Ultimately something does have to explain pressure-gradients. But your argument that it's greater at sea-level because 'that's where the gas is' doesn't seem too compelling.

Team induction ftw.


Even the Iranians have a space agency! But to Billy's credit, this last Indian moon mission looks like not even good CGI.

I fully agree that it doesn't seem intuitive in any sort of way and perhaps that wouldn't be the right sort of representation. Water molecules wouldn't be pushing down either but pressure increases just the same.

Seems like but isn't since liquids have intermolecular bonds therefore a false equivalence. Even so I think it is correct to assert that a hydrostatic pressure surrounds a body from all directions.

Well this is pretty much agreed by everyone. The difference is they think there is an open system with a vacuum surrounding it. In the model the gas is produced at sea level and disperses into the lower pressure region above, eventually some of it does disperse into the vacuum while most of it does not reach escape velocity and falls back down. My argument is that the system cannot be open since gas pressure requires a container, which is another model they use when it suits, except this one is actually verified by experiment and is therefore correct.

Don't project your own prior mistakes onto others and avoid stereotypes.

Firstly I assumed moon landings to be true until I learned the region of space and the whole heliocentric religion of balls of gas in a vacuum is an impossibility. In other words I have been convinced by science.

Don't know/care about JFK. But for example 9/11 I didn't assume anything other than the official narrative until reading 9/11 Unmasked which is a forensic examination and a good book btw. (According to some this is in fact a psy-op within a psyop but whatever, good book all the same.) And then you can tie this in with the project for a new American century, the endless wars since 9/11 and the psychopathy of the people behind this agenda, then killing 3000 of your own people in New York is a reasonable price to pay, in their view. So some conspiracies are true, if you aren't convinced by 9/11 itself, you must see that the deep state conspired to invade Iraq? They have conspired have to bring down a lot of governments since 1945? This is historic fact.


What is to be gained from hegemony over the realm of accepted ideas as promoted in education, academia, politics, media etc? Quite a bit I think. Doesn't actually matter that much what the narrative is, could be that flat earth is hegemonic in another epoch for instance. In fact there seems to be a number of controlled oppositional narratives, those who promote flat earth models and lifestyle actors such as Mark Sargent. Is flat earth promoted as a government controlled narrative to sow division, encourage distrust in institutions in preparation for a new order? Certainly possible. But there is truth there still, and truth to be found within accepted models also.

Would I be correct in thinking that your take is that atmospheric pressure increases with increased air density and that there is nothing more to it than that?

Yeah a higher density results in a higher pressure. Do we need more than this?

Density requires a volume for the mass to be in. In the model we have an infinite volume. Pressure requires an area for the force to press on. We have an area at the surface only.
What we have is a special pleading fallacy - atmospheric pressure is described differently from a gas pressure in a balloon or something. But it's the same thing I believe, and follows the same natural law.

You do not understand what is really going on. The entire system whether liquid orr gas particles in atmosphere is a huge statistical system of action reaction pair interactions seen classically and quantum mechanically not dramatically different yet from this picture when it comes to collisions. The entire theory is a collisions theory. It is not the weight of the column above per area that is the pressure, it is only on avg that. It is what happens if you take into account all collisions and their ferocity layer by layer that you obtain when coupled with gravity stronger speeds near the surface and higher number of particles as they trend to want to crash to the ground but the collisions and temperature/heat introduced in the system prevents that from happening bringing a equilibrium that is however biased towards higher densities lower near the surface introducing a gradient really when you try to use calculus to smooth out the statistics.

So you only get an average behavior that leads to the weight of the column and the calculus associated with it. It is not literally that. But if the molecules were frozen in time and not moving it would be that in terms of action reaction forces and gravity as can be seen easily by a set of boxes you put one above the other in a gravitational field resulting in a net force ont he table that is the sum of the weights of the boxes above since all the internal forces between bodies cancel out in the sum. Particles close to each other but not really "touching yet" still exert some force to each other. Certainly that is dramatically raised during the collision moment.

Pressure in fact fluctuates and so does local density. You refuse to see the simulations of gas particles inside gravity to recognize why this is all happening. It is a statistical probability game of collisions coordinated by gravity.

Same thing for liquids except you dont have such free wide motion of individual particles vs their neighbors.

I don't make any claims about what it does and doesn't "scientifically demonstrate" because I'm waiting for you to finish that part of the conversation.

At this point, do you agree that it happens?

I know what it is. But I don't know what you think it is. So I'm investigating your usage of it.

I continue to find it fascinating that you hold this position about "natural" phenomena. I also think it's very telling that you have to start to speculate secondary causes.

But with that aside, I'll return to the question of whether or not you think human shadows are a natural phenomenon. They are created by humans, and so it would seem that they could *never* be natural. I know you think you've explained this, but I'd like for you to explain it again.

Nope. I want to play it straight. Don't concede anything that you think is untrue.

I make no presumptions. I just observe that it happens.

Interesting definition choice. A "hypothesis" is the "prediction of the cause and effect relationship"? Can you give me an example of a properly worded hypothesis?

Okay. That's good information to know.

Do you know of any experiments that justify anything?

Maybe I'm still searching for an understanding of "scientific proof" from you. Because you've now conceded that you have ZERO scientific backing for your belief. It leads one to wonder what, if any, beliefs you hold with scientific backing. Or maybe there simply don't exist valid scientific experiments?

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

You'll have to be more explicit about the nature of the assumptions.

I've seen flat earthers argue that if the earth were spinning, you would expect a ball thrown up to drift away because of the earth spin, and that if the earth were spinning the air speed of the plane would not be fast enough to keep up with the earth's rotation.

So there does seem to be some sort of acceptance of an underlying physical nature of the universe. What I'm asking is that given whatever that underlying physical nature is, would you expect to find that the pendulum precesses?

This proves your basic misunderstanding of both science and logic. What your controlled experiments provide is inductive evidence which supports your hypothesis that under the controlled conditions water will always boil at 100C, anywhere, anytime. It doesn't provide proof of your hypothesis and if you bother to educate yourself on these topics you'll find that science never provides proof. It only provides confirmative inductive evidence to increase confidence in the hypothesis.

Notice you ignored all the reasons I gave in my post to prove to you that your experiments do not provide proof. I will apply inductive reasoning to the evidence of your history of posts here to confirm the hypothesis I made earlier, and to make the prediction, that you will fail to educate yourself by reading the links below because only by protecting your ignorance on this subject can you continue to garner the attention you're really after.


See Inductive Reasoning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
The Scientific Method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Inductive Reasoning in Science
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/...ng-in-science/

PairTheBoard

We agree it is not the weight of a column of air, so that's a lot of references that are debunked. But if we freeze the molecules, ie turn them into a solid, then they behave like a solid and the model of gravity now applies. Except nobody is arguing that the entropic effect of high to low density applies to solids as it does to a gas. The reference kinetic theory of gases you provided last time did not assert such a gravitational field model beyond a special pleading baseless assertion.

Yes I refuse to accept a simulation of particles in a gravitational field as scientific evidence.

Please define what gravity is since it is the central concept in your model.

[QUOTE=Aaron W.;55548022]I don't make any claims about what it does and doesn't "scientifically demonstrate" because I'm waiting for you to finish that part of the conversation.

At this point, do you agree that it happens?Yes. What is causing the rotation of the plane?


Yes they are a natural phenomenon.

You mean you know I have already destroyed the argument.

No cause, no science.

If the temperature is increased to 100C then the water will boil.

If cause and effect relationship then science can be applied.

Prove, and disprove, correct?

This is exactly what I said, one falsification disproves the hypothesis. So we're asserting no absolute proof, that is fine, this is not maths. But as also asserted, we can both verify and falsify, confirm and validate.

Yeah this is how they get round the fact that most of their science isn't science. The general principles are observation, hypothesis, experiment. The rest can be messed with and reordered but these are always specific steps in that order when carried out.

Btw if you want to ad hom and call me an attention seeker just put me on ignore.

It is prone to the same vicious circle as any other justificationist epistemology, because it presupposes what it attempts to justify.


Neil de grasse tyson argues about American football goals being scored or missed because the earth rotates underneath. They (heliocentrists) also argue that bullets experience coreolis deviation. They also argue that planes, drones, helicopters don't experience coreolis. They also argue that the earth rotates underneath a foucault pendulum. They also argue that the earth rotates underneath the air causing hurricanes. They also argue the entire atmosphere rotates lock step with the earth. As a heliocentrist, I assume, which is true? One or two frames?

Depends on what the pendulum is. Is there a device inside? Give us details of this as a properly performed experiment.

Gas pressure is caused by gas molecules bouncing off container walls and one another.
https://sciencing.com/what-causes-ga...-13710256.html

Gas pressure is caused by the collisions of gas particles with the walls of the container.
https://socratic.org/questions/what-...kinetic-theory

And from NASA

As the gas molecules collide with the walls of a container, as shown on the left of the figure, the molecules impart momentum to the walls, producing a force perpendicular to the wall. The sum of the forces of all the molecules striking the wall divided by the area of the wall is defined to be the pressure.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/ai.../pressure.html

Yeah we need a container, for gas pressure.

Re weight of a gas

There is a roughly constant atmospheric pressure on Earth that equals the weight of about 10 meters of water. This pressure normally goes unnoticed because it is pushing in all directions at once.
https://www.reference.com/science/ca...077a5ce94745e5

There is no overall bias towards down, gas moves randomly in all directions as I keep asserting.

I am convinced i am talking to a wall here and the trolling objective probability rose again.

You do not understand that the walls in those discussions exist in order to help the derivations for very young students. They are not essential. Walls are not the reason you have pressure. Walls experience the pressure. Your face in the room becomes a wall in that sense. The gas requires a container if nothing else can keep it contained in a small region of interest. Earth is not a small region. Gravity keeps it contained because it is a long distance force that extends thousands of kilometers above surface.

The main component of kinetic theory is not walls but collisions. Not collisions with the walls by the way but collisions with other molecules. The avg molecule visits the walls only after billions of collisions.

Students of physics are not ready yet for the truth that requires some serious advanced math, one of the greatest achievements of late 19th century physics. In fact a lot of it is not even attempted properly in top books even but can only be imagined by those that have some experience with advanced thinking.

The truth is that when a molecule is moving at 400 m/sec and collides every millionth of a second with others, gravity cant affect its orbit in any significant manner because the parabolic arcs between collisions are so tiny that look like straight lines ignoring gravity. The force during collisions is millions of times larger than gravity. But eventually as you get higher and collisions become less and less frequent the paths start looking parabolic indeed. And there is a statistical bias against going very high with high velocity also. It is a random walk with a drift in a kind of way. It looks random and very volatile short term and the drift is tiny but eventually it persists.

Do you seriously understand that unless you have an upward speed of 11200 m/sec you cannot escape the gravity of this planet? So who the hell needs walls if on the way up you cant go much higher with 400-1000 or 5000m/sec. Maxwell Boltzmann distribution tells you how likely it is to get up there.

Only 1 in a trillion molecules will get lucky enough that collisions stochastically rise its speed to such high levels that it can now escape atmosphere if it is lucky enough also to not collide with anything on the way up. Of course that is how smaller gravity systems lacking magnetic fields of decent size lost their atmosphere over billions of years. And we lose it also slowly too even if not in any important way unless we are talking about hydrogen molecules. Get a clue why so little hydrogen on earth and other rocky planets when its the most abundant element in the universe? Because it reacts with oxygen but also has higher chance to escape since it is moving with much higher speeds than 400 m/sec often.

You do not imagine things properly here because you do not have the education of a typical physicist that has seen at least graduate level classes on these topics.

Earth is a huge system. The wall is the ground and the other wall is not needed up because you have the bloody 11200m/sec potential "wall" that cannot be surpassed for 99.999999% of the molecules.

Stop being such a simplistic loser in the way you deal with a high caliber brain and decent background education like mine or i will stop interacting with you. I am not showing off posting here. I am only trying to help you learn. I do not appeal to authority in my arguments but do not confuse that for lacking authority. I am illuminating here for you the truth that becomes obvious only after years of studies and you are ignoring it. This is irritating and insulting. Trolls do that or very ignorant and arrogant at the same time people. How can one that doesnt know a lot be so stubborn?

You do not understand gravity. When forced to deal with it you argue its fake. You behave exactly like a facking troll on this.

If you throw a ball up in the sky wont it come down if it doesnt have escape velocity (and even more with air resistance)? Does it need a wall to bounce and come back to the ground? So why would a particle say N2 or O2 molecule require a wall? Frozen oxygen thrown to the sky will fall but the molecules it is made of wont?

I apologize for the ad hom. I regretted it when I woke up this morning. You seem to have given your views on how science should work a lot of thought. It's actually very interesting trying to get at exactly where your thinking goes wrong.


PairTheBoard

Why are you free to assert that there's a plane?

And why did you feel it was necessary to assert the possibility of a motor or something that causes rotation?

But humans are involved. And humans aren't allowed for natural phenomenon. And how do we scientifically test shadows?

I haven't said I was doing science yet. I'm just observing reality. You seem very hesitant to do so, and it makes me wonder about your underlying philosophy of science and reality. Do you believe that the pendulum is precessing because something about the setup is deceptive?

Except that it doesn't. It boils at different temperatures sometimes. I think your experiment is broken.

Still looking for the precision here. What is being tested? The relationship? The cause? The effect?

Are you claiming that science is ultimately deductive and not inductive? Are you adopting a particular epistemology? If so, what is it?

I personally have no objection to the idea that data can be used to infer conclusions in non-absolute ways. Do you?

Notice that you haven't actually addressed anything meaningful. I asked you to be explicit about the nature of YOUR assumptions.

I would like to see your citations for those statements as well. I think you're adding words into their statements.

Why do you keep going back to this if you admit that the effect is real?

And I'm still waiting for you to fully elaborate on your concept of an experiment. Can you give another example besides the boiling water one? And can you list out explicitly how you've established all of your conditions for a proper experiment?

This is the special pleading fallacy I am referring to. Earth is the sole special case where natural laws don't apply. Fine, but it needs demonstration. You are disagreeing with multiple clear citations, you cannot just say they are wrong and only apply to a novice understanding. In establishing the cause of gas pressure complex maths should not be required. Your claim is that collisions with other atmospheric molecules themselves suffices to cause atmospheric pressure, plus one wall at the ground, correct? Well I call BS and my citations support me.
If we have a small enclosed volume we can pump up the air pressure. On removing the container the volume of gas will disperse into the lower pressure environment around it as per the second law. The effect is time dependent and other factors, but equilibrium will be found.

Right, gravity. Please define it.

The main component? Sounds rather subjective, you don't agree that a minor but still absolutely necessary component is collisions with the walls of a container? Can you demonstrate a gas pressure without a container?

Ok, that's not difficult to understand.

Can we see these arcs?

How do you explain gases at very high altitudes having a very high temperature, ie high KE, and therefore high velocity, I assume?

You are begging the question, gravity and planet in vacuum are the things you are trying to prove. But yes a lot of energy is needed to go up high unless you have a balloon of helium, then it's pretty easy.

People need walls who are asserting we have gas pressure to breath etc..

This isn't scientifically verified and needs a bunch of assumptions, correct?

I was going to say water.

Does every physics graduate believe the heliocentric model? They don't.

So we need at least one wall. In the model of gravity the 'force' is supposedly weaker the further away from the mass?

Define gravity, just once.

What goes up, must come down, this is your meaning of gravity?
If the ball is less dense than its medium it won't come down at all. Escape velocity is a begging the question fallacy, you have presupposed an open system.

Solids arent gases as we all know.
Your argument is that ice behaves in a way so water vapour must behave in the same way? Which is demonstrably false.

No problem

The plane of oscillation of the pendulum, this is the claimed effect of the 'experiment'.

This would be a necessary control variable that could void the results, right? Apparently motors are put in some of these things to keep them swigging. That's why the precise equipment needs to be demonstrated.

Don't be absurd, human biology is (sometimes) science for instance. We are talking about man made devices which already have cause established ie man made it. Natural science explores natural causes of natural effects.

Possibly. No idea really. I know this though - it can't be put through the scientific method and therefore causation cannot be proven. You know this which is why you cannot get passed the first step of observation. Because you will beg the question.

Yeah we already covered that with control variables.

For water boiling?
Effect is water turning from liquid to gas. Cause is temperature. So we have dependent and independent variables. We have control variables, air pressure, type of water.

Im not claiming anything, I'm not familiar with these terms, that's why I asked you to explain. You cited a whole wiki page instead. I found the statement amusing that bayesian epistemology is presuppositional, which is a theme here.

No idea. Please explain these terms

Deductive reasoning and how it applies to science
Inductive reasoning and ditto
Bayesian inference and ditto

No you did not you quoted some random flat earther.

Masque claimed directly in this thread re weather patterns and coreolis. I have posted de grasse tyson in this thread. The rest are easy to find, when I have time I will gladly put these together because it's quite laughable.

What is the cause of this effect?

I have established all proper conditions for boiling water.
Next we have sunlight causes grass to grow. Effect:growth. Cause:sunlight. Controls:soil, fertilisers.
Yeah sunlight causes grass to grow. Proof. Of a scientific kind.

Now, please offer your scientific proof we live on a spinning ball in a vacuum.

This is a good example of the doublethink we are expected to believe:

All from the SAME wiki page.

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

Because the Earth spins, Earth-bound observers need to account for the Coriolis force to correctly analyze the motion of objects. ... such as large-scale movement of air in the atmosphere or water in the ocean... This force causes moving objects on the surface of the Earth to be deflected to the right (with respect to the direction of travel) in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. The horizontal deflection effect is greater near the poles, since the effective rotation rate about a local vertical axis is largest there, and decreases to zero at the equator.

Rather than flowing directly from areas of high pressure to low pressure, as they would in a non-rotating system, winds and currents tend to flow to the right of this direction north of the equator and to the left of this direction south of it. This effect is responsible for the rotation of large cyclones.


So, definitely a coreolis deviation being asserted here, right? I mean it's, to quote wiki again a "fictitious force" but still it can cause cyclones
In any case this is a definite assertion of TWO reference frames.

winds and currents (presumably something separate to the atmosphere ) do not rotate lock step, rather they experience a deviation due to having TWO REFERENCE FRAMES. The non rotating inertial frame they are moving in and the rotating reference frame of the earth


But wait... in the same reference we are told

As the Earth rotates about its axis, everything attached to it, including the atmosphere, turns with it (imperceptibly to our senses).



So the atmosphere rotates lock step with the earth rotation. ONE REFERENCE FRAME. NO coreolis because

the Coriolis force ... acts on objects that are in motion within a frame of reference that rotates with respect to an inertial frame.

We need 2 reference frames for coreolis effect. TWO. We have only ONE.

Or do we?

Masque is offering $7 for anybody capable of resolving this contradiction [citation needed]