Your question is malformed. The answer 'yes' declares there are 2 different containers. The answer 'no' declares there is one container. Both answers assume there is at least one container. Is this a claim you are making?

Simple burden of proof reversal fallacy. Your position is gas pressure without a container. The onus is on you to demonstrate your claim, not on me to demonstrate a claim I haven't even made.

Do you accept or reject that there are 2 different containers?

I'm not making any claims. I'm asking a question.

You keep saying that, but it's clear that I'm not making any claims. I make no claims about containers. I'm just asking you whether there are two containers. Why is it that you have such a hard time answering such basic questions?

This is no different than your inability to square up human shadows and your definition of "natural" being not caused by humans.

Once more, let's see if you get this. I doubt it.
The heliocentric claim is that the atmosphere is held to this earth by a gravitational force that prevents the second law taking effect and the gas pressure dispersing into the 10^-17 torr vacuum of space.

My argument: gas pressure, which includes gas pressure gradients, is caused by collisions of gas molecules with themselves and the walls of a container. For the sake of defending your heliocentric religion, demonstrate gas pressure without a container. Then demonstrate gas pressure being contained by a gravitational field.

Where in this statement do you see me claiming there is a container, the necessary prerequisite of asking me how many containers there are? To do so would be begging the question of a vacuum or lower pressure area immediately outside this system we live in would it not. Precisely the charge I am levelling at you.

Therefore a straw man fallacy addressing an argument I never even made.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.


If you want to go over foucault again please do because we can once again destroy non existent earth based coreolis effect. If you want to talk about your scientific investigation about the cause of shadows carry on.

Well, earlier you had said:

Since you assent to the a difference of air pressure in two different locations, it seems that you must necessarily have a container by your own argumentation. Otherwise, there wouldn't be air pressure anywhere.

So much irony...

There cannot be a practically infinite volume for the gas to disperse into, it would violate natural law. The model is therefore demonstrably wrong. Asserting that the prerequisite for gas pressure is a container because it is the cause of gas pressure - we have pressure therefore container - is simply a logically correct statement that is backed by natural law of gas behaviour. It debunks your model without asserting an alternative. After this point is pure speculation such as then asserting we have a container or multiple containers that we can describe the properties of, where it/they are, how this system works etc.

You are asking me to describe a model I am not claiming. This is understandable, in your mind we live on a model that does not describe objective reality. When thus is questioned you immediately want to conjure a new model that more accurately describes where you live.

It's similar to the reason why conspiracy theories are still alive today and are running stronger with the help from youtube.

Masque cant deliver absolute proof in a gummed up sense to Billy and Billy tops Masque with his argumentative skills. You're stuck with Masque posting honorably while Moo takes the W.

PairTheBoard

Not much sense in arguing with a guy who asserts what he denies and denies what he asserts.


PairTheBoard

And?
When did I say anything about

A) a vacuum - that is the fallacy the other side is guilty of. Let them/you demonstrate their/your claim

B) a containment wall - now there is an assertion of a wall. The argument is how can there be gas pressure without the necesary cause of a container. This debunks the model. There isn't enough information available to assert anything else.

C) that the gas would have quickly dissipated long ago, which requires the vacuum to be asserted in the first instance, and also some kind of starting point for the whole system. Again, that is their/your claim, not mine.

Maybe I have not explained my point very well since now you also are complaining of a contradiction, not just the troll Aaron. I thought it was clear enough. You were 'summarising my position' but my position does not need summarising, it is concise enough - demonstrate gas pressure without a container and demonstrate gas pressure contained by a gravitational field. It is a questioning of the existing model, not an assertion of a new one, or an explanation of what 'would' have happened in a situation where the question is begged.

Everybody has already accepted there is no absolute proof in science. He has no proof period. No hypothesis, no experiment.

Like I said before.


PairTheBoard

You claim 'the physics case has been made' yet

A) you cannot define what gravity is
B) you cannot demonstrate scientific evidence of gravity
C) you cannot demonstrate a gas pressure being contained by gravity
D) you cannot demonstrate gas pressure without a container
E) you cannot demonstrate an earth based coreolis effect

Rather than address these questions, or at least accept you don't have answers, you instead claim there isn't much sense arguing with me.

We have gas pressure, the cause of which is a container. But the only conclusion to be drawn is that the globe model is wrong because that model has no container. If you put a gun to my head and I had to answer the question I would say yes, container, but I'm not going to be drawn in to begging the question and providing alternative models and answering ******ed troll questions about how many containers there are etc. It's quite a difficult line to take to declare we need a container but have absolutely no evidence of this container or that it even exists in a form we can comprehend. It is simply a consequence that arises from knowing it is a requirement of gas pressure. And that debunks the globe model.

Fine if you do not want to carry on this conversation but the above questions will continue to hang in the air like a bad smell regardless of whether you consider my approach has been bad form.

The physics case has been made that debunks your debunking. The only bad smell is your ignoring, dismissing, or misrepresenting the arguments which did so. They are there for you to honestly study if you wish.


PairTheBoard

A solid rock will evidence " pressure" without a measurement as per example if I place a 200 pound boulder on my chest I will certainly experience "pressure".

Of course I can also place a numerical value on this pressure with a measuring device which is no more than a variation on a theme.

Likewise if I fill a balloon with a gas and place it on my chest i can again feel "pressure". If I remove half of the gas from the balloon I can sensibly experience the difference in pressure which will diminish.

This can also be measured and given a numerical value.

As evidenced above the gas has a weight which makes it ponderable and therefore I can measure the "pressure" of the gas by simply using a scale or balance.

But it doesn't end here, for if the gas has weight and manifests "pressure" how is it that the gaseous doesn't flop to the earth due to its ponderable nature ?

It is at this juncture that it can be seen that to treat a gas as a material entity something is missing for the material must fall to the earth.

Looking at the fluid or liquid state a hint of what is present can be elucidated by consideration of Archimedes Law. In the fluid state there is buoyancy which is usually passed over such that our leg will weigh less in the bathtub and not much more is said about the event.

Going slowly.....we tend to assume that the buoyant activity is a function of the liquid, or it is within its materiality. This is the error in thinking for the only assumption is that the buoyant activity is "from without".

Going further, the buoyant activity is not earth bound but streams in from the outer regions of the solar system or cosmos.

To the point, the buoyant activity is not a "point force" as we refer to in physics but comes in from without the earth from all sides (think open umbrella) or look out into the starry heavens and note the heavenly expanse.

Back to the gas; so as there is a outward activity in the fluid likewise the gas manifests this activity in essence and this gas, which evidences ponderability, displays an outer activity to the cosmic periphery. Therefore the gs does not fall to the earth due to its materiality.

And so if the states of the sensible are considered; solid, fluid or liquid, gas and heat ( not bouncing balls). the solid in its own way which manifests "pressure" is in polarity with the gas which evidences for want of a better word a negative pressure or "suction" .

I believe that somewhere in this subforum I displayed the idea that the sun was(is) not a large gas oven but a "suction" state to which leads to nonmateriality. A wag said that the sun was not a vacuum cleaner .

The difficulty in modern scientific thinking is that it relates all of its findings to the earthly and its materiality and so we have the thinking of a mollusk which up to now will not consider that human kind is immersed with a cosmic entelechy , arms spread to the heavens and feet onto the earth.

Are you on board with Fata Morgana distorting what would be seen at these distances?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnrjdD08dWg

So, you're saying it's a "necessary antecedent" that there exists a container in order for air pressure to exist, and you accept that air pressure exists, but you don't assent that a container exists even though it's a logically correct statement?

To be clear, are you claiming that the model of a container being a "necessary antecedent" is NOT the model you are claiming?

Not sure, did see some miraging.
The guy in the video with the blue shirt says 'we just did some science here'. No he did not. He observed something with a camera. Hypothesis and experiment? He says 'this is an experiment'. No it is not. Dependent variable, independent variable, control variables. Manipulate independent variable.
'anti science' he claims about flat earthers, the guy hasn't got a clue what science is.

Correct. In the heliocentric model 2 mutually exclusive claims are made:

1) gas pressure exists without a container
2) the cause of gas pressure is a container

Reconcile this.

As far as what I assert, it may be logically correct to state there must be a container, but this does not mean that asserting the existence of a container is a reasonable position. There is no contradiction because there are 2 different contexts. In the context of the heliocentric model a container is required, therefore it is bunk. In the context of determining an accurate description of the reality of the sky there is not enough information available to make a claim.

A container being the necessary antecedent is not a model, it is a cause. I dont claim a model, see above.

For a laugh. Astrophysicists arent even scientists.

Good, fast approaching which conspiracy is more sophisticated and shocking: The Nobel Prize in Physics (or other Nobel prize categories) or who gets the Fields Medal. And that is just the icing on the cake. Low hanging meat like Nature and Science Magazine are inner layers of the monster science conspiracy.

Look straight into the camera and smile. You got some more attention coming your way!!!

First, the "heliocentric model" does not require a model for air pressure. Heliocentrism is merely a claim about the relative position of the earth, sun, and other celestial objects. One need not develop a model of air pressure to assent to heliocentrism.

I reject 2. The "cause" of air pressure is not a container. I do not agree with anyone who makes that specific claim. I think that is a simplified model for simple minds. Perhaps this is why you require it?

Suppose that I were standing under a waterfall. I would feel the "pressure" of the water pouring on top of me. But there's no container. It's just the water falling on me.

Okay. What is your explanation for the existence of air pressure. You agree it exists, right?

Amusingly, you were having extreme difficulty with the concept of two reference frames...

How about your spinning ball religion, does that need air pressure?

The rapid motion and collisions of molecules with the walls of the container causes pressure
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchemb...0pressure.html

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

Pressure is caused by the collisions between the atoms of gas and walls of the container
https://socratic.org/questions/what-causes-gas-pressure

Gas pressure is caused when gas particles hit the walls of their container
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guide...7ty/revision/7

What is gas pressure caused by? The total force of collisions between fast-moving molecules and the container they are in.
https://quizlet.com/83737852/gas-pressure-flash-cards/

Pressure is caused by gas molecules hitting the walls of the container.
https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/kt/otherlaws.html

The pressure of a gas results from collisions between the gas particles and the walls of the container.
https://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/gench...h4/kinetic.php

You have a citation to support your view?

Ask masque for a lesson on 'states of matter'. Actually don't, he doesn't understand the difference between solids, liquids and gases either. A better example would be when Neil de grasse tyson blows smoke up your backside you can really feel it.

It exists, I have no explanation.

Define 'gas' and 'liquid' first, then you can start questioning my understanding.

No. Spinning balls and air pressure are mostly unrelated concepts. I can conceive of heliocentrism with the earth contained inside of an airtight ball and lose nothing of heliocentrism.

Are you really that bad at logic?

The fact that some people use the word "container" doesn't mean that this is the most robust or meaningful explanation. Pressure is the force experienced by any object when hit by air particles. You can call the object a "container" but that doesn't really mean anything special.

Thanks for admitting that explicitly. You have no explanation for air pressure. That's good to know. So for all of this random quoting of things on the internet, it's not like you have an alternative. You're just playing the role of the skeptic attempting to tear down knowledge rather than an inquisitor trying to build it up.

Do you have an explanation of the sun rising and the sun setting?

Why should I bother? You've already said that you lack a functional explanation of air pressure. I can question your understanding all I want now. I actually think you don't understand anything BECAUSE you've said that you don't even have an alternative explanation. I'm not going to make claims of "truth" here. I'm just going to say that the model of air pressure that I have is better than yours because you don't have one. And that's good enough for me.

By the way, your defensive statement is the sort of statement that reveals that you don't know anything. Hiding behind "you first" is an obvious tactic of someone who is ignorant.

You mean we don't live on a spinning ball in a vacuum with an atmosphere stuck to the outside of the ball? We do? So pretty closely related then? The astrophysicist in the video posted above seems to think so, she offers an explanation in fact - gravitational forces. You know better than a leading astrophysicist?

Yes but what is the cause of gas pressure? This is not about whether we can stick any old object in a pressurised area and it experiences a force. We are talking about the cause. You say

You are therefore expressly disagreeing with all 7 of my citations above. Care to offer a single citation supporting your view that a container is not required as a cause of gas pressure?

So, I have debunked your claim of gas pressure without a container. But because I cannot offer an alternative this means that we must accept a model that is demonstrably wrong?

To stop yourself sounding like a tool? You have just exemplified gas pressure with a waterfall hitting you on the head which is rather silly, perhaps you want to demonstrate that you know the difference between gas and liquid?

Don't trigger yourself when trolling.
What do you want me to do, go through once more how in fact I understand implicitly about reference frames? Specifically how 2 reference frames, one rotating and one inertial are required causes of the coreolis effect and how you cannot demonstrate, just one time, the apparent deflection of a body moving in a straight line in its inertial frame as the earth turns underneath? Hmm?

Suppose you had gas in a long closed cylindrical container. Then the gas pressure in the container should equalize over time. But suppose it doesn't. Suppose the gas pressure at one end of the container stably remains less than the gas pressure at the other end. How would you explain this? What must be the cause of it?


PairTheBoard