/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15155463
These were the attempts at answering the box paradox i have received in the previous thread (every single one of them was easily refuted):

>earth has a container, it’s 14 billion lightyears wide (the entire universe is earths container)
the "14 billion lightyear wide container" is the very thing being called into question by the box paradox. you cant presuppose its existence to avoid substantiating your claim that it exists

>It would be impossible to have a pressure gradient on an earth with a container as well
Not true, We have empirical evidence that a pressurized atmos can exist next to a vacuum within a container - therefor, objectively, the flat earth model does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the globe model does.

there is a measurable equipotential increase of 100 volts per meter as you increase altitude from the surface of earth which correlates with the decreasing pressure gradient. as the resting potential increases, the pressure decreases. The ONLY way to get a measurable increase resting charge potential of 100 volts per meter is if there is a Gaussian surface above us as well. You cannot produce one single example of an equincreasing electric potential without the use of 2 Gaussian surfaces. This is yet another proof of the existence of the firmament.

cont..

>>15155474
..cont:

>if your vacuum room was so tall it extended to the edge of Earth's atmosphere, the air would go no higher than Earth's atmosphere

gravity is STRONGEST near the surface and gets WEAKER as you increase altitude. if the gravity is too weak to prevent gas from moving into a relatively weak vacuum near the surface where gravity is supposedly STRONGEST, it certainly wouldn’t be capable of preventing gas from moving into the much stronger vacuum of space at higher altitudes where gravity is WEAKER.
you should be able to provide a specific altitude where you could perform the “pressurized box in a vacuum chamber” experiment and NOT expect the pressurized air to seek equilibrium with the vacuum chamber. If you cannot specify an altitude in which this would happen, then why do you even believe such a place exists?

>if your chamber were closed but a hundred miles tall, the molecules would NEVER "equalize" in the chamber.
this is the samething as saying:
>yes, gas molecules can overcome gravity’s effect to escape into a vacuum near the surface where gravity is supposedly strongest
>..but, no gas molecules cannot overcome gravity to escape into a vacuum at a higher altitude where gravity is weaker
>except yes some of them can because many tons of gas does escape into space but most of it doesn’t
its literally doublespeak.The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies AT ALL ALTITUDES.

the atmosphere near the surface would not need to travel through the atmosphere above it to reach the vacuum of space. the vacuum of space would come to meet the atmosphere near the surface since the atmosphere would be stripped away FROM THE TOP DOWN.

there is no elevation within earth's atmosphere where the pressurized box in a vacuum chamber experiment cant be performed and attain the exact same result. the air in the pressurized box will ALWAYS move to fill the vacuum as per the 2nd law of thermodynamics

cont..

>>15155476
..cont:

>gas doesn’t reach escape velocity required to escape gravity’s pull
You cannot invoke “escape velocity” or any other effect to explain this away, as gravity’s effect has already been falsified via the box experiment and therefor “muh escape velocity” is falsified as well. math is a language, not a reflection of reality. ofcourse it can be used to describe things that are real, but also languages are used all the time to describe things that aren't real

invoking “escape” velocity” to attempt to explain the box paradox is presupposing the very properties of gravity which are shown to be nonexistent by the very box paradox you're attempting to refute. its just a remedial logical fallacy in order to attempt to sidestep the issue

>A gas molecule's kinetic energy is NOT infinite. As it rises against gravity it loses kinetic energy until it has no more and falls back down.
>One molecule of O2 is on a trajectory to shoot straight up towards the top. It climbs...it climbs...it climbs...it's out of kinetic energy and falls back down.
Gas molecules get their kinetic energy from HEAT and the upper layers of the atmosphere have MORE heat than at the surface. Gas molecules would have even MORE energy. It’s irrelevant anyways bc You can do the box experiment in a cold vacuum chamber and still the 2nd law of thermodynamics will ALWAYS apply. Gas molecules ALWAYS seek equilibrium with a vacuum as per the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

>when you bounce a rubber ball it falls back to earth, so gas molecules will do the same thing
different states of matter have different inherent properties. Unlike solids, gasses move omnidirectionally. A rubber ball does not.
A ball inside of a box when exposed to a vacuum chamber will not move up and out of the box. Gas molecules when exposed to a vacuum chamber will violently rush out of the box and into the vacuum

The force of the pressure used to compress the air, and thus the stored kinetic energy in the compressed air, will be released once containment is broken and the air will reach equilibrium with the surrounding space. As the kinetic energy is bled off into the environment via heat transfer, the air will settle closest to the systems center of gravity in a gradient to the extent that the net gravitational forces of the systemand density of the gas allows.

>>15155463
The implications of the box in a vacuum chamber contradiction cannot be overstated, as the issue not only applies to the atmosphere on earth, but it is also completely devastating to literally every single aspect of the heliocentric model of the universe. Gas disperses in a vacuum therefor it is impossible for stars or gas planets or nebula or any other formations of collections of gas in the vacuum of space to form any type of structure. Gravity provably cannot, and does not, ever cause gases to attract to each other rather than disperse, even in the presence of a large collection of preexisting mass (ie: the box experiment). There is virtually no aspect of the current (((mainstream))) model which isn’t completely and utterly destroyed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as is clearly illustrated with the box paradox..

>>15155487
>The force of the pressure used to compress the air, and thus the stored kinetic energy in the compressed air, will be released once containment is broken and the air will reach equilibrium with the surrounding space
yep, thats the issue ive outlned which falsifies gravity's effect lol

>As the kinetic energy is bled off into the environment via heat transfer,
already addressed this here>>15155480
Gas molecules get their kinetic energy from HEAT and the upper layers of the atmosphere have MORE heat than at the surface. Gas molecules would have even MORE energy. It’s irrelevant anyways bc You can do the box experiment in a cold vacuum chamber and still the 2nd law of thermodynamics will ALWAYS apply. Gas molecules ALWAYS seek equilibrium with a vacuum as per the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

>the air will settle closest to the systems center of gravity in a gradient to the extent that the net gravitational forces of the systemand density of the gas allows.
lol so your attempting to explain away the box paradox by presupposing the very properties of gravity which are shown to be nonexistent by the very box paradox you're attempting to refute? thats just a remedial logical fallacy in order to attempt to sidestep the issue..

>>15155487
>>15155499
The box is on earth so all of earth’s gravity is acting on the air within the box.

The claim is that “gravity” is strong enough to hold the atmosphere to earth and prevent it from rushing into the vacuum of space up at the highest altitudes where gravity is WEAKER.

If that is the claim, how can you rationalize the fact that all of all of the gravity generated by the entire planet earth isn’t even strong enough to prevent air from rushing UP and out of the box and into a vacuum chamber on earth's surface where gravity is supposedly STRONGEST?

We can even try approaching this thought experiment from a different angle:

Let’s say you brought the vacuum of space all the way down to just a foot off the ground. In this thought experiment, the entire earth’s atmosphere is only 12 inches high above the ground in all parts around the ball earth.

I think we can all agree that that the atmosphere would all be stripped away into space immediately, Bc a box of air at 12 inches off the ground will always seek equilibrium once the lid is removed in a vacuum chamber.

Now let’s start adding atmosphere. We add another 12 inches and Now the entire atmosphere encompassing the ball earth is at 2 feet high off the ground all around the ball earth... does it have enough mass now to be held down by magical gravity? If we continue to keep adding atmosphere 3ft, 10ft, 1000ft, etc. At what point is the atmosphere large enough to no longer be subjected to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? When will the atmosphere cease abiding by the 2nd law of thermodynamics and fail to seek equilibrium with the vacuum of space?...

>>15155463
The experiment's conclusion is so close to valid. The truth is, the bit of air in the small box has a lot more pressure than will settle at the small box. You open the small box, it all appears to equalize, but in truth, there's more air at the bottom than at the top(And you can use tools to measure this). The pressure is higher on the bottom because of gravity. If there wasn't much air at all, the vacuum wouldn't make a difference. And so it is like that on earth too; Less air higher up, more air closer to the center.

>>15155530
>the bit of air in the small box has a lot more pressure than will settle at the small box.
>small box
lol, space is said to be basically infinite in size.. its not a "small box",

there is no limit to how much space the atmos on earth has to equalize with and its supposedly surrounding earth everywhere, so, as ive stated here:

he atmosphere near the surface would not need to travel through the atmosphere above it to reach the vacuum of space. the vacuum of space would come to meet the atmosphere near the surface since the atmosphere would be stripped away FROM THE TOP DOWN.

there is no elevation within earth's atmosphere where the pressurized box in a vacuum chamber experiment cant be performed and attain the exact same result. the air in the pressurized box will ALWAYS move to fill the vacuum as per the 2nd law of thermodynamics

>>15155550
>lol, space is said to be basically infinite in size.. its not a "small box",
?

>>15155463
Explain what you think happens when the lid is electronically opened, and why? What is the "paradox?"

>>15155530
>>15155560

>there's more air at the bottom than at the top(And you can use tools to measure this).
that gradient that you can measure after opening the lid of the box would be consistent inside the box and outside of the box in the vacuum chamber surrounding it. after the lid is removed, the only reason the gradient exists within the box AND outside of box in the vacuum chamber, is because we have a vacuum chamber that is limitted in size. if the size of the vacuum chamber was limitless (like we are told the vacuum of space is) then you would never be able to measure a gradient bc there would be a near infinite amount of vacuum for the pressure to equalize with..

>>15155563
if you dont want to watch the video in the OP then just read thru the thread ffs

>>15155577
>that gradient that you can measure after opening the lid of the box would be consistent inside the box and outside of the box in the vacuum chamber surrounding it. after the lid is removed, the only reason the gradient exists within the box AND outside of box in the vacuum chamber, is because we have a vacuum chamber that is limited in size.
That sounds realistic. The limited size means there's still a large amount of pressure in the air, and so the air can reach every corner of the box pretty much equally. The effect of gravity doesn't exactly "trap" the air, since air is very compressible and is very compressed by the atmospheric pressure. I'm fairly sure if you had a small enough volume of air, though, it would stay in the box(regardless of the size of the vacuum chamber), rather than be "impossible to measure", though.

>>15155560
Here I have it typed out:
>If you remove the lid of a pressurized box of air inside of a vacuum chamber, gravity will not keep the air in the box. The air will violently rush out of the box to fill the vacuum. This thought experiment alone debunks the entire heliocentric model. The 2nd law of thermodynamics means that earth’s atmos cannot exist adjacent to the vacuum of space without a PHYSICAL container. Simple as.

>Gravity only has one vector - DOWN. So, if gravity is holding the entire atmosphere DOWN, then the air inside of a box on earth’s surface should be held DOWN and prevented from going UP and out of the box when the lid of the box is removed.

>The box is on earth so all of earth’s gravity is acting on the air within the box. If your claim is that gravity is strong enough to hold the atmosphere to earth and prevent it from rushing into the vacuum of space up at the highest altitudes where gravity is WEAKE, then how can you rationalize the fact that all of all of the gravity generated by the entire planet earth isn’t even strong enough to prevent air from rushing UP and out of the box and into a vacuum chamber on earth's surface where gravity is supposedly STRONGEST?

Simply put: Air pressure is caused by gravity. The only reason air can't overcome gravity is because it's pushed by the weight of other air molecules. The pressure to overcome gravity is caused by weight of air, which is also what keeps it down. The air closer to the edge of the atmosphere doesn't have all that pressure, and won't overcome gravity.

Because gravity is fake, the earth is flat, and there is a gigantic barrier known as the firmament separating the waters above from the earth below.

>>15155601
Meant for:
>>15155563

>>15155604
Wrong. it's actually because we're in a "small box" right now. The hollow earth.

I think it's really cause the illuminati made up air pressure and vacuums to make us afraid of going to "space"(nothing like how they describe it) ourselves so they can continue to keep us stuck with them

>>15155615
It's really so that they can sell more pressure gauges

>>15155604
you're saying we live in a fucking dome
ok... then who made the dome, i'm interested to hear
>>15155609
that pic literally shows byrd flew into the hollow earth, not the other way around
if it's true we're obviously outside of it...

>>15155592
>I'm fairly sure if you had a small enough volume of air, though, it would stay in the box(regardless of the size of the vacuum chamber),
Maybe, but, if so, that would only be bc of the WALLS of the box. Gas molecules move omnidirectionally and a ball has no walls. The vacuum of space surrounds earth at every angle to the surface so the gas would equalize with space everywhere.

And I already addressed that here: >>15155517
Let’s say you brought the vacuum of space all the way down to just a foot off the ground. In this thought experiment, the entire earth’s atmosphere is only 12 inches high above the ground in all parts around the ball earth.

I think we can all agree that that the atmosphere would all be stripped away into space immediately, Bc a box of air at 12 inches off the ground will always seek equilibrium once the lid is removed in a vacuum chamber.

Now let’s start adding atmosphere. We add another 12 inches and Now the entire atmosphere encompassing the ball earth is at 2 feet high off the ground all around the ball earth... does it have enough mass now to be held down by magical gravity? If we continue to keep adding atmosphere 3ft, 10ft, 1000ft, etc. At what point is the atmosphere large enough to no longer be subjected to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? When will the atmosphere cease abiding by the 2nd law of thermodynamics and fail to seek equilibrium with the vacuum of space?...

>>15155623
>you're saying we live in a fucking dome
>ok... then who made the dome, i'm interested to hear
Not him but you seriously never read Genesis 1? It's the first chapter of the Bible

im wondering what force or source of energy is supposed to lift trillions of tons of gas away from the earth. If things just get sucked up there, or if they just poof and leave then there might be a rocket manufacturer who wants to speak with you.

>>15155632
well I'm interested how the universe looks in this scenario
>>15155636
his argument is that it doesn't get sucked although there's an extremely large vacuum next to the air, and gravity isn't enough force to hold it down, so the globe model must be wrong

>>15155463
>>The “pressurized box of air in a vacuum” experiment.

Stopped reading there. Some nigger shit experiment does not disprove the mathematical certainty that gravity is containing the fluid atmosphere mass together. If the experiment was worth ANYTHING, they would have the math to back it up. I know you don't have it, I know the "Scientist" that did the experiment doesn't have it.

>>15155623
>then who made the dome
I’m not gonna say that isn’t an interesting question, but ultimately it’s a non sequitur to the question of whether or not physical containment such as a firmament exists.

We do have evidence for the existence of the firmament:

rainbows and sun-dogs are very strong evidence of the domed firmament. Ever try to make a curved rainbow indoors without a curved prism? its impossible. the reason all rainbows made outside are curved is bc earth is enclosed in a curved domed firmament.

rainbows:
(timestamped at 44:16)
https://youtu.be/6dkCVgxX7xg?t=2656

(timestamped at 11:01)
https://youtu.be/2fX-yACd-JM?t=661

Fun fact, you can't make an artificial light rainbow indoors with without a mirror.
flat mirror = flat rainbow
curved mirror = curved rainbow

Also sun dogs are evidence of the caustic dome:
(timestamped at 11:01)
https://youtu.be/2fX-yACd-JM?t=661

>>15155636
>is supposed to lift trillions of tons of gas away from the earth.
Already addressed that here: >>15155476
>the atmosphere near the surface would not need to travel through the atmosphere above it to reach the vacuum of space. the vacuum of space would come to meet the atmosphere near the surface since the atmosphere would be stripped away FROM THE TOP DOWN.

>>15155626
>Gas molecules move omnidirectionally
Well, sorta. If you use an air bazooka, the air moves in this neat ring pattern wherever you shoot it. and if there's a gravitational field(Which technically, there always is), it gets a force imparted on it in relation to it's distance from the field and it's mass.

> Let’s say you brought the vacuum of space all the way down to just a foot off the ground. In this thought experiment, the entire earth’s atmosphere is only 12 inches high above the ground in all parts around the ball earth.
> I think we can all agree that that the atmosphere would all be stripped away into space immediately, Bc a box of air at 12 inches off the ground will always seek equilibrium once the lid is removed in a vacuum chamber.
Not quite right, but close. The air will be thin, but not be removed from the earth. It will spread until it's kinetic energy from pressure is less than the energy it is pulled on by gravity. Once gravity starts "winning" as a whole, it is equalized(in terms of forces), even though the pressure isn't uniform all the way through the 'ring' around the earth.

>>15155643
With "muh equashuns" we'd still be stacking epicycles on top of geocentrism.

>>15155643
>Some nigger shit experiment does not disprove the mathematical certainty
Already addressed that here: >>15155480

>math is a language, not a reflection of reality. ofcourse it can be used to describe things that are real, but also languages are used all the time to describe things that aren't real

invoking “escape” velocity” to attempt to explain the box paradox is presupposing the very properties of gravity which are shown to be nonexistent by the very box paradox you're attempting to refute. its just a remedial logical fallacy in order to attempt to sidestep the issue

>>15155653
>the atmosphere would be stripped away FROM THE TOP DOWN.
why would it?

>>15155650
>ultimately it’s a non sequitur to the question of whether or not physical containment such as a firmament exists
not really
was it God? aliens? is this some sort of realm? prison?

>>15155667
Because that's how the experiment is observed in reality.

>>15155604
BASED & FLATPILLED

any answer to any question you may have about flat earth can be found in this pastebin:
https://pastebin.com/MwaRqfMM


https://pastebin.com/MwaRqfMM

>>15155672
what experiment? your imaginary box at 100km altitude or something?

>>15155675
>>15155604
great, another schizo thread raid.

>>15155680
The real box in the real vacuum chamber.

>>15155692
its a complete retarded 'experiment' with so many wrong headed ideas its hard to comprehend.

>>15155671
>not really
>was it God? aliens? is this some sort of realm? prison?

kek! well yea I suppose technically there is NO question conceivable that is a non sequitur to the ultimate question of why anything exists in the first place. Every “why?” Question ultimately leads back to that one if you keep asking “why?” Long enough. I don’t claim to kno the meaning of it all, and I highly any living being does.

I’m fairly certain that the earth is flat, motionless and contained bc all empirical evidence shows this to be the case. I’ve done my research and tested these claims myself. If you want to go down the same path as I did to confirm, you can start here: >>15155675

As to the meaning/purpose of life. Idk, all I do know is that your life becomes infinitely more meaningful if you live by the golden rule and BE A GOOD PERSON. After learning about Flat Earth I changed my life completely overnight. I quick drinking, quit drugging, quick jerking off to porn. I did a complete 180 and now my life is awesome and I feel awesome. That’s why I try to bring others into the light about the heliocentric deception, bc it was the single most important revelation of my entire life. I’m so grateful and just want others to have a chance at attaining this same feeling i now have. I’m not trying to sound too grandiose but Flat Earth literally saved me from a lifetime of nihilism and apathy. Now I live my life as if every decision I make has meaning and purpose. See:
https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/33919621/#33926549

>>15155692
what you need is a vacuum tube about 100km high with enough width to fit your box in it. Open your box of sea level pressure air and see if anything comes out the top.

>>15155716
You’re keeping it nice and vague bc you have nothing of substance to say. Everyone sees exactly what you’re doing, you’re not fooling anyone.

You have no refutation for the box paradox. It proves we have been lied to about where we live. You don’t like that the paradox inevitably leads to that conclusion so you’re salty and pretending you have an answer that refutes it but you don’t. Textbook cognitive dissonance.

>>15155730
read thru the thread ffs this was already addressed here: >>15155476

>>15155607
It rushes out because you have pressurized it. You have input energy in the system to creature pressurized air. Once you open the box that energy is released. This is exactly what you would expect to happen and has no relevance to gravitational attraction. Whether or not it's in a vacuum is completely irrelevant. If instead you just put air in a box and measured its density from top to bottom, you would see its more dense at the bottom. That's the gravitational force of earth on air.

>>15155463
Here's your (((you))) Moishe

>>15155603
that was alredy addressed here: >>15155476
>>15155550

>the atmosphere near the surface would not need to travel through the atmosphere above it to reach the vacuum of space. the vacuum of space would come to meet the atmosphere near the surface since the atmosphere would be stripped away FROM THE TOP DOWN.

>there is no elevation within earth's atmosphere where the pressurized box in a vacuum chamber experiment cant be performed and attain the exact same result. the air in the pressurized box will ALWAYS move to fill the vacuum as per the 2nd law of thermodynamics

>>15155463
The vacuum is a plenum and gravity is low pressure mass resisting equilibration with the high pressure free space.

>>15155750
you keep repeating this FROM THE TOP DOWN thing not realizing that the vacuum of space doesn't just magically erase air. Vacuum is just a lack of pressure, and low pressure air at the end of the atmosphere would therefore be less effected by the 'lack of pressure', and just might have a stronger pull on it from gravity.

> there is no elevation within earth's atmosphere where the pressurized box in a vacuum chamber experiment cant be performed and attain the exact same result. the air in the pressurized box will ALWAYS move to fill the vacuum as per the 2nd law of thermodynamics
The air in the box will always be denser on the bottom when that's where gravity is pulling, whether it 'stays' in the box just has to do with whether the force of pressure overcomes the force of gravity. That depends on how 'pressurized' the box is exactly, and how close to the surface of the earth.

>>15155655
>if there's a gravitational field(Which technically, there always is), it gets a force imparted on it in relation to it's distance from the field and it's mass.
once again, youre just presupposing the very properties of gravity which are shown to be nonexistent by the very box paradox you're attempting to refute. its a remedial logical fallacy that attempts to sidestep the issue

>It will spread until it's kinetic energy from pressure is less than the energy it is pulled on by gravity.
already addressed that here: >>15155480

> Once gravity starts "winning" as a whole, it is equalized(in terms of forces), even though the pressure isn't uniform all the way through the 'ring' around the earth.
already addressed that here : >>15155626
and here: >>15155577

now we're just going in circles lol

>>15155772
>now we're just going in circles lol
That settles it, if all their logic is circular then Earth must be a globe after all!

>>15155772
>once again, youre just presupposing the very properties of gravity which are shown to be nonexistent by the very box paradox you're attempting to refute. its a remedial logical fallacy that attempts to sidestep the issue
No, I'm making the argument you're asking me to make. You can't say "Try to refute this!" and then get mad when a step in the argument refutes it.
>already addressed that here: >>15155480
Ha, no. The kinetic energy I'm describing is pressure, the kinetic energy you described in >>15155480 is the kinetic energy due to gravity alone. They're related but separate.
>already addressed that here : >>15155626
which i addressed here >>15155655 ... Weird. What do you mean you addressed that? Could you quote the exact part that "addresses that"?

>now we're just going in circles lol
Sorta. The mistakes you're making aren't uninteresting, but they seem like they should be simple enough to fix.

>>15155730
>>15155745
>>15155760
>>15155767
>>15155788
what exactly is it about picrel that you guys are having such a hard time understanding lol

gracity provably doesnt do anything to keep air from equalizing with a vacuum AT ANY ALTITUDE.

do you see how in picrel the entire column of air is depleted into the vacuum of space FROM THE TOP DOWN?

objectively this kills the globe model lol
any further objections?....

>>15155830
Nobody cares

>>15155836
>t. rage quits
i accept your concession

>>15155837
No, literally nobody here cares. I didn't leave. I'm just trying to inform you that not only are you in the wrong board, nobody gives a fuck about your fanfiction

>>15155830
>vacuum

>>15155841

>>15155855
>Op thinks he won because he reported my post
Report this one too, you're winning so hard right now lmao
I bet you have a schizophrenic compulsion. You won't be able to resist replying to this post.

>>15155463
>>The currently accepted model of earth claims that earth’s atmosphere is adjacent to the vacuum of space without a physical container separating them.

you start out wrong. this is not the "currently accepted model" it is well known that we lose large ammounts of atmosphere to the solar winds.

>>15155745
>That's the gravitational force of earth on air.
No that’s just your baseless unsubstantiated assertion. See:>>15155830

Electrostatics is possible explanation for the pressure gradient on earth. This video does a pretty good job explaining it:
https://youtu.be/kcFnoY0lVTI

Also,
there is a measurable equipotential increase of 100 volts per meter as you increase altitude from the surface of earth which correlates with the decreasing pressure gradient. as the resting potential increases, the pressure decreases. The ONLY way to get a measurable increase resting charge potential of 100 volts per meter is if there is a Gaussian surface above us as well. You cannot produce one single example of an equincreasing electric potential without the use of 2 Gaussian surfaces. This is yet another proof of the existence of the firmament.

>>15155886
How do rockets go through firmament? Are there some elves who open gates?

>>15155892
Lol inb4 he claims rockets aren't real and satellites are balloons
Sage again
Clean it up jannigger

I've learned never to debate with a flat earther. Utterly pointless. Box paradox is not a thing or a paradox.
The entirety of the arguments layed out here are so full of holes is actually quite funny listening to you bang on the 2nd law of thermodynamics and blah blah
Any clever 16 year old has enough education to realise this is nonsense.

STOP WATCHING YOUTUBE

If you're actually interested in physics then do a fucking degree

I lost track of time reading this retarded thread and thought I was on /x/.

>>15155882
I never reported your posts lol why would i? You’re just making your side look insecure and unconfident in your ability to substantiate your belief system. I could gaf if the only response you have to being presented with empirical evidence that completely falsifies your globe model is to post gay porn. What a pathetic miserable existence you live. You’re a perfect example of what the heliocentric religion has done to encourage people to live a life completely void of purpose, integrity or moral character. I honestly pity you.

>>15155892
>>15155896
>>15155906
>>15155912

Are you capitulating that you have no answer to the box paradox? Bc if not, that alone completely decapitates your entire model. Are you guys now trying to turn this into a full-blown flat earth debate thread? My intention in OPing this was to get the very best rebuttal possible to the box paradox. If I’m wrong I genuinely would want to know. I figured this was the place to ask.. but if the best you guys got is to post men’s ass holes in response lol then maybe I was wrong and you guys really are just religious zealots who want nothing more than for this board to be an echo chamber for members of the church of scientism.

>>15155932
>What is scale, nigger, and can all experiments be scaled down or up without disconnecting from actual reality?
You can't answer this, so we can't help you.
Sage. Again.

I'm not convinced this isn't an ai bait thread but I'll bite.

Because the box is isolated, the atmospheric pressure can't keep the air down, and the box is small enough that the mass of the air is unlikely to prevent the air from filling the chamber when opened.

However, this setup is not analogous to the earth-space model you claim it represents. If there was a situation where the atmosphere was contained and then opened into a vacuum, some of that air would also escape because the system is no longer in equilibrium.

In reality, the atmosphere is being siphoned off into space all the time. There is no hard boundary between the atmosphere and space, it just gets less and less dense the further out you go. Also, air is made of many different molecules, some of which can reach escape velocity easier than others. The main thing people don't understand in these cases is just how much air there is.

>>15155463
>The “pressurized box of air in a vacuum” experiment proves that gravity is not capable of preventing earth’s atmosphere from seeking equilibrium when exposed to a vacuum.
How?
>There is no altitude within or outside of earth’s atmosphere where you can perform the experiment and not have the air in the box immediately seek equilibrium with the vacuum chamber once the lid of the box is removed. Gravity NEVER holds the air in the box. Gravity never prevents the air from going into the vacuum.
So what?
>Gravity only has one vector - DOWN. So, if gravity is holding the entire atmosphere DOWN on earth; then it stands to reason that, in the box experiment, the air inside of a box on earth’s surface should be held DOWN and prevented from going UP and out of the box when the lid of the box is removed. The fact that the air inside of a box without a lid will move UP and into the vacuum chamber proves that earth's gravity is not strong enough to prevent it from going UP into the vacuum.
Gravity isn't the only force vector.

>>15155906
your irrational denialism only highlights your lack of rational understanding of this topic.
the first minute or two of this video will get you back on track
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4ZDyzPqnT4

>>15155937
>muh scale
>On that small of a scale gravity isn't strong enough to keep the gas in there.
XD That “small scale” is where gravity needs to work if it exists lol

If it doesn’t work on “that small scale” why would you ever expect it to work anywhere ever?

At what altitude does the pressurized atmosphere refuse to abide by the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Give me a specific altitude at which high pressure will stop moving to lower pressure?

Why would you expect “gravity” to keep the ultimate vacuum of space and earth’s pressurized atmosphere separated at higher altitudes where gravity is supposedly WEAKER if all of the gravity generated by the entire planet earth is provably not strong enough to prevent even a little box full of air from seeking equilibrium with a vacuum chamber near earth’s surface where gravity supposedly STRONGEST..?

Your model stands in direct contradiction to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

>>15155940
See: >>15155830
what is it specifically you’re failing to grasp about picrel in that post??

>>15155463
>I have yet to hear ANY answer that can explain how this is possible according to our current understanding of “gravity”
Our current "understanding" is that we have no understanding of how it works or its causal link. But we can quantify "its" effects using measures. Hope that helps. Yes I'm serious.

>The “pressurized box of air in a vacuum” experiment proves that gravity is not capable of preventing earth’s atmosphere from seeking equilibrium when exposed to a vacuum.

There is no such thing as a "vacuum" so I don't know where you're pulling all this out of your ass from.

>>15155940
Literally everything you just wrote was addressed in the very first posts of the thread.. are you guys incapable of reading thru the thread prior to replying ?

>>15155964
>Our current "understanding" is that we have no understanding of how it works
Kek! No shit. Picrel. It’s bc gravity is not real and has already disproven. You just don’t want to admit it bc that would entail giving up your worldview.

>There is no such thing as a "vacuum"
>muh Semantics
Lol is that really the best you got?

>>15155967
Why do you think I keep treating him like the nigger filth he is? He's intentionally trolling, or incapable of meaningful understanding. It doesn't matter which, same end result.
Sage

>>15155990
why are you calling globers "nigger filth" just bc they havent accepted the truth that theyve been lied to about where they live? all of us flat earthers were globers at one point in our lives afterall. most globers are just misled, they're not inherently bad people. have a bit of empathy for your fellow man ffs

>>15155955
Take a box of air at stp and then open it in stp conditions. What happens? Your logic is wrong. Small mass, like in the box = small gravity. However, you conveniently left out the part of the argument you can't refute.

How does the air move? Air molecules have an average velocity based on the density of air. Sometimes, that motion is upwards, sometimes it isn't. As for the second law of thermodynamics, the earth space system is not closed so technically you're allowed to violate it on small time scales. Eventually, the earth will lose its atmosphere, there's just a fucking lot of air.

I never made the claim that gravity separates the atmosphere from space. I literally said the opposite. There is no boundary, and air is in fact escaping all the time.

The reason gravity doesn't stop air from moving into a vacuum chamber is because the force of gravity is weak with small masses. This is consistent with other observations like EM being stronger than gravity on small scales. You can do the calculations yourself to see that the average velocity of say 1kg of air is more than enough to overcome the gravity of 1kg of air. In fact gravity is so weak that you can move the box in the first place, so why question that you can't move air of that size?

You're taking incorrect assumptions and deriving a contradiction. I will not respond if you continue to cherry pick. Get help.

>>15156001
I have empathy for humanity. Not for any individual man.
Especially you.
Enjoy your bump. It's the only one I'll give.

>>15155981
>You just don’t want to admit it bc that would entail giving up your worldview.
Worldview? I simply accurately described what "gravity" "is" recognized as for what it is. I never said anything about me believing in it.

>Semantics
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were discussing something that actually has some sort of "meaning" in the first place. How can "it"? "It" has no properties and acts upon nothing. What even is a "Vacuum"? Tell me if you wouldn't mind?

>Lol is that really the best you got?
What do you expect? I've been given nothing to work with here. Maybe I will start arguing with you when you give me proof of this alleged something to argue over. I get that you're so smart that you finally figured out gravity is a description...but you're still stuck falsely reifying something else that is nothing but...what? Can you even?

>>15156010
>I have empathy for humanity. Not for any individual man.
this is stuff mass murdering tyrants are made of

>>15156003
>There is no boundary, and air is in fact escaping all the time.
>t. proceeds to regurgitate the unsubstantiated religious dogma he was indoctrinated with as if its proof of anything other than his failure to understand what a begging the question fallacy is
all you have is baseless assertion. repeating what you've been told to believe doesnt address anything lol

>The reason gravity doesn't stop air from moving into a vacuum chamber is because the force of gravity is weak with small masses.
it doesnt matter how much air you have lol, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not magically going to stop being a factor

please address picrel.. what specifically is wrong with picrel.. be specific

>>15156020
i honestly dont even know what point youre trying to make. im not trying to be difficult but you seem to be ducking and diving intead of staying on topic. what specifically is wrong with picrel? be specific..

>>15155735
>It proves we have been lied to about where we live
it really doesn't. You're forgetting all the trillions of tons of gas particles above the air at the bottom. You show not the slightest understanding of how particles move and behave. There is no analogy between sea level pressure air and the increasingly spare vacuum as altitude increases, and yet you seem to think that introducing one to the other means anything when it doesn't. You seem to think that there isn't even any new gas being introduced to the system, that its all loss.

As i said, the number of wrongheaded ideas are too numerous to comprehend.

>>15156041
theres a line from a nobel prize poet I forget exactly which one
>Those who love humanity usually hate humans
or sth like that

>>15156073
>The more I love humanity in general the less I love man in particular. In my dreams, I often make plans for the service of humanity, and perhaps I might actually face crucifixion if it were suddenly necessary. Yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone for two days together. I know from experience. As soon as anyone is near me, his personality disturbs me and restricts my freedom. In twenty-four hours I begin to hate the best of men: one because he’s too long over his dinner, another because he has a cold and keeps on blowing his nose. I become hostile to people the moment they come close to me. But it has always happened that the more I hate men individually the more I love humanity.

>>15156065
>You're forgetting all the trillions of tons of gas particles above the air at the bottom.
lol no youre asserting that the air above is not subjected to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. see picrel here: >>15156048
and explain what the error is in that image. be specific...

>>15156048
The second law of thermodynamics you keep touting isn't related to air pressure the way you think it is. Please show me an explicit calculation of the entropy of the earth space or box vacuum and how they contradict.

As for picrel, air will escape from the top. This happens at a rate that depends on the energy of the air, the strength of the vacuum, the size of the tube, lots of things. It doesn't empty instantly. As it empties, the mass and air pressure reduces, but so does the air temperature. It is possible that equilibrium is reached before all the air leaks.

I will reiterate that picrel is not analogous to what happens in the real world. You could make an argument that the box was opened 4.5bn ya but that's about it.

>>15156048
>but you seem to be ducking and diving intead of staying on topic
Your entire premise relies on the existence of a "vacuum". Show me proof of a "vacuum" in nature, otherwise your example is a complete waste of time because it wouldn't prove anything. Lets take a stroll down memory lane to the first post. I don't care if your op or not, it's completely on topic despite your low attention span.

>The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that high pressure will immediately seek equilibrium with low pressure.
Which means a vacuum CANNOT EXIST. It's impossible.

>The heliocentric model claims that “gravity” is the “container” that keeps the earth’s pressurized atmosphere from immediately seeking equilibrium with the vacuum of space.
There is no "vacuum of space"

>The “pressurized box of air in a vacuum”
WHAT "PRESSURE" "IN A VACUUM"? WHAT "ANYTHING" IN A VACUUM? IT SITS THERE NEGATING THE FUCKING "VACUUM" BY EXISTING YOU RETARD.

>Gravity never prevents the air from going into the vacuum.
A description indeed does not prevent air going into a non existent place. This sentence makes no sense when taken literally.

>Gravity only has one vector - DOWN
And where the fuck is "down" in a vacuum?

>UP into the vacuum.
>into the vacuum
>negating it being a fucking "Vacuum" in the first place.

Your example and misinformed/illinformed opinion about gravity and space is appreciated, but ultimately doesn't mean anything.

>>15156091
>The second law of thermodynamics you keep touting isn't related to air pressure the way you think it is.
high pressure moves to low pressure. it directly relevant to the box paradox.

>give me math!!!
lol im giving you an experiment that is empirically substantiated IN THE REAL WORLD. as ive already explained:
>math is a language, not a reflection of reality. OfCourse it can be used to describe things that are real, but also languages are used all the time to describe things that aren't real

you want math? fine: 1 - 1 = 0
>you have 1 container full of pressurized air
>you introduce this 1 container to a vacuum
>all of the pressurized air from the container equalizes with the vacuum
>you now have 0 containers of pressurized air
>1 - 1 = 0

>I will reiterate that picrel is not analogous to what happens in the real world.
TOPKEK! it is objectively EXACTLY what happens in the real world. thats why you want to use math to defend your position, bc math can describe things that DONT exist in the real world (like the idea of a pressurized atmos existing adjacent to a vacuum void of PHYSICAL containment).

>depends on the energy of the air
already addressed that. energy comes from heat and the upper layers of the atmos are the hottest

>the strength of the vacuum
the vacuum of space is said to be 10^-17 TORR

>the size of the tube
the size of the tube is completely irrelevant, as explained in the picrel. regardless of the size of the tube, you will always get the same results.

>It is possible that equilibrium is reached before all the air leaks.
then you need to explain WHY you believe it would, which you have failed to do.

>>15156085
if that entire tube was 100km tall and pumped down to a high vacuum, and you introduced a small box of sea level pressure air into it at the bottom, very very little would come out the top. Theres nothing in the tube to push the lighter particles up, and theres not enough energy in almost all of the particles to make it all the way up to the top, assuming the base of the tube is resting on the ground at sea level.

Things dont just lift themselves into space.

>>15156123
>Show me proof of a "vacuum"
>Which means a vacuum CANNOT EXIST. It's impossible.
we are in total agreement. that is exactly the point of the box paradox.. the alleged vacuum of space doesnt exist and neither does gravity. both are just unsubstantiated abstract concepts that only exist in the imagination of men.

>>15156131
>the vacuum of space is said to be 10^-17 TORR
so? they dont suck

>>15156141
>the alleged vacuum of space doesnt exist
you must be a troll

>>15155463
>explain why the stupid video simulation i made works this way as if i actually recorded real life experiment
fuck off popsoi please

>>15156139
>>15156142
thats a blatant NON SEQUITUR to the box paradox. nobody said anything about vacuums sucking lol. youre clearly desprate.

>if that entire tube was 100km tall and pumped down to a high vacuum
the tube in the picrel is a 100km tube of pressurized atmos and the top is opened into the vacuum of space
there is no IF lol
objectively if you had a tube of pressurized air that was 100km tall and the lid was removed so that the top opened up into a 10^-17 TORR vacuum, the entire tube would equalize with the vacuum it was exposed to (the alleged infinite vacuum of space) and the entire tube would be pumped down to a high vacuum FROM THE TOP DOWN.

>theres nothing in the tube to push the lighter particles up, and theres not enough energy in almost all of the particles to make it all the way up to the top,
that too is addressed in picrel. once the air at the top of the pressurized tube equalizes with the vacuum of space, there is no air pressure above the air at the bottom of the container to "push thru".

Objectively this simple little thought experiment kills the globe model.

>>15156144
>t. im going to distract from the fact that i cant answer the paradox by calling him a troll
i accept your concession.

>>15156157
this experiment has been done. are you honestly trying to argue that noone has ever opened a pressurized container in a mild vacuum lol you dont even need to do the experiment to know what will happen - the pressurized air will ALWAYS violently rush out of the box and fill the vacuum chamber.

>>15156141
>we are in total agreement. that is exactly the point of the box paradox
The paradox assumes the existence of a vacuum by attempting to set up conditions impossible for the experiment to be performed.
>the alleged vacuum of space doesnt exist and neither does gravity. both are just unsubstantiated abstract concepts that only exist in the imagination of men.
And it doesn't stop you from making dozens of posts about nothing does it? Shadow chasing is a hell of a drug. Just simply ask for proof of a vacuum/space and ignore the broken record flat earth CIA shill posts and save yourself some time.

>>15156144
It's the most popular psychosis on the planet

>>15156168
>the tube in the picrel is a 100km tube of pressurized atmo
ok. so you want the entire tube to be sea level pressure air, understood. Clearly a lot of the air will vent into the lower pressure area, but not all. How could it? Why would the entire tube become the same vacuum as the top? You're asking a vacuum to suck, in that case, aren't you..

You'd be asking a vacuum to suck up the air from the bottom, a thing you claim to not be asking.

>>15156168
>i accept your concession.
And i in turn understand that you would rather play semantic games than define your terms.

>>15156180
How much you want to bet op is the same retarded gorilla nigger blaming marijuana for his midwit brain in the weed thread here kek and sage

>>15156179
No idea what you’re even trying to say. Are you claiming the 10^-17 TORR vacuum of space doesn’t exist bc that’s my argument as welll. If so, we are in agreement. Thanks for playing, welcome to flat earth.

>>15156180
>so you want the entire tube to be sea level pressure air
it can be any pressure you’d like it to be. It can have the same gradient measured on earth… as long as the pressur in the tube is less than the 10^-17 TORR vacuum of space, when the lid of the container is removed, and the top layers are exposed to the the vacuum, the top layers of the pressurized air in the 100km tube will rush to equalize with the vacuum of space regardless of whether there’s a gradient or not. This same thing will happen to every layer in the tube, top to bottom - the entire tube will become a vacuum.

This kills the entire ball earth model.

>>15156236
I'd put money on this guy being the same nigger who filled a dozen FE threads last year with nothing but "gas pressure can't exist without a container", and who is also the same odd fellow who would always go on and on about the muh incredible strength of space vacuum its 10^-17 TORR!!!!11
He gave up his FE pasta threads a while back but im sure this is the guy

>>15156247
>the entire tube will become a vacuum.
no it wont. right there you show that you expect a vacuum to suck things into it.

>>15156308
>im sure this is the guy
not me. that guy was right tho.

>you expect a vacuum to suck things into it
nobody is talking about sucking itt except you, homo, you probably also are a ball licker as well.

why dont you have a modicum of integrity and just be honest and admit you dont have an answer to the box paradox. its okay to admit you dont know something - better to have questions you cant answer than answers you cant question.

>>15156338
>not me. that guy was right tho.
who can tell?

>nobody is talking about sucking itt except you
but you are. explain what force or source of energy id going to lift/push the air from the bottom of that 100km tube to the top. Thats all you have to do.

>>15155952
BASED. hadn’t seen that video. Thank you for posting anon.

>>15156354
The 2nd law of thermodynamics states high pressure moves to low pressure. Why do YOU believe the 2nd law of thermodynamics stops applying at the uppermost layers of the 100km tube.

>>15156369
why do you think that a kilo of mass can lift itself 100km above the surface of the earth?

>>15156247
>Are you claiming the 10^-17 TORR vacuum
>The various disparities in all my measures somehow means there's a "vacuum" there.

Ah yes, and you were there right? In the vacuum right? Negating it being a fucking "vacuum" to perform whatever gay little test you believe proves the concept, right? Wrong.

>Thanks for playing, welcome to flat earth.
Fucked earth. Because people like you are played so easily into believing in things that have no basis in reality.

>>15156338
>Magic container of nothing is real
Laughably absurd. There is no container, because there is no such thing as a vacuum for said container to "contain" (and from what lol?). Were there a container...there still wouldn't be an actual true vacuum because how would a contained lack be defined or define anything else? And if it were a true "vacuum" the container would negate it being a vacuum and there could be no "Container". You would have absence. Not a thing. Vacuum. It's irreconcilable.

>>15156385
We've built rockets that weight exponentially more and they didn't run on Dysons or Kirby's. In fact the principle of how a rocket functions disproves the existence of a vacuum already so idk why this is still a challenging problem to people. High pressure moves to low pressure. By necessity. Where else is it going to go? Into nothing? That's fucking stupid and not how things work here in reality. Even a HVAC mechanic can comprehend these basic facts.

>>15156434
>We've built rockets blah blah blah
im still not sure why you think a kilo of gas at the bottom of your 100km vacuum tube should wind up at the top.
> the principle of how a rocket functions disproves the existence of a vacuum
oh fuck, you think rockets have to push against air too don't you...

>>15156438
>im still not sure why you think a kilo of gas at the bottom of your 100km vacuum tube should wind up at the top.
Pressure mediation you fucking retard. Try operating a drinking straw sometime and maybe you'll figure it out. I'm surprised someone like you isn't already using them on a regular basis.

>oh fuck, you think rockets have to push against air too don't you.
Do they push against "vacuum"? Explain how they function, clearly you're an expert.

>>15156457
>a drinking straw
ok, so you think vacuums suck. im glad we're clear.

>Do they push against "vacuum"?
they push against themself. do you think an explosion is physically connected to the rocket?

>>15155463
>not calling it the Parabox

>>15156463
>ok, so you think vacuums suck
I never said such a thing.

>im glad we're clear.
You're the only murky here.

>they push against themself
They displace their own weight. That's the only thing that makes them travel

>do you think an explosion is physically connected to the rocket?
Explosion? I'm not talking about spaceX rocket fails here.

>>15156485
>I never said such a thing.
you certainly did

>Explosion? I'm not talking about spaceX rocket fails here.
what is it that you think occurs when a rocket engine is in operation?

>>15155463


I worked in high vacuum.

There are two forces here, and a vacuum that you are mistaking for a force.

1. The molecules of the gas collide against each other depending on their energetic state.
2. Gravity pulls them to the bottom.

3. There is NOTHING "sucking" the air away. That is not what a vacuum is.

So depending on the energy or Temperature of the gas, the gas will expand out of the inner box, until it is at a density where it is no longer colliding with either the side of the vacuum containment, or with other gas molecules. At that point they settle to the bottom of the chamber, or stick to the sides, depending on what gas it is. If the density is too high, it will never settle.

This is why you can't "suck" all the gas out of a vacuum chamber, and have to resort to binding it to a getter, knocking it out with a high speed fan, trapping it in a liquid that does not gas out, or lowering the temperature until it stops moving and either falls out or sticks to the side.

If your vacuum chamber was as big as the solar system, then the gas would gravitate to what ever mass it could find. Assuming nothing energetic strips it from that mass, or the mass is not so hot it energizes the gas past its escape velocity, it becomes an atmosphere.

To pull a high vacuum, a single finger print on the inside of a chamber will gas out enough mass that high vacuum is impossible. That is how few molecules are left in a high vacuum chamber.

>>15156492
>you certainly did
Not OP. No I didn't. I said to try operating a drinking straw. You know, like the ones your juice boxes come with.

>what is it that you think occurs when a rocket engine is in operation?
Are you actually implying that rockets explode to fly? That's fucking hilarious. No, when rockets explode people die and it gets plastered on every news agency in America. Elon is a pro at it.

>>15156498 (cont)
When you produce a vacuum, you are not sucking or pulling anything. All you are doing is getting more of the molecules out of the way so that the collisions in the direction of the lower relative pressure/higher vacuum are fewer than the collisions in any other direction.

Gas molecules don't "stick" together, and are not "pulled" in a chain. A vacuum pump is not a pump at all, but a probability machine: it reduces the probability of collisions in the direction of the machine, by knocking molecules out of the way.

>>15156477
Chekd and brilliant!. How tf did I miss that XD

It’s officially a parabox from here on out.

>>15156511 (cont)

Therefore, the vacuum of space is not "sucking" the atmosphere away. It is just cold and has fewer molecules for the atmosphere to collide with. Gravity holds the atmosphere down, unless the planet is to hot, or something comes along and knocks it away like cosmic radiation.

>>15156510
>I said to try operating a drinking straw.
try operating one that 100km long up into the sky

>Are you actually implying that rockets explode to fly?
im outright and unashamedly saying that what occurs in the combustion chamber of a rocket engine is an explosion. A long continuous one. Now, think on that.

And by the way, you should definitely think on that the other anon is saying here
>>15156498
>>15156511
>>15156518

>>15156510
im going away now, just so you know. wouldn't want you to get the mistaken idea that your incredible gottcha against all physics had scared me off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BsrzO7aXNs

>>15156498
Literally every single point in your post has already been addressed in this very thread. Read thru the thread prior to posting again and realize how retarded your reply was. You have NO ANSWER that isn’t fallacious and easily refuted with basic logic and reason.

If you think you do, then look at picrel and tell me what you don’t understand about it. Be specific, don’t try to squirm around and make claims you can’t substantiate. Look at picrel and tell me EXACTLY what is wrong with it…

>>15156521
>im outright and unashamedly saying that what occurs in the combustion chamber of a rocket engine is an explosion
You could describe every single combustion engine as "uses explosions to move", but that doesn't actually explain how they do it. Where is the mustang engine and wheels on a rocket?

See that's not how it actually flies. That's how it explodes. The only thing that makes it "fly" is the displacement of the fuel. An "explosion" by your conventional sense in that it's a large amount of energy being expended at once, but it's the DISPLACEMENT OF THE FUEL AT A SPECIFIC RATE which is actually how it flies. More weight is displaced by jettesoning various parts which in turn make it fly further. Are you going to equate the explosion bolts on said parts to also be causing the rocket to fly further? Ridiculous I think. The fact that it accelerates with the weight loss also disproves "vacuum as a force" or explosion as the cause of acceleration.

>And by the way, you should definitely think on that the other anon is saying here
A vacuum does not exist. There is nothing there to "think" about.

>>15156527
>im going away now,
Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

>wouldn't want you to get the mistaken idea
That's all you've been trying to do to me though.

This is such a weird thing to be confused about. Why would something go up instead of falling down. Okay, the atmosphere rises off the Earth into the space around it. Now there's a bunch of gas dispersed around the Earth. Where does it go next?

>>15156511
Check’d. Please use that big brain of yours to debunk picrel here:>>15156551
I’ve never heard anyone explain this away and I’ve seen literal physics professors admit they were stumped. Go ahead and surprise me. I’m willing to bet any amount of money you got nuthin’

>>15156434
>Ah yes, and you were there right? In the vacuum right? Negating it being a fucking "vacuum" to perform whatever gay little test you believe proves the concept, right? Wrong.
do you not realize you’re talking to me (OP) lol. I don’t believe the vacuum of space exists, nor have I ever claimed to..

>Fucked earth. Because people like you are played so easily into believing in things that have no basis in reality.
again, I am OP and I am a flat earther. Are you claiming earth does not have physical containment? Please be clear about what your position is, I honestly have no idea what your argument is with regards to the box paradox…

>>15156385
You know you’ve lost the exchange atp and you’re just too much of a little bitch to admit you can’t answer the box paradox. Pathetic.

>>15155892
>>15156438
>>15156492
>>15156521

(timestamped at 1:16:35)
https://youtu.be/fJxKNX_q0i8?t=4595

Anyone who has watched the above timestamped video is now fully aware that rockets’ ability to operate in space is nonsense. space is fake and gay. “Rocket propulsion in space” is based in nothing more than dogma and fallacious arguments

>>15156560
Space is fake and gay. There is no space that’s the whole point of the OP. How do you fail to realize this??

>>15155463
No one can give you a satisfactory answer because you're too retarded to understand basic physics. You don't even understand the current accepted model. There is no defined border between atmosphere and space (which is not a true vacuum), and we do in fact (very slowly) lose atmosphere to space. Helium was first discovered in solar spectra, hence the name, since natural atmospheric helium is immensely rare (since it gets easily stripped out of the atmosphere).

>>15156521
Why can’t you (or anyone else itt) refute picrel here?: >>15156551

If you have no argument that can refute it, then why can’t you just admit you don’t know what the answer is?

Are all the posters itt just complete little faggots with egos so fragile that they can’t admit they were stumped by a flat earther? Why is it so hard for you guys to admit the parabox has no answer that makes sense given what we are told about the globe model??? This kills the ball, objectively. Just admit it already ffs.

>>15156619
>There is no defined border between atmosphere and space (which is not a true vacuum), and we do in fact (very slowly) lose atmosphere to space. Helium was first discovered in solar spectra, hence the name, since natural atmospheric helium is immensely rare (since it gets easily stripped out of the atmosphere).
>t. proceeds to regurgitate the unsubstantiated religious dogma he was indoctrinated with as if its proof of anything other than his failure to understand what a begging the question fallacy is
all you have is baseless assertion. repeating what you've been told to believe doesnt address anything lol

Either Address picrel here: >>15156551
or just admit you don’t have an answer.

>>15156588
OP is saying it's fake and gay because the atmosphere would go into space according to him. So I'm asking what direction it would go after that. Would it keep moving away from Earth?

>>15156521
Just wait until he finds out that gasoline and diesel engines are full of explosions.

>>15156637
I AM OP. Yes, gas disperses in a vacuum as is testable. This is called SCIENCE when you actually test your claims instead of making baseless assertions based on nothing other than heliocentric religious dogma. Also, the parabox doesn’t just falsify the current model of earth’s atmosphere, it literally falsifies every single aspect of heliocentrism and what we are told about the celestial bodies and structures we see above us: >>15155489
>The implications of the box in a vacuum chamber contradiction cannot be overstated, as the issue not only applies to the atmosphere on earth, but it is also completely devastating to literally every single aspect of the heliocentric model of the universe. Gas disperses in a vacuum therefor it is impossible for stars or gas planets or nebula or any other formations of collections of gas in the vacuum of space to form any type of structure. Gravity provably cannot, and does not, ever cause gases to attract to each other rather than disperse, even in the presence of a large collection of preexisting mass (ie: the box experiment). There is virtually no aspect of the current (((mainstream))) model which isn’t completely and utterly destroyed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as is clearly illustrated with the box paradox..

>>15156566
>do you not realize you’re talking to me (OP) lol.
And? You want recognition for your posts then be a namefag like the others.

>again, I am OP and I am a flat earther.
Wonderful. What does space and a vacuum's non existence have to do with the geometry of a torpid mass?

> Are you claiming earth does not have physical containment?
Are you claiming earth is "physical"/exists by physical means? If the earth is physical...does it just contain itself by its own physical existence? How does that explain anything?

>Please be clear about what your position is,
I'm not the one trying to convince people something exists. How can I have a position when I am just negating the position of others? No it's not contrarian because I'm not offering you a contrary opinion. I can't even have one because what's being discussed doesn't even exist.

>I honestly have no idea what your argument is
I'm not arguing so at least you're paying attention.

>>15156644
Chekd and kek’d
Well, you certainly are revved up aren’t you buddy. I like your passion. I’m warming up to you :)

Okay so we are in agreement that the globe model is bs. Awesome. Your replies make more sense now. Can you please tell me what you think this place is (reality/the shared illusion we all experience/ whatever the fuck you wanna call it) ?

Do you think we live in a simulation? An illusion? I don’t care to debate you, I’m actually genuinely interested in your opinion.

>>15156642
Which direction does it disperse in?

>>15156653
All directions. An inherent property of gas is that it makes OMNIDIRECTIONALLY. This has been covered in many posts in this very thread. Not trying to be rude but, why don’t you just read the thread befor replying?

>>15156658
>makes omnidirectionally
*MOVES omnidirectionally

>>15156658
So it just keeps moving away from Earth indefinitely?

>>15156652
>Chekd and kek’d
>Well, you certainly are revved up aren’t you buddy.
Synthetic. Like glowsticks.

>Okay so we are in agreement that the globe model is bs.
"No"
-t. Magnetism

>Can you please tell me what you think this place is
It "is"?

>An illusion?
The "matter" part, perhaps.

>>15155463
Why dont you post this on a real science forum rather than teasing the ignorant morons that comprise 95% of /sci/?

>>15156670
Holy shit you’re dense lol
OUTER SPACE IS NOT REAL. It’s a figment is man’s IMAGINATION; An abstract concept with no basis in reality.
THE GLOBE IS NOT REAL. it too, just like outer space ONLY EXISTS IN THE IMAGINATION OF MEN

Stop asking me what would happen in this fake and gay imagination land dictated by fictional nonsensical concepts like infinite vacuums, magical gravity and spinning terra firma planets

It’s like me asking you
>if Donald Duck and Pinocchio got into a fist fight and the referee was a talking horse with X-ray vision, who would be the winner?
It’s a nonsense question with no right or wrong answer bc none of those things are real to begin with. Do you understand now?

Some gigchad needs to just post something illegal already so the thread gets nuked because otherwise the janniggers aren't cleaning this shit up on their own
SAGE

>>15156682
I’m starting to lose interest. Are you capable of making a reply that can convince me you’re not picrel? Is that supposed to be your self portrait in your picrel? Are you on any drugs rn?

>>15156692
>t. so bootyblasted that he can’t answer the parabox that he’s calling for censorship
textbook cognitive dissonance

>>15156689
>Stop asking me what would happen in this fake and gay imagination land dictated by fictional nonsensical concepts like infinite vacuums, magical gravity and spinning terra firma planets
But that's what this thread is about. You're trying to explain what would happen to the atmosphere in this situation. Then I ask you what would happen after that, and you just start saying that space is fake so there's no point talking about it. Why did you even make this thread in that case. It's a fairly simple question as well. After the gas has risen up and dispersed around the Earth, would the gas molecules keep moving away from the Earth, fall back towards the Earth due to gravity or stay still?

If there is no gravity and things just stack on top of each other according to density, why would air rise up into the vacuum instead of falling below it?

>>15155463
Lol, wtf is this shit. There is no paradox. The behavior of air is the balance of two forces: repulsive electromagnetic forces from close-range interacting atoms, and long-range attractive gravitational forces from the planet. Higher pressure is a proxy for higher electric repulsion.

If the electromagnetic repulsion is greater than the gravitational field, the molecules will rise. If the opposite is true, they will fall. This leads to a gradient that corresponds to the decreasing strength of the gravitational field. At the brink of space, the pressure is so low that molecules have very little repulsive "escape force." This is why the atmosphere doesn't fly away.

As for your silly experiment, the altitude of the box doesn't matter at all. What matters is the pressure in the small chamber. Reduce the number of molecules to 10 and they won't go anywhere

>>15156685
It’s been asked to literal physics professors and they were all stumped as well.

Skip to 2:18:20 in this debate:
https://youtu.be/U1pAJWlgrMo

The physics Professor literally had no answer.

I’ve never heard anyone provide an answer to the parabox. Earth’s atmosphere could not exist adjacent to the alleged vacuum of space. It’s an impossibility that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics. the current globe model is literally a physical impossibility. The box paradox proves this beyond any shadow of a doubt.

>>15156731
>would the gas molecules keep moving away from the Earth
Gas molecules disperse omnidirectionally in a vacuum so yes, as long as they had kinetic energy, they would keep dispersing

>fall back towards the Earth due to gravity or stay still?
Ugggh dude this is getting redundant… the parabox proves empirically that gravity does not exist. Of course they wouldn’t “fall back to earth” due to an abstract concept that was just proven to be nonexistent by the behavior of the of the very gas molecules in question lol

I suppose the best answer would be that if earth’s pressurized atmosphere really were adjacent to an infinite 10^-17 TOR vacuum without being separated by a container, then the earth’s pressurized atmosphere would rush into the vacuum of space layer by layer starting at the highest altitudes and working its way downwards toward the surface until the entirety of earth’s atmosphere had been depleted into space. Upon being completely engulfed in a vacuum earth’s oceans would boil and be stripped away as well and earth would be left a desolate barren rock (still shaped like a pear tho of course lol) the gas molecules that dispersed into the near infinite vacuum would maybe just float off into the infinite vastness I suppose. There, happy?

>>15156755
Read thru the thread dumbfuck. Everything in your post has already been posted and refuted. See: >>15156551

>You have NO ANSWER that isn’t fallacious and easily refuted with basic logic and reason.

>If you think you do, then look at picrel (>>15156551) and tell me what you don’t understand about it. Be specific, don’t try to squirm around and make claims you can’t substantiate. Look at picrel and tell me EXACTLY what is wrong with it…

Go ahead and give it a swing (but ffs read thru the thread first please)

>>15156756
Why do you believe in the second law of thermodynamics but not gravity?

>>15156438
I wonder if OP is the very same schizo from a few years back
>>/sci/image/FJrefibEgG7_IzqeeKWWUw

>>15156756
No wonder you're so stumped lmfao

>>15156760
Sorry, not reading through your 100 posts of mindless ranting. Point out a specific error in my post. I know you can't, because flat earthers are retared drones

>>15156551
>>15156760
Oh no anon. I'm so sorry.
KEK

>>15156760
Your picture is wrong. The air will not fly out into space. The pressure will form a gradient to equilibrate with gravity

>>15156790
Op says gravity isn't real so he's going to shit on you nine fucking ways from Sunday about how you're making up things
Ironic isn't it?

>>15156755
>>15156774
>If the electromagnetic repulsion is greater than the gravitational field
it provably ALWAYS is stronger than the alleged gravitational field as per the very box paradox you're replying about lol

> At the brink of space, the pressure is so low that molecules have very little repulsive "escape force."
gravity is supposedly STRONGEST near the surface and gets WEAKER as you increase altitude. if the gravity is too weak to prevent gas from moving into a relatively weak vacuum near the surface where gravity is supposedly STRONGEST, it certainly wouldn’t be capable of preventing gas from moving into the much stronger vacuum of space at higher altitudes where gravity is WEAKER.

provide a specific altitude where you can perform the box experiment and NOT expect the pressurized air would fail to seek equilibrium with the vacuum chamber. If you cannot specify an altitude in which this would happen, then why do you even believe such a place exists?

You cannot invoke “escape velocity” or any other effect to explain this away, as gravity’s effect has already been falsified via the box experiment and therefor “muh escape velocity” is falsified as well. math is a language, not a reflection of reality. ofcourse it can be used to describe things that are real, but also languages are used all the time to describe things that aren't real

>What matters is the pressure in the small chamber. Reduce the number of molecules to 10 and they won't go anywhere
the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that high pressure will equalize with low pressure. earth's pressurized atmos would rush into the vacuum of space FROM THE TOP DOWN until all of the atmosphere had equalized into space.

look at picrel and tell me what you think the issue is. be specific...

>>15156790
thats a remedial begging the question fallacy. you are presupposing the very properties of gravity which are shown to be nonexistent by the very box paradox you're attempting to refute.

OP, since you're Nathan Oakley levels of useless, can I ask something else?
What are those little points of light I see glowing in the sky at night? Do they have any discerning properties?

>>15156818
>provide a specific altitude where you can perform the box experiment and NOT expect the pressurized air would fail to seek equilibrium with the vacuum chamber.
*provide a specific altitude where you can perform the box experiment and NOT expect the pressurized air to seek equilibrium with the vacuum chamber.

>>15156771
>>15156776
lel fucken headshot

>>15156818
>it provably ALWAYS is stronger than the alleged gravitational field as per the very box paradox you're replying about lol
No, the strength depends on the pressure. Again, put 10 atoms in the box and they will settle on the ground without moving an inch. Your box "paradox" proves nothing, because you don't understand it.
>provide a specific altitude where you can perform the box experimen
Are you an idiot? I said specifically the altitude of the box doesn't matter at all. What matters is the concentration of particles. At any given altitude, there is a particle density below which the air will not leave the box. As the altitude increases, the necessary density decreases.

You are starting the box with a density greater than the amount necessary to escape at earth's surface. Obviously, that same density will escape anywhere. A much lower density will not.

>>15156700
>I’m starting to lose interest.
Magnetism. You know, the 3 dimensional field that every mass has? Compasses? The entire earth has one?

>Are you capable of making a reply that can convince me you’re not picrel?
Pretending to be retarded is much more persuasive than pretending to be smart, not that I'm pretending to be anything specific on this anonymous imageboard let alone smart or retarded.

>Are you on any drugs rn?
The thing that pisses me off most about drug addicts is when they believe being incoherent and having abnormal psycho trips will somehow make more sense of a place that already makes no sense. That and all the other peoples lives they destroy including their own.

>>15156828
I don’t make definitive claims about things I can’t know for certain. This thread is specifically about the parabox. I posted it here thinking maybe one of you guys could provide an answer because if I’m wrong about something I want to know. But You guys are shitting the bed. Also picrel lol. You don’t shit about those little points of light. You just believe what your high priests tell you to believe and then repeat your unsubstantiated religious dogma to others as if it’s proven fact. It’s peak npc behavior and it’s pathetic. Also, Oakley is a fag. Never really liked that guy either.

>>15156858
>he failed to address picrel
>he'll probably fail to address this pic too

>>15156848
>the strength depends on the pressure
yes, and the pressure of earth's atmos is greater than the 10^-17 TORR vacuum of space AT ALL ALTITUDES

> put 10 atoms in the box and they will settle on the ground without moving an inch.
nice non sequitur. earths pressurized atmos is not 10 atoms lol its made up of gas molecules which move omnidirectionally. introduce any amount of pressurized gas to a vacuum of 10^-17 TORR vacuum and the gas molecules will move omnidirectionally and seek equilibrium with the vacuum. gravity doesnt prevent this from happening, even at the surface nearer to the center of mass where gravity is said to be strongest.

>I said specifically the altitude of the box doesn't matter at all.
lol idgaf about your baseless claims. you only said that bc you cant specify an altitude and so its easier to claim you dont need to than to admit the parabox stump you

>At any given altitude, there is a particle density below which the air will not leave the box.
gas will move to seek equilibrium with a 10^-17 TORR vacuum at any given altitude. if youre claiming there is an altitude in which this wouldnt happen, youre going to need to specify which altitude that is and substantiate your claim

again, look at picrel here: >>15156818
and tell me why you believe that when the lid is removed from that blue container that reaches to space, the uppermost layers of the pressurized air in the container would stay inside of the container instead of equalizing with the 10^-17 TORR vacuum as the 2nd law of thermodynamics dictates? if you cannot do this, then show some integrity and just admit you dont know the answer...

>>15156860
Bruh, you posted something that really isn't a good model of what we see in reality. Particle interactions and collisions are things you can model. Go grab numpy/scipy and play around with some models--try adjusting the pressure/temperature/mean velocity terms and see what you get.

Also, you dont have to take those 'priests' as you call them at face value. You can probe things like space and matter yourself, you just have to want too try!

>>15156888
>10^-17 TORR
Define this using wording that will not appear on a Google search
You cannot
Sage

>>15156860
You don't have to accept a damn thing about what others tell you to go outside and look up and see something interesting is going on.
Grind a telescope and take a look for yourself and go figure something out!

>>15156860
>You just believe what your high priests tell you to believe and then repeat your unsubstantiated religious dogma to others as if it’s proven fact.
You're doing the same thing...

>>15156877
>he failed to address picrel
I "addressed" it clear as crystal. You're replying to it directly.

>he'll probably fail to address this pic too
Are you pretending to be retarded now because you forgot your pic? Or do you want me to "address" the many thought experiment pictures you've posted that have no basis in reality? I'm not gonna do that lol, but don't feel singled out. I don't address the other retarded thought experiments likes Schrodinger's cat, spacetime, black holes and "speed of light"/dual slit misinterpretations either. To me you're all equally retarded because none of you get to the crux. You never explain a cause, how it works or anything actually relevant to whatever it is you're pretending is true or factual.

The earth is just "flat" right? And that totally explains to me how it's like that doesn't it? Yes of course, because of your tube thought experiment involving the acknowledgement of a basic 3 dimensional shape I now know the earth must be 2 dimensional. It makes so much more sense to me now.

>>15155463
If you do it in outer space, some of the air will stay inside the box

>>15156893
>bruh, the testable, repeatable experiment you can do in real life that you posted wasn’t really realistic.
>If you want to be more realistic you should use a simulation.
There is no way this isn’t satire

>>15156918
That wasn’t me. You’re replying to someone else. I ignored your post bc you lost my interest. Magnetism is interesting, and the content Witsit has been putting out about it lately has me looking into a lot more these days:
https://youtu.be/TQrPis5gGW4

but I don’t like the way you’re trying to lead me along with your little bread crumbs. Seems manipulative. Either spill the beans on how magnetism fully ties into your worldview or no more (you)’s for you

>>15156551
>All of the pressurized air inside of the c ontainer equalizes with the vacuum of space
source?

>>15156924
Second part of this post >>15156967 was meant for you. Spill the beans my guy.

>>15156918
I’m not. I test the claims made by others to see if they hold up to scrutiny. When I listen to what someone else, I use my God-given common sense, logic and reason judge any claims made and deduce whether or not they are viable.

"flat" is not a shape its a description of a surface. there is no measurable convexity to earth's surface. everywhere we perform curvature test, it is flat, therefore the only honest description of the surface is flat. every attempt to measure motion has failed. we do not feel ourselves moving, and we see all the celestial bodies move around us, therefor the only honest position to take is that earth is motionless.
the natural antecedent to gas pressure is physical containment. since gas pressure requires a container and, since it would be a direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics to have the pressurized atmosphere existing without a container, that is one logical proof of the existence of a container ie domed firmament.
there is also a measurable equipotential increase of 100 volts per meter as you increase altitude from the surface of earth which correlates with the decreasing pressure gradient. as the resting potential increases, the pressure decreases. The ONLY way to get a measurable increase resting charge potential of 100 volts per meter is if there is a Gaussian surface above us as well. You cannot produce one single example of an equincreasing electric potential without the use of 2 Gaussian surfaces. This is yet another proof of the existence of the firmament.

>>15156978
How come the water at the bottom of the ocean with pressures of thousands of PSI don't shoot up to the surface where it is zero PSI?

>>15157016
Matter exists in three states:
>gas
>solids
>Liquids
water is one of these. The atmosphere is a different one of these. These different states of matter have different inherent properties. Unlike solids, or liquids, gasses move omnidirectionally.

>>15157027
>Unlike solids, or liquids, gasses move omnidirectionally
What does this even mean. Can water only go in one direction

>>15157027
This doesn't make sense, your original problem is with pressure. What is this special pleading about states of matter?
Why would you believe in states of matter anyways? How do you know there are not more?

>>15156967
>>15156978
>Magnetism is interesting, and the content Witsit has been putting out about it lately has me looking into a lot more these days:
[YouTube] Grounded (embed)

Rofl. Everything "new" this guy is saying is exactly what Ken Wheeler covered years ago in literally hundreds of 20 minute videos featuring no fancy ads or graphic designs

https://youtu.be/47T1_5P8jtg
https://youtu.be/5IwgRNS1Frs
Oh and the favorite new buzzword grifters have appropriated and misconstrued: "Dielectric/Dielectricity".
https://youtu.be/7guCx6eXrFc

>Spill the beans my guy.
I'm not going to tell you what to believe. I will tell you facts of the matter and one of them is that magnetism is not flat rofl. It's what props "physical" things into existence, as "3-dimensional" (really just "dimensional").

"flat" is not a shape its a description of a surface.
And you describe such a thing that doesn't exist. There are no "straight lines" or "flatness" anywhere in the universe. Demonstrably, not my opinion.

>>15155735
this anon is a government agent and this is a slide thread

giant walls of schizo text that dont say anything

>>15157016
epic gigachad this wasnt even my argument
>>15156931
no really the thing about earth and the atmosphere is that its fucking huge and gas molecules go all the way past the ISS, hence why we have to orbital correction thrusters on all capsules, satellites, and stations. Gas is diffusing into the vacuum of space but OP is pretending like newtons law doesnt apply to gasses. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, for every particle at the surface that wants out, there are gas particles on the edge of space that are being pulled back in.

>>15157033
>>15157043
it means that the behavior of water under pressure is not analogous to the behavior of gas under pressure.

>How do you know there are not more?
good point. i dont. there might be. check this shit out:
https://youtu.be/cuuXh7rzyaM?t=1162

there is much more to ALL matter in the reality than what we've been led to believe. water has memory and is "alive".

also:
>In Dr. Emoto's original experiment, he found that the rice that he spoke kind words to remained mostly white, while the rice that he spoke negatively to, turned moldy, providing physical evidence of the power of positivity.

ive done the rice experiment myself and i got the exact same results as Dr. Emoto.. everyone ive ever heard of doing the rice experiment has attained the same results. our thoughts, words and intentions have incredibly powerful effects on the matter around us. i encourage everyone to itt to perform the rice experiment for themselves and confirm.. blew my mind when it worked. this world is not what you think it is..

>>15157045
>Ken Wheeler did it first rofl
good for him. not sure why you think who i heard it from is even worth your "rofl". thanks for the links tho. the info is spreading thats awesome in my book

>I'm not going to tell you what to believe.
i never asked you to. im asking what YOU believe. youre like the most defensive and awkward person person ive interacted with in a while lol you on the spectrum or what?

>magnetism is not flat rofl
all magnetic toxoids have an inertial plane (bloq domain wall) at their center. thats where it appears we live. have you seen witsit's stuff? maybe watch the vid i linked and some of his other stuff, i thought he made some very convincing points

>And you describe such a thing that doesn't exist.
try to talk normal i dont understand your point and its tedious to keep asking you what you mean by everything youre saying. can you please make an effort to be more intelligible and detailed in your explanations?

>>15156753
Yes, objects fall at an agreed upon average of 9.8 m/s/s the effect is not in contention, the cause is:
https://youtu.be/kcFnoY0lVTI

The cause of the downward accelerative force is electrostatics which is provable; density and buoyancy sort the rest out. Gravity is not needed, is stupid, and doesn’t even hold up conceptually or theoretically

>Sun’s gravity is strong enough to keep all planets including Pluto in orbit and comets on an exactly repeating cycles..
>..yet it’s too weak to even tug at the moon a little bit to pull it out of earth’s cyclical orbit even slightly enough so that it would be at all noticeable over time.

Just as nonsensical as earth’s gravity being strong enough to hold the moon in perfectly cyclical orbit yet too weak to prevent a butterfly from overcoming all of the gravity generated by an entire planet with a single flap of its little wings. It’s just stupid and only held up by bullshit abstract equations that don’t describe reality.

Inb4 you continue to regurgitate more of your religious dogma about how your deified force of gravity is immune to all logic and reason bc you have a math formula you think can magically bend space and time to fit your delusions. Nobody cares.

We can manipulate the electrostatics of an object to make it float or sink. When we manipulate an independent variable to prove the cause, that’s called science. Claiming that the downward accelerative force is caused by electrostatics is testable. We cannot however manipulate gravity bc it is literally impossible to manipulate the bending and warping of space-time to see if it is actually the cause of the downward accelerative force. Those claiming gravity to be the cause of the downward accelerative force are using pseudoscience BY DEFINITION since gravity cannot be manipulated and therefore cannot be scientifically proven as the cause of any earthly phenomenon

>>15157063
So then why are you arguing from the paradigm of matter phases? Seems quite odd that you pick things you don't know in order to avoid answering questions about pressure differentials in liquid. The air to space differential is insignificant compared to the ocean differentials.

>>15156753
>>15157083
Gravity has been falsified on literally every level including the quantum scale. since Michelson-Morely failed to detect our orbital velocity, disproving Heliocentrism, Gravity as it is currently defined is the bending of the concept of time and the concept of space. Ya know, “time”?.. the concept of time? Yea, well it supposedly combined with “space” which is literally just nothingness.. ya kno, the paradoxical concept of “nothingness”? Well, these two concepts supposedly morphed into one entity that inexplicably developed physical features, and this “space-time” dilates like a tranny to trick us into never being able to measure earth’s motions. That is literally the current cope for why ALL evidence points to the fact that earth is motionless and we are special and at the center of the universe.

Gravity is ONLY required to explain large scale movement of planets and celestial bodies in the nonsensical heliocentric model. and it cant even do that either considering
>muh dark matter: >>15155981

And again, even Newton himself said that only an incompetent man could believe such a thing

>matter bends time
Again, time is a concept and you cannot attribute physical properties to concepts. This is as nonsensical as claiming
>moisture bends freedom
I honestly believe the only way people have been convinced of something so ridiculously stupid is bc they are under a literal spell. Witist does a pretty good job of explaining it:
(Timestamped at 17:14):
https://youtu.be/ofMBQegqVbA?t=1034

i disagree with Witsit on A LOT of things, especially his irrational faith that the scriptures are a literal account of history, but he's right on point when it comes to the idea that spells do indeed exist.

>>15157048
>ANY ONE WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE WHAT WIKIPEDIA AND THE CHURCH OF SCIENTISM TELL THEM TO BELIEVE MUST BE A SHILL!!!!
youre too far indoctrinated to think for yourself so its unfathomable to you that anyone could disagree with the narrative that Jewtube and Google algo's tells them to believe. FE is heavily censored. its literally the exact opposite of glowie behavior to want to discuss it.

>gas molecules go all the way past the ISS, hence why we have to orbital correction thrusters on all capsules, satellites, and stations.
>for every particle at the surface that wants out, there are gas particles on the edge of space that are being pulled back in.
>t. proceeds to regurgitate the unsubstantiated religious dogma he was indoctrinated with as if its proof of anything other than his failure to understand what a begging the question fallacy is

the parabox empirically proves that there are no gas particles on the edge of your fictional and gay "space" that are being pulled back in. as stated multiple times itt already:

gravity is STRONGEST near the surface and gets WEAKER as you increase altitude. if the gravity is too weak to prevent gas from moving into a relatively weak vacuum near the surface where gravity is supposedly STRONGEST, it certainly wouldn’t be capable of preventing gas from moving into the much stronger vacuum of space at higher altitudes where gravity is WEAKER.
you should be able to provide a specific altitude where you could perform the “pressurized box in a vacuum chamber” experiment where you think the pressurized air WOULD NOT seek equilibrium with the vacuum chamber. If you cannot specify an altitude in which this would happen, then why do you even believe such a place exists?

see picrel here: >>15156818 and tell me what you don’t understand about it. Be specific, don’t try to squirm around and make claims you can’t empirically substantiate. Look at that picrel and tell me EXACTLY what is wrong with it…

>>15156975
Testable, repeatable, empirical experimentation.

>>15157089
The words “solids”, “liquids” and “gas” are accurate enough categorizations defining the respective groupings of the properties of different forms of matter as they transitions thru their most easily observed and understood stabilized behavioral states due to the gain or loss of energy. In fact, the word “energy” itself is extremely inadequate in its ability to convey the actual concept it represents. But it can be incredibly difficult, if not virtually impossible, to communicate concepts and ideas about the physical world without using those common words to express an idea of which stabilized behavioral state the matter being discussed is in any given period of time.

I don’t believe in the existence of pseudoscientific particles like atoms, electrons, neutrons and photons either, but I can still use these words as simplified models in order to make it possible to have a dialogue. They are just somewhat useful descriptive language, but certainly not perfectly accurate or fully comprehensive terms representing the true nature of the things they’re describing.

>>15155609
hollow earth is the well poisoning psyop not FE

>>15157120
>gravity is STRONGEST near the surface and gets WEAKER as you increase altitude.
yeah sure, and the iss has 3 orders of magnitude more energy in its orbit than random gas particles in the atmosphere and even it is still going to collide with the earth at some point

you are utterly grasping at straws and you sound like a troll, you are assuming the universe would be a uniform dispersion when obviously it isn't. I wouldn't be afraid to reject gravity as a hypothesis but you are proposing that we all reject reality as it's observed.

>>15157329
>the iss
fake

>>15156917
i have and i do. i use to own an 8in Mead and would go out to the desert to stargaze with my uncle who owned an 10in Mead (back when their scopes were American made and of the highest quality builds. theyve gone to absolute shit since they started outsourcing) ive observed the celestial bodies and studied astronomy for most of my life. i was incredibly fascinated with astronomy and immersed myself in all of the mainstream scientific literature and learned everything i could about space and the universe. ive probably seen the Cosmos and the Universe series atleast 3x each and still own the dvds. i would stay up countless sleepless nights devouring anything space-related on youtube listening to lectures, debates, podcasts, you name it. ive only very recently awakened to FE.

i currently own a 6in Celestron and a pair of Celestron star gazing binos and i stargaze nearly every single night. its not that i dont know the heliocentric model, im a flat earther precisely bc I DO lol. its claims are utterly ridiculous, and once you see it, you can never unsee it. i also use to be agnostic, heavily leaning atheist. flat earth presented me with undeniable proof of The Creator. a lot of the stuff that finally woke me up is in this pastebin for anyone whose interested:
https://pastebin.com/MwaRqfMM

those who have an aptitude for astronomy are more likely to be able to pick apart the issues with the heliocentric model imho

Why do you think that an observation of the lights in the sky means the world is a spinning ball in a vacuum anyway?

What makes you believe in terra firma moons and planets or the solar system as it’s described? It’s literally all just pseudoscience and Jesuit philosophy that you’ve been brainwashed with. No empirical evidence to back the model whatsoever.

why do you think you know how big or how far away the lights you see in the sky are or what they are made of?
what do the lights on your ceiling tell you of the floor beneath your feet?

>>15157306
>>>15156975
>Testable, repeatable, empirical experimentation.
source?

>>15157329
You’ve been told a bunch of stories that you believe without ever taking the time to seriously question the validity of. It would be impossible for me to school you on everything I kno, answer every single question youre likely to raise, and convince you of all your misunderstandings itt alone. You’ve got an entire lifetime of indoctrination to undo and that’s not an easy undertaking to undo it. All I can say is that I use to be just like you until I decided to actually thoroughly investigate what I took for granted to be “scientifically proven”.

Do your own research and go perform some of then tests and experiments outlined in the videos in the pastebin I’ve posted itt already. Be aware that Google and jewtube’s algo’s make it nearly impossible to find legit FE content, and it is heavily censored and suppressed by the (((mainstream))) media and educational institutions. There is so much misinfo and disinfo out there on the topic, but it IS worth your time to look into, I promise. The heliocentric model simply does not hold up to scrutiny. I too use to think flat earth was ridiculously stupid and probably a psyop, but that’s bc I thought I could find the answers by just googling the questions I had; that turned me off to it for years. I was led to the truth by a single video linked to in a thread about Antartica on /pol/ and after that one video that started me on my journey, I didn’t stop looking for answers for months, until I was 100% positive I had found enough evidence to KNOW for certain. If you put in the necessary time and effort I promise you’ll start realizing that the current model is directly contradicted by what we observe and experience in reality.

>>15156552
>You could describe every single combustion engine as "uses explosions to move", but that doesn't actually explain how they do it.
The reason i described how the rocket operates as being an explosion is that, as i previously said, the explosion (which is just hot gases) pushes against the inside of the combustion chamber. It doesn't need to push against anything outside of the engine, as you seem to believe.
And of course ICEs contain an explosion but you're missing the whole point.

>Are you going to equate the explosion bolts on said parts to also be causing the rocket to fly further? Ridiculous I think
im not really sure what you mean here

>A vacuum does not exist. There is nothing there to "think" about.
i never really understand why flat earthers etc fixate about the fact that an absolutely perfect vacuum doesn't exist. Is it so that you can claim the rocket is still pushing on the handful of atoms still there or something?

>>15156566
>You know you’ve lost the exchange atp
ive lost nothing but you're too arrogant, retarded and emotionally involved to be able to think otherwise.

>>15157377
Hey ape gorilla nigger
I want everyone to know you failed to define in your own terms because you CANT because you're just regurgitating other people's words you've COPIED AND PASTED. When your REAL posts are fed into the iq estimator it's obvious. Fraud nigger ape can't define his own terms
>>15156899
SAGE

>>15157458
Lol
Lmao

>>15155463
First of all, laws of thermodynamics assume gravity forces are so small they don't matter at pressures it applies to.

Second this is not a correct scale model. On earth we get air pressure from the weight of the whole air column pressing on you.

We can assume there is at least 50 kilometers of air above us, which creates 100 kilopascals of pressure. If you small box is 10 cm high then you scale model is scaled 500000 times down. To get comparative results, assuming pressure scales linearly (hint it doesnt, but it should give us at least order of magnitude estimation), the pressure inside the box, to model Earth should be 500000 less on order of 0.0002 kilopascals -> 0.2 pascals -> 0.002 Milibar.

That's a pretty high vaccuum, which you can't really recreate easily, but you could with right equipment and most likely air should be also chilled apropriately, to reduce kinetic energy of the molecules

If you put you big box in a high vacuum state, and trickle some air chilled into the small box, it will definitely stay in the box and wont spread into the big box, because after all, air is just a very compressible liquid.


And in the end, what do you think laws or thermodynamics are? They are statistical estimations of molecular dynamics, which models gasses as colliding balls with charges. Balls which get affected by gravity, but at ambient temperature, if you remove the pressure of the air column, electric forces of the charges of the air molecules, their miniscule weight and high speed of movement makes gravity insignificant force.

You need to be a retard to think you can moel atmosphere -> space border by having small box in vacuum without proper scaling down of the pressure.

>>15157536
Read thru the thread prior to posting next time. Everything you just wrote has already been addressed itt multiple times in multiple posts

If you’re too lazy to read thru the thread, see picrel here: >>15156818 and tell me what you don’t understand about it. Be specific, don’t try to squirm around and make claims you can’t empirically substantiate. Look at that picrel and tell me EXACTLY what is wrong with it…
..I’ll wait..

>>15157546
A post so stupid the iq estimator won't even try
Lol
Lmao, even
Can't even define TORR in his own words
LMFAO

>>15157566
Is OP even a real person? It's been 18 hours since he made this thread, and there's never been a long pause where he wasn't replying to somebody. I guess he could just stay up for days and keep posting the same thing, but that's a pretty depressing thought

>>15157507
>ive lost nothing
Objectively, you lost the exchange. Your last reply was:
>why do you think that a kilo of mass can lift itself 100km above the surface of the earth?
This objection which is the same as this >>15157536 objection has been addressed by the fact that the uppermost layers of earth’s atmos would equalize with the vacuum of space and layer by layer this would happen FROM THE TOP DOWN until all of the atmos had equalized with the vacuum of space. Once the upper layers have equalized with the vacuum of space, there is no air pressure above the lower layers for the lower layers to need to push thru to reach the vacuum. The entire pressurized column of air becomes the vacuum until there is no more pressurized air left in the column. See picrel here: >>15156818

gravity is supposedly STRONGEST near the surface and gets WEAKER as you increase altitude. if the gravity is too weak to prevent the gas from moving into a relatively weak vacuum near the surface where gravity is supposedly STRONGEST, it certainly wouldn’t be capable of preventing gas from moving into the much stronger vacuum of space at higher altitudes where gravity is WEAKER.

provide a specific altitude where you can perform the box experiment and NOT expect the pressurized air to seek equilibrium with the vacuum chamber. If you cannot specify an altitude in which this would happen, then why do you even believe such a place exists?

You have no answer to this, you just keep repeating your same argument that the lower layers of pressurized atmosphere would need to push up thru the upper layers. That’s been falsified. You got nuthin’. Objectively, you lost the exchange.

>>15157617
Bing bang wahooo

>>15157617
Or maybe this is more to your tastes

>>15157614
Schizophrenia is frequently associated with insomnia. Repetitive statements as well.
>>15157617
Hey look he can lick her clit and fuck her at the same time

>>15157617
>has been addressed by the fact
has been dismissed with another baseless statement
> the uppermost layers of earth’s atmos would equalize with the vacuum of space
how? apart from the few molecules which are given the extra energy required to go higher the rest are already at equilibrium. You seem to think that things can go higher above the earth without extra energy, hence my original question >>15156385

The only way you can be thinking is that the vacuum is pulling things towards it. There's nowhere else for the extra necessary energy to come from (outside of the various ways in which a very few molecules are made to go faster of course).

This all just seems to exist in your head without the slightest basis in reality.

>>15157546
>Look at that picrel and tell me EXACTLY what is wrong with it…

It's ignoring the fact that air molecules, just like any object on earth, is affected by a force, which is pulling that object downwards/towards the center of the space and that laws of thermodynamics are modeling a closed system without external forces, which invalidates their use in this context.

>>15157639
but anon he says the vacuum SUCKS the air out like she SUCKS THIS BBC
KEK

>>15157614
Yea ngl I’m getting pretty tired and about to call it a night. I’ll stick around for another half hour or so since I said
>..I’ll wait..
Here to see if that guy replies again and then I’ll be dipping out.

I don’t mind sacrificing my time and energy to kickstart an awakening for a few anons. FE was the single most important revelation of my life and it brings me a lot of joy and contentment spreading truth to those with eyes to see. Losing a bit of sleep is a small price to pay if it means other people are waking up to the deception which has plagued humanity for so long.

>>15157617
>provide a specific altitude where you can perform the box experiment and NOT expect the pressurized air to seek equilibrium with the vacuum chamber. If you cannot specify an altitude in which this would happen, then why do you even believe such a place exists?

you need to scale down the pressure in the box if you want to model earth like it. At correct pressure atoms will not escape the box, if the pressure is too high atoms repel each other - there is just not enough space for them in the box, that's why air escapes.

You are completely ignoring the fact that air is made from discreet objects, and apply laws of thermodynamics wrongly, outside of their applicability region.

>>15157643
>Schizophrenia is frequently associated with insomnia. Repetitive statements as well.

>>15157643
>spreading truth to those with eyes to see
not a single anon here has been swayed. no one here agrees with you
Sage

>>15157636
>without extra energy
this was addressed in the 3rd post of the thread: >>15155480


Gas molecules get their kinetic energy from HEAT and the upper layers of the atmosphere have MORE heat than at the surface. Gas molecules would have even MORE energy at the upper layers. once the gas molecules in the upper most layers of the atmos had equaliized with the vacuum of space, those layers are now a vacuum as well, and this process happens top to bottom until all layers have equalized and the atmos is completely depleted into space

>>15157639
>is affected by a force, which is pulling that object downwards/towards the center
this too has already been addressed many times itt.
youre attempting to explain away the box paradox by presupposing the very properties of gravity which are shown to be nonexistent by the very box paradox you're attempting to refute. thats just a remedial logical fallacy in order to attempt to sidestep the issue

as has been explained multiple times itt:
gravity is supposedly STRONGEST near the surface and gets WEAKER as you increase altitude. if the gravity is too weak to prevent the gas from moving into a relatively weak vacuum near the surface where gravity is supposedly STRONGEST, it certainly wouldn’t be capable of preventing gas from moving into the much stronger vacuum of space at higher altitudes where gravity is WEAKER.

>>15157648
>At correct pressure atoms will not escape the box, if the pressure is too high atoms repel each other
already addressed this here: >>15156888
the pressure of earth's atmos is ALWAYS greater than the 10^-17 TORR vacuum of space AT ALL ALTITUDES
gas molecules which move omnidirectionally. introduce any amount of pressurized gas to a vacuum of 10^-17 TORR vacuum and the gas molecules will move omnidirectionally and seek equilibrium with the vacuum. gravity doesnt prevent this from happening, even at the surface nearer to the center of mass where gravity is said to be strongest.

>>15157673
Cargo cult "science" means repeating the words you heard "smart people" say, over and over, until you've exhausted the opposition and they walk away. Op cannot define
> 10^-17 TORR vacuum
in his own words that won't appear in a Google search.
Op is the equivalent of a sovereign citizen. Screaming their secret magic words and phrases ( 10^-17 TORR vacuum) at the judge (reality) but still getting thrown in jail for driving without a license (the earth is round. You will never be intelligent)

>>15157636
>The only way you can be thinking is that the vacuum is pulling things towards it
Yeah this is what I don't get. What is the force lifting the air into the vacuum? Things fall down towards the ground, I think this is something that even flat earthers can agree with. Why would air rise up above the vacuum, when air is denser than a vacuum? There is nothing sucking the air in space. I don't understand how the scenario on the right makes more sense than things falling down

>>15157684
Reminds me of that 20000RPM guy, Mandlbaur or whatever he was called

>>15157688
AD HOMENIM ATTACK
REFUTE MY PAPER SIR
Kek

>>15157685
>What is the force lifting the air into the vacuum?
an inherent property of gas molecules is that they move omnidirectionally. they will seek equilibrium with a vacuum void of physical containment. this has been explained ad nauseum

>Things fall down towards the ground,
see: >>15157083

>There is nothing sucking the air in space.
non sequitur. nothing needs to suck the air out. pressurized air seeks equilibrium when exposed to a vacuum as per the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as has been explained countless times itt already

welp, looks like nobody has an answer to the parabox thus far, and atp its just the same fallacious easily refuted rebuttals being posted over and over again. not surprised, this thread has gone pretty much exactly as i expected. im calling it a night. ill check back tomorrow and see if there's any additional posts worth replying to.

>>15157685
He seems to be under the impression that because the molecules in the upper atmosphere are on average more energetic (otherwise they wouldn't be up there in the first place) that they must therefore all be at sufficient energy to keep going higher and higher above the earth.
He also keeps referring to the 'heat' of the upper atmosphere as if it is exactly the same as heat down here on the surface, when in reality of course, 'heat' in a vacuum is not something you can measure with a thermometer, but just an expression of the average energy of those few particles in that region.

>>15157688
>>15157690
yeah i lurked those threads for a while, and its a similar vibe for sure, and also similarly pointless to discuss things with.

>>15157695
>2. Post lots and lots of words about something trivial.

>The more trivial the subject, the more words you are going to have to post here. If you're discussing the recent firing of several federal attorneys, for instance, you can get away with a paragraph or two with no swearing. If you're discussing whether Chrono Cross was a successful game on its own merits despite clearly not being as good as Chrono Trigger, then you are going to have to pull out the internet forum's equivalent of War and Peace, except you aren't allowed to put paragraph breaks and you have to swear a lot and put the swear words in CAPITALS so it reads like you said the entire thing in one breath and shouted every few words.

>This shows that you have passion. Passion is a manly trait, and men are basically cool. I'm talking about a man's man here. A man willing to break it down and get emotional about Shadow of the Colossus. You know who you are. Give me a pound of your fist on your monitor. If you break it, it's ok. That just means you don't know your own strength because there is too much testosterone pumping passionately through your bloodstream.
Sage

>>15157695
>pressurized air seeks equilibrium when exposed to a vacuum as per the 2nd law of thermodynamics
I DO NOT ENJOINDER WITH YOU
I AM NOT DRIVING, I AM TRAVELING
SINCE THAT FLAG HAS A GOLD FRINGE I DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE AUTHORITY OF THIS COUR- Ack!

>>15157695
From the perspective of a gas molecule, what is the difference between hovering in a random place in the vacuum, vs hovering next to Earth's gravity in a vacuum? In both cases the molecule is still meeting the vacuum, but in one scenario it's sitting where gravity is pulling it

>>15157695
>they will seek equilibrium with a vacuum void of physical containment
but they won't just keep going higher and higher. there's a certain point at which the energy of the particle is no longer sufficient to keep going higher. If what you are describing were true it would be a kind of free energy situation.

>>15157695
>welp
you're likely just trolling.

>>15157673
why would molecule move against the gravity if there isn't enough heat and other molecules pushing it up?

JANNY ON SUICIDE WATCH
LMAO

>>15157695
>an inherent property of gas molecules is that they move omnidirectionally.

What does it even mean? Why would a molecule move at all? Are you ignoring common sense that there is a at least two forces: gravity which pulls stuff towards the ground (all objects we can observe get pulled, why gas molecules wouldn't), and molecules repelling each other.

If there is many molecules pressed together they escape from each other, if any other external force is absent, and that is modeled by laws of thermodynamics. But laws of thermodynamics apply only for systems without external force, which would be gravity, or any other force your model has, which pulls stuff towrds the ground.

When there is gravity, at some point it can counteract molecules being repelled from each other, so, no NOT ALL air will escape the box in the vaccuum container, the same as not all air escapes into vacuum of space.

>>15155463
Too lazy, didn't read. Explain yourself in three sentences or less.

>>15157695
>answer to the parabox thus far

there is no paradax, as it's all in your head with no actual experiment and modeling.

If you do the experiment and measure pressure in the box and outside the box, or at the bottom of the box and on the top, or even just the weight of the box.

My theory and verification:
depressurise the vaccum chamber
pressurise the box slightly higher than the pressure in the vaccum chamber
open the box
weigh it
turn the box upside down
weight it again

The weight before turning upside down will be the weight of remaining gas in the box, which will stay there because, as any object gas molecules get affected by gravity. Of course some of them will still escape into the vaccuum chamber, but only because they are squeezed together in the box, and try to repel each other, until reach equilibrium with external force pulling them down.

Your theory: ALL of the gas will escape to the vacuum chamber, and there will be zero change in the weight of the box after turning it upside down.

Now, go, do the experiment, like a real scientist should, to find the truth.

>>15157624
>>15157630
>>15157635
>>15157642
>>15157649
>>15157812
stop shitting up the thread or trying to get it closed. OP needs to be completely humiliated before that happens. he shouldn't get to run away and hide or retreat to his usual flat earth threads on /x/

>>15157695
>pressurized air seeks equilibrium when exposed to a vacuum as per the 2nd law of thermodynamics

2nd law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems without external forces, which athmosphere near vaccuum of space isn't.

There is an external force pulling the air molecules down/towards the earth, be it gravity, or your weird ideas of density, buoyancy or electrical potential. Even in flat earth model air wouldn't escape to the vacuum without the firmanent because there is OBSERVABLE IN REAL LIFE force which pulls all objects towards the earth, molecules of air included.

It's trivially measurable by a microscale and baloon, empty baloon weighs less than a baloon filled with air from your lungs, therefore air molecules ARE being pulled down towards the earth

>>15157063
>good for him. not sure why you think who i heard it from is even worth your "rofl".
It's to the benefit of the schmuck you posted because some of it's copyrighted lol. How nice of me to point it out before he gets called out by someone notable.

>the info is spreading thats awesome in my book
He wrote a book too.

>im asking what YOU believe.
"Beliefs" are for retarded human beings. Know something for a change.

>all magnetic toxoids have an inertial plane
An incommensurable "bloch" wall. Yes. Do you know what the term "incommensurable" means?

>try to talk normal
Why would you want me to act retarded?

>>15155463
Try sucking up water through a straw longer than 10 metres

There you have your answer.

>>15155517
>If that is the claim, how can you rationalize the fact that all of all of the gravity generated by the entire planet earth isn’t even strong enough to prevent air from rushing UP and out of the box and into a vacuum chamber on earth's surface where gravity is supposedly STRONGEST?

Which is heavier? A kilogram of steel or a kilogram of feathers?

>>15158065
A kilogram of steel, because steel is heavier than feathers

>>15158059
>Try sucking up water through a straw longer than 10 metres
This is OP you're talking about here, I'm sure he could easily accomplish that.
>>15158065
What flies higher? A bird or a plane?

>>15158059
the best jet style well pumps (or hand pumps for that matter) can only pull water up about 20-25ft of vertical climb. But no, we should think that all of physics is a lie because this guy here thinks far more weight of air than that water should simply go poof into outer space.

its very strange.

>>15158059
Or just grab a mercury barometer
Bam, matter and vacuum together in a space.

Next question is, why does mercury only go as far as it does, why water at 10 metres?

How far should air have to go before you can't suck it any further?

>>15157546
The very first yellow text sentence is wrong.
The molecules will not escape into the vacuum when the vertical pressure gradient becomes zero because there needs to be a pressure differential to create a motive force. At the top of the air cushion within the container the mathematical limit of pressure vs height approaches zero. At that height nothing causes the molecules to continue into the vaccum. They just fall back down to earth due to gravity.
Don't bother saying you've "explained" this before. It's the reason why your picture is wrong and if you disagree you need to take high school physics.

>>15157688
CHOAM guy was fun to troll though

>>15158356
20000RPM falsifies CHOAM you chud, no I won't accept any logical explanation that explains why I am wrong

>>15157458
>flat earth
oh that meme from 2016 where everyone thought it was funny to be ironic? this entire thread is actually a joke?

>>15155463
the answer depends on the size of the containers,
are the "small" containers walls several kilometers in height?
whats the pressure in the big container? (true vaccums basically don't exist even in outer space)
you can calculate how high the containers walls need to be to be so the pressure at the top of the inner small box is equivalent with the pressure in the outer box, if the walls are high enough no air will "spill out".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barometric_formula
I don't see were the paradox is supposed to be.

This is a troll.
He comes to /sci periodically with a stupid question, then refuses to be able to understand it.
He gets some kind of sick pleasure getting people to explain things, then throwing a tantrum about how the explanation isn't valid.

>>15158531
I like these threads, I learn a lot from them.

>>15158531
HINT
it's the janny posting this shit
Hope that helps
SAGE

>>15158531
>>15158573
Honestly I kinda like flat earth threads too. It's just interesting seeing what kind of reasoning they throw at you, and then spelling out why it makes no sense

>>15157710
>what is the difference between hovering in a random place in the vacuum, vs hovering next to Earth's gravity in a vacuum?
The difference is that we can empirically observe that gas molecule will seek equilibrium with a vacuum chamber, but we cannot empirically observe gravity’s effect on them. Gravity and space are both disproven by the parbox bc space is said to be nearly infinite so there would be nothing preventing all the gas in the atmos from continuing to equalize with the vacuum of space until all of earth’s atmos has been depleted.

>In both cases the molecule is still meeting the vacuum, but in one scenario it's sitting where gravity is pulling it
False, in there is no scenario where the claimed effect of gravity on gas molecules can be measured. There is a downward accelerative force (>>15157083) but gravity’s claimed effects don’t match with what we actually observe in reality, as per the box experiment.

>>15157721
>there's a certain point at which the energy of the particle is no longer sufficient to keep going higher.
If that’s your claim, then you need to specify a SPECIFIC ALTITUDE at which you you could perform the parbox experiment and not expect the gas pressure to equalize with the vacuum that it is exposed to. Since you cannot provide this specific altitude (since you know can’t bc it doesn’t exist) you should have some integrity and admit that you simply cannot empirically substantiate the effects of gravity that you believe in.

the only place gravity exists is in the abstract equations and models you keep trying to reference, but these fail to match what we observe in reality.

>>15157697
>He seems to be under the impression that because the molecules in the upper atmosphere are on average more energetic (otherwise they wouldn't be up there in the first place) that they must therefore all be at sufficient energy to keep going higher and higher above the earth.
gas pressure equalizes with the vacuum when its exposed to it. if the vacuum that the gas pressure is exposed to is nearly infinite in size, the result of the equalization will be that there is an immeasurable amount of gas pressure since the gas molecules rush to fill the that nearly infinite vacuum. as stated here: >>15159019 and many many times already itt:
>you need to specify a SPECIFIC ALTITUDE at which you could perform the parbox experiment and not expect the gas pressure to equalize with the vacuum that it is exposed to. Since you cannot provide this specific altitude (since you know can’t bc it doesn’t exist) you should have some integrity and admit that you simply cannot empirically substantiate the effects of gravity that you believe in.

>'heat' in a vacuum is not something you can measure with a thermometer, but just an expression of the average energy of those few particles in that region.
non sequitur.

>>15159019
> but we cannot empirically observe gravity’s effect on them

>It's trivially measurable by a microscale and balloon, empty balloon weighs less than a balloon filled with air from your lungs, therefore air molecules ARE being pulled down towards the earth

>>15157813
textbook begging the question fallacy. your just attempting to reify the properties of gravity which the parbox empirically proves are not existent. see: >>15156888

>>15157830
no.

>>15157841
>our theory: ALL of the gas will escape to the vacuum chamber, and there will be zero change in the weight of the box after turning it upside down.
strawman. the pressure inside the box will be equal to the pressure in the vacuum chamber outside of the box. yes, there will be slightly more pressure near the bottom. that has already been addressed here: >>15155577
>that gradient that you can measure after opening the lid of the box would be consistent inside the box and outside of the box in the vacuum chamber surrounding it. after the lid is removed, the only reason the gradient exists within the box AND outside of box in the vacuum chamber, is because we have a vacuum chamber that is limitted in size. if the size of the vacuum chamber was limitless (like we are told the vacuum of space is) then you would never be able to measure a gradient bc there would be a near infinite amount of vacuum for the pressure to equalize with..

..and here: >>15155626
>at would only be bc of the WALLS of the box. Gas molecules move omnidirectionally and a ball has no walls. The vacuum of space surrounds earth at every angle to the surface so the gas would equalize with space everywhere.

>>15159098
>therefore air molecules ARE being pulled down towards the earth
but provably not by gravity. There is a downward accelerative force (>>15157083) but gravity’s claimed effects don’t match with what we actually observe in reality, as per the box experiment.

>>15157864
addressed here: >>15159103
>>15159105

>>15159105
If they are being pulled towards earth, then why should they escape into vacuum?

>>15159103
>yes, there will be slightly more pressure near the bottom

So you agree that downward force can trap some air in a box exposed to vacuum.

Then why should air on earth escape to vacuum? Earth is a bigger box, so more air gets trapped

>>15159105
>as per the box experiment.
You never did the experiment and never measured anything, you made it all up and claim it proves something.

Some air will stay in the box because air is a collection of litteral colliding balls, which get affected by downward accelerating force, and electrostatic repelling force. Thermodynamics is just a set of approximations for calculating how billions and billions of these balls act, in absence of external forces, which is the downward force. Why would they magically float out of the box, unless there is too many of them in the box so the electrostatic repelling force overcomes the downward accelerating force?

You are applying the thermodynamics laws incorrectly, made up a though experiment without any proof and assumed something which leads to false conclusions and keep ignoring the explanations and reality.

>>15158020
> because some of it's copyrighted
witsit openly admits that he gets much of his stuff on magnetism from Wheeler. He recommends and drives people to Ken Wheelers channel in many of his streams. there is nothing wrong referencing someone else's work.. your overly critical outlook and the unnecessarily accusatory, combative attitude seems to indicate that your worldview isnt really very beneficial for your day to day state of mind. Also the fact that you dont seem to be able to articulate your actual views on the world points to the likely possibility that you dont actually have a very good grasp on the concepts youre claiming to kno so much about.

i'd like to here your opinion on his most recent stream showing that planes flying North South meridian routes debunk earth's motions for many reasons, not the least of which is that it would be a violation of the law of the conservation of momentum. Iv timestamped some places in the vid if you dont want to watch the entire thing
https://youtu.be/2sx6_C3HdI8?t=401
https://youtu.be/2sx6_C3HdI8?t=1755
https://youtu.be/2sx6_C3HdI8?t=2538

>An incommensurable "bloch" wall.
>muh breadcurmbs
can you be more specific?

>Why would you want me to act retarded
im asking you to stop being intentionally cryptic. youre coming off as dishonest by slow dripping your points, rather than just making a coherent fully-fledged out arguments

>>15158059
>>15158075
>>15158078
again, you dont need the pressurized air near earth's surface to travel up thru the rest of the atmosphere above it in order for it to reach the vacuum. the uppermost layers would equalize with the vacuum of space first and the same thing would happen from top to bottom at each and every altitude until all of earth's atmos had been depleted. see picrel here:>>15156818
if you think there is an altitude where gas will fail to seek equilibrium with the vacuum in the parbox, you need to specify a SPECIFIC ALTITUDE at which you you could perform the parbox experiment and not expect the gas pressure to equalize with the vacuum that it is exposed to. Since you cannot provide this specific altitude (since you know can’t bc it doesn’t exist) you should have some integrity and admit that you simply cannot empirically substantiate the effects of gravity that you believe in.

>>15159184
>witsit openly admits that he gets much of his stuff on magnetism from Wheeler.
And then goes using it disingenuously to "prove flat earth". As if it really mattered if it were described as a specific geometry, it still has the same stupid fucking humans on it. No electrical engineer who developed the archaic hertzian waveform you refer to as "electricity" believed in flat earth. Probably because the Magnetic and Electric fields they were dicking around with were in fact 3 dimensional. The magical "super conductors" memed about to this day were theorized to be "2-dimensional" simply because the lack of resistance would be due to a shorter path taken (because the electrified conductor is straight/flat).

>Also the fact that you dont seem to be able to articulate your actual views on the world points to the likely possibility that you dont actually have a very good grasp on the concepts youre claiming to kno so much about.

So now lets go back to the part where I asked you whether you preferred if pretend to be smart or retarded and I told you I was doing neither.

>An incommensurable "bloch" wall.
>can you be more specific?

Literally no. Because if you bothered to actually look up the term "incommensurable", it means just the opposite. I am being specific in that it is most not specific (and that's how it works).

>im asking you to stop being intentionally cryptic
I may sound cryptic to the mundane, but that's not my problem.

>youre coming off as dishonest by slow dripping your points,
By consistently telling you the facts as they are, but not telling you what to believe? Do you want me to be a charismatic TV preacher about simple facts because your attention span is so low? Should I put on a monkey suit and hop on a bicycle with one of my friends and ring your doorbell on saturday morning professing my good words?

>rather than just making a coherent fully-fledged out arguments
Not here to argue. Go to a debate club, hell go to /v/.

>>15158103
>The very first yellow text sentence is wrong.
If you honestly believe that, Then you’re going to need to Specify an altitude at which you believe the pressurized air in the box experiment would fail to seek equilibrium when exposed to a vacuum of 10^-17 torr. And you’ll need to empirically substantiate your claim. Otherwise it’s just a baseless assertion for the sole purpose of maintaining your nonsensical worldview.

>The molecules will not escape into the vacuum when the vertical pressure gradient becomes zero because there needs to be a pressure differential to create a motive force.
Agreed that’s why every single part of the container in picrel here: >>15156818
Would become the same pressure as the 10^-17 torr vacuum it was exposed to.

As stated here: >>15156247
The pressurized container can be any pressure you’d like it to be. It can have the same gradient measured on earth… as long as the pressur in the tube is less than the 10^-17 TORR vacuum of space, when the lid of the container is removed, and the top layers are exposed to the the vacuum, the top layers of the pressurized air in the 100km tube will rush to equalize with the vacuum of space regardless of whether there’s a gradient or not. This same thing will happen to every layer in the tube, top to bottom - the entire tube will become a vacuum.

>At the top of the air cushion within the container the mathematical limit of pressure vs height approaches zero.
Again, >you need to specify a SPECIFIC ALTITUDE at which you could perform the parbox experiment and not expect the gas pressure to equalize with the vacuum that it is exposed to. Since you cannot provide this specific altitude (since you know can’t bc it doesn’t exist) you should have some integrity and admit that you simply cannot empirically substantiate the effects of gravity that you believe in.

>They just fall back down to earth due to gravity.
thats yet another remedial begging the question fallacy.

>>15158065
>Which is heavier? A kilogram of steel or a kilogram of feathers?
non sequitur

>>15158494
see picrel here: >>15156551
and here: >>15159242
>The pressurized container can be any pressure you’d like it to be. It can have the same gradient measured on earth… as long as the pressur in the tube is less than the 10^-17 TORR vacuum of space, when the lid of the container is removed, and the top layers are exposed to the the vacuum, the top layers of the pressurized air in the 100km tube will rush to equalize with the vacuum of space regardless of whether there’s a gradient or not. This same thing will happen to every layer in the tube, top to bottom - the entire tube will become a vacuum.

>if the walls are high enough no air will "spill out".
objectively youre wong. as illustrated in the piicrel here: >>15156551 the walls can be as high as you'd like and the pressure in the container can have the same gradient as on earth. when the lid is removed and exposed to a 10^-17 torr vacuum of near infinite size, the entirety of the air pressure within the container will seek equilibrium from the top down and the entire container will be replaced with the same 10^-17 torr vacuum it has been exposed to.

this is just objective. the reason no answer has been posted which explains the parabox, is bc there is no answer. objectively, this kills your model.

>>15159128
>>15159135

>If they are being pulled towards earth, then why should they escape into vacuum?
there is a slight downward bias which creates the gradient, but its provably not strong enough to prevent gas pressure from seeking equilibrium with a vacuum

as has been stated:
there is a measurable equipotential increase of 100 volts per meter as you increase altitude from the surface of earth which correlates with the decreasing pressure gradient. as the resting potential increases, the pressure decreases. The ONLY way to get a measurable increase resting charge potential of 100 volts per meter is if there is a Gaussian surface above us as well. You cannot produce one single example of an equincreasing electric potential without the use of 2 Gaussian surfaces. This is yet another proof of the existence of the firmament.

>>15159154
already addressed here: >>15156888

>>15159242
>The pressurized container can be any pressure you’d like it to be… as long as the pressur in the tube is less than the 10^-17 TORR vacuum of space, when the lid of the container is removed, and the top layers are exposed to the the vacuum, the top layers of the pressurized air in the 100km tube will rush to equalize with the vacuum of space regardless of whether there’s a gradient or not.
Prove it.

In the meantime ask yourself why air pressure decreases with altitude, and why water pressure increases with depth

>>15159292
already addressed many times itt. either come up with something new or just admit you got nuthin', youre not presenting anything new or interesting and youre losing my interest.

>>15159317
Oh, okay, then link the part where you proved this claim:
>The pressurized container can be any pressure you’d like it to be… as long as the pressur in the tube is less than the 10^-17 TORR vacuum of space, when the lid of the container is removed, and the top layers are exposed to the the vacuum, the top layers of the pressurized air in the 100km tube will rush to equalize with the vacuum of space regardless of whether there’s a gradient or not.

And the part where you explained the relationship between water pressure and air pressure

>>15159103
The reason why Descartes is so renowned is because he was able to summarise his entire philosphy in a single sentence; cogito ergo sum. I expect you to do the same, and infact I'm being lenient by allowing you three entire sentence. If you are unable to do so, I will conclude that whatever you are proposed is too convoluted and far fetched to be of note.

>>15159344
read thru the thread. when you find the multiple posts i've already made addressing your objections, link to them in your response to prove to me youre not just trolling, and then point out SPECIFICALLY what you didnt understand about those specific posts. i'll wait..

>>15159349
no. read thru the thread or keep coping and seething like i gaf

troll or retard, either way.
the pressure of the atmosphere decreases as you go up in elevation. this is an easily measurable fact that occurs to such a noticeable extent that it becomes difficult to breathe on tall mountains and impossible to breathe when flying too high without bringing your own air. consider the rate at which air pressure decreases as you go up, and then ask yourself the following: how high would i need to go before the air pressure, following this trend, became a medium vacuum? how high would i need to go before it became a strong vacuum? why should the air pressure not continue to decrease in this way as i go arbitrarily large distances above the ground? if i took a small box with the known average air pressure where commercial airplanes cruise, and connected it directly to a small box with the known average air pressure at sea level, and then opened them to each other, would sea level pressure air not rush to fill the other box? if this is easily observed at the small scale of my boxes, should i conclude that sea level air should get sucked into the high atmosphere and equalize, thus making it significantly more difficult to breathe at sea level?

basically your thought experiment is ignoring the reality that this pressure gradient extends over miles. you can't claim you've physically done your test on a scale that would disprove basic observations, because i know you don't have a miles tall box with which to run such an experiment. you can figure this out without ever needing to invoke gravity, and the shape of the earth doesn't matter for this either. just take a few measurements of the air pressure as you climb a mountain and then follow the basic pattern.

and to reiterate no matter how much you think you've "disproved this":
if your box experiment were relevant to the earth in a vacuum, then my box experiment would be equally relevant to the air within a firmament. how high do you claim this firmament is? what would be the expected air pressure at that height following our basic observations? how can such a low pressure exist *right next to* our high pressure sea level air?

>>15159370
>>15159371

>if i just keep repeating the same easily refuted arguments that have already been shown to be fallacious multiple times itt, then he'll have to just keep going around in circles with me and playing Groundhog day until the thread gets archived.

see: >>15159366
read thru the thread. when you find the multiple posts i've already made addressing your objections, link to them in your response to prove to me youre not just trolling, and then point out SPECIFICALLY what you didnt understand about those specific posts. i'll wait..

>>15159374
exactly, just keep hiding from reality because it doesn't match you gay thought experiment.

>>15159378
Kek. You got nuthin’. Thanks for playing.

>>15159366
>read through 250 posts
No nigga, give me the synopsis.

>>15159411

>>15159>>15159278
No it isnt

>>15159438
You already accepted the fact not all air escapes and gets equalized, and there will be pressure gradient, due to downwards force present.

Then why 100 km high box cant have 100 kilopascals at the bottom and 10^-17 TORR at the top?

so what is the "paradox" here and why does it need a multi-post tldr wall of text if not for obfuscation?

>>15159263
>>15159438
if the air at the top of the hundreds of km giant "small box" IS ALREADY equalized at 10^-17 Torr even when the lid is still closed, then no air will rush out if you open said lid, no?

This proposed experiment, known as the "vacuum chamber experiment," is not a valid or scientific way to prove the existence of a "firmament" or a physical barrier around the Earth. The behavior of air in a vacuum chamber is well understood by scientists and is not evidence for a flat Earth or a firmament. The vacuum chamber experiment simply demonstrates the properties of air and its behavior in a vacuum, which is a condition of low pressure where there is very little or no air. The idea that the Earth is surrounded by a firmament or that the atmosphere would disappear into a vacuum if it weren't for a barrier is not supported by scientific evidence and is considered a pseudoscience.
Air, like all matter, is made up of atoms and molecules. These atoms and molecules are in constant motion, and in the Earth's atmosphere, they are being held in place by the planet's gravity. The vacuum of space, on the other hand, is an environment with extremely low pressure and no matter.

When an air-filled box is placed in a vacuum chamber and the air inside is sucked out, the air molecules are not disappearing into space. Instead, they are simply spreading out and moving farther apart from each other, due to the lower pressure inside the vacuum chamber. The air molecules are still present, they are just more spread out than they were before.

In the case of the Earth, the atmosphere is held in place by the planet's gravity and the atmospheric pressure. The atmosphere does not extend infinitely into space, but it does extend far enough that the density of the air becomes too low to support life. The fact that air does not disappear into space is due to the fact that the atmospheric pressure on earth is enough to hold the air in place, and the air molecules are not escaping the earth's gravitational pull.

>>15159512
btw. if earths gravity can hold the fucking moon which is 384,400km away from us in an orbit around earth, it can hold a few dinky singly air molecules suspended in vacuum if they are not stripped away by solar wind in spots with a weaker geomagnetic field.

Correct. The density of air decreases as we move away from the Earth's surface. However, the atmosphere does not disappear completely. The Earth's atmosphere extends out to around 600 km, but the density of air is too low to support life beyond 80 km.

Solar wind can strip away atoms and molecules from the upper atmosphere in areas with weaker geomagnetic field, but this is a natural process that has been observed and understood by science. It does not change the overall fact that the Earth's gravity holds the atmosphere in place and prevents it from disappearing into space.

>>15159484
>Then why 100 km high box cant have 100 kilopascals at the bottom and 10^-17 TORR at the top?
already answered that here: >>15155577
>that gradient that you can measure after opening the lid of the box would be consistent inside the box and outside of the box in the vacuum chamber surrounding it. after the lid is removed, the only reason the gradient exists within the box AND outside of box in the vacuum chamber, is because we have a vacuum chamber that is limited in size. if the size of the vacuum chamber was limitless (like we are told the vacuum of space is) then you would never be able to measure a gradient bc there would be a near infinite amount of vacuum for the pressure to equalize with

>>15159503
>if the air at the top of the hundreds of km giant "small box" IS ALREADY equalized at 10^-17 Torr even when the lid is still closed, then no air will rush out if you open said lid, no?
incorrect. it is completely possible and empirically proven that pressure gradients can exist INSIDE of a container. In fact, during the aftershow of the most recent Witsit Flat earth debate on Modern Day Debates, a phd physicist was arguing that he creates pressurized systems next to vacuums in his lab on a daily basis.
You can listen to the Phd physicist explaining how a pressurized system is contained adjacent to a vacuum WITHIN A CONTAINER here (and no he didnt use "gravity" to accomplish this lol):
(timestamped 9:09)
https://youtu.be/XjJxTCNv_Wo?t=549

since gravity has never been shown to prevent gas pressure from equalizing with a vacuum, even near the surface where gravity is strongest, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for gravity to prevent the uppermost layers of the atmos from equalizing with a near infinite 10^-17 TORR vacuum of space once the lid of the giant "small box" container is removed

the ONLY viable explanation for the measurable pressure gradient we see on earth is physical containment. this debunks the current model.

The atmospheric pressure at the Earth's surface is created by the weight of the atmosphere above it, and as you move higher in the atmosphere, the weight of the atmosphere above you decreases. This decrease in weight results in a decrease in atmospheric pressure. This decrease in pressure with altitude is the reason why the atmosphere does not immediately equalize with the vacuum of space when the lid of a container is removed. The atmosphere is not held in place by a physical barrier, but by the balance of pressure created by the weight of the atmosphere and the force of gravity. It is important to note that the Earth's atmosphere is not a closed system, and it is continuously exchanging matter with the surrounding space. The Earth's magnetic field and the solar wind interact with the upper atmosphere, and atoms and molecules are continuously lost to space. This process is known as atmospheric escape, which is a natural and well-understood process. In summary, the current scientific model of the Earth's atmosphere explains that it is held in place by a balance of pressure created by the weight of the atmosphere and the force of gravity, and it is not held by a physical barrier.

>>15159542
can earth catch some of the escaped oxygen back into its upper atmospheric layers? or is this lost atmosphere gone for good?

Earth's atmosphere can not "catch" the lost atoms and molecules once they have escaped into space. Once the atoms and molecules have been lost to space, they can not be regained by the Earth's atmosphere. However, the atmosphere is in a constant state of exchange, with new atoms and molecules being added to the atmosphere through various processes, such as volcanic eruptions and the carbon and water cycles.
The loss of atoms and molecules from the atmosphere is a natural process that has been occurring for billions of years, and the atmosphere has been able to maintain a relatively stable composition over this time because the processes that add new atoms and molecules to the atmosphere are roughly in balance with the processes that remove them. The naturally occurring atmospheric loss doesn't pose any significant threat to the overall composition of the atmosphere or to the survival of life on Earth.

>>15159154
>>15159482
>Why would they magically float out of the box, unless there is too many of them in the box so the electrostatic repelling force overcomes the downward accelerating force?

picrel. as you said, gas pressure is caused by "tiny little balls" colliding with eachother. at the top of the container, if the gas pressure was so small that the "tiny balls" of gas were barely colliding with eachother, then the pressure from the tiny balls below them which WERE colliding with eachother would force the tiny balls below up and into the area at the top which would then collide with those tiny balls making them to move into the vacuum. this process would continue to happen until the entire container had been equalized and was a 10^-17 TORR vacuum.

>>15159512
read thru the thread before posting. everything you wrote has been addressed in multiple posts. also, see above response and picrel

>>15159519
blatant remedial begging the question fallacy

>>15159524
another blatant remedial begging the question fallacy

>>15159542
already addressed all of this multiple times itt. read thru the thread before posting ffs. for a qrd see picrel here: >>15156818
and picrel here: >>15159594

>>15159594
no one responds to schizo pictures and links to schizo vids. use your own words for fucks sake, so we can ridicule your opinions how the universe "really" works. spoon feed me your bullshit if you want me to consider your oppinions.

>>15159609
anon this thread only exists to sloicit replies like you just wrote. OP is fishing for people to explain his obvious stupidity away so he can double down and practice writing dumber arguments.

>>15159609
>he can not put schizoid doodles into words to make others grasp what in his noodle brain makes complete sense. he has to draw things like a toddler to make a point since he can not wrap his arguments into coherent sentences. tries to force his opponents to watch his doodles and vidjas to take him serious. gets mad and feels like no one is listening to what he posted before when ridiculed .

>>15159609
lol nice cope buddy. you got nuthin' and you know it.

>>15159611
aahh.. shit.. looks like i got bamboozled

>>15159242
>If you honestly believe
It's trivial physics
>Then you’re going to need to Specify an altitude at which you believe the pressurized air in the box experiment would
ROFL. It's not constant because gas expands when heated pic related.. It's dependent on molar mass and temperature. If the container was on Pluto the "air" would freeze and fall straight to the bottom and form a liquid
You understand absolutely nothing about this topic. Don't bother giving me a random temp and mm you pulled out of your ass to try and salvage your idiot question. You didn't understand your question from the beginning, not going to do the math to give an answer.
>fail to seek equilibrium when exposed to a vacuum of 10^-17 torr
It always seeks equilibrium. Gravity prevents it from escaping when the motive force reaches zero at the fluctuating altittude
>Would become the same pressure as the 10^-17 torr vacuum it was exposed to.
WAHAHAH!!!!!
Take high school physics kid. The gravity from earth attracts molecules and the compact the ones beneath them
>The pressurized container can be any pressure youd like it to be
WHAT?!?!?! It's an open system. The temperature will thus change and the pressure will NOT be constant. You are soooo ignorant it's unbelievable.
>It can have the same gradient measured on earth
It won't. This isn't magic. The parameters correspond to a particular non constant gradient.
>the top layers of the pressurized air in the 100km tube will rush to equalize with the vacuum of space regardless of whether there’s a gradient
Of course, the TOP LAYER. Once it is equalized there is no longer a motive force exactly like I said and nothing will continue to escape the tube. Everything below the TOP LAYER will remain in place. If the pressure on top of a molecule is the same as the pressure below it, does it move? NOPE!

>>15159533
>>if the air at the top of the hundreds of km giant "small box" IS ALREADY equalized at 10^-17 Torr even when the lid is still closed, then no air will rush out if you open said lid, no?
>incorrect.
You BLATANTLY contradicted yourself.
You verbatim "agreed" when I made the same point here >>15159242 but now you say it's incorrect.

>>The molecules will not escape into the vacuum when the vertical pressure gradient becomes zero because there needs to be a pressure differential to create a motive force.
>Agreed

>>15159594

>picrel. as you said, gas pressure is caused by "tiny little balls" colliding with eachother. at the top of the container, if the gas pressure was so small that the "tiny balls" of gas were barely colliding with eachother, then the pressure from the tiny balls below them which WERE colliding with eachother would force the tiny balls below up and into the area at the top which would then collide with those tiny balls making them to move into the vacuum. this process would continue to happen until the entire container had been equalized and was a 10^-17 TORR vacuum

You again ignored the downward force which eventually stops molecules from going infinitely upwards, stop being dishonest

>>15159823
forgot pic

>>15155463
Gravity is like compound interest, he more matter together the compounding attraction.

>>15159199
You completely misunderstood

Why doesn't that happen with a mercury barometer? That has vacuum at the top.

Or when trying to suck water higher rhan 10 metres. Why is there a limit to how much matter you can suck??

>>15159823
>>15159242
>If the pressure on top of a molecule is the same as the pressure below it, does it move? NOPE!
It just occurred to me that you will pretend this is evidence the entire tube will equalize in pressure. It won't. The molecules on the top layer will bounce off the molecules below it and move toward outer space, then fall back down. The molecules at the bottom will rarely get that chance because they will collide with the molecules above them before they get very far.
The pressure gradient thus does reach zero far below 100km
Your pic here proves this. >>15159594 because pressure is force over area. If the molecules are spread out so thin they are not colliding with anything then there is no force applied and no pressure. They just fall back down to earth.
We shoot a projectile 100km above earth that never reaches escape velocity you agree it falls back down, right???????????????
Guess what? It works the same way with molecules in a vacuum. The gas molecules the Appollo missions left on the moon are still there. They don't get "sucked away in the 10^-17 TORR vacuum of space" or however your mental gymnastics thinks this basic physics works.

When these molecules fall back down from the vacuum of space and get stacked on top of each other, they create a pressure gradient. It is basic high school physics.

>>15159019
>specify a SPECIFIC ALTITUDE at which you you could perform the parbox experiment and not expect the gas pressure to equalize with the vacuum that it is exposed to
Why are you laboring under this bizarre idea that the gravity of the box should hold all the air inside of it? You're comparing two different scales and wondering why you're confused.

>>15159090
>non sequitur.
That's literally how temperature works in a vacuum. There are so few molecules moving around that energy transfers very slowly both into and out of any object in the area. Radiative heating and loss of heat is much more important in vacuum conditions.

>>15159199
>the uppermost layers would equalize with the vacuum of space
if by 'equalize' you mean zoom off into deep space, then no you are obviously incorrect. Where does the extra energy come from to lift them higher above the earth? You keep avoiding to address it simple question.

They already HAVE equalized when you find those molecules of gas up there, or they are in the process of doing so, and that just means they will keep going up until they don't have enough energy to keep going up.

>>15159524
>The Earth's atmosphere extends out to around 600 km
technically yes there are a few molecules of atmospheric gas that far out, but its still on the vacuum scale.
>air is too low to support life beyond 80 km.
what kind of life? air pressure is already done to about 2psi at the cruising altitude of many private aircraft (45kft). im not sure what could even live in that.

>>15159614
why is it so hard to find a snow shovel that doesn't have one of those gay curvy handles. Just give me a fucking normal straight handled snow shovel ffs.

>>15159823
>It's trivial physics
no its not at all. its unsubstantiated religious dogma that is contradicted by physics.

>muh temp argument for the umpteenth time itt
picrel. temp doesnt help you in the slightest. upper atmos is hottest

>Gravity prevents it from escaping when the motive force reaches zero at the fluctuating altittude
begging the question fallacy.
>The gravity from earth attracts molecules and the compact the ones beneath them
yet another begging the question fallacy.

>It won't.
objectively, if you built a container of ANY SIZE and sealed it, it could be made to have the EXACT same gradient we have on earth (since the container is ON EARTH lol)

> Once it is equalized there is no longer a motive force
yes there is. the gas pressure BELOW the layer that was just replaced with a a 10^-17 TORR vacuum would move up to fill that same space see: >>15159594

>Everything below the TOP LAYER will remain in place.
you cannot substantiate this and its contradictory to all empirical evidence and the known laws of physics.

> If the pressure on top of a molecule is the same as the pressure below it, does it move? NOPE!
the pressure below the loose molecules at the very top is greater than that of the vacuum and so, as per the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, would equalize.

this kills your model. If the best argument you have is just a remedial begging the question fallacy, now that this has been pointed out to you, you should have some integrity and admit you dont have an answer.

>>15160215
You still are ignoring downward force, which equalises the molecules repelant force, your argument is dishonest

>you cannot substantiate this and its contradictory to all empirical evidence and the known laws of physics.

Laws of thermodynamics are valid only in situation of a closed system with insignificant outer forces, you are still ignoring that pointing to flawed thought experiment, which ignores molecular dynamics

>>15159858
>You verbatim "agreed" when I made the same point here >>15159242 but now you say it's incorrect.

no i didnt. i was agreeing that when the lid is CLOSED you can have a vacuum at the top layers of the container (just like we see here on earth) and the gradient would be maintained. AS LONG AS THE LID REMAINED CLOSED the pressurized gas molecules beneath the top layers would not escape up to the top layers while inside of the sealed container. i was saying you are incorrect that the gradient would be maintained when the lid is removed from the container, and the contents exposed to a near infinite vacuum of 10^-17 TORR.

>>15160215
>upper atmos is hottest
The few particles that are up there have high energies, but there are consequently very few collisions between them and other particles so the energy is not transferred. There are even less particles with high enough energy to go higher up above the earth.

Now please stop with your imaginary free energy machine.

>>15160239
why would it escape, there is no pressure on the lid already, it's equalised by the downward force (gravity).

If there is 0 pressure on the lid, then lid does nothing, no molecules are bumping into it, opening it will do nothing.

>>15160215
>the gas pressure BELOW the layer that was just replaced with a a 10^-17 TORR vacuum would move up to fill that same space
only if there is something either pushing it up from beneath or it has sufficient energy to go higher. It also depends on the molecular weight of the gas in question, because the heavier it is the more energy it needs to go higher (funny, right?)

Again, you have not once faced the fact that things cannot go higher up without extra energy. Things do not just go higher up without it.

>>15159859
>>15160235

If you’re referring to “gravity” that’s a blatant begging the question fallacy.

If you’re referring to the downward accelerative force that is actually empirically measurable, then you’re still incorrect, bc it’s provably not strong enough to prevent gas molecules from escaping into a vacuum. My assertion is empirical substantiated with testable repeatable experimentation. Your assertion is not.

Also, if you’re claiming the earth is not a closed system, that is just another begging the question fallacy.

>>15160248
>why would it escape, there is no pressure on the lid already,
Bc there is pressure beneath the top layers. it is completely possible and empirically proven that pressure gradients can exist INSIDE of a container. You cannot have a pressure gradient without a container. My position is empirically substantiated; yours is not.

>>15160253
>, bc it’s provably not strong enough to prevent gas molecules from escaping into a vacuum

You just yourself claimed, that downward force causes molecules to create a pressure gradient, and you can create a pressure gradient in the box, where lid would experience 0 pressure. Which means NOT EVEN ONE MOLECULE is bumping into the lid, it means that NOT EVEN ONE MOLECULE is trying to get through the lid, ergo LID DOES NOTHING, and removing it will not change a thing.

>My assertion is empirical substantiated with testable repeatable experimentation
no it's not

> if you’re claiming the earth is not a closed system, that is just another begging the question fallacy.

Earth is provably not a closed system, you are being dishonest

>>15157306
How delusional is this post? You are a parrot, shitting words out and you don't even know what they mean. Instead of a common tongue, you use them as smoke screen so you never have confront your infantile delusions. You think you can pluck a word out of its overarching context and then somehow use it to explain anything?
What exactly is it that you think causes a gas atom, whatever retarded shit you think that means, to behave differently from a liquid when you can watch the same atoms transform between different states.
Your arbitrary delineation between liquid and gas is unconvincing. You expect pressure to behave in two different ways for no reason even when the differentials are many magnitudes apart.
This is an unavoidable fact. Every time you look at the ocean you see EXACTLY why air doesn't slip into the vacuum except it is a thousand million times more amplitude. Trillions even, depending where you draw your imaginary firmament.

>>15160261
>You cannot have a pressure gradient without a container. My position is empirically substantiated; yours is not.

complete lies and false.

bodies of water have pressure gradient, even without the lid being closed, because water molecules are being pulled by a mysterious downward force, what stops water molecules from stoping to equalise the pressure with the air above them?

this schizo complete belief into 2nd law of thermodynamics, and complete ignoring of the molecular dynamics is amusing.

Laws of thermodynamics, are special, statistical description of molecular dynamics laws, but he fails to even acknowledge that.

what's the wordcount of this godforsaken thread

>>15160283
Too many

>>15160265
>where lid would experience 0 pressure.
It’s not 0 pressure. There is no place on earth where that has been measured. It’s not anywhere near 10^-17 torr either. Those types of vacuums don’t exist anywhere but in your imagination

>>15160269
liquids and gas are two different states of matter with different inherent properties. You’re desperate

>>15159904
>The molecules on the top layer will bounce off the molecules below it and move toward outer space,
Exactly
>then fall back down.
Remedial begging the question fallacy. Not empirically substantiated
> The molecules at the bottom will rarely get that chance because they will collide with the molecules above them before they get very far.
You literally just said that the molecules above them would bounce off of them to move towards space. Therefor those top molecules are no longer there to press down on the ones below them. The ones below would behave the exact same way and move towards space as well, and since space is said to be near infinite, ther is an unlimited amount of space for the molecules to move into. The only rebuttal you have is to keep claim if that after the top layer moves towards space, the layers beneath them will magically not, this is fallacious and unsubstantiated.

This kills your model


I’ll be back in a few hours to address any further posts. Try to read thru the thread so you don’t keep being fallacious.

>>15160316
>It’s not 0 pressure. There is no place on earth where that has been measured. It’s not anywhere near 10^-17 torr either.
please can you explain why this is such an important point for you. its been mentioned several time itt and im really not sure what the fuck it has to do with anything. Wow, you noticed that absolute vacuum is not a thing, well done.

>>15160316
>liquids and gas are two different states of matter with different inherent properties.

are you implying laws of thermodynamics don't apply to water?

nice

>>15160253

>, bc it’s provably not strong enough to prevent gas molecules from escaping into a vacuum

You just yourself claimed, that downward force causes molecules to create a pressure gradient, and you can create a pressure gradient in the box, where lid would experience 10^-17 torr pressure on both sides. Which means EQUAL AMOUNT OF MOLECULES are bumping into the lid, it means that EQUAL AMOUNT OF MOLECULES ARE TRYING TO ESCAPE ASWELL AS ENTER, ergo LID DOES NOTHING, and removing it will not change a thing.

>My assertion is empirical substantiated with testable repeatable experimentation
no it's not

> if you’re claiming the earth is not a closed system, that is just another begging the question fallacy.

Earth is provably not a closed system, you are being dishonest

>>15155463
To orbit the Earth, mass must have a velocity of about 5 miles per second. To leave the Earth (gravity well), it must move > 7 mps. This applies to molecules.
The velocity of molecules depend on their temperature, which is represented by their kinetic energy which is proportional to their velocity (squared).

The velocities of Helium and Hydrogen2 have velocities that are (mostly) higher than escape velocity—at the temperatures of Earth’s atmosphere. The other atmospheric gases have a lower velocity.
So He & H2 are lost into space—gravity cannot contain them. The others continue gravitationally bound to the Earth.

>>15159366
Oh, okay, then link the part where you proved this claim:
>The pressurized container can be any pressure you’d like it to be… as long as the pressur in the tube is less than the 10^-17 TORR vacuum of space, when the lid of the container is removed, and the top layers are exposed to the the vacuum, the top layers of the pressurized air in the 100km tube will rush to equalize with the vacuum of space regardless of whether there’s a gradient or not.

And the part where you explained the relationship between water pressure and air pressure

>>15160316
>liquids and gas are two different states of matter with different inherent properties. You’re desperate
What are the inherently properties of liquids that make pressure increase with depth, and how do gases not possess these properties

>>15160430
it doesn't matter anon - he's got this retarded idea in his head and nothing can penetrate it. Its the latest peg he's hanging his entire sense of self worth upon, so good luck.

>>15160239
>no i didnt
yes, you did
>i was agreeing that when the lid is CLOSED
You are lying. Obviously, the sentence you agreed to is in reference the yellow text which says ONCE YOU REMOVE THE LID.
You are so confused about this stuff you blatantly contradicted yourself then you pretend you didn't by pretending sentences had wildly different context. Pathetic.
>vacuum at the top layers of the container (just like we see here on earth) and the gradient would be maintained. AS LONG AS THE LID REMAINED CLOSED
So a vacuum can exist on top of the gradient in a closed container as you now admit, but when it's opened and exposed to "space vacuum" all the gradient goes away?????? WHAT?!?!?!?!?! There is literally no difference once lid is removed. It's a vacuum on both sides. No molecules bouncing in to either side of lid so there is no motive force that diminishes the pressure gradient you admit exists once the container lid is gone. It might as well never be there once you are significantly past the top layer of air and the pressure gradient reaches zero.
>the pressurized gas molecules beneath the top layers would not escape up to the top layers while inside of the sealed container
What magically causes molecules to escape earth's gravity once the lid is ope? Nothing. They stay there just like you are not floating away right now into space.

>>15160215
>no its not at all. its unsubstantiated religious dogma that is contradicted by physics.
You are insane
>picrel. temp doesnt help you in the slightest. upper atmos is hottest
WHo are you even talking to? You asked a completely idiotic request for an altitude without understanding that it is dependent on fluctuating temperature.
>begging the question fallacy.
Gravity exists. It's not beggin the question in any way.
>yet another begging the question fallacy.
You don't know what a "begging the question fallacy" is. A statement isn't a begging the question fallacy.
>objectively, if you built a container of ANY SIZE and sealed it, it could be made to have the EXACT same gradient we have on earth (since the container is ON EARTH lol)
There is no defined gradient on earth because it's not constant. What is the height of the ocean on a beach? Give a mathematical model of this height.
>yes there is. the gas pressure BELOW the layer that was just replaced with a a 10^-17 TORR vacuum
This is an outright lie. Provide emprical proof of this claim. Your silly MS paint nonsense isn't proof.
>you cannot substantiate this and its contradictory to all empirical evidence and the known laws of physics.
Shove this right back up your ass and give evidence of former claim.
>per the 2nd Law of thermodynamics
How many university level thermodynamics classes have you taken? I've taken 3.

>>15155463
lol
"If space is a vacuum then why doesn't it suck in all the air from Earth's atmosphere?"

While gravity is most certainly a real thing, the answer to this question is not “because gravity is stronger.”

The actual answer is that the vacuum of space does not exert any force on the atmosphere at all. It does not “suck” the air. We associate the word “suck” with “vacuums” but it’s a misnomer. That’s not what vacuums do.

Consider an example where we’ve pumped all of the air out of some box and created a vacuum inside of it. Let’s say we’re on Earth, at sea level, and we poke a hole in the box. What will happen?

Air will rush into the box and fill it. Okay. But why did it do that? Was it because the vacuum sucked the air into the box? No.

What’s actually happening there is that the air pressure around the box is forcing air into the space with no pressure. The air that fills the box is being PUSHED by air pressure into the empty space.

Vacuums never “suck” air. What they do is present an empty space and then air pressure forces the air into the vacuum.

Air pressure is not uniform throughout the atmosphere. The lower the altitude, the higher the air pressure; thus, as you move higher, the air pressure decreases. In fact, at the upper limits of the atmosphere, the air pressure reduces to basically nil.

And since there’s no real air pressure to speak of up there, then there is no force pushing the air into the empty space.

Now, this doesn’t mean gravity isn’t at work here. In fact, gravity is the reason we have air pressure in the first place. Gravity pulls on the atmosphere, compressing it, and creating pressure.

If we could magically turn off gravity then the atmosphere would be released from that compression and spring away from the Earth.

So, at the root of it, gravity is the thing that keeps the atmosphere near the surface. It just isn’t fighting the vacuum of space to do it

>>15155480
The second law is an emergent property from the behavior of an ensemble of particles. Certainly you maximize entropy by filling out the infinite vacuum of space, but these thermodynamic arguments only make sense in the "thermodynamic limit", where the system has infinite time to find that equilibrium. The Earth exists in a non-equilibrium environment, so it's important to consider the timescales associated with the atmosphere bleeding off. The Earth does lose its atmosphere at a non-zero rate (not counting the movement of particles from space into the atmosphere). Some cartoon kinetics would suggest that you'd have an activation energy that's related to the energy required to leave Earth's gravity well, and that activation energy is large enough that even at the elevated temperatures in the upper atmosphere, gases rarely get enough energy to escape.

TL;DR: Earth doesn't need a physical container if it takes us tens of billions of years to lose our atmosphere.

>>15160321
>>then fall back down.
>Remedial begging the question fallacy. Not empirically substantiated
You don't know what a BTQ fallacy is.
Gravity is substantiated. You are not floating away right now yeah?
Gas also sinks in a vacuum. You are lying your ass off.
It's empirically verified in below video. Water boils in a vacuum but it just falls right back down. We know this because the water is not flooding/condensing in the vacuum pump. It almost entirely stays in the box. (KE pushes some of it out into the hose, the further the hose gets from the base the less and less will escape.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qfxye-pXcA
This is much more obviously demonstrated when a helium balloon sinks in a vacuum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BYVIS7ARek&t=2s
It's truly bizarre you think that if we vaporize that balloon into a gas with enough heat and the box was infinitely tall the molecules would suddenly travel across the universe instead of falling back down. Denial is quite strange.
>You literally just said that the molecules above them would bounce off of them to move towards space
Then fall back down, you forget I said that part / fact
>Therefor those top molecules are no longer there to press down on the ones below them.
What part of fall back down are you in denial about?
>The ones below would behave the exact same way and move towards space as well
And fall back down as well
>The only rebuttal you have is to keep claim if that after the top layer moves towards space, the layers beneath them will magically not, this is fallacious and unsubstantiated.
I literally said they do but then fall back like the rest. You are lying, again.

Look flerfies, I will assert that a spherical container (think a firmament if you like) is responsible for holding the atmosphere around a spherical earth.

Feel free to now no longer EVER try to invoke "thermodynamics" or "space fake" as an argument for your flat, stationarity pizza earth.

>>15160552
>Feel free to now no longer EVER try to invoke "thermodynamics" or "space fake" as an argument for your flat, stationarity pizza earth.
we also take issue with the supersonic spinning wet ball that is also trtavelling at the speed of sound throughout space, so having a dome doesnt solve that spinning business

>>15160573
speed of sound in a vacuum. interesting.