You are a moron sorry to say. You have other planets with smaller rotation and you can do this on them if you can find anyone on earth that will fund such stupid obvious in result experiment. Furthermore WTF is wrong with you? What is the essential difference between a rotating toy sphere with an electric field pendulum that is central using charges instead of gravity? You can observe the entire same thing within the span of minutes by manipulating the rotation.

You are basically in some completely rejectionist and unreasonable way imagining that just because earth is a big planet it will behave differently in terms of rotation than a smaller object when the physics involved are the same.

The fact that nobody does such experiments is because they have better things to do with their time and money than test the obvious. They may however do something like that as an exhibit.

The fact that You havn't done Your research masque de Z speaks Volumes
You Never Looked Into It . . .


When You Look Into It all makes sense actual Science . . .

My language by the way wouldn't be insulting like that if you were genuinely interested and not being combative just to have an argument.

The fact is that technically on an individual test run in some location you do not prove earth rotation vs that you are on a platform that behaves the same way. So yes if one could build a big building and you didnt know how you got there you wouldn't have evidence the planet below rotates that way with this method only. But if you reasonably have watched how you got there and what building that is and because you know from physics how rotating systems ought to behave you would conclude rotation and its period and verify it further by the consistency in observations in terms of period in different latitude. All you have to do is apply the torque equation for the pendulum.

If one proposed the test and then provided also the rate of precession and used the latitude as input that is precisely how science works because it is very difficult for random garbage to get so much right using complicated sequence math with random latitude input.


http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/pendulumdetails.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame

try this book

https://www.pdfdrive.com/classical-m...e34368514.html

page 469 or so rotating reference frame.

lucid you are not lucid enough. Speaks volumes about my sanity yes.

Some logical fallacies in your arguments -

[QUOTE=masque de Z;55296124]You are a moron sorry to say.[QUOTE/]

Ad hominem

[QUOTE]You have other planets with smaller rotation[QUOTE/]

Scientific evidence please
Begging the question/assuming the outcome of other rotating planets.

[QUOTE]WTF is wrong with you?[QUOTE/]

Ad hominem

[QUOTE] What is the essential difference between a rotating toy sphere with an electric field pendulum that is central using charges instead of gravity?[QUOTE/]

Begging the question of rotation
Begging the question of sphere
Red herring introducing shape of earth
An electric field is not analagous to a gravitational field

[QUOTE] earth is a big planet it will behave differently in terms of rotation than a smaller object when the physics involved are the same.[QUOTE/]

Begging the question of planet
Red herring introducing shape of earth


Re coreolis effect - are you standing by the national geographic definition and explanation of weather effects? If so please explain how a pseudo force can cause both real and apparent effects and why certain parts of the atmosphere rotate lock step with earth rotation where others move in their own inertial frame.

Still need citation for 'first law can have exceptions'

Seriously i ignore you from now on. You have nothing on this but bs rejectionism of common sense. What is your background?

You do not understand the scientific method or have been ridiculously corrupted by the way dirty "sciences" have to operate like medicine , biology and sociology etc immersed in endless statistical testing and skepticism because of the vast chaos of possible explanations that can cause something. Physics is a lot cleaner.

Your main problem here is you do not understand how mathematical physics works the way you post. You do not even understand rotational systems. Did you read the book i provided and other links from reputable sources? I dont facking assume anything that would affect the result in a catastrophic circular way. You call that like a trained robot like all the mfers in flat earth trolling forums. Read what the scientific method does. I do not need to control the rotation of earth to be able to claim this verifies it. This is because the entire thing couples latitude and rotational period of earth as well as precession of the pendulum in such a way that only a theory that depends on rotation and rotational systems can predict so simply. Other explanations may exist but they will probably fail a second, after offering of the theory details, location test or they will fail other known things about earth. Offer them! It is your problem not mine. I cannot have instantly theory of everything.

Unlike "dirty" sciences like sociology or agricultural research or even biology/medicine, pure sciences like physics are very precise when we understand well what the theory says and can be tested very precisely. You do not need to do statistical analysis with control over all variables. You can but if you insist all of astronomy and cosmology goes out of the window since we cannot modify what is observed. Yet endless things have been learned by observations where you do not control the parameters completely. Would you call that no science?

There are experiments and observations and combinations of both.

If you think you control everything in the corn sun example you are not truly controlling everything. There are endless things one can claim that correlate well that are not the main reason for growth. I can develop all kinds of theories if i wanted to fight you the way you want to play the game. I dont. I can correlate the sun with all kinds of things the sunshine causes that happen to promote growth and then the real issue is not the sun can be claimed but the other things as a more general cause. You will then have to test that claim.

Well similarly here the claim is earth is rotating and that the experiment verifies it and if you insist not then it is you that has to propose an alternative theory to be tested not me because my theory passes all common sense tests already.

Furthermore define what the fack is for you proof of rotation that doesnt depend on the testing of a theory that will try to predict what the effect of rotation would be and try to see if it happens and also make sure other easily recognized processes cannot reproduce the same.


Certain things are so rare in terms of the complexity of the equations that predict them that an alternative totally different theory would have an amazingly low probability to get it right and very likely also fail all kinds of other predictions.

You think i need to go to Jupiter to verify the experiment works here? Are you serious? Dont i have the weather on all these planets to see what rotation does to a system? The same rotation physics that predicts how the pendulum would behave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

You really are ridiculous with the circular jackass thing. Einstein predicted the bending of light and they observed it in an eclipse in Brazil, he also predicted the precession of planet mercury. Are these circular too because they assume relativity in order to calculate them? Are you kidding me? This is how you test all theories by assuming them to be true and asking them to tell you what they predict.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/a...instein_125365

What do you mean by background? I have studied mechanical engineering among other things. It is irrelevant.

Without a viable dependent variable ie naturally observed phenomenon you cannot have a viable independent variable ie presumed cause. Without manipulating the independent variable you don't have a scientific experiment that can demonstrate a cause and effect relationship. In what way is this not the scientific method?

You posted entire books and huge references, I asked for citations. Why not post something which specifically supports your claim? For instance you say

My understanding of science is that the independent variable has to be manipulated to prove it is the cause of the effect. You are saying this is wrong? Specific citation please.

I dont need to know/care whether earth rotates. I am trying to establish the validity of 'experiments' (not hypothesis tests therefore not scientific experiments) that claim to prove earth rotation.

It doesn't go out the window as such, it just loses its claim to be science.

I don't know, each case would need to be looked at but in the case of earth rotation, yes I would argue no science because the outcome is presupposed.

Really?

The key difference between the scientific method and other ways of acquiring knowledge are forming a hypothesis and then testing it with an experiment.

Design and perform an experiment to test your hypothesis. An experiment has an independent and dependent variable. You change or control the independent variable and record the effect it has on the dependent variable. It's important to change only one variable for an experiment rather than try to combine the effects of variables in an experiment. For example, if you want to test the effects of light intensity and fertilizer concentration on plant growth rate, you're really looking at two separate experiments.

https://www.thoughtco.com/steps-of-t...thod-p2-606045

OK let's hear these theories. Correlation is not causation by the way.

An alternative theory for which naturally observed phenomenon? We know what einstein said about common sense right? And the experiment doesn't follow scientific method outlined above, please cite alternative method that fits the pendulum.

Of earth? That would be begging the question. Of something else, that wouldn't be relevant.

No idea re eclipse or movement of Mercury proving relativity. Perhaps I can ponder this while you think about

A) providing a citation for 'first law can have exceptions'
B) reconciling how a pseudo coreolis force can cause weather patterns and how atmospheric gases decide which reference frame to be in

I will give you a few last chances but if you insist on that style without agreeing in anything i try to explain to you, simply posting like a repeating the blind to how physics works manifesto person i will give up as promised.


Questions;

Do you believe earth rotates around its axis? If so what is something you consider evidence? What is an experiment that can confirm it or predict it if you do not ever assume anything.

Is earth near spherical? Is its radius ~6400km? Do you agree on any of these? Do you accept classical mechanics?


Now back to your style

You are full of wrong thinking but masquerading as clean science bs. First of all you do not realize that the cause and effect you claim is garbage and applies only to enhance some statistical relevance and correlation in dirty sciences that establishing theories and relationships in a clean mathematical way is very difficult or subject to chaos.

The cause and effect you seek here is a combination function between the rotational period and latitude. I do not need to change the rotational period to show connection because the function that depends on rotation to describe what is happening does it already through the way it couples with the other variable i can manipulate. So i redefine a new variable that depends on both parameters and establish causation between that variable and pendulum precession.

An electric central field will produce very similar effect to pendulum for small oscillations so it can be tested on a scale exhibit globe that you place the pendulum and have the rotation actively changed at will.

You want to modify the period. This is not needed because you do not have an alternative theory that can describe the observed effect without rotation as is so i can claim all i want and be the best we have that the rotation causes this because if it rotates it will be exactly that way and if it doesnt rotate classical mechanics predicts i will see nothing but i do see something. So since i see something you need to find way to claim that what is see is not produced by rotation and give me an alternative theory. You cannot do that, do it. Until you do it i win. This is how science works. The best proposed explanation that passes tests wins for now.

You never prove anything positive in science with 100% certainty. That is to be open minded. A new theory that describes the world in a better way can come later and make some dramatic changes although for the most part the most classical/macroscopic of effects and their core description remain intact after scientific revolutions within the context they were realized say within the last 300-400 years.

I did believe the Earth rotated on its axis before I realised that is simply a belief with no evidence to support it. I don't think it is possible to prove it without presupposing it.

My understanding is that Erotosthenes was the first credited with finding earth radius by comparing the effect of a shadow of a stick some hundred miles from a well exposed to direct sunlight. The angle made by the shadow is equal to the angle at the centre of the earth therefore we find earth radius with basic trig. However, he presupposed a spherical earth and a distant, massive sun which produces parallel rays of light (you could argue the sun is small and close with the earth flat and the effect is the same). As far as I know we still have no direct evidence for the distance to the sun. Something has to be presupposed for the rest of the heliocentric model to fit.

Re classical mechanics, yes for basic engineering principles of course, but regarding fundamental physics my understanding is that quantum mechanics starting with the double slit experiment replaced newtonian/classical and has been proven to work at much bigger scales (all scales?) than is commonly believed (I am basically a layman of course)

The rest of it is going round in circles so to speak. Where there is disagreement it is usual to cite a source, I have cited the scientific method, you have made claims but have not cited anything specific re what constitutes the scientific method.

You say you are an expert on meteorology and coreolis, can you not see the contradictions in the Nat Geo piece?

This ad hom stuff makes you sound like a d*** btw

Ok this is getting interesting now because the magnitude of the problem is revealed in all its glory. But dont worry you can recover from this, prosper and find truths that can also improve on my truths and help me even find more truths i dint know if you start using your mind better and not allowing yourself to be immobilized by online garbage sites.

Are you familiar with the fact light has speed (299792500 m/sec) and that electromagnetic waves are light?

So to this day you do not recognize that when we send a spaceship to the sun and communicate with it the return time tells us everything? Surely we can measure the speed of light on earth in vacuum this day accurately. It also can be derived from theory.

The sun cannot be small and the earth flat. Lets not propagate bs lies.

The sun is behind the moon in solar eclipse and therefore further away from the moon. But this is where the fun starts. You know that a total solar eclipse is very short lived and can be witnessed by a small narrow path on the surface of earth but the lunar eclipse can be witnessed by entire continents exactly as you would expect if the sun is very far away indeed.

The fact earth is curved can be seen in the lunar eclipse because you see its shadow then like a bigger coin covering a smaller coin. It can be verified by distant ships and skyscrapers and by drones these days. The higher you go the more distant things you can see and you can recover even a double sunset.

But Eratosthenes didnt need any of these modern methods to know the sun is big and very far away. The eclipses and easily observed things in the daytime can tell the story.

You see when the moon is half moon (as it is pretty soon visible within days now ) during daytime with the sun int he sky this can happen because the sun moon observer angle is close to 90 otherwise you would be seeing more of the moon than 50% or less. That has nothing to do with whether the sun is very far away or not just that that it is the source of the light. But at that moment if you look at the angle moon-observer -sun you realize its close to 90 also and clearly over 85 deg easily. That makes the sun earth distance many times bigger than the moon earth distance by simple geometry. That and the fact the moon eclipses the sun instantly reveals that the sun is massively bigger than the moon. And now knowing that the sun is far far away compared to the moon earth distance and much bigger than the moon and that the earth's size is only ~3.5 times bigger than the moon (eclipses say that and the way they happen and regions that are visible from) we can play the shadow game of Eratosthenes just fine tp find earth's radius.


Here is another argument. The moon is 300000 times less bright at full moon than sunshine. Guess what? I can predict that number in a way that reveals how far away the sun is and how big it is .


I can also do that with the solar constant and Stefan-Boltzmann law and the temperature of the sun that i can detect and estimate with other similar flame temperatures here on earth. If an object so big radiates at such temperature and you get 1400W/m^2 near earth but a number smaller and known at Mars as ~500W/m^3 we can see how far is the sun that way too.


You realize that right now it is day in Europe and early am in west coast California USA. How can that happen with a flat earth?

How can you send a beam of neutrinos into the ground at CERN at an angle that puts them right away inside earth and see it come out of the ground at an angle in Italy? Guess what? You can even use the timing of their arrival to establish earth rotation according to a recently seen paper from 2011.



Lagrangian L1 point time lapse from spaceship there. Presuppose rotation? What about the north star and that not particularly special star not "rotating" and others forming trails with concentric arcs long enough and of the same central angle as function of time exposure to reveal the period and perfect synchronicity but over the passage of a year star positions changing a bit too revealing orbit around sun ?

PS: You better not be some gimmick account trolling again. If you are shame on you. If not then great try to use your mind better with the above data offered. I post anyway for others as well that deserve to have some proper arguments if not familiar already against the culture of misinformation the people that vote for trump for example embrace and bring to the world. A modern day attack on the age of reason. You better believe it any human must try to prove things outside the truths others offer.

Yes (though light is not a wave)

Who sent a spaceship to the sun? I think you are suggesting that the craft would send a signal back at a known speed in a known time and therfore the distance can be found. The relationship would need to be modified for relativistic speeds and maybe cannot be calculated for an *unknown* medium (ie. Vacuum in space not verified)

Is it possible to make this assertion? How can we resolve apparent 2D into 3D?

I believe alternative models exist by making different presuppitions.

Presupposition of earth causing the shadow and circles aren't spheres

This is based on presupposing that these objects are all spherical, that the sun is the only light source. Its fine, as a model but that's all it is.

How is it known at Mars? You would have to know the distance to Mars right? Only by presupposing something? Not familiar with how irradiance works but your units are inconsistent.

Strawmanning flat earth. No idea.

Hmm, cite?

Stereotyping fallacy

Nice pic.
Tell me, how is it possible that the atmospheric gases, clouds etc can possibly remain in place right next to the vacuum of space?

The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seco...thermodynamics

What is the logic of this belief? Do you have evidence to support this claim?

When we talk about proof in the context of science we are referring specifically to the scientific method, requiring legitimate dependent and independent variables and experimentation to prove the independent variable is the cause of the effect. What is the observed phenomenon? Sun/star rotation? Day/night cycle? What is our hypothesis? How can we vary/manipulate our presumed cause? See the problems here? Can't do science.

So the only way we can demonstrate earth rotation is by presupposing earth rotation, 'if earth rotates we expect to see x effect. We see x effect therefore earth rotates'.
'if A then B, B therefore A' - assuming our outcome, circular reasoning logical fallacy.

It's an open question, perhaps evidence will be forthcoming. Cursory searches all lead to either foucault or go to moon and film earth rotate. Since no scientific evidence has been shown thus far my assumption is that there is none to be found.

I don't really follow you here. What is the difference between "legitimate" variables and illegitimate variables?

Specific to this case, what do you even my be "prove the independent variable is the cause of the effect"? What is your idea of an independent variable in this case? And what is the "effect" that you think isn't causal?

Can you cite a less controversial example and talk through the logic of your statement?

Does this same problem apply to attempting to show that the earth is flat? That you can only show that it's flat if you presuppose it's flat? If not, what's the difference?

But according to you, it's not an open question. From what I understand, you just stated that it's a logical impossibility. So I really don't follow what you're trying to say here.

A legitimate independent variable can be manipulated or varied. A legitimate dependent variable is a naturally observed phenomenon - if the effect appears only in the context of the experiment I would argue it is not legit.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/sci...ples-quiz.html

The dependent variable is the main focus of the experiment; it is what's being examined in the experiment. What's changed in the experiment is the independent variable. It's changed in the experimental group only - this is sometimes called manipulation of the independent variable. The control group does not have any changes in the independent variable.

At the end of the experiment, the scientist examines the difference between the two groups to see if there was any effect on the dependent variable. If there is a difference, it is reported as a cause-and-effect relationship. In other words, when the independent variable is manipulated, there is an effect produced.

In terms of the foucault pendulum as proof of earth rotation, there are no dependent or independent variables, therefore it is not a scientific experiment.

Eg greater sunlight causes better plant growth. Independent variable (presumed cause) is sunlight and can be varied, control group can be set up also and various other factors, fertilizer etc can be accounted for. Rate of growth is the naturally observed phenomenon, the dependent variable. We can prove cause and effect.

The antithesis wouldn't be flatness it would be non rotating, but yes I think the same problems apply. Earth being stationary has the benefit of being what is generally experienced but any attempt to scientifically prove will run into circular reasoning I think.
The difference in my opinion is that heliocentrism is a philosophy masquerading as empirical scientific fact. In terms of models, flat earth, Geo centrism etc, they are just that, models.

My attempt to apply logic is to say that any proof that starts with 'if the earth is rotating then...' is going to be a circular reasoning and therefore an impossible proof in the scientific sense because we are starting with the presumed cause without first observing an effect and we are never going to be able to vary the independent variable of earth rotation.
However 'What scientific evidence is there for earth rotation?' is an open question I think.

Okay. I'm not sure how you are declaring that something is or is not a "naturally observed phenomenon." Shadows are naturally observed phenomena, but I also have the ability to make shadows appear or disappear by my own volition and a couple simple tools. Can you use the shadow example to explain the distinction?

I'm not sure that your use of "dependent" and "independent" make sense here. Can you elaborate further on how you conceptualize the experiment and what you think a reasonable conclusion from the experiment might be?

So to be clear, you're saying here that you don't think it is provable that the earth is non-rotating?

Do you believe that the earth is non-rotating? If so, why do you believe it?

Is your opinion a philosophy or a model? What's the difference?

Can you elaborate on your concept of a "circular" argument? We have two claims:

1) If the earth is non-rotating, we would expect to observe X.
2) If the earth is rotating, we would expect to observe Y.

Then we also have an empirical observation. If we observe X, does that not count as evidence in favor of 1? And if we observe Y, does that not count as evidence in favor of 2?

Why do you think it's an open question as opposed to a logically impossible question?

A phenomenon, in a scientific context, is something that is observed to occur or to exist.
Natural phenomena are those that occur or manifest without human input


https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/phenomenon

Therefore any deliberate manipulation of the environment like creating a shadow is not, we already know the cause. As opposed to for instance the nature of light itself.

Variables and scientific method cannot be applied to foucault pendulum, it isnt an experiment. Conclusion therfore not necessary but we can speculate that a change in position with respect to 'latitude' causes change in period of oscillation of plane. Does this imply that we must have 2 reference frames, one inertial in which the pendulum moves and one rotating ie the earth and ground? Does earth rotate underneath objects that move freely in inertial frames in the atmosphere? Let's ask Neil de grasse tyson:

Today's @Bengals winning OT field goal was likely enabled by a 1/3-in deflection to the right, caused by Earth’s Rotation.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...lped-cincy-win



There is no *scientific* evidence, ie that which follows the scientific method, to demonstrate an earth based coreolis effect ie 2 reference frames, so I conclude that either everything is moving in one reference frame or we are at rest. What we would be at rest with respect to I don't know.

I use philosophy and model interchangeably.

Re circular argument, the formal logical fallacy is affirming the consequent 'if P then Q, Q therefore P'.

An error in formal logic where if the consequent is said to be true, the antecedent is said to be true, as a result.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...the-Consequent

Therefore both statements, rotation and non rotation are fallacious.

Example :If taxes are lowered, I will have more money to spend.
I have more money to spend.
Therefore, taxes must have been lowered.

No you just didn't spend as much.

In our case there was another cause for X/Y that had nothing to do with earth rotation/non rotation.

There are no empirical observations here since by empirical observation we imply science. There is no science here since the correct method has not been applied.

There may be another way to pose the question and conduct a scientific experiment that has not been discovered.

So shadows are not a natural phenomenon? Are humans "unnatural" in some way? If I fall to the ground, is that *not* a natural phenomenon because I tripped over my feet?

I still find your definitions to be highly problematic.

Is this conclusion scientifically valid? Or is this also a speculation?

Do you have any sense that this is a problematic use of language? I can say that a model for linear growth is y = kx, but I have a hard time saying that y = kx is a "philosophy." Do you have a resolution to this issue within your use of language?

But what if we aren't looking for a deductive logical conclusion? Do you accept weaker forms of inference as being at least plausible? Or what if we change the language? For example:

1) If we observe X, then the earth is rotating.
2) If we observe Y, then the earth is non-rotating.

Would you accept assertions of this form? If not, why not?

Is this an assertion of fact, that there is *necessarily* another cause? Alternatively, do you assert that it is *never* possible to discern between correlation and causation?

The answer is gravity, random collisions, escape velocity being very big and molecules being mostly N2 and O2 that cannot get to such high speeds very often at typical temperatures although some do eventually. The atmosphere is leaking into space constantly but because the rate is slow for typical heavy molecules and because some of them are replenished from processes at the ground it would take billions of years or loss of the magnetic field to expose the atmosphere to more serious leaking and loss of pressure.

Basically the atmosphere never ends. It is gradually exponentially dropping in density and we define it typically within a range that is say 99.99% of its mass that is only a few km like say less than 100km. So the atmosphere is very thin and even at Everest you already are down to 3% pressure i think.

The way it works is particles collide with each other and on the way up eventually turn down or gravity gradually takes them down if all collisions from others fail to stop them on the way up. If they have enough speed and get lucky to not strike anything on the way up they will escape but only a tiny trillionth and probably less of them would be lost per day that way.

The atmosphere is free to leave but its statistically prohibited from it due to gravity and collisions. Ie the lower heights molecules will have enormously low chance to arrive randomly very very high before randomly turning around or being decelerated by gravity enough to start falling back.

Here is their probability distribution for speeds and the escape velocity is 11.2 km/sec in comparison so they are out of luck typically;




Hydrogen however can get lucky a lot more often and this is why most rocky planets miss hydrogen (plus it reacts with Oxygen otherwise if available)

look how tough it is for O2 to get anywhere near 11200m/sec

They're not my definitions, it's what is defined in context of an experiment.
No I'm speculating, I have no idea whether we are moving and if so what we are moving relative to.
My use of philosophy and model here is to differentiate from science ie proven cause and effect relationships. Y=Kx could be a fine model based on cause and effect depending on assumptions being valid.

Switching round the observed effect and conclusion would make no difference, eg 'my bank balance is zero, I must have spent it all on cheese'

My understanding is that correlation is not causation. That's why other variables need to be controlled for or we don't have a valid experiment to determine cause and effect with certainty.

What is your definition of gravity please

There is not a linear pressure gradient defined in the model, there are 5 atmospheric layers with varying pressures and temperatures.

Air pressure on everest is 1/3 atmospheric pressure ie 250 torr. Outer space is 10e-17 torr. The gas will disperse into space according to 2nd law

The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature

Can you demonstrate any of the effects you are claiming? Higher pressure gases expand in all directions as per the 2nd law of TD.

Kinetic theory of gases and Boltzmann energy factor in the presence of gravity.


The same gravity that makes your tennis ball thrown to the sky to come down no matter how hard you hit it . Newton's gravitational attraction law G*M*m/r^2 that is tested endlessly everywhere and fails only where relativity becomes relevant ie extreme conditions. If your gas particles have speeds near 400m/sec in typical conditions, and the colder it is the smaller this is, how can they get by lucky collisions such high speeds as 11200 that they need to escape the earth's gravity. Gravity traps the atmosphere inside and this is why it exponentially drops as you go higher. Because the chance particles survive the rise up is dropping dramatically with height.


Try this simulation to appreciate the effect

https://www.falstad.com/gas/

fix gravity to be maximum in the options for faster effect. See how fewer particles end up higher due to gravity.

Your second law has nothing to do with it here other than it secures the distribution gets quickly to look Maxwell Boltzmann no-matter how it starts. If anything the second law secures that the super vast majority cannot make it out. The probability to do other things is much higher.

You know how centrifuges to separate U235 from U238 work? It is artificial extreme gravity equivalent. The same effect makes the gases that are heavy go lower in the atmosphere and eventually nothing almost survives to get out of the gravity well.


You can set free the gas molecules to go up but they will come back down to you >99.9999999% of the time either because they collided and bounced on the way up or because they run out of speed exactly like projectile motion at top.

The only way a gas molecule can escape to space is by getting lucky after many collisions to acquire enormous speed at the very tail of the distribution and then survive on the way up the gravity well and endless chances to hit other molecules and bounce sideways or back losing its lucky streak energy. If it can evade all obstacles with some 12000m/sec initial speed it will escape earth. Standard statistical mechanics.

They are your definitions. They are the words you put forward when I asked you. So I'll try again: Are shadows natural phenomena or not?

You made a specific claim: "I conclude that either everything is moving in one reference frame or we are at rest." If you're not speculating, then are you claiming that this is a scientifically valid conclusion? If not, what type of conclusion is it?

You haven't actually resolved this word choice meaningfully. Your use of "model" and "philosophy" interchangeably makes very little sense. y = kx is not a philosophy, but it is a model.

If all you purchase is cheese, then the conclusion seems perfectly valid.

It's true that they are not the same. However, it seems false to assert that correlation is never causation. Do you agree or disagree that correlation can serve as an indicator of causation?

You guys know you’re being trolled, right?