A new book on the UFO, Alien Hoax

[Hermit]

when you fly a small plane you have to be careful as kilkenny airfield is on a certian evelation and on any given day the airpressure varies a little .
your altimeter is really a pressure gauge and if set correctly to your location and the you must know the approx elevation of where you intend to land then it will give an accurate reading of your height .
this is especially important in fog or cloud or night flying --there is pressure there has always been pressure and when you next look at a glass of water or whisky you will see the pressure making the water climb the walls of the glass .
your house weather clock is really an altimeter as it measures pressure and as the pressure alters to high pressure the weather improves .

Airplanes fly level above a level surface, they don't fly in a curved path over a curved surface. Height/altitude is a measurement with respect to a HORIZONTAL (FLAT) plane, i.e. the surface of land and sea.

I don't know what point you are trying to make about pressure, maybe you didn't understand me. Space is claimed to be a vacuum - I am trying to tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be gas next to a vacuum without the gas moving into that vacuum. Do you understand that if you get a puncture in your tyre, the air in the tyre will escape? Now think of the air in your tyre as the atmosphere and what's outside the tyre as the space vacuum.

planets are not lights in the sky -our moon is a planet orbiting the earth and is ALWAYS a full moon as we only see it when the sun illuminates it against a black sky .

They are lights and they are in the sky, that's what you see when you look at them. The moon is not a planet in the heliocentric paradigm. Moons are moons, not planets. We can see full moons during daylight too, not just against a black sky.

the Hubble telescope is your friend have a look online at all the planets --not Lucy in the sky with diamonds winking at you but the planets such as our sun visible during a eclipse OF TWO PLANETS .

No way of validating those images are real. They are not even in colour, they have to be digitally manipulated to make them all pretty for you. You see those nice images and speculate what could be out there. The sun is not a planet either.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umeHIxIdKxE

 

[The Equalizer]

The Earth is a relatively young planet. Life would have evolved long before this place was fit to support it.

It's hard to know, isn't it. It's thought that life on Earth began about four billion years ago, so how much of a headstart could older worlds, of which there certainly are, have had..

 

[The Equalizer]

Air pressure is caused by the molecules pressing against the walls of a physical container. That's the definition of gas pressure.

That's a definition of gas pressure. But atmospheric pressure is caused by the reason I said, air has mass and, in a gravitational field, mass has weight.

No container, nothing for the gas molecules to press against.

Yes, there isn't a container for atmospheric pressure.

Pressure is not caused by "a gravitational field". Gas moves freely in all directions, it is not being pulled down by a gravitational field.

Gas Pressure - UCalgary Chemistry Textbook

Gas pressure is caused by the force exerted by gas molecules colliding with the surfaces of objects. Although the force of each collision is very small, any surface of appreciable area experiences a large number of collisions in a short time, which can result in a high pressure. In fact, normal...

chem-textbook.ucalgary.ca

I didn't say anything about "noticing" air pressure at the surface of earth. But we can measure that pressure so it is noticeable. So whatever point you were trying to make is moot.


Gas moves from high pressure to low pressure (vacuum), that's how gas behaves. So the gas under high pressure on earth cannot exist next to a space vacuum without a physical barrier between, otherwise that air would move into the area of low pressure, it would not remain on earth.

Atmospheric pressure is caused by gravity, the same reason the atmosphere is bound to the Earth. That is physics 101, my friend.

 

[The Equalizer]

I believe another interpretation is that neither sock has a colour until the box is opened ~ If that is the case then some sort of message has to go between the two socks to " decide " which colour each one is ! !

Yes, you're right to bring this up, I was just trying to deal with the speed of light thingy

Entangled particles are the possibility, or probability, of all states before the collapse of the wave function. Only when one state is observed, or measured, can we know the state of the other. Whereas with the socks analogy, the states are predetermined.

This opens the question ~ Does anything actually exist until it is observed ? !

Is anything decided until it is observed ? !

Is anything decided until it is decided ? !

Do you really believe that the Moon is not there when you are not looking at it?, as Einstein once asked.

Does a bear shit in the woods if you can't hear it?, as I just asked I mean, I don't personally put too much emphasis on the human observation thingy.

 

[Mad as Fish]

It's hard to know, isn't it. It's thought that life on Earth began about four billion years ago, so how much of a headstart could older worlds, of which there certainly are, have had..

The universe itself is near 14bn years old, or so it was thought until the JWT upset the applecart, so there would have been time before the earth was formed.

 

[BIG FAT HOOR]

Yes, you're right to bring this up, I was just trying to deal with the speed of light thingy

Entangled particles are the possibility, or probability, of all states before the collapse of the wave function. Only when one state is observed, or measured, can we know the state of the other. Whereas with the socks analogy, the states are predetermined.


Do you really believe that the Moon is not there when you are not looking at it?, as Einstein once asked.

Does a bear shit in the woods if you can't hear it?, as I just asked I mean, I don't personally put too much emphasis on the human observation thingy.

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT is not the experiment i was referring to but when i went looking for it again i came up with Princeton's experiment of a positron and negatron 10.9 km apart and when one was reversed the other responded instantly faster than light .
as far back as 1997 in geneva separation of molecules at a big distance resulted in an instant response from shared molecules.
the cell experiment is stored on a hard drive somewhere and when i find it i will post .
it did not quote quantum entanglement it was just a experiment using a cell which had been grown and divided in Texas and its partner sent to jakarta.

 

[clarke-connolly]

Yes, you're right to bring this up, I was just trying to deal with the speed of light thingy

Entangled particles are the possibility, or probability, of all states before the collapse of the wave function. Only when one state is observed, or measured, can we know the state of the other. Whereas with the socks analogy, the states are predetermined.


Do you really believe that the Moon is not there when you are not looking at it?, as Einstein once asked.

Does a bear shit in the woods if you can't hear it?, as I just asked I mean, I don't personally put too much emphasis on the human observation thingy.

I can sure say that I and Declan, are Absolutely Brilliant whether we are observed or not

 

[The Equalizer]

The universe itself is near 14bn years old, or so it was thought until the JWT upset the applecart, so there would have been time before the earth was formed.

Well it's true that the JWT looked back far enough in time and thought - WTF are these galaxies doing here? Not that an inanimate object can think

I suppose we just dont know how long it takes or how it happens for life to begin.. But we do know, that it's happened at least once

 

[BIG FAT HOOR]

Well it's true that the JWT looked back far enough in time and thought - WTF are these galaxies doing here? Not that an inanimate object can think

I suppose we just dont know how long it takes or how it happens for life to begin.. But we do know, that it's happened at least once

WE know nothing .
making just one creature has been compared to a large scrapyard accidentally assembling a 747 which could fly.
we do not know what or who we are .
when we encounter life from another planet --a lot of crazies are going to become crazier not more sane .
there will be millions who say lets vote for the squeaky 3 ft tall grey fucker --he sounds honest and we could use a change .
they will worship the first being who is thousands of years ahead of us politically and morally --it is inescapable -we will be drawn to a superior being like children are drawn to their older peers by nature s design .

 

[The Equalizer]

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT is not the experiment i was referring to but when i went looking for it again i came up with Princeton's experiment of a positron and negatron 10.9 km apart and when one was reversed the other responded instantly faster than light .
as far back as 1997 in geneva separation of molecules at a big distance resulted in an instant response from shared molecules.
the cell experiment is stored on a hard drive somewhere and when i find it i will post .
it did not quote quantum entanglement it was just a experiment using a cell which had been grown and divided in Texas and its partner sent to jakarta.

I don't want to insult because you seem like you're probably a nice enough person.. but you're talking absolute fucking balderdash. You would be a better person, IMO, if you realised that you're talking absolute fucking balderdash, but if you can't, I don't blame you

 

[The Equalizer]

WE know nothing .
making just one creature has been compared to a large scrapyard accidentally assembling a 747 which could fly.
we do not know what or who we are .
when we encounter life from another planet --a lot of crazies are going to become crazier not more sane .
there will be millions who say lets vote for the squeaky 3 ft tall grey fucker --he sounds honest and we could use a change .
they will worship the first being who is thousands of years ahead of us politically and morally --it is inescapable -we will be drawn to a superior being like children are drawn to their older peers by nature s design .

"Making" a creature, including us, is very well understood as per the theory of evolution, which is why the pious hate Darwin, to this day

 

[Mad as Fish]

"Making" a creature, including us, is very well understood as per the theory of evolution, which is why the pious hate Darwin, to this day

I'm inclined to beliive that we have only the faintest notion of evolutions mechanics, yes we have the double helix and Darwin's finches but to my mind the theory in its present form is quite inadequate and simply does not explain the incredible engineering we see in nature. I am not a creationist, I simply think we have only the faintest notion of what is going on. It is a debate that I had with @Tiger on here a while back.

 

[The Equalizer]

I'm inclined to beliive that we have only the faintest notion of evolutions mechanics, yes we have the double helix and Darwin's finches but to my mind the theory in its present form is quite inadequate and simply does not explain the incredible engineering we see in nature. I am not a creationist, I simply think we have only the faintest notion of what is going on. It is a debate that I had with @Tiger on here a while back.

I think that the natural world - post hoc shall we say, screams evolution, adaptation and so on at us.

It just took someone to put it down on paper first, Charles Darwin.

 

[Mad as Fish]

I think that the natural world - post hoc shall we say, screams evolution, adaptation and so on at us.

It just took someone to put it down on paper first, Charles Darwin.

My contention is that our present understanding of evolution does not explain the sheer complexity of what we see.

 

[The Equalizer]

My contention is that our present understanding of evolution does not explain the sheer complexity of what we see.

Depends on how far you want to go with that, I suppose

 

[BIG FAT HOOR]

I don't want to insult because you seem like you're probably a nice enough person.. but you're talking absolute fucking balderdash. You would be a better person, IMO, if you realised that you're talking absolute fucking balderdash, but if you can't, I don't blame you

when i research particles/cells reacting to outside stimuli on google this is what comes up --i merely took note and reprinted what was offered .
i failed to find my jakarta expermient but that could have to do with the manner i searched for it.
i did that to reply to you in sincerity as you would get the same results yourself if you were sincere in your reply to anyone as i took the trouble to research it first .
when you use over the top bullshit to reply instead of doing what i did and google what research is out there you now define what kind of particles you are made of --it seem a bit sticky maybe brownish .
you could if you had anything to contribute explain to this site what QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT IS -- instead of this brown sticky stuff.

 

[The Equalizer]

when i research particles/cells reacting to outside stimuli on google this is what comes up --i merely took note and reprinted what was offered .
i failed to find my jakarta expermient but that could have to do with the manner i searched for it.
i did that to reply to you in sincerity as you would get the same results yourself if you were sincere in your reply to anyone as i took the trouble to research it first .
when you use over the top bullshit to reply instead of doing what i did and google what research is out there you now define what kind of particles you are made of --it seem a bit sticky maybe brownish .
you could if you had anything to contribute explain to this site what QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT IS -- instead of this brown sticky stuff.

If I have had any shortcomings in "explaining" quantum entanglement in this thread, then please do point them out..

 

[Hermit]

Yes, there isn't a container for atmospheric pressure.

You can't prove that claim. As per the second law of thermodynamics, it is physically impossible for gas pressure to exist next to a vacuum without containment. If there is nothing to separate or contain the atmosphere (gas) from a vacuum, the second law dictates that that air must move into the vacuum, it could not remain on earth.

Atmospheric pressure is caused by gravity, the same reason the atmosphere is bound to the Earth. That is physics 101, my friend.

You are using circular reasoning when the proof for your claim is the claim itself. Essentially what you are saying is: the atmosphere is bound to the earth by gravity (claim/premise), therefore gas pressure does not require a container (conclusion).

 

[The Equalizer]

You can't prove that claim. As per the second law of thermodynamics, it is physically impossible for gas pressure to exist next to a vacuum without containment. If there is nothing to separate or contain the atmosphere (gas) from a vacuum, the second law dictates that that air must move into the vacuum, it could not remain on earth.

View attachment 8916
View attachment 8917


You are using circular reasoning when the proof for your claim is the claim itself. Essentially what you are saying is: the atmosphere is bound to the earth by gravity (claim/premise), therefore gas pressure does not require a container (conclusion).

Are you all there, son?

ATMOSPHERIC pressure is caused by gravity, what the heck does the second law of thermodynamics have to do with it?

 

[The Equalizer]

when i research particles/cells reacting to outside stimuli on google this is what comes up --i merely took note and reprinted what was offered .
i failed to find my jakarta expermient but that could have to do with the manner i searched for it.
i did that to reply to you in sincerity as you would get the same results yourself if you were sincere in your reply to anyone as i took the trouble to research it first .
when you use over the top bullshit to reply instead of doing what i did and google what research is out there you now define what kind of particles you are made of --it seem a bit sticky maybe brownish .
you could if you had anything to contribute explain to this site what QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT IS -- instead of this brown sticky stuff.

Okay, I'm sorry for being rude but I wouldn't really know how to look for what you're talking about, the Jakarta experiment.

What I know about quantum entanglement is that it's a phenomenon related to particles, when a property of one particle is measured, we know that the other particle will instantly have an opposite or corresponding property regardless of the distance between them, I don't know what effect that would have on something as large as a cell.

 

[Hermit]

Are you all there, son?

It didn't take you long to start with personal insults, attacking me because me you are incapable of addressing what I said. If you are going to use insults to protect your ego and make yourself feel like a tough guy, at least explain how what I said is incorrect.

I didn't create the second law of thermodynamics. It is not crazy. The second law is a natural law because it is observed in nature in all instances, no exceptions. It can be physically demonstrated, no speculation or unverifiable claims required. The claim that the atmosphere (gas) can exist next to a vacuum of space is a violation of the second law. What can you not understand about this? Is NASA "all there"?

"A gas fills its container, taking both the shape and the volume of the container."

https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/second-law-entropy/

ATMOSPHERIC pressure is caused by gravity,

Provide a scientific experiment that proves gravity.
Provide a scientific experiment that proves atmospheric pressure is caused by gravity.
Provide a practical demonstration of gas pressure existing next to a vacuum.

what the heck does the second law of thermodynamics have to do with it?

You ask me if I'm all there when you haven't a clue. The second law describes how gas moves from high pressure to low pressure, as explained in the images I posted above and below.

 

[The Equalizer]

It didn't take you long to start with personal insults, attacking me because me you are incapable of addressing what I said.

In your imagination.

If you are going to use insults to protect your ego and make yourself feel like a tough guy, at least explain how what I said is incorrect.

Challenge accepted..

I didn't create the second law of thermodynamics. It is not crazy. The second law is a natural law because it is observed in nature in all instances, no exceptions.

That could do with a tad refinement. Every sandcastle built, every city built, every star and planet created defies the second law of thermodynamics, at least temporarily.

It can be physically demonstrated, no speculation or unverifiable claims required. The claim that the atmosphere (gas) can exist next to a vacuum of space is a violation of the second law. What can you not understand about this?

Nothing because it isn't true.

Is NASA "all there"?

"A gas fills its container, taking both the shape and the volume of the container."

https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/second-law-entropy/

Provide a scientific experiment that proves gravity.

Pick something up and let go of it.

Provide a scientific experiment that proves atmospheric pressure is caused by gravity.

Our understanding of Earth's atmosphere.

Provide a practical demonstration of gas pressure existing next to a vacuum.

Gas pressure is created by sealing gas in a physical container. If you were to take that container into outer space then the same thing would happen as depicted in your previous pictures as it does on Earth, except that the gas in the container in space would be more evenly distributed than in the container on Earth, which would have a slight gradient, because it's in a gravitational field.

You ask me if I'm all there when you haven't a clue. The second law describes how gas moves from high pressure to low pressure, as explained in the images I posted above and below.

View attachment 8920

View attachment 8921

The idea of opening a can of soda, we call them fizzy drinks over here, in space and the result of that is really very similar to what I said about human bodily fluids "boiling" in space, which you complained about.

View attachment 8922

What's wrong with that? The atmosphere is contained, or bound, to the Earth because of gravity. And dumb Flat Earth memes? Seriously?

 

[Diarmuid]

Hey Equalizer, you seem a bit upset and aggressive. I am a humble, uneducated peasant and I have some questions for you, as you are obviously intelligent and well educated, etc.

I can understand gravity and air pressure keeping the air on planet earth at sea level or even 20 or 30km above that. Makes sense.

But what happens at say 100km or more above the surface of the earth? There can't be much air above that pressuring the air down.

Is it just gravity that keeps the air molecules from floating off into space?

Can you explain a bit about the boundary between the air of the earth and the immense vacuum of space?

Is there some kind of electromagnetic charge that stops the air molecules at that height from floating off?

Where does the vacuum of space start? Where does the air of Earth stop?

If you can answer without insults, curse words, etc, that would be much appreciated.

Go raibh maith agat roimh re.

 

[Mad as Fish]

Hey Equalizer, you seem a bit upset and aggressive. I am a humble, uneducated peasant and I have some questions for you, as you are obviously intelligent and well educated, etc.

I can understand gravity and air pressure keeping the air on planet earth at sea level or even 20 or 30km above that. Makes sense.

But what happens at say 100km or more above the surface of the earth? There can't be much air above that pressuring the air down.

Is it just gravity that keeps the air molecules from floating off into space?

Can you explain a bit about the boundary between the air of the earth and the immense vacuum of space?

Is there some kind of electromagnetic charge that stops the air molecules at that height from floating off?

Where does the vacuum of space start? Where does the air of Earth stop?

If you can answer without insults, curse words, etc, that would be much appreciated.

Go raibh maith agat roimh re.

If I might have a stab at answering that..

For gas to flow from an area of high pressure to low pressure there has to be an imbalance of forces, which there is in the case of the earth's atmosphere with gravity holding the molecules down, counteracting the natural desire of gas molecules to keep well away from each other through Brownian motion.

Gas and liquid molecules are in a constant state of random, or Brownian, motion, the higher the temperature the greater the agitation, thus warming a gas in a closed container will increase the pressure as they try to move about more.

However, gravity is pulling the molecules down causing an increase in pressure as you get closer to the earth's surface. The mean of this pressure at sea level is 1 bar or around 16 lbs per square inch.

This pressure will vary according to the weather, but the principle remains, gas at the bottom of the atmosphere will be under greater pressure as gravity pulls down on top of it all the other molecules.

At the top of the atmosphere molecules can move around far more freely for the pressure is a lot lower as there are no other molecules being pulled down on top of them, but they are still bound by gravity so you end up with not a definitive boundary but a region of very low pressure that eventually tapers out to the vacuum of space.

Not sure that the above makes things clearer, but I hope it does.

 

[The Equalizer]

Hey Equalizer, you seem a bit upset and aggressive.

Q. How do you calm down an upset and aggressive person?

A. Don't tell them to calm down.

I am a humble, uneducated peasant and I have some questions for you, as you are obviously intelligent and well educated, etc.

I can understand gravity and air pressure keeping the air on planet earth at sea level or even 20 or 30km above that. Makes sense.

But what happens at say 100km or more above the surface of the earth?

The same thing

There can't be much air above that pressuring the air down.

Is it just gravity that keeps the air molecules from floating off into space?

Yep

Can you explain a bit about the boundary between the air of the earth and the immense vacuum of space?

I can honestly say that your sentence is grating to me, want to know why? What do you mean by the "immense" vacuum of space. What difference do you think it would make if the vacuum of space surrounding the Earth was immense, or one mile?

Is there some kind of electromagnetic charge that stops the air molecules at that height from floating off?

Where does the vacuum of space start? Where does the air of Earth stop?

If you can answer without insults, curse words, etc, that would be much appreciated.

I hope I have

Go raibh maith agat roimh re.

 

[The Equalizer]

If I might have a stab at answering that..

For gas to flow from an air of high pressure to low pressure there has to be an imbalance of forces, which there is in the case of the earth's atmosphere with gravity holding the molecules down, counteracting the natural desire of gas molecules to keep well away from each other through Brownian motion.

Gas and liquid molecules are in a constant state of random, or Brownian, motion, the higher the temperature the greater the agitation, thus warming a gas in a closed container will increase the pressure as they try to move about more.

However, gravity is pulling the molecules down causing an increase in pressure as you get closer to the earth's surface. The mean of this pressure at sea level is 1 bar or around 16 lbs per square inch.

This pressure will vary according to the weather, but the principle remains, gas at the bottom of the atmosphere will be under greater pressure as gravity pulls down on top of it all the other molecules.

At the top of the atmosphere molecules can move around far more freely for the pressure is a lot lower as there are no other molecules being pulled down on top of them, but they are still bound by gravity so you end up with not a definitive boundary but a region of very low pressure that eventually tapers out to the vacuum of space.

Not sure that the above makes things clearer, but I hope it does.

That all sounds pretty good to me and I have to say, I do like the idea of Brownian motion. It's upset and aggressive, like me

 

[Declan]

I can sure say that I and Declan, are Absolutely Brilliant whether we are observed or not

Well thanks to video, I can be observed instantly anyplace on earth and the international space station

 

[Hermit]

Hey Equalizer, you seem a bit upset and aggressive. I am a humble, uneducated peasant and I have some questions for you, as you are obviously intelligent and well educated, etc.

I can understand gravity and air pressure keeping the air on planet earth at sea level or even 20 or 30km above that. Makes sense.

But what happens at say 100km or more above the surface of the earth? There can't be much air above that pressuring the air down.

Is it just gravity that keeps the air molecules from floating off into space?

Can you explain a bit about the boundary between the air of the earth and the immense vacuum of space?

Is there some kind of electromagnetic charge that stops the air molecules at that height from floating off?

Where does the vacuum of space start? Where does the air of Earth stop?

If you can answer without insults, curse words, etc, that would be much appreciated.

Go raibh maith agat roimh re.

 

[Hermit]

Every sandcastle built, every city built, every star and planet created defies the second law of thermodynamics, at least temporarily.

Stars and planets are not temporary. Explain how a sandcastle defies the second law.

"For everyday (macroscopic) situations, the probability that the second law will be violated is practically zero."

"If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." - Arthur Eddington

"In fact, all resolved challengers’ paradoxes and misleading violations of the Second Law to date have been resolved in favor of the Second Law and never against. We are still to witness a single, still open Second Law violation, to be confirmed."

Nothing because it isn't true.

"It's not true coz I say so." Not an argument.

Pick something up and let go of it.

That's not a scientific experiment. I pick up a helium balloon and let go of it. It floats UP, not down. Try again.

Our understanding of Earth's atmosphere.

"Our understanding of Earth's atmosphere" is not a scientific experiment. Try again. Your "understanding" of earth's atmosphere is the claim. Claims are not proof.

Gas pressure is created by sealing gas in a physical container.

So now you agree that gas pressure requires a container.

What's wrong with that? The atmosphere is contained, or bound, to the Earth because of gravity.

So the atmosphere IS contained now? Show me a practical demonstration of gravity pulling gas down, or having any effect on gas behaviour.

And dumb Flat Earth memes? Seriously?

Do you think it's possible to buy propane without a container for the propane? Can gravity can hold it down for you?

 

[Hermit]

The weak partial vacuum created in our lungs is more powerful than "gravity". Air flows in and out of our lungs no problem, so if gravity even existed, it is weaker than the weak vacuum in our lungs, which is weaker than the much more powerful vacuum that space is claimed to be. Therefore gravity cannot be stronger than the claimed vacuum of space in order to keep the gas on earth from moving away to fill that available vacuum space.

 

[Hermit]

The partial vacuum created by these toy cars can defy "gravity" too:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x87ukio19ws

 

[Hermit]

Thankfully all the smoke (gas) from the fire in Waterford went up into the sky instead of being pulled down to the ground by "gravity".

 

[The Equalizer]

View attachment 8924

Gravity has its limits! And is subject to the inverse square law. The "vacuum of space" really isn't doing anything btw.

 

[The Equalizer]

Stars and planets are not temporary.

That would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Explain how a sandcastle defies the second law.

Building a sandcastle is order from disorder.

"For everyday (macroscopic) situations, the probability that the second law will be violated is practically zero."

"If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." - Arthur Eddington

"In fact, all resolved challengers’ paradoxes and misleading violations of the Second Law to date have been resolved in favor of the Second Law and never against. We are still to witness a single, still open Second Law violation, to be confirmed."

"It's not true coz I say so." Not an argument.

Technically speaking, I said that there wasn't anything that I didn't understand about what you said because what you said isn't true.

That's not a scientific experiment. I pick up a helium balloon and let go of it. It floats UP, not down. Try again.

Okay.

Stick a pin in the balloon, wait a few seconds, and then let go of it.

"Our understanding of Earth's atmosphere" is not a scientific experiment. Try again. Your "understanding" of earth's atmosphere is the claim. Claims are not proof.

So now you agree that gas pressure requires a container.

I've never said that gas pressure isn't created when gas is sealed in a container, it's just that the conversation we've been having is about atmospheric pressure.

So the atmosphere IS contained now? Show me a practical demonstration of gravity pulling gas down, or having any effect on gas behaviour.

The Earth's atmosphere.

Do you think it's possible to buy propane without a container for the propane? Can gravity can hold it down for you?

The container, yes.

If the gas wasn't in the container you wouldn't be able to use it.

 

[The Equalizer]

Thankfully all the smoke (gas) from the fire in Waterford went up into the sky instead of being pulled down to the ground by "gravity".

View attachment 8928

Because heat.

 

[Mad as Fish]

View attachment 8924

Globe theory?

 

[Mad as Fish]

Thankfully all the smoke (gas) from the fire in Waterford went up into the sky instead of being pulled down to the ground by "gravity".

View attachment 8928

Because it is hot, and hot gasses will rise through cold gasses because they are less dense, carrying the smoke particles with them. The particles will eventually fall back to earth as anybody downwind of the fire will notice if they have their washing hung out.

 

[Mad as Fish]

The weak partial vacuum created in our lungs is more powerful than "gravity". Air flows in and out of our lungs no problem, so if gravity even existed, it is weaker than the weak vacuum in our lungs, which is weaker than the much more powerful vacuum that space is claimed to be. Therefore gravity cannot be stronger than the claimed vacuum of space in order to keep the gas on earth from moving away to fill that available vacuum space.

View attachment 8927

View attachment 8925

I can only assume you are taking the piss now.

 

[Diarmuid]

Hermit, maybe you should start a thread just on gravity, anti-gravity and levity? It would be good fun Newton and the apple is all very well, but he was a Rosicrucian bollox and it is prudent to take his stuff with a grain of organic sea salt, IMHO.

What happens to the helium released from all the balloons? I can understand that it is lighter than air, so obviously it will rise above the air, even with gravity.

Does that mean that there is a band of helium sitting on top of the air on the planet?

MAF, I think I can grasp the idea of the air/vacuum border zone being wide - lots of air molecules on the earth side, and very little on the space side.

What are the measurements on that? How far up is total vacuum, how far is just low density air?

It is precisely the border area where I can't grasp what's happening. Is it gravity that stops the air molecules in the border zone from spinning off into the vacuum?

Does the earth ever lose any air molecules to the vacuum?


If gravity is some sort of electrical charge, then it starts to make sense. The air molecules don't go into the vacuum because of the electrical charge that connects them to other air molecules below them.

The idea that gravity from the earth 100km below is enough to stop an air molecule heading for the vacuum nearby seems wrong.

 

[Mad as Fish]

Hermit, maybe you should start a thread just on gravity, anti-gravity and levity? It would be good fun Newton and the apple is all very well, but he was a Rosicrucian bollox and it is prudent to take his stuff with a grain of organic sea salt, IMHO.

What happens to the helium released from all the balloons? I can understand that it is lighter than air, so obviously it will rise above the air, even with gravity.

Does that mean that there is a band of helium sitting on top of the air on the planet?

MAF, I think I can grasp the idea of the air/vacuum border zone being wide - lots of air molecules on the earth side, and very little on the space side.

What are the measurements on that? How far up is total vacuum, how far is just low density air?

It is precisely the border area where I can't grasp what's happening. Is it gravity that stops the air molecules in the border zone from spinning off into the vacuum?

Does the earth ever lose any air molecules to the vacuum?


If gravity is some sort of electrical charge, then it starts to make sense. The air molecules don't go into the vacuum because of the electrical charge that connects them to other air molecules below them.

The idea that gravity from the earth 100km below is enough to stop an air molecule heading for the vacuum nearby seems wrong.

Is it gravity that stops the air molecules in the border zone from spinning off into the vacuum?

In short, yes.

Helium is indeed light but the atmosphere is a dynamic system and the constituent gasses are being constantly mixed, Oxygen is heavier than nitrogen for instance, and carbon dioxide heavier still, but generally speaking we experience it as the same gaseous mix wherever we are.

We don't really know what gravity actually is, theoretical physcists love nothing more than arguing about it but we do know that objects attract each other and, love him or hate him, Newton set the ball rolling.

Gravity is what keeps the moon revolving around the earth, holding the atmosphere is place would be a doddle in comparison.

With regards to the boundary region it gets quite complex and I'd suggest Wikipedia as a source here, it can usually be trusted on scientific matters.

Thermosphere - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org