit nothing on the way up. Good luck. Walls. Idiot! Really megatons level idiocy not getting that the wall is nothing other than the same bloody thing, a field that introduces a probability to not go through it that is essentially the equivalent of a long range force doing the same thing over distances. Ie a "potential wall" is the only wall that you have here whether its gravity or electromagnetic field needed for molecular bonding and scattering. Both 1/r^2 based by the way. How do you propose the wall actually functions if not the same way at a massively smaller scale because the force quickly becomes huge in relative terms but oh all so short lived vs the other that is always there weak but permanent securing the bias to the ground, eternally defended only by random collisions and heat from a sun that apparently is not so big as the books and experiments say he claims.
Gravity weakening over 100km hahaha. Like what 3%?
Second law. I laugh. There is no second law. It can be undone if you get lucky enough. is there such law if you have 16 particles or 128? There is no thermodynamics at a deep fundamental level, only statistical mechanics. Only probability theory. There is nothing preventing 10000 particles deciding after many collisions to find all meeting at the 1/4 of the room other than pure probability.
Profoundly insulting for this forum to not have this end the way civilized people would find it reasonable, ie by actually having the one that started it prove they learn something because they came here to actually care to do so. What is it that he learned? That you cant touch us yet, not like this, not naked and gigantically lost.
Anyone here that sees remotely anything interesting in this joke of an experiment in tilting is a lost cause as well.
The guy calls gravity by Newton pseudoscience lol. Einstein generalized it and didnt kill its applications to daily events and most solar system phenomena. Both prove fine daily, one a lot better but so harder to solve to even do basic daily things but it will gladly let Newton play the game there as post Newtonian approximation is not important always. And both will fail at the level the next breakthrough will illuminate, precisely because they existed and lead the way.
He speaks of walls and containers as if they are Gods of the concept of pressure because the idiotic books out there use walls, that only serve a simplistic derivation purpose which proper kinetic theory doesnt need, because the only true permanent "wall" effectively is the statistical army or random particles against which you have to travel to actually hit the geometrically understood wall. Ie the standard particle almost rarely hits the wall or goes from one end to the other in one move (like 1 in a trillion chance really or less in standard rooms). Introductory books do not have what it takes to do a bloody good proof of the distribution of velocities right away and then introduce a surface that molecules strike arbitrarily in a space they fill, hitting each other, and establish pressure there statistically.
He doesnt have a degree in physics or remotely understand differential equations and diffusion theory and probability distributions oh but is so sure you need a wall to prevent particles moving 10 times lower than escape velocity from leaving a planet that loves them so much that will liberate them only if magically they get to 11.2km/sec and hit nothing on the way up. Good luck. Walls. Idiot! Really megatons level idiocy not getting that the wall is nothing other than the same bloody thing, a field that introduces a probability to not go through it that is essentially the equivalent of a long range force doing the same thing over distances. Ie a "potential wall" is the only wall that you have here whether its gravity or electromagnetic field needed for molecular bonding and scattering. Both 1/r^2 based by the way. How do you propose the wall actually functions if not the same way at a massively smaller scale because the force quickly becomes huge in relative terms but oh all so short lived vs the other that is always there weak but permanent securing the bias to the ground, eternally defended only by random collisions and heat from a sun that apparently is not so big as the books and experiments say he claims.
Gravity weakening over 100km hahaha. Like what 3%?
Second law. I laugh. There is no second law. It can be undone if you get lucky enough. is there such law if you have 16 particles or 128? There is no thermodynamics at a deep fundamental level, only statistical mechanics. Only probability theory. There is nothing preventing 10000 particles deciding after many collisions to find all meeting at the 1/4 of the room other than pure probability.
Profoundly insulting for this forum to not have this end the way civilized people would find it reasonable, ie by actually having the one that started it prove they learn something because they came here to actually care to do so. What is it that he learned? That you cant touch us yet, not like this, not naked and gigantically lost.
You don't know what gravity is. You have failed to give a definition and you have not cited an experiment. There is no force, you don't know the correct pseudo science.
More burden of proof reversal. I do not need to show how 'gravity' - 4 dimensional spacetime curvature - does not cause gases to bend and fall.
More burden of proof reversal. I do not need to show how 'gravity' - 4 dimensional spacetime curvature - does not cause gases to bend and fall.
The claim is for the plausibility of an atmospheric gravity container. Your claim is that such a thing is impossible. The burden of proof is on you. The easiest way to resolve this is to actually do the 1000 foot tall container project and look at the results.
PairTheBoard
And you don't think that this stands as evidence that the air pressure in two different parts of the same container can be different?
The guy calls gravity by Newton pseudoscience lol.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
Please explain how newtons conception of gravity is compatible with the scientific method. This means
A) state natural phenomenon observed
B) state hypothesis
C) describe experimentation including dependent, independent and control variables
See above for a direct quote from a letter from Newton to Bentley which says you are not of sound faculty of mind if you believe there is a force of gravity inherent in matter. You are nuts, to paraphrase. Newton pleaded 'do NOT assign gravity to me'. Yes newton debunked himself in fact.
Secondly we have Michio Kaku declare that your genres, astrophysics, cosmology, astronomy do NOT use the scientific method, it is GUESSWORK. Yes you have your postgrad but you aren't quite in the same league as Kaku in the priesthood now are you.
Einstein generalized it and didnt kill its applications to daily events and most solar system phenomena. Both prove fine daily, one a lot better but so harder to solve to even do basic daily things but it will gladly let Newton play the game there as post Newtonian approximation is not important always. And both will fail at the level the next breakthrough will illuminate, precisely because they existed and lead the way.
You claim
Gravity is a force
Gravity is not a force
Do you need a degree in physics to understand this is horseshit? Hmm? Just a basic understanding of the law of non contradiction.
Can you finish a sentence without a logical fallacy? 'both will fail at the next breakthrough' is an appeal to the future and is already false on its own terms - einstein has dispensed with Newton. There is no force.
He speaks of walls and containers as if they are Gods of the concept of pressure because the idiotic books out there use walls, that only serve a simplistic derivation purpose which proper kinetic theory doesnt need, because the only true permanent "wall" effectively is the statistical army or random particles against which you have to travel to actually hit the geometrically understood wall. Ie the standard particle almost rarely hits the wall or goes from one end to the other in one move (like 1 in a trillion chance really or less in standard rooms). Introductory books do not have what it takes to do a bloody good proof of the distribution of velocities right away and then introduce a surface that molecules strike arbitrarily in a space they fill, hitting each other, and establish pressure there statistically.
He doesnt have a degree in physics or remotely understand differential equations and diffusion theory and probability distributions oh but is so sure you need a wall to prevent particles moving 10 times lower than escape velocity from leaving a planet that loves them so much that will liberate them only if magically they get to 11.2km/sec and hit nothing on the way up. Good luck. Walls. Idiot! Really megatons level idiocy not getting that the wall is nothing other than the same bloody thing, a field that introduces a probability to not go through it that is essentially the equivalent of a long range force doing the same thing over distances. Ie a "potential wall" is the only wall that you have here whether its gravity or electromagnetic field needed for molecular bonding and scattering. Both 1/r^2 based by the way. How do you propose the wall actually functions if not the same way at a massively smaller scale because the force quickly becomes huge in relative terms but oh all so short lived vs the other that is always there weak but permanent securing the bias to the ground, eternally defended only by random collisions and heat from a sun that apparently is not so big as the books and experiments say he claims.
Gravity weakening over 100km hahaha. Like what 3%?
Second law. I laugh. There is no second law. It can be undone if you get lucky enough. is there such law if you have 16 particles or 128? There is no thermodynamics at a deep fundamental level, only statistical mechanics. Only probability theory. There is nothing preventing 10000 particles deciding after many collisions to find all meeting at the 1/4 of the room other than pure probability.
The [second] law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature
Alma mater
University of Manchester
Trinity College, Cambridge
Known for
Eddington approximation
Eddington experiment
Eddington limit
Eddington number
Eddington valve
Eddington–Dirac number
Eddington–Finkelstein coordinates
Awards
Royal Society Royal Medal (1928)
Smith's Prize (1907)
RAS Gold Medal (1924)
Henry Draper Medal (1924)
Bruce Medal (1924)
Knights Bachelor (1930)
Order of Merit (1938)
Scientific career
Fields
Astrophysics
Institutions
Trinity College, Cambridge
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington
Classical thermodynamics ... is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced ... will never be overthrown.
Nothing in life is certain except death, taxes, and the second law of thermodynamics.
Regarding the Laws of Thermodynamics: "(1) You can't win, (2) you can't break even, and (3) you can't get out of the game.
https://www.azquotes.com/quotes/topi...odynamics.html
But wait,
There is no second law
Profoundly insulting for this forum to not have this end the way civilized people would find it reasonable, ie by actually having the one that started it prove they learn something because they came here to actually care to do so. What is it that he learned? That you cant touch us yet, not like this, not naked and gigantically lost.
Of course you can have different pressures in the same container. If this is about a pressure gradient in a container and the conditions for whether one will exist, see response to Steve350. Container of fixed volume of gas with same temp is not the same as the atmosphere, like it needed to be stated.
I'm talking about the phenomenon we observe of things accelerating downward if unimpeded. We call this phenomenon "gravity". I'm not claiming proof that this phenomenon produces a gravity container. I'm claiming that if the phenomenon applies to molecules of gas as we observe it does when those same molecules are part of a solid or liquid then we can model that gas system mathematically to show it will reach an equilibrium with a gas pressure differential, whether the gas is in a tall vertical container or part of the atmosphere.
The claim is for the plausibility of an atmospheric gravity container. Your claim is that such a thing is impossible. The burden of proof is on you. The easiest way to resolve this is to actually do the 1000 foot tall container project and look at the results.
PairTheBoard
The claim is for the plausibility of an atmospheric gravity container. Your claim is that such a thing is impossible. The burden of proof is on you. The easiest way to resolve this is to actually do the 1000 foot tall container project and look at the results.
PairTheBoard
The phenomenon does not of course apply to say a helium balloon in air or a beach ball in water. Or a gas particle. It was actually masque who got me on to kinetic theory of gases, which is really quite deadly for this gravity container
The molecules are in constant random motion, and as material bodies, they obey Newton's laws of motion. This means that the molecules move in straight lines until they collide with each other or with the walls of the container.
Randomly, in straight lines, in all directions. See anything about gravity containers here? In fact
When a molecule collides with a rigid wall, the component of its momentum perpendicular to the wall is reversed. A force is thus exerted on the wall, creating pressure.
Bent or reversed trajectories of gas particles in A 'gravitational field' needs to be demonstrated (after the demonstration of a gravitational field of course) . Only then can plausibility be asserted. A gradient in a big container would not cut it even under optimum conditions because it remains a gas pressure with a container.
And without proof of gravity a gravity container is a begging the question obviously. "if the ball is true... Yada yada" is the start of every globe proof/demonstration.
A phenomenon, that is the first step. Now hypothesis and experiment.
The phenomenon does not of course apply to say a helium balloon in air or a beach ball in water. Or a gas particle. It was actually masque who got me on to kinetic theory of gases, which is really quite deadly for this gravity container
https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/...heory_of_Gases
Randomly, in straight lines, in all directions. See anything about gravity containers here? In fact
Gases don't behave like solids and liquids. The lack of understanding of which seems to be a theme here independent of people's level of education.
Bent or reversed trajectories of gas particles in A 'gravitational field' needs to be demonstrated (after the demonstration of a gravitational field of course) . Only then can plausibility be asserted. A gradient in a big container would not cut it even under optimum conditions because it remains a gas pressure with a container.
And without proof of gravity a gravity container is a begging the question obviously. "if the ball is true... Yada yada" is the start of every globe proof/demonstration.
The phenomenon does not of course apply to say a helium balloon in air or a beach ball in water. Or a gas particle. It was actually masque who got me on to kinetic theory of gases, which is really quite deadly for this gravity container
https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/...heory_of_Gases
Randomly, in straight lines, in all directions. See anything about gravity containers here? In fact
Gases don't behave like solids and liquids. The lack of understanding of which seems to be a theme here independent of people's level of education.
Bent or reversed trajectories of gas particles in A 'gravitational field' needs to be demonstrated (after the demonstration of a gravitational field of course) . Only then can plausibility be asserted. A gradient in a big container would not cut it even under optimum conditions because it remains a gas pressure with a container.
And without proof of gravity a gravity container is a begging the question obviously. "if the ball is true... Yada yada" is the start of every globe proof/demonstration.
I'm talking about the phenomenon we observe of things accelerating downward if unimpeded. We call this phenomenon "gravity". I'm not claiming proof that this phenomenon produces a gravity container. I'm claiming that if the phenomenon applies to molecules of gas as we observe it does when those same molecules are part of a solid or liquid then we can model that gas system mathematically to show it will reach an equilibrium with a gas pressure differential, whether the gas is in a tall vertical container or part of the atmosphere.
The claim is for the plausibility of an atmospheric gravity container. Your claim is that such a thing is impossible. The burden of proof is on you. The easiest way to resolve this is to actually do the 1000 foot tall container project and look at the results.
PairTheBoard
The phenomenon is explained by relative density. The denser the body the lower its position
Is the bolt falling down or the ping pong ball falling up? We have in our minds the preconceived idea of a huge mass below us pulling everything down. We have a preconceived notion of down, in fact, was it einstein who said that down is the direction in which time travels more slowly. Down is the direction towards the most significant local mass perhaps, in heliocentrism. Whatever, it is all begging the question. Forget these ideas, this is what we are trying to prove, it cannot be an assumption prior to investigating.
I'm not claiming proof that this phenomenon produces a gravity container. I'm claiming that if the phenomenon applies to molecules of gas as we observe it does when those same molecules are part of a solid or liquid then we can model that gas system mathematically to show it will reach an equilibrium with a gas pressure differential, whether the gas is in a tall vertical container or part of the atmosphere.
The claim is for the plausibility of an atmospheric gravity container. Your claim is that such a thing is impossible. The burden of proof is on you. The easiest way to resolve this is to actually do the 1000 foot tall container project and look at the results.
If 'your claim' personally then I don't know how more clearly I can demonstrate this as impossible without repeating myself ad nauseum. I have cited that gas pressure will expand to fill a container evenly, will fill the available volume. All of space.
You seem to want to cling to the model being plausible. It's just a model.
All I'm asking you is whether the difference in air pressure in two different locations in a container is evidence that the air pressure can be different in two different locations in a container. Is this an observation of a natural phenomenon? Or is this somehow not natural for reasons that you're going to suddenly introduce arbitrarily?
Steve will have his own questions and his own issues to resolve with you.
I don't know how more clearly I can demonstrate this as impossible without repeating myself ad nauseum. I have cited that gas pressure will expand to fill a container evenly, will fill the available volume. All of space.
You seem to want to cling to the model being plausible. It's just a model.
You seem to want to cling to the model being plausible. It's just a model.
The claim is for the plausibility of an atmospheric gravity container. Your claim is that such a thing is impossible. The burden of proof is on you. The easiest way to resolve this is to actually do the 1000 foot tall container project and look at the results.
PairTheBoard
Of course you can have different pressures in the same container.
All I'm asking you is whether the difference in air pressure in two different locations in a container is evidence that the air pressure can be different in two different locations in a container. Is this an observation of a natural phenomenon? Or is this somehow not natural for reasons that you're going to suddenly introduce arbitrarily?
No. Here's your whole statement:
You had *JUST* admitted that there is a container and now you're talking about this thing called "the atmosphere". What is that? Why are you suddenly and capriciously introducing new concepts?
Originally Posted by you
Of course you can have different pressures in the same container. If this is about a pressure gradient in a container and the conditions for whether one will exist, see response to Steve350. Container of fixed volume of gas with same temp is not the same as the atmosphere, like it needed to be stated.
Question is malformed. Rephrase more clearly.
Why are you using a special pleading for the existence of "the atmosphere" as something that's different than a container, and in what way is this consistent with the logic of your previous arguments?
At what point can we have a flat earth conspiracy theory containment thread? I have a ton of other whackadoo topics we could discuss.
Is this what we have in the atmosphere? No, we have variable temperatures, we have gas cycles, we have gas continuously being produced at the surface, we have a dynamic system. It is a false equivalence to say that the atmospheric pressure should equalise because it does in a controlled container. It is obviously not special pleading, the pressure differences in the atmosphere occur within whatever container is containing this gas.
It is simple. Can't have a gas pressure gradient without gas pressure, can't have gas pressure without a container. In other words I have dispensed with your argument about 10 pages ago.
In pair the boards demonstration the conditions were that no more gas was being pumped in or out and the temperature was the same throughout. Therefore the pressure will equalise as per natural gas law and kinetic theory of gases.
Is this what we have in the atmosphere? No, we have variable temperatures, we have gas cycles, we have gas continuously being produced at the surface, we have a dynamic system. It is a false equivalence to say that the atmospheric pressure should equalise because it does in a controlled container. It is obviously not special pleading, the pressure differences in the atmosphere occur within whatever container is containing this gas.
It is simple. Can't have a gas pressure gradient without gas pressure, can't have gas pressure without a container. In other words I have dispensed with your argument about 10 pages ago.
Is this what we have in the atmosphere? No, we have variable temperatures, we have gas cycles, we have gas continuously being produced at the surface, we have a dynamic system. It is a false equivalence to say that the atmospheric pressure should equalise because it does in a controlled container. It is obviously not special pleading, the pressure differences in the atmosphere occur within whatever container is containing this gas.
It is simple. Can't have a gas pressure gradient without gas pressure, can't have gas pressure without a container. In other words I have dispensed with your argument about 10 pages ago.
Can you show the "container" anywhere in the atmosphere? Obviously there are multiple "containers."
Nope we cannot demonstrate the container by direct observation, only by consequence of knowing that gas pressure requires a container and it therefore must exist, in some sense. This is a distraction in any case. The globe model cannot survive the best flat earth arguments, like those I put forward, so instead the defence is to discredit the lack of an alternative model. Which we do not need to offer in order to debunk the globe. We just don't know what we have up there. What we cannot have is a near infinite vacuum without a container preventing the gas pressure dispersing, this would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
This container certainly has some magical properties!
Is this what we have in the atmosphere? No, we have variable temperatures, we have gas cycles, we have gas continuously being produced at the surface, we have a dynamic system. It is a false equivalence to say that the atmospheric pressure should equalise because it does in a controlled container. It is obviously not special pleading, the pressure differences in the atmosphere occur within whatever container is containing this gas.
How consistent do you think the air pressure measurements at sea level and in Denver are?
It is simple. Can't have a gas pressure gradient without gas pressure, can't have gas pressure without a container. In other words I have dispensed with your argument about 10 pages ago.
Add special pleading fallacy to the list of things you haven't got a clue about.
'how consistent is.. Yadada yada' this is how poorly you even ask a question let alone interpret any kind of meaning from a response. Have you got a scale of consistency? not very, a bit, quite a bit, loads and loads... Check a weather forecast or something.
Yes you are indeed asserting your own definition of the cause of air pressure, which is supported in precisely zero references you can/can't find. You have literally no citation to support your codswallop, you are just making stuff up on the spot.
'how consistent is.. Yadada yada' this is how poorly you even ask a question let alone interpret any kind of meaning from a response. Have you got a scale of consistency? not very, a bit, quite a bit, loads and loads... Check a weather forecast or something.
Yes you are indeed asserting your own definition of the cause of air pressure, which is supported in precisely zero references you can/can't find. You have literally no citation to support your codswallop, you are just making stuff up on the spot.
'how consistent is.. Yadada yada' this is how poorly you even ask a question let alone interpret any kind of meaning from a response. Have you got a scale of consistency? not very, a bit, quite a bit, loads and loads... Check a weather forecast or something.
Yes you are indeed asserting your own definition of the cause of air pressure, which is supported in precisely zero references you can/can't find. You have literally no citation to support your codswallop, you are just making stuff up on the spot.
So you can continue to avoid all you want. I think the fact that it took you several hundred posts to even admit the existence of a container based on your own logic says plenty. It shows how tenuous your grasp on logic is. And how much you realize that this whole thing is just a farce that you're trying your best to avoid.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE