The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: sketipical physics on August 06, 2007, 04:21:19 AM
-
Can clouds travel over the ice wall, if not then what keeps them inside? Clouds are at altitudes much higher than the ice wall.
-
We're still awaiting an answer to this question in the "evidence against FE thread" as well.
-
They get to edge, look over, get vertigo and huddle back over the sea again...clouds are pussies...
-
The slight gravitational pull from the sun and moon keep the clouds from reaching the ends of the earth.
;D
-
Preferred Chris Spaghetti's answer
-
Doesn't work, Mr. Ireland. FE model puts gravitation as incredibly minute. Because the air is a fluid, the acceleration of the planet upward would force it over the edges quite quickly.
-
Then good thing I'm not being serious, otherwise I'd look like an idiot.
-
Then good thing I'm not being serious, otherwise I'd look like an idiot.
*cough* no-one say anything...
-
*cough* no-one say anything...
I lol'd.
-
Yes, clouds can go over the 150 foot Ice Wall (http://uwamrc.ssec.wisc.edu/images/gallery/B15Aedge.jpg). But only so far. After a distance into the perpetual tundra beyond the spotlight of the sun temperatures decrease to a point where barometric pressure is practically non-existent. And since winds need to travel from high pressure to low pressure to move the clouds, there will be no winds. Ergo, if there was an edge of the earth somewhere beyond the Ice Wall, the atmosphere would not be swept off it. Ergo the clouds will not float off the edge of the earth.
-
My explanation was better and contained less BS
-
Yes, clouds can go over the 150 foot Ice Wall (http://uwamrc.ssec.wisc.edu/images/gallery/B15Aedge.jpg). But only so far. After a distance into the perpetual tundra beyond the spotlight of the sun temperatures decrease to a point where barometric pressure is practically non-existent. And since winds need to travel from high pressure to low pressure to move the clouds, there will be no winds. Ergo, if there was an edge of the earth somewhere beyond the Ice Wall, the atmosphere would not be swept off it. Ergo the clouds will not float off the edge of the earth.
And it's not because we have an atmosphere? I call shenanigans
-
Yes, clouds can go over the 150 foot Ice Wall (http://uwamrc.ssec.wisc.edu/images/gallery/B15Aedge.jpg). But only so far. After a distance into the perpetual tundra beyond the spotlight of the sun temperatures decrease to a point where barometric pressure is practically non-existent. And since winds need to travel from high pressure to low pressure to move the clouds, there will be no winds. Ergo, if there was an edge of the earth somewhere beyond the Ice Wall, the atmosphere would not be swept off it. Ergo the clouds will not float off the edge of the earth.
practically non-existent pressure is low pressure. The clouds would continue to move outwards.
This is like saying a river won't flow to the Ocean because the Ocean is so low.
TomB is stupid.
-
practically non-existent pressure is low pressure. The clouds would continue to move outwards.
There is a correlation between heat and pressure upon this Earth. Near the equator we have high temperature and high pressure environments. Near the North Pole we have low temperatures and low pressure environments. By your logic, since the North Pole has less pressure than the equator, pressure should move from the equator to the pole since pressure moves from areas of high to low and equalize.
This does not happen. Ergo, like the North Pole, the low temperatures of the surrounding environment beyond the Ice Wall keeps the pressure low. Winds in the high pressure of our local area are unable to move into the low pressures beyond the Ice Wall because temperatures are simply too low for pressures over a certain threshold to exist.
Please try to refrain from name calling. It is quite immature and does not encourage rational discourse.
-
Hey, remember when Tom Bishop spontaneously switched from supporting the "Flying Disk" model of the Earth to the "Infinite Plane" one? (aka the Franc T. Planar model) Maybe if we continue invalidating his arguments he'll switch to a toroidal Earth, a Möbius strip perhaps... heaven forbid a sphere.
-
that ice wall picture looks like its animated to me.
-
that ice wall picture looks like its animated to me.
It's a real photograph. The Ice Wall is what you know as the Ice Shelves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_shelf) which surround the Antarctic coast. They are a natural formation, thick masses of floating ice 150 feet in height that are attached to land, formed from and fed by tongues of glaciers extending outward from deep within the uncharted tundra into sheltered waters. Where there are no strong currents, the ice becomes partly grounded on the sea bottom and attaches itself to rocks and islands. The wall is pushed forward into the sea by glacial pressure until its forward growth is terminated.
The entire coast of the Ice Wall is not one single complete wall, however. There are actually a series of thousand mile long walls, divided by Transantarctic Mountain Ranges up to 11,500 feet high. The weight of The Ice Walls are so enormous that they have literally pressed the land two thirds of a mile (one kilometer) into the earth. Under the massive forces of their own weight, the ice walls deform and drag themselves outward. Very large glaciers called ice streams flow through them continually, transporting ice from deep inland out to the sea.
The Ice Wall was discovered by Sir James Clark Ross, a polar explorer who was among the first to venture to Antarctica in an attempt to determine the position of the South Magnetic Pole. Upon confronting the massive vertical front of of ice he famously remarked
"It was ... an obstruction of such character as to leave no doubt in my mind as to our future proceedings, for we might as well sail through the cliffs of Dover as to penetrate such a mass.
It would be impossible to conceive a more solid-looking mass of ice; not the smallest appearance of any rent or fissure could we discover throughout its whole extent, and the intensely bright sky beyond it but too plainly indicated the great distance to which it reached southward."
Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that at the coast snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness. Some hold that the tundra of ice and snow stretches forever eternally, ending at the edge of the universe, where time and physical reality ceases to exist.
Temperatures approach absolute zero the further one explores outwards into the tundra of ice beyond the spotlight of the sun. Exploration in this type of pitch black freezing environment is impossible for any man or machine. We live on a vast plane with an unknown diameter and an unknown depth. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham held that knowing the true dimensions of the Earth is something which will be forever be unknowable by man.
-
practically non-existent pressure is low pressure. The clouds would continue to move outwards.
There is a correlation between heat and pressure upon this Earth. Near the equator we have high temperature and high pressure environments. Near the North Pole we have low temperatures and low pressure environments. By your logic, since the North Pole has less pressure than the equator, pressure should move from the equator to the pole since pressure moves from areas of high to low and equalize.
This does not happen. Ergo, like the North Pole, the low temperatures of the surrounding environment beyond the Ice Wall keeps the pressure low. Winds in the high pressure of our local area are unable to move into the low pressures beyond the Ice Wall because temperatures are simply too low for pressures over a certain threshold to exist.
Please try to refrain from name calling. It is quite immature and does not encourage rational discourse.
TomB, you are absolutely stupid. You argue that in a closed system pressure must equalize. Then you use a open system, with heating by Sun, that doesn't equalize as a contradiction. That's inane.
You argue that there are lows so low that nothing can more from higher into them. That's stupid.
Please refrain from such inane and stupid assertions if you wish to avoid name-calling. There's never going to be a rational discourse between us as long as you use such immature and childish arguments.
-
Quite poetic, Tom. You seem very eager to quote explorers from the times before modern technology when the frigid temperatures of the Antarctic were impassable. However, with the advance of technology, people have journeyed well into the interior of the South Pole and I don't recall seeing any discoveries of 11,500 foot tall mountains (okay, not that big. But still BIG!). I also find it interesting that you seem adamant about the ice being rigorously guarded while also quoting extremely specific details about it and even providing a picture! (A picture which, I noticed, is devoid of any "Ice Wall Guard").
Another point: you said so yourself that people have reported being able to see hundreds of miles while near the poles due to the temperature and clarity of the air. So why hasn't anyone seen into the area around the Earth? It is, after all, so cold that even air cannot flow far into it (another claim you made). By all accounts it should be incredibly easy to verify the flatness of the Earth. Anyone on the South coast of Africa or South America needs merely to look South with a telescope!
-
You argue that there are lows so low that nothing can more from higher into them. That's stupid.
If the high pressures of the equator should move into the low pressures beyond the Ice Wall, why then do the high pressures of the equator not move into the North Pole? Why does the North Pole stay low pressured?
We can all agree that the North pole is cold, and that pressures there are low. We can also agree that at the equator the temperatures are high, and that the pressures there are higher. So why don't the high pressures at the equator move into the low pressures of the North Pole? Why do we have such differences between pressure at these two environments?
By this example alone we can see that temperature has a correlation with pressure, that a high pressure system cannot naturally deflate into a low temperature environment. The temperatures of the environments must be compatible for the air currents to decompress.
I don't recall seeing any discoveries of 11,500 foot tall mountains (four times taller than Everest! Wow!).
Everest is 29,000 feet in height.
I also find it interesting that you seem adamant about the ice being rigorously guarded while also quoting extremely specific details about it and even providing a picture! (A picture which, I noticed, is devoid of any "Ice Wall Guard").
There are no guards at the Ice Wall. I have never heard of a report of an army stationed at the Ice Wall. Only Diego Drew believes that.
Another point: you said so yourself that people have reported being able to see hundreds of miles while near the poles due to the temperature and clarity of the air. So why hasn't anyone seen into the area around the Earth?
At the poles visibility is limited to just over a hundred miles. It is not a vacuum, however. Sight is still limited by the atoms and molecules in the air which build up to block sight over distance. At the coast of the Ice Wall, for as far as the eye can see, the tundra of ice stretches into the horizon.
-
Everest is 29,000 feet in height.
Haha, sorry I misread my source. That's still irrelevant though, 11,500 feet is really, really tall. Why is that not visible?
There are no guards at the Ice Wall. I have never heard of a report of an army stationed at the Ice Wall. Only Diego Drew believes that.
And Erasmus, TheEngineer, bondurant, Nomad, mjk, and many more, I'm sure. Without a guarded ice wall, it becomes even more implausible that the true nature of the area around the Earth has not been made public yet. If the wall were guarded then it at least kind of makes sense that we know so much about Antarctica because then you could simply say that all of the expeditions were faked. But with no one stopping scientists from going there, how could or why would such expeditions be faked? "Well here we are at the edge of Antarctica! OH MAN IT'S COLD, FORGET IT LET'S GO BACK AND MAKE STUFF UP AND DOCTOR SOME IMAGES."
At the poles visibility is limited to just over a hundred miles. For as far as the eye can see, the tundra of ice stretches into the horizon.
The tundra stretches to the horizon... oh, except for those 11,500 foot mountains. Right.
-
Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham held that knowing the true dimensions of the Earth is something which will be forever be unknowable by man.
Be more optimistic Tom! Maybe not today, but in the distant future...
(http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/5913/iwcb7.th.jpg) (http://img354.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iwcb7.jpg)
-
You argue that there are lows so low that nothing can more from higher into them. That's stupid.
If the high pressures of the equator should move into the low pressures beyond the Ice Wall, why then do the high pressures of the equator not move into the North Pole? Why does the North Pole stay low pressured?
We can all agree that the North pole is cold, and that pressures there are low. We can also agree that at the equator the temperatures are high, and that the pressures there are higher. So why don't the high pressures at the equator move into the low pressures of the North Pole? Why do we have such differences between pressure at these two environments?
By this example alone we can see that temperature has a correlation with pressure, that a high pressure system cannot naturally deflate into a low temperature environment. The temperatures of the environments must be compatible for the air currents to decompress.
Asked and answered. The Sun heats the earth unequally and constantly renews the pressure imbalance. That's what makes the weather. Once you invoke your infinite disc, you fail. The atmosphere must move toward the freezing areas beyond the edge and freeze.
TomB, you are so foolish and stupid!
practically non-existent pressure is low pressure. The clouds would continue to move outwards.
There is a correlation between heat and pressure upon this Earth. Near the equator we have high temperature and high pressure environments. Near the North Pole we have low temperatures and low pressure environments. By your logic, since the North Pole has less pressure than the equator, pressure should move from the equator to the pole since pressure moves from areas of high to low and equalize.
This does not happen. Ergo, like the North Pole, the low temperatures of the surrounding environment beyond the Ice Wall keeps the pressure low. Winds in the high pressure of our local area are unable to move into the low pressures beyond the Ice Wall because temperatures are simply too low for pressures over a certain threshold to exist.
Please try to refrain from name calling. It is quite immature and does not encourage rational discourse.
TomB, you are absolutely stupid. You argue that in a closed system pressure must equalize. Then you use a open system, with heating by Sun, that doesn't equalize as a contradiction. That's inane.
You argue that there are lows so low that nothing can more from higher into them. That's stupid.
Please refrain from such inane and stupid assertions if you wish to avoid name-calling. There's never going to be a rational discourse between us as long as you use such immature and childish arguments.
-
CookieMonster, your great drawings make you great. Please continue drawing them from time to time.
-
You're all wrong.
The Ice Wall is 40000 feet tall, the Earth does not have "minute" gravity because gravity doesn't exist, and clouds are not higher than the Ice Wall.
-
According to one model.
-
You're all wrong.
The Ice Wall is 40000 feet tall, the Earth does not have "minute" gravity because gravity doesn't exist, and clouds are not higher than the Ice Wall.
There are zero reports of Antarctic explorers reporting a 40,000 foot Ice Wall. There are thousands of reports of Antarctic explorers seeing a 150 foot Ice Wall. I gave a statement of an Antarctic explorer who encountered the 150 foot Ice Wall right here in this very thread.
The accelerating bucket model cannot work because there is no distinct zero point as one increases altitude; it is a mathematical asymptote.
See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=8300.0
-
Lets be frank Tom, they saw an Ice Shelf and you know it. Got any real opinions for us?
-
You're all wrong.
The Ice Wall is 40000 feet tall, the Earth does not have "minute" gravity because gravity doesn't exist, and clouds are not higher than the Ice Wall.
Let's prove dogplatter wrong, again. Clouds extend to 50,000 feet. Reference: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulonimbus_cloud)
-
Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that at the coast snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness. Some hold that the tundra of ice and snow stretches forever eternally, ending at the edge of the universe, where time and physical reality ceases to exist.
Treachery!!
I, Don Carnage, have seen this Ice Wall. I do be the only survivor of the exploration of this wall. We did bring many coats and portable heaters, however, my skin was mostly damaged from this treacherous voyage.
We did bring rope and a canon with an anchor to latch the top of the wall. We did have to stop our ship many feet. My captain did lose 10 men simply by falling as we climbed our way to the unforgiving ice wall ye speak of.
What did we find? Another bloody ocean on the other side! Ye buffoons did think ye ocean was surrounded by an impenetrable wall of ice, but ye did not think that perhaps our round earth met with the same wall of oblivion! How do I know? I'm Don Carnage, that's how! I bloody well pegged a spear into both ends of the wall, each one containing the end to which it stood on. I did voyage to the other end of the world, in which we traveled along the wall of oblivion. I did see me spear when I used me scope.
Did ye try to prove this, Tommy? I do not believe so! But Don Carnage is the only living human, according to ye theory, who has seen both ends of this oblivion of a wall!
Round Earth is the truth!
-
Lets be frank Tom, they saw an Ice Shelf and you know it. Got any real opinions for us?
Well yes, the Ice Wall is also known as the series of Ice Shelves which surround the coast of Antarctica. That is what the Ice Wall has been for the last 150 years of FES history.
Read Earth Not a Globe. Dr. Rowbotham describes a 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarctica. He does not describe a 40,000 foot tall Ice Wall.
-
wow.. FE has only been around for 150 years? or are you saying the Ice wall has only been there for 150 years? now I'm really confused, Tom
-
wow.. FE has only been around for 150 years? or are you saying the Ice wall has only been there for 150 years? now I'm really confused, Tom
He do be saying that the Flat Earth Conspiracy do have been around for 150 years. Don Carnage himself is only 39 years younger than your bloody conspiracy! My father did chew the eyes of the man who first started the blasphemy!
-
Let's prove dogplatter wrong, again. Clouds extend to 50,000 feet. Reference: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulonimbus_cloud)
What does that have to do with the Ice Wall being 40,000 feet? It's an Ice Wall, not an Ice Ceiling.
-
Let's prove dogplatter wrong, again. Clouds extend to 50,000 feet. Reference: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulonimbus_cloud)
What does that have to do with the Ice Wall being 40,000 feet? It's an Ice Wall, not an Ice Ceiling.
dogplatter said no clouds were higher than the Ice Wall. You are the one who talks about accurate communication, right?
You're all wrong.
The Ice Wall is 40000 feet tall, the Earth does not have "minute" gravity because gravity doesn't exist, and clouds are not higher than the Ice Wall.
-
He was saying that since the Ice wall wouldnt protect all of the clouds, then the clouds would eventually go out beyond the wall.
-
dogplatter said no clouds were higher than the Ice Wall. You are the one who talks about accurate communication, right?
Well, clearly he is wrong in that statement. And my point still stands.
-
dogplatter said no clouds were higher than the Ice Wall. You are the one who talks about accurate communication, right?
Well, clearly he is wrong in that statement. And my point still stands.
You're right, of course. All we can conclude is that you asked a stupid question.
-
You're right, of course. All we can conclude is that you asked a stupid question.
I didn't know his claim included the height of clouds. I thought you were trying to prove the Ice Wall was garbage by proving clouds exist higher than it.
-
Divito. you claim to be an REer, so could you not just stay with that, rather than arguing with the people on your side? Its kinda annoying, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks so
-
Divito. you claim to be an REer, so could you not just stay with that, rather than arguing with the people on your side? Its kinda annoying, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks so
There would be no debate if I stayed as an REer all the time. I have all the evidence on my side. Where is the fun in that?
Plus it's a lot easier to disprove and pick at the arguments of REers because of all the mistakes they make.
-
Which are nothing compared to the mistakes of FEers. There are enough idiots who are on FEs side, and we dont need any other people just pretending for the sake of argument. you can correct REers for mistakes, but taking a side you dont believe is just annoying and ignorant
-
Which are nothing compared to the mistakes of FEers. There are enough idiots who are on FEs side, and we dont need any other people just pretending for the sake of argument. you can correct REers for mistakes, but taking a side you dont believe is just annoying and ignorant
The only FEers on here are Dogplatter and Tom. And Tom doesn't even really count.
And I'm not "taking a side." Making that assumption is annoying and ignorant.
Refer to this post for my purpose: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16037.20
-
Which are nothing compared to the mistakes of FEers. There are enough idiots who are on FEs side, and we dont need any other people just pretending for the sake of argument. you can correct REers for mistakes, but taking a side you dont believe is just annoying and ignorant
Can someone call pest control?
-
Let's prove dogplatter wrong, again. Clouds extend to 50,000 feet. Reference: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulonimbus_cloud)
Wikipedia isn't a legitimate source for this for many reasons: It doesn't prove that statement, merely re-affirms it. That's as if I were to use the argument "Earth is flat. Reference: theflatearthsociety.org". What's more, wikipedia is editable by literally anyone in the world, meaning it has absolutely no guarantee whatsoever of accuracy. You wouldn't be able to cite wikipedia in a university thesis, you shouldn't be able to here.
-
Let's prove dogplatter wrong, again. Clouds extend to 50,000 feet. Reference: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulonimbus_cloud)
Wikipedia isn't a legitimate source for this for many reasons: It doesn't prove that statement, merely re-affirms it. That's as if I were to use the argument "Earth is flat. Reference: theflatearthsociety.org". What's more, wikipedia is editable by literally anyone in the world, meaning it has absolutely no guarantee whatsoever of accuracy. You wouldn't be able to cite wikipedia in a university thesis, you shouldn't be able to here.
This isn't entirely true. As long as the article isn't a stub, you can't write anything you like and expect it to stay up there for more than 5 minutes. Try it yourself.
-
As long as the article isn't a stub, you can't write anything you like and expect it to stay up there for more than 5 minutes. Try it yourself.
If I write that the clouds are a maximum of 40,000 miles in height will Wikipedia commission a high altitude military jet to confirm or deny my statement?
-
As long as the article isn't a stub, you can't write anything you like and expect it to stay up there for more than 5 minutes. Try it yourself.
If I write that the clouds are a maximum of 40,000 miles in height will Wikipedia commission a high altitude military jet to confirm or deny my statement?
He said anyone can write anything they want on there. You can't. I might have misunderstood him, though.
-
YOU CANNOT JUST TYPE ANYTHING YOU WANT AND EXPECT IT TO STAY THERE. TRY FOR YOURSELF.
Why is it so hard to understand?
Yes, theoretically, anyone can edit something on Wikipedia. However, if you do not provide sources that refute already published information, anything you try and edit will either not work (given that several articles are locked), or it'll be found and edited within 5-10 minutes. The mods at Wikipedia and the subsequent experts they use are very good at their jobs.
Trying to use that argument as grounds for Wikipedia being unreliable is awful.
-
YOU CANNOT JUST TYPE ANYTHING YOU WANT AND EXPECT IT TO STAY THERE. TRY FOR YOURSELF.
Why is it so hard to understand?
Yes, theoretically, anyone can edit something on Wikipedia. However, if you do not provide sources that refute already published information, anything you try and edit will either not work (given that several articles are locked), or it'll be found and edited within 5-10 minutes. The mods at Wikipedia and the subsequent experts they use are very good at their jobs.
Trying to use that argument as grounds for Wikipedia being unreliable is awful.
You're usually a calm guy. Out of everything, I didn't expect wikipedia to piss you off.
-
You're usually a calm guy. Out of everything, I didn't expect wikipedia to piss you off.
Usually I am. However, when people use their opinions or ignorance as fact, it irritates me. And this isn't the first time I've stated the very basics of Wikipedia.
-
Let's prove dogplatter wrong, again. Clouds extend to 50,000 feet. Reference: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulonimbus_cloud)
What does that have to do with the Ice Wall being 40,000 feet? It's an Ice Wall, not an Ice Ceiling.
Getting the plasterer in is a nightmare...
-
Yes, clouds can go over the 150 foot Ice Wall (http://uwamrc.ssec.wisc.edu/images/gallery/B15Aedge.jpg). But only so far. After a distance into the perpetual tundra beyond the spotlight of the sun temperatures decrease to a point where barometric pressure is practically non-existent. And since winds need to travel from high pressure to low pressure to move the clouds, there will be no winds. Ergo, if there was an edge of the earth somewhere beyond the Ice Wall, the atmosphere would not be swept off it. Ergo the clouds will not float off the edge of the earth.
There is a major flaw in this argument. As temperature increases, atmospheric pressure DECREASES. Cold air is more dense and therefore creates a higher pressure. This is why cold air sinks and warm air rises. This is the basis for the notion of convection and the entire driving force behind earth's wind and weather.
-
slippery slippery slopes as far as the eye can see
-
There is a major flaw in this argument. As temperature increases, atmospheric pressure DECREASES. Cold air is more dense and therefore creates a higher pressure. This is why cold air sinks and warm air rises. This is the basis for the notion of convection and the entire driving force behind earth's wind and weather.
This is incorrect. According to Gay-Lussac's Law (http://kekule.chem.csus.edu/gaslaws/gay-lus.html) as temperature increases, pressure increases. Subsequently, as temperature decreases, pressure decreases.
Summarily, the pressure of a fixed amount of gas at fixed volume is directly proportional to its temperature in kelvins. As a gas expands, the average distance between molecules grows. Because of intermolecular attractive forces, expansion causes an increase in the potential energy of the gas. If no external work is extracted in the process (“free expansion”) and no heat is transferred, the total energy of the gas remains the same because of the conservation of energy. The increase in potential energy thus means a decrease in kinetic energy and therefore in temperature. This relation can be expressed mathematically as p/T= constant.
Asked and answered. The Sun heats the earth unequally and constantly renews the pressure imbalance. That's what makes the weather. Once you invoke your infinite disc, you fail. The atmosphere must move toward the freezing areas beyond the edge and freeze.
The sun heats the earth causing high pressures at the equator, yes. But we still have a situation in which the high pressures of the equator are not flowing into and equalizing the low temperatures of the North Pole. The North Pole remains low pressured despite it being surrounded by high pressures.
Since Gay-Lussac's Law of gases demands that pressure stay proportional to its temperature we see that the low temperatures of the North Pole keeps the polar environment low pressured. Ergo, we see beyond doubt that your "rebuttal" is poor and meaningless, that it goes against modern gas law physics.
-
You're all wrong.
The Ice Wall is 40000 feet tall, the Earth does not have "minute" gravity because gravity doesn't exist, and clouds are not higher than the Ice Wall.
Hence we see that an undiscovered 40,000 foot tall Ice Wall is not necessary, that the atmosphere on the Flat Earth can be explained with the apparent and observable. That the Ice Wall is really just the collection of 150 foot high Ice Sheets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet) which surrounds the Antarctic coast as described by Sir James Clark Ross and every single Antarctic explorer.
The Flat Earth can be finite, and the atmosphere can be contained by vast decreasing gradients of temperature beyond the Ice Wall. After the temperatures have decreased to a sufficient degree upon the pitch black freezing tundra beyond the spotlight of the sun, whether it be hundreds of thousands or millions of miles beyond the coast of the Ice Wall, the earth can end without the atmosphere leaking out into space.
No hypothetical 40,000 foot Ice Wall is necessary to contain the atmosphere. No guards are necessary to protect that fictional wall. The atmosphere is contained by simple laws of physics.
-
The atmosphere is contained by simple laws of physics.
Can you elaborate on this?
I think it's been well-covered on these forums how the notion of the atmosphere not leaking into space goes against the laws of physics. On what do you base your claim that the atmosphere is actually contained by "simple laws of physics"? If they're simple, I'm sure you can put it in easy terms that we can all understand. ???
-
Can you elaborate on this?
We can agree that beyond the antarctic coast into the pitch black uncharted tundra, beyond the spotlight of the sun, that temperatures will gradually decrease, correct?
Well, from basic physics we know that gases have various properties that we can observe with our senses, including the gas pressure (p), temperature (T), mass, and the volume that contains the gas. Careful, scientific observation has determined that these variables are related to one another and that the values of these properties determine the state of the gas.
p/T= constant
In a scientific manner, we can fix any two of the four primary properties and study the nature of the relationship between the other two by varying one and observing the variation of the other.
In the following schematic we see the effect of changing pressure on temperature (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/Animation/gaslab/Images/chprmv.gif). The pressure can be changed by adding or removing green weights from the top of the red piston. Ergo when we change the pressure of an environment we change the temperature.
In the following schematic we see the effect of changing temperature on pressure (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/Animation/gaslab/Images/chtmmv.gif.). The temperature is changed by adding heat from the torch. The volume is held constant with the piston. Ergo when we change the temperature of an environment we change the pressure.
Hence, we see that in an environment with zero temperature there is zero pressure. With zero pressure, winds cannot move from one area to the next. Zero pressure is a vacuum.
-
You're all wrong.
The Ice Wall is 40000 feet tall, the Earth does not have "minute" gravity because gravity doesn't exist, and clouds are not higher than the Ice Wall.
Hence we see that an undiscovered 40,000 foot tall Ice Wall is not necessary, that the atmosphere on the Flat Earth can be explained with the apparent and observable. That the Ice Wall is really just the collection of 150 foot high Ice Sheets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet) which surrounds the Antarctic coast as described by Sir James Clark Ross and every single Antarctic explorer.
The Flat Earth can be finite, and the atmosphere can be contained by vast decreasing gradients of temperature beyond the Ice Wall. After the temperatures have decreased to a sufficient degree upon the pitch black freezing tundra beyond the spotlight of the sun, whether it be hundreds of thousands or millions of miles beyond the coast of the Ice Wall, the earth can end without the atmosphere leaking out into space.
No hypothetical 40,000 foot Ice Wall is necessary to contain the atmosphere. No guards are necessary to protect that fictional wall. The atmosphere is contained by simple laws of physics.
Please change the FAQ accordingly.
This is just stupid. You've stated that for a given STP volume of air, the increasing its temperature gives higher pressure. We know that gas moves from high to low pressure whenever it can. You've argued that beyond the Ice Wall that the temperature is very low. Hence the atmosphere will move over the Ice Wall. To argue that the gradients is too large is to argue that water won't flow over a cliff because the cliff is too steep. We've been over this many times. Your argument fails miserably.
-
Can you elaborate on this?
We can agree that beyond the antarctic coast into the pitch black uncharted tundra, beyond the spotlight of the sun, that temperatures will gradually decrease, correct?
Well, from basic physics we know that gases have various properties that we can observe with our senses, including the gas pressure (p), temperature (T), mass, and the volume that contains the gas. Careful, scientific observation has determined that these variables are related to one another and that the values of these properties determine the state of the gas.
p/T= constant
In a scientific manner, we can fix any two of the four primary properties and study the nature of the relationship between the other two by varying one and observing the variation of the other.
In the following schematic we see the effect of changing pressure on temperature (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/Animation/gaslab/Images/chtmmv.gif). The pressure can be changed by adding or removing green weights from the top of the red piston. Ergo when we change the pressure of an environment we change the temperature.
In the following schematic we see the effect of changing temperature on pressure (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/Animation/gaslab/Images/chtmmv.gif.). The temperature is changed by adding heat from the torch. The volume is held constant with the piston. Ergo when we change the temperature of an environment we change the pressure.
Hence, we see that in an environment with zero temperature there is zero pressure. With zero pressure, winds cannot move from one area to the next. Zero pressure is a vacuum.
The last statement is wrong. Nature abhors a vacuum. The atmosphere will move towards the "zero pressure" carrying its warmth with it. Your explanation is simply miserably wrong.
-
This is just stupid. You've stated that for a given STP volume of air, the increasing its temperature gives higher pressure. We know that gas moves from high to low pressure whenever it can. You've argued that beyond the Ice Wall that the temperature is very low. Hence the atmosphere will move over the Ice Wall. To argue that the gradients is too large is to argue that water won't flow over a cliff because the cliff is too steep. We've been over this many times.
Actually it's your incoherent rebuttals that repeatedly fail. A little research would verify that temperature is connected to pressure and vice versa.
The North Pole has LOW temperatures and LOW pressure. Why don't the HIGH pressures of the equator move into the LOW pressures of the North Pole?
This argument repeatedly defeats any "rebuttal" you have. You will either need to show evidence which contradicts the Gay-Lussac's Law (http://kekule.chem.csus.edu/gaslaws/gay-lus.html) or evidence that the North Pole has high pressure in a low pressure environment. Otherwise simply saying "you are wrong" will do no good. You will need to demonstrate your case, and why Modern Physics is wrong that there exists a connection between temperature and pressure.
Otherwise please stop posting.
The last statement is wrong. Nature abhors a vacuum. The atmosphere will move towards the "zero pressure" carrying its warmth with it. Your explanation is simply miserably wrong.
According to Gay-Lussac's Law (http://kekule.chem.csus.edu/gaslaws/gay-lus.html) high pressure cannot exist in a low temperature environment.
What evidence do you have contradicting the basic laws of gas physics?
-
Can you elaborate on this?
We can agree that beyond the antarctic coast into the pitch black uncharted tundra, beyond the spotlight of the sun, that temperatures will gradually decrease, correct?
Well, from basic physics we know that gases have various properties that we can observe with our senses, including the gas pressure (p), temperature (T), mass, and the volume that contains the gas. Careful, scientific observation has determined that these variables are related to one another and that the values of these properties determine the state of the gas.
p/T= constant
In a scientific manner, we can fix any two of the four primary properties and study the nature of the relationship between the other two by varying one and observing the variation of the other.
In the following schematic we see the effect of changing pressure on temperature (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/Animation/gaslab/Images/chtmmv.gif). The pressure can be changed by adding or removing green weights from the top of the red piston. Ergo when we change the pressure of an environment we change the temperature.
In the following schematic we see the effect of changing temperature on pressure (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/Animation/gaslab/Images/chtmmv.gif.). The temperature is changed by adding heat from the torch. The volume is held constant with the piston. Ergo when we change the temperature of an environment we change the pressure.
Hence, we see that in an environment with zero temperature there is zero pressure. With zero pressure, winds cannot move from one area to the next. Zero pressure is a vacuum.
I don't get it; are you saying that the atmosphere is at 0 temperature even nowhere near the ice wall but at the very top of the atmosphere, all the way around? Are you saying we're literally encased in a 0 temperature atmosphere bubble?
-
I don't get it; are you saying that the atmosphere is at 0 temperature even nowhere near the ice wall but at the very top of the atmosphere, all the way around? Are you saying we're literally encased in a 0 temperature atmosphere bubble?
Yes. At a large distance beyond the coast of the Ice Wall where the rays of the sun do not reach, where the icy tundra lays in pitch blackness, the atmosphere is contained by very low temperatures which naturally decrease without the warm light of the sun. Perhaps temperatures do not reach Zero Kelvin, but something approaching it.
This gradient of pressure is what contains the atmosphere. High pressures from our local area cannot move into a low temperature environment due to the laws I've already linked and explained. If you believe something contradictory to the basic laws of gas physics please reference some evidence.
-
If temperatures were that low all around us the energy from the sun would never reach us. You're a retard. ;D
-
This is just stupid. You've stated that for a given STP volume of air, the increasing its temperature gives higher pressure. We know that gas moves from high to low pressure whenever it can. You've argued that beyond the Ice Wall that the temperature is very low. Hence the atmosphere will move over the Ice Wall. To argue that the gradients is too large is to argue that water won't flow over a cliff because the cliff is too steep. We've been over this many times.
Actually it's your incoherent rebuttals that repeatedly fail. A little research would verify that temperature is connected to pressure and vice versa.
The North Pole has LOW temperatures and LOW pressure. Why don't the HIGH pressures of the equator move into the LOW pressures of the North Pole?
This argument repeatedly defeats any "rebuttal" you have. You will either need to show evidence which contradicts the Gay-Lussac's Law (http://kekule.chem.csus.edu/gaslaws/gay-lus.html) or evidence that the North Pole has high pressure in a low pressure environment. Otherwise simply saying "you are wrong" will do no good. You will need to demonstrate your case, and why Modern Physics is wrong that there exists a connection between temperature and pressure.
Otherwise please stop posting.
The last statement is wrong. Nature abhors a vacuum. The atmosphere will move towards the "zero pressure" carrying its warmth with it. Your explanation is simply miserably wrong.
According to Gay-Lussac's Law (http://kekule.chem.csus.edu/gaslaws/gay-lus.html) high pressure cannot exist in a low temperature environment.
What evidence do you have contradicting the basic laws of gas physics?
Pshaw! You're an idiot. The high pressure does move to low pressure, every minute of every day. It's called "weather". The Sun renews that higher temperatures and the higher pressure keeping the weather active.
Gases move from high pressure to low pressure in every experiment ever done in the testing of gas laws. You have exactly nothing to back up your claim that the higher gradients would prevent the atmosphere from moving to lower pressure. You fail miserably.
Here's an experiment for you. Inflate a party balloon by blowing some of your hot air into it. I'm sure you have plenty to spare. Then let go of the balloon. The balloon with its higher pressure deflates, just like your argument.
-
High pressure moves to low pressure. This is common sense. How are we stuck on this point?
-
High pressure moves to low pressure. This is common sense. How are we stuck on this point?
No one, to my knowledge, has ever accused TomB as having common sense.
-
High pressure moves to low pressure. This is common sense. How are we stuck on this point?
Gay-Lussac's Gas Law. Look it up.
Gases move from high pressure to low pressure in every experiment ever done in the testing of gas laws. You have exactly nothing to back up your claim that the higher gradients would prevent the atmosphere from moving to lower pressure. You fail miserably.
WRONG again Gulliver. Did you click on the Gay-Lussac's Law (http://kekule.chem.csus.edu/gaslaws/gay-lus.html) link?
It defines the law mathematically as p/T = constant or p1/T1 = p2/T2
Example 1:
Question: Consider a container with a volume of 22.4 L filled with a gas at 1.00 atm at 273 K. What will be the new pressure if the temperature increases to 298 K?
Solution: Using Gay-Lussac's Law and solving for p2 we get:
p1T2 (1.00 atm)(298 K)
p2 = ----- p2 = -----------------
T1 (273 K)
Or, p2 = 1.09 atm
Note: When the temperature increases, the pressure increases!
Also note that it is essential to use temperature on an absolute scale (i.e. use Kelvin instead of oC!
Ergo, using this formula lets make our own Example 2:
Question: Consider a container with a volume of 22.4 L filled with a gas at 1.00 atm at 273 K. What will be the new pressure if the temperature decreases to 0 K?
Solution: Using Gay-Lussac's Law and solving for p2 we get:
p1T2 (1.00 atm)(0 K)
p2 = ----- p2 = -----------------
T1 (273 K)
Or, p2 = 0 atm
Note: When the temperature decreases, the pressure decreases!
-
Now Gulliver, please prove to us that the Gay-Lussac's Gas Law is wrong. That the math here is mistaken. That your opinion over trumps modern physics. We're all waiting for you.
-
The temperature lowers the pressure, but then the warmer/more dense air needs a place to go, so it goes to the colder/less dense air...You can't look at half the problem and see the solution.
-
The temperature lowers the pressure, but then the warmer/more dense air needs a place to go, so it goes to the colder/less dense air...You can't look at half the problem and see the solution.
Well put!
-
High pressure moves to low pressure. This is common sense. How are we stuck on this point?
Gay-Lussac's Gas Law. Look it up.
Gases move from high pressure to low pressure in every experiment ever done in the testing of gas laws. You have exactly nothing to back up your claim that the higher gradients would prevent the atmosphere from moving to lower pressure. You fail miserably.
WRONG again Gulliver. Did you click on the Gay-Lussac's Law (http://kekule.chem.csus.edu/gaslaws/gay-lus.html) link?
It defines the law mathematically as p/T = constant or p1/T1 = p2/T2
Example 1:
Question: Consider a container with a volume of 22.4 L filled with a gas at 1.00 atm at 273 K. What will be the new pressure if the temperature increases to 298 K?
Solution: Using Gay-Lussac's Law and solving for p2 we get:
p1T2 (1.00 atm)(298 K)
p2 = ----- p2 = -----------------
T1 (273 K)
Or, p2 = 1.09 atm
Note: When the temperature increases, the pressure increases!
Also note that it is essential to use temperature on an absolute scale (i.e. use Kelvin instead of oC!
Ergo, using this formula lets make our own Example 2:
Question: Consider a container with a volume of 22.4 L filled with a gas at 1.00 atm at 273 K. What will be the new pressure if the temperature decreases to 0 K?
Solution: Using Gay-Lussac's Law and solving for p2 we get:
p1T2 (1.00 atm)(0 K)
p2 = ----- p2 = -----------------
T1 (273 K)
Or, p2 = 0 atm
Note: When the temperature decreases, the pressure decreases!
-
Now Gulliver, please prove to us that the Gay-Lussac's Gas Law is wrong. That the math here is mistaken. That your opinion over trumps modern physics. We're all waiting for you.
You can quote all the gas laws and associated experiments you like. You still haven't shown that the party balloon doesn't deflate. Nothing in the gas laws says that high pressure won't move to low pressure. You can also test this yourself. Step outside. Feel the wind. That's the atmosphere moving due to pressure gradients. I'm safe and sound on this. You look stupid.
-
The temperature lowers the pressure, but then the warmer/more dense air needs a place to go, so it goes to the colder/less dense air...You can't look at half the problem and see the solution.
Well if you are right and the Gay-Lussac's Law is wrong, please reference some evidence for your claim.
You still haven't shown that the party balloon doesn't deflate. Nothing in the gas laws says that high pressure won't move to low pressure. You can also test this yourself. Step outside. Feel the wind. That's the atmosphere moving due to pressure gradients. I'm safe and sound on this. You look stupid.
The balloon can deflate into the atmosphere because the temperatures are nearly the same. As the balloon deflates its hot air into the atmosphere the depleting the air within the balloon must rapidly cool down and expand into a low pressure system as it leaves the balloon into the surrounding environment. When the hot air touches a open environment with a lower temperature it is almost instantly cooled and dispersed.
Ergo, the balloon can deflate because the deflating air is being cooled.
-
The temperature lowers the pressure, but then the warmer/more dense air needs a place to go, so it goes to the colder/less dense air...You can't look at half the problem and see the solution.
Well if you are right and the Gay-Lussac's Law is wrong, please reference evidence for your claim.
You still haven't shown that the party balloon doesn't deflate. Nothing in the gas laws says that high pressure won't move to low pressure. You can also test this yourself. Step outside. Feel the wind. That's the atmosphere moving due to pressure gradients. I'm safe and sound on this. You look stupid.
The balloon can deflate into the atmosphere because the temperatures are nearly the same. As the balloon deflates its hot air into the atmosphere the local temperature of the atmosphere is CHANGED. The atmosphere gains more heat.
I'm not saying the law is wrong, I'm saying that you need to keep in mind other properties of fluids, not just one.
P.S. Your source is owned by the conspiracy!!!!!1!11!!!!1
-
I'm not saying the law is wrong, I'm saying that you need to keep in mind other properties of fluids, not just one.
Lets think about this logically. According to many sources (http://books.google.com/books?id=fYQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA145&lpg=RA1-PA145&dq=pressure+at+the+equator&source=web&ots=DCZGE1GOFD&sig=0lcT3_pFHXu9DMymqxqbebO28rk) there exists low pressures at the North Pole and high pressures at the equator.
Now, if warm high pressure environments could move into a cold and freezing low pressure environment then why does the North Pole have a constantly low pressure when compared to the equator? The two should have equalized eons ago.
Either the warmth of the sun is keeping the pressures high within its vicinity around the equator or the low temperatures of the North Pole are keeping the pressures low within its vicinity.
Whichever one we choose demonstrates that high pressure can be contained within a temperature gradient. That a temperature variable is involves when winds move into pressures of high to low.
-
As has been pointed out already in this thread, the air DOES move there. We have this little thing called weather, perhaps you've heard of it?
-
Think bout it logically? Then you would reach our conclusion. Re read that law of yours.
-
As has been pointed out already in this thread, the air DOES move there. We have this little thing called weather, perhaps you've heard of it?
In order for the winds to move into the low pressures of the north pole the winds must be cooled. And, as we know from the links I gave, a cold wind must be low pressured according to Gay-Lussac's Gas Law. And so it's a catch 22; the winds cannot create high pressure at the North pole because the environment is too cold. And by moving into a cold environment the winds must become unpressurized. Ad infinitum.
We see that winds ARE moved to the North Pole, but in the process they are cooled and unpressurized. This creates the weather we know and see.
This is the answer to the Low Pressure at the North Pole question.
-
We see that winds ARE moved to the North Pole, but in the process they are cooled and unpressurized. This creates the weather we know and see.
How does that explain why the air doesn't just escape into the vacuum of space?
-
The temperature lowers the pressure, but then the warmer/more dense air needs a place to go, so it goes to the colder/less dense air...You can't look at half the problem and see the solution.
Well if you are right and the Gay-Lussac's Law is wrong, please reference evidence for your claim.
Tell us why the North Pol remains LOW pressured while it is constantly surrounded by HIGH pressures.
Please reference your claim that high pressures move into a low temperature, low pressure environment.
You attack a straw man, but it's fun to watch. I accept and apply the gas laws.
I've already answered this question twice. The Sun renews the higher temperatures and higher pressures near the Equator, while the pole radiate their heat to space renewing their lower temperatures and pressures. The weather is a renewing cycle.
My reference is the party balloon experiment. Go try it.
-
pv=nrt
p=nrt/v
thus pressure can go up without the temperature changing.
Low pressure cannot hold high pressure in. Low temperatures cannot hold high temperatures in.
Nowhere does p/T = constant or p1/T1 = p2/T2 say this. BTW this only works when volume remains a constant.
Hot high pressure does move to cold low pressure. Its call "weather".
-
How does that explain why the air doesn't just escape into the vacuum of space?
Applying this to the Ice Wall we see that winds do move over the Ice Wall, but only to a point. The winds are constantly cooled further and further as they recede into the tundra until the pressure of the receding winds is zero. After that the winds cannot move further. Zero pressure means zero pressure. If a wind has zero pressure it cannot move further.
-
How does that explain why the air doesn't just escape into the vacuum of space?
Applying this to the Ice Wall we see that winds do move over the Ice Wall, but only to a point. The winds are constantly cooled further and further as they recede into the tundra until the pressure is zero. After that the winds cannot move further. Zero pressure means zero pressure. There is zero pressure for the winds to move into.
But how does that explain why the air over the equator doesn't just escape into the vacuum of space? ::)
-
But how does that explain why the air over the equator doesn't just escape into the vacuum of space? Roll Eyes
Because as the winds escape the equator into the icy tundra the temperature of the environment is LOWERED. Therefore the temperature of the escaping winds is LOWERED. Therefore the pressure of the winds is LOWERED.
After a point into the tundra the gust of wind will have zero pressure due to zero temperature. Ergo, do to zero temperature a zero pressure gust of wind cannot move into the vacuum of space.
The atmosphere exist as a lip upon the surface of the earth.
-
How does that explain why the air doesn't just escape into the vacuum of space?
Applying this to the Ice Wall we see that winds do move over the Ice Wall, but only to a point. The winds are constantly cooled further and further as they recede into the tundra until the pressure of the receding winds is zero. After that the winds cannot move further. Zero pressure means zero pressure. If a wind has zero pressure it cannot move further.
Nope. The atmosphere would condense, raining down onto the tundra. In a short time all the atmosphere would condense beyond the Ice Wall.
-
I'm pretty sure this law can't be used at 0K anyway. The law states that P/T = constant for that gas
So if P/T at the equator = 50, then P/T at the South Pole has to = 50 as well, that's why you can do P1/T1 = P2/T2. At 0K, you're saying P1/T1 = 50, but P2/T2 = 0. Perhaps someone can back me up here?
-
My reference is the party balloon experiment. Go try it.
The party balloon filled with hot air deflates because the receding gust of wind from the lip of the balloon is being lowered in temperature as it touches the outside air. The interior pressure of the balloon is equalizing in temperature and pressure to the environment.
If, instead, we have a Hot Air Balloon where the air within the structure is constantly warmed and replenished, there can be a breach without the balloon deflating. This is how Hot Air balloons work. This is why they can have an open lip at the bottom and not deflate. The temperature is constantly being heated within the balloon, creating higher pressures. When the burner is turned off the temperature within the balloon can escape and equalize with the cool low pressure environment.
In retrospect this hot air balloon analogy is a perfect example for the phenomena I am describing.
-
I'm pretty sure this law can't be used at 0K anyway. The law states that P/T = constant for that gas
So if P/T at the equator = 50, then P/T at the South Pole has to = 50 as well, that's why you can do P1/T1 = P2/T2. At 0K, you're saying P1/T1 = 50, but P2/T2 = 0. Perhaps someone can back me up here?
The law goes undefined since T2 = 0K. Zero pressure means no gas; everything must have condensed.
-
My reference is the party balloon experiment. Go try it.
The party balloon filled with hot air deflates because its receding gust of wind from the lip of the balloon is being lowered in temperature as it touches the outside air. The interior pressure of the balloon is equalizing in temperature and pressure.
If instead we have a Hot Air Balloon where the air within the structure is constantly warmed and replenished, there can be a breach without the balloon rapidly deflating. This is how Hot Air balloons work. This is why they can have an open lip at the bottom and not deflate. The temperature is constantly being heated within the balloon, creating higher pressures. When the burner is turned off the temperature within the balloon can escape and equalize with the cool low pressure environment.
In retrospect this hot air balloon analogy is a perfect example for the phenomena I am describing.
We're glad to see you concede that point: high pressure moves to low pressure.
Now tell us why the FE atmosphere doesn't all condense beyond the Ice Wall.
-
I'm pretty sure this law can't be used at 0K anyway. The law states that P/T = constant for that gas
So if P/T at the equator = 50, then P/T at the South Pole has to = 50 as well, that's why you can do P1/T1 = P2/T2. At 0K, you're saying P1/T1 = 50, but P2/T2 = 0. Perhaps someone can back me up here?
The law goes undefined since T2 = 0K. Zero pressure means no gas; everything must have condensed.
Oh, I sees teh light!
So is Tom saying that we have a wall of solid 'air' as well as the Ice Wall? Why don't we see it? :o
-
Now tell us why the FE atmosphere doesn't all condense beyond the Ice Wall.
Because as high pressure winds move into low pressure environments the temperatures of the wind must must equalize with the environment.
As the winds move past the Ice Wall into the uncharted tundra the winds are being rapidly cooled, and thus unpressurized. As the winds move towards the zero kelvin point upon the tundra the pressure of the winds are matched with a decreasing gradient. Once the wind reaches the zero kelvin point the wind has zero pressure. Zero pressure winds cannot move.
Ergo the atmosphere is contained.
-
Now tell us why the FE atmosphere doesn't all condense beyond the Ice Wall.
Because as high pressure winds move into low pressure environments the temperatures of the wind must must equalize with the environment.
As the winds move past the Ice Wall into the uncharted tundra the winds are being rapidly cooled, and thus unpressurized. As the winds move towards the zero kelvin point upon the tundra the pressure of the winds are matched with a decreasing gradient. Once the wind reaches the zero kelvin point the wind has zero pressure. Zero pressure winds cannot move.
Gases aren't "unpressurized". That's malarkey! Once the atmosphere get cool enough, it will condense. What keeps the atmosphere from condensing beyond the Ice Wall, well before the theoretical limit of 0K?
-
Now tell us why the FE atmosphere doesn't all condense beyond the Ice Wall.
Because as high pressure winds move into low pressure environments the temperatures of the wind must must equalize with the environment.
As the winds move past the Ice Wall into the uncharted tundra the winds are being rapidly cooled, and thus unpressurized. As the winds move towards the zero kelvin point upon the tundra the pressure of the winds are matched with a decreasing gradient. Once the wind reaches the zero kelvin point the wind has zero pressure. Zero pressure winds cannot move.
Ergo the atmosphere is contained.
I don't think you understand what zero pressure means. Zero pressure means theres nothing there. Nothing cannot hold something. Absolute zero is most likely not reach able due to the uncertainty principle. There for there will always be some pressure.
-
Gases aren't "unpressurized". That's malarkey!
If we take a canister of air from the equator, bring it to the North Pole, open the bottle, will the air inside not escape and cool to the surrounding environment?
Once the atmosphere get cool enough, it will condense. What keeps the atmosphere from condensing beyond the Ice Wall, well before the theoretical limit of 0K?
As the winds recede from the coast of the Ice Wall the moisture within the winds does condense and turn into ice, yes. That is why there are vast amounts of ice at the poles. But winds are more than just moisture. Ever hear of Dry Winds? The moisture condenses but the rest of the wind components carry on moving from high to low pressure, cooling and becoming unpressurized.
Absolute zero is most likely not reach able due to the uncertainty principle.
Instead of absolute zero lets assume that the lowest recored temperature (0.0000000001 K) is the lowest possible temperature which can exist in this universe.
Ergo, we have an example:
Question: Consider a container with a volume of 22.4 L filled with a gas at 1.00 atm at 273 K. What will be the new pressure if the temperature is decreased to 0.0000000001 K?
Solution: Using Gay-Lussac's Law and solving for p2 we get:
p1T2 (1.00 atm)(0.0000000001 K)
p2 = ----- p2 = -----------------
T1 (273 K)
p2= 0.00000000000037 atm
Ergo we see that at a temperature of 0.0000000001 K there is a standard atmosphere of 0.00000000000037 atm
Ergo we see that the amount of atmosphere is hardly anything at all; there is hardly an atmosphere which can be lost at the edges of the atmosphere gradient, that according to an online pressure converter, atoms are being pushed out at a force of of 0.000000037 newtons per square meter [N/M2]. This is hardly significant; perhaps a few atoms per minute.
-
Tom, anything in the 'winds' would have to condense at some point. Ever heard of liquid or solid oxygen, hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, carbon dioxide?
-
Gases aren't "unpressurized". That's malarkey!
If we take a canister of air from the equator, bring it to the North Pole, open the bottle, will the air inside not escape and cool to the surrounding environment?
Once the atmosphere get cool enough, it will condense. What keeps the atmosphere from condensing beyond the Ice Wall, well before the theoretical limit of 0K?
As the winds recede from the coast of the Ice Wall the moisture within the winds does condense and turn into ice, yes. But winds are more than just moisture. The moisture condenses but the rest of the wind components carry on moving from high to low pressure, cooling and becoming unpressurized.
Absolute zero is most likely not reach able due to the uncertainty principle.
Instead of absolute zero lets assume that the lowest recored temperature (0.0000000001) is the lowest possible temperature which can exist in this universe.
Ergo, we have an example:
Question: Consider a container with a volume of 22.4 L filled with a gas at 1.00 atm at 273 K. What will be the new pressure if the temperature is decreased to 0.0000000001 K?
Solution: Using Gay-Lussac's Law and solving for p2 we get:
p1T2 (1.00 atm)(0.0000000001 K)
p2 = ----- p2 = -----------------
T1 (273 K)
p2= 0.00000000000037 atm
Ergo we see that at a temperature of 0.0000000001 K there is a standard atmosphere of 0.00000000000037 atm
Ergo we see that the amount of atmosphere is hardly anything at all; there is hardly an atmosphere which can be lost at the edges of the atmosphere, that only a few atoms per minute could be slowly leaked into space.
You forgot to consider the temperature at which the atmosphere would condense, well above the temperature that you use. You are correct that if air was still a gas at that temperature there would be a very low density.
You claimed the gases unpressurized, not that a container unpressurized. Nice change.
You still have provided no reason that air would not condense beyond the Ice Wall.
-
You guys are talking about air pressure. Tom is talking about wind, to escape the argument.
Tom, just to make sure your on the same page as us... What would happen to a SCUBA tank if you were to open the valve in outer space (outside earth's atmosphere/layer)?
(Quiet please, this is a test.)
-
But how does that explain why the air over the equator doesn't just escape into the vacuum of space? Roll Eyes
Because as the winds escape the equator into the icy tundra the temperature of the environment is LOWERED. Therefore the temperature of the escaping winds is LOWERED. Therefore the pressure of the winds is LOWERED.
After a point into the tundra the gust of wind will have zero pressure due to zero temperature. Ergo, do to zero temperature a zero pressure gust of wind cannot move into the vacuum of space.
The atmosphere exist as a lip upon the surface of the earth.
But that's not how gases work. They won't congeal at the edges as you seem to imply, they tend to fill their container. If there is no container they disperse in all directions (you wanna talk about basic physics, dumbass?). That would include up. What's your scientific explanation for the atmosphere defying the laws of physics and gathering at the edge?
-
Tom, just to make sure your on the same page as us... What would happen to a SCUBA tank if you were to open the valve in outer space (outside earth's atmosphere/layer)?
When we take a pressurized (an thus high temperature) SCUBA tank into the cold depths of outer space and open the valve the warm air within the scuba tank will rush out at a rapid pace in an attempt to equalize with the surrounding pressure and temperature.
When we take a SCUBA tank pressurized at 0.00000000000037 atm into the depths of space and open the valve the air would hardly leak out at all. This is because the pressure and temperature of space is already near that ultra low pressured scuba tank.
You are mistakingly imagining the FE atmosphere to be a wall of 1.0 atm against a vacuum. In reality as distance increases from the coast of the Ice Wall temperature decreases, and thus pressure decreases. Since the winds are constantly equating in temperature and pressure to the surrounding environment, the winds which move from high to low pressure are moving slower and slower as they expand outwards from the equator.
Ergo, at a sufficient distance from the coast of the Ice Wall, where temperature of the environment is measures in the billionths of kelvins, the low pressure outward moving winds will be moving at a snails pace - if at all.
What's your scientific explanation for the atmosphere defying the laws of physics and gathering at the edge?
The Atmosphere does NOT gather at the edge. The atmosphere gradually diminishes in temperature and pressure as the observer moves from the equator to beyond the uncharted tundra.
You still have provided no reason that air would not condense beyond the Ice Wall.
Hydrogen condenses at 20.27 K. Ergo at the point where temperature goes down to 20 kelvin, the hydrogen of the atmosphere may indeed liquefy and condense. This is debatable, however, since the atoms of the air are so dispersed and spread out that vary little 'liquid' can be formed.
Can a single atom of hydrogen floating in a low temperature atmosphere turn into a liquid and fall to the ground? Nope. Atoms by themselves cannot turn into a liquid. A liquid requires the weak bonding of an accumulation of atoms.
-
Well, Jesus, now you're just going around in circles. If the atmosphere above the equator does not gather at the edge, then what keeps it from dispersing into space? ???
-
...
You are mistakingly imagining the FE atmosphere to be a wall of 1.0 atm against a vacuum. In reality as distance increases from the coast of the Ice Wall temperature decreases, and thus pressure decreases. Since the winds are constantly equating in temperature and pressure to the surrounding environment, the winds which move from high to low pressure are moving slower and slower as they expand outwards from the equator.
Ergo, at a sufficient distance from the coast of the Ice Wall, where temperature of the environment is measures in the billionths of kelvins, the low pressure outward moving winds will be moving at a snails pace - if at all.
...
It is indeed 1.0 atm against a vacuum. It's 1.0 atm at the edge. It's a vacuum somewhere beyond the Ice Wall. Air will flow outwards carrying heat with it. As it move out radially, the surface area below it increases by a power of two.
Try this experiment. On a frozen lake, pour a pitcher of warm water. You'll see as much liquid water remain directly under the pitcher as the FE will have atmosphere--none.
Again you're arguing that air won't move from high pressure to low pressure--because the low pressure is too low. That's like arguing that Lake Erie won't flow to Lake Ontario because the drop over Niagara Falls is too steep.
You're just being stupid.
-
You still have provided no reason that air would not condense beyond the Ice Wall.
Hydrogen condenses at 20.27 K. Ergo at the point where temperature goes down to 20 kelvin, the hydrogen of the atmosphere may indeed liquefy and condense. This is debatable, however, since the atoms of the air are so dispersed and spread out that vary little 'liquid' can be formed.
Can a single atom of hydrogen floating in a low temperature atmosphere turn into a liquid and fall to the ground? Nope. Atoms by themselves cannot turn into a liquid. A liquid requires the weak bonding of an accumulation of atoms.
You're trying to argue that the molecules are too few to liquefy? That's laughable. There's an entire atmosphere rushes out over the Ice Wall. There'll be plenty of molecules. Oh, and you're confusing atoms and molecules.
-
So the air flows over the edge, and eventually precipitates into a solid form because of the temperature/pressure agreements. Then where is the infinite supply of air? In this system, the air would have to keep leaving the planet, pushed not only by pressure variation, but by the universal accelerator. Thats right--the fluid nature of a gas would make it so the rushing-up of the earth would flatten it against its surface. Even if some magical inversion of pressure differences that tom made up just now did occur, the air would STILL be forced over the edge by this considerable force.
-
TomB is stupid.
TomB, you are absolutely stupid.
TomB, you are so foolish and stupid!
All we can conclude is that you asked a stupid question.
Pshaw! (What?!?!) You're an idiot.
You look stupid.
You're just being stupid.
Damn, all this in one thread. Looks like someone forgot to take his medication. I suggest that if you are going to continue to post in this manner, you restrict yourself to angry ranting.
-
REers and Tom: Remind me again why a 40000 foot Ice Wall a) could not exist, and b) could not contain the clouds of the Earth? I do not dispute the existence of the Ross Ice Shelf, and claim that this is not the Ice Wall proper.
-
REers and Tom: Remind me again why a 40000 foot Ice Wall a) could not exist, and b) could not contain the clouds of the Earth? I do not dispute the existence of the Ross Ice Shelf, and claim that this is not the Ice Wall proper.
The atmosphere is taller than 40,000 feet. Not to mention a mountain taller than the worlds tallest mountain by 11 thousand feet would be easily spotted.
TomB is stupid.
TomB, you are absolutely stupid.
TomB, you are so foolish and stupid!
All we can conclude is that you asked a stupid question.
Pshaw! (What?!?!) You're an idiot.
You look stupid.
You're just being stupid.
I see nothing that is unture.
-
Now tell us why the FE atmosphere doesn't all condense beyond the Ice Wall.
Because as high pressure winds move into low pressure environments the temperatures of the wind must must equalize with the environment.
As the winds move past the Ice Wall into the uncharted tundra the winds are being rapidly cooled, and thus unpressurized. As the winds move towards the zero kelvin point upon the tundra the pressure of the winds are matched with a decreasing gradient. Once the wind reaches the zero kelvin point the wind has zero pressure. Zero pressure winds cannot move.
Ergo the atmosphere is contained.
The Gay-Lussac's Gas Law you continue to refer to only applies to fixed-volume situations, such as a closed canister. In those cases, increasing the pressure does increase the temperature and vice-versa. However, the earth's atmosphere is too enormous to be considered a fixed-volume because the local pressure can vary in comparison to the air pressure in nearby areas. With this considered, increasing temperature temporarily increases air pressure but that air pressure is immediately dissipated into the surrounding atmosphere. The reason there is a continually higher pressure at the equator is because it is constantly being heated, therefore air is CONSTANTLY moving away from the equator and toward the poles.
Aside from the fact that the Gay-Lussac's law is not applicable in atmospheric pressure conditions, there is also the fact that the vacuum of space is not even at "absolute zero". There is no such thing as a naturally occurring zero Kelvin environment. It's simply not possible. I am providing a link from NASA's own website, answered by an astrophysicist:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980301b.html
If it was possible to reach a point in outer space that was receiving no other external radiation, the coolest temperature it could be is 2.7 Kelvin because of the 3 degrees of background microwave radiation that is everywhere in the universe. It is unescapable.
So, to sum it up, "winds" as you call them cannot ever reach "absolute zero", could therefore never reach "zero pressure" as you describe it, and would therefore still be able to "move" contradictory to your argument.
-
REers and Tom: Remind me again why a 40000 foot Ice Wall a) could not exist, and b) could not contain the clouds of the Earth? I do not dispute the existence of the Ross Ice Shelf, and claim that this is not the Ice Wall proper.
Well, thats a different kettle of fish. In this case, we'd all sortof see a towering mountain of ice blotting out the sun in the evening. It also is interesting that in the face of imminent defeat, the FE model must suddenly and rapidly change. If THIS is the truth, the REers will once more demand any semblance of proof regarding a 40000 foot sheer cliff of ice.
-
Again you're arguing that air won't move from high pressure to low pressure--because the low pressure is too low. That's like arguing that Lake Erie won't flow to Lake Ontario because the drop over Niagara Falls is too steep.
Now lets take this one step at a time. Lets start afresh.
SINCE the North Pole can maintain its low pressures (whatever the cause may be) despite being surrounded by a high-pressure equator, THEN so can Antarctica.
SINCE the equator can remain high pressured while the North Pole remains low pressured (whatever the case may be), THEN so can Antarctica.
I have seen no coherent rebuttals demonstrating why this cannot be the case.
-
So the air flows over the edge, and eventually precipitates into a solid form because of the temperature/pressure agreements. Then where is the infinite supply of air? In this system, the air would have to keep leaving the planet, pushed not only by pressure variation, but by the universal accelerator. Thats right--the fluid nature of a gas would make it so the rushing-up of the earth would flatten it against its surface. Even if some magical inversion of pressure differences that tom made up just now did occur, the air would STILL be forced over the edge by this considerable force.
The atmosphere of the earth is a closed system. Lets say that the temperatures of the North Pole can support a maximum of x standard atmospheres (atm) and gusts of wind from the equator add to the North Pole atmosphere and brings it up to x + .1 standard atmospheres. The temperatures of the North cannot support this addition, thus excess air will be dispersed and forcefully pushed back into the high pressure and high temperature zones of the equator.
This is why North America and Europe receives cold currents which originate from the Northern Pole. The currents we receive are being forcefully pushed back into the warm climates which can support an atmosphere with additional pressure.
See Charle's Law (http://members.aol.com/profchm/charles.html), which states that that the volume of a given amount of dry ideal gas is directly proportional to the Kelvin Temperature.
See Boyle's Law (http://members.aol.com/profchm/boyle.html) which states that for a fixed mass of ideal gas at fixed temperature, the product of pressure and volume is a constant.
Ergo, with these laws in mind we see that air cannot be continuously sucked into the North without other air being pushed back into the equator. Otherwise the North would not contain the low pressures it currently contains. There must be a fluid stability between areas.
-
you are aware that wind inherantly can't "push" more air to a place that can't "support" more air, as wind is simply the movement of air from high to low pressures, corrrect? It is a cycle, in and out.
How could there be a cycle in FE when the air would undergo immediate deposition once it crossed the wall? If the temperature approached 0k and the pressure dropped, there'd be no way for it to return to a gaseous state, as the pressure of the gas would be effectively equivalent to 0 psi, making wind possible only towards the edge of the earth.
-
you are aware that wind inherantly can't "push" more air to a place that can't "support" more air, as wind is simply the movement of air from high to low pressures, corrrect? It is a cycle, in and out.
If this is so, why does North America receive wind currents from the low pressured equator? If High pressure must move into low pressure environments despite temperature, like you claim, winds must always be moving from the equator to the North Pole. But why then do we receive winds from the low pressured North Pole?
Also, please answer why the North Pole remains low pressured while the equator remains high pressured. Why don't the two areas equalize in pressure?
The answer you give will answer the questions you've asked about the low pressures of the FE Antarctica.
How could there be a cycle in FE when the air would undergo immediate deposition once it crossed the wall? If the temperature approached 0k and the pressure dropped, there'd be no way for it to return to a gaseous state, as the pressure of the gas would be effectively equivalent to 0 psi, making wind possible only towards the edge of the earth.
I've maintained that air beyond the Ice Wall would not condense beyond moisture condensation. The atoms and molecules of the air are dispersed and far apart from each other. Ergo, they cannot bond and form a liquid. They are solitary floating molecules increasingly spaced out as they recede from the coast of the Ice Wall.
Could a solitary air molecule in a laboratory vacuum set at a temperature of 20K condense on itself and fall to the ground as a liquid? Nope. A liquid is defined as collection of many molecules with weak bonds. The molecule cannot liquefy in on itself. It will continue floating through the vacuum.
In order for a 20 Kelvin container of regular air to condense into liquid hydrogen/nitrogen/oxygen the air molecules must accidentally bump into each other. And as we should know by now, a 20 kelvin container must have a certain pressure.
Ergo; lets make an example:
Question: Consider a container with a volume of 22.4 L filled with a gas at 1.00 atm at 273 K. What will be the new pressure if the temperature is decreased to 20 K?
Solution: Using Gay-Lussac's Law and solving for p2 we get:
p1T2 (1.00 atm)(20 K)
p2 = ----- p2 = -----------------
T1 (273 K)
p2= 0.0732 atm
At 0.0732 standard atmospheres the molecules of the air are dispersed so far apart that atom bonding and condensation would be very rare.
-
But Tom, according to your model, the air would flow towards the ice wall, and continue to move past the ice wall. It wouldn't just stay there...the point is the system would be losing air.
-
The Gay-Lussac's Gas Law you continue to refer to only applies to fixed-volume situations, such as a closed canister. In those cases, increasing the pressure does increase the temperature and vice-versa. However, the earth's atmosphere is too enormous to be considered a fixed-volume because the local pressure can vary in comparison to the air pressure in nearby areas.
The atmosphere of the earth is finite; ergo it is a large closed container.
With this considered, increasing temperature temporarily increases air pressure but that air pressure is immediately dissipated into the surrounding atmosphere. The reason there is a continually higher pressure at the equator is because it is constantly being heated, therefore air is CONSTANTLY moving away from the equator and toward the poles.
If air is "constantly" moving away from the equator into the poles, then why does the pressure of the equator not equalize. You say that the sun replenishes the pressure, but where does the pressure come from if it has all gone to the North Pole?
Ergo, we see that there must be a fluidic balance.
So, to sum it up, "winds" as you call them cannot ever reach "absolute zero", could therefore never reach "zero pressure" as you describe it, and would therefore still be able to "move" contradictory to your argument.
It does not matter. The winds will eventually reach the background temperature of space; at 2K or whatever it might be. Ergo at a distant point beyond the Ice Wall the temperature and pressure of winds will be equalized with space. Ergo they cannot move further.
-
It does not matter. The winds will eventually reach the background temperature of space; at 2K or whatever it might be. Ergo at a distant point beyond the Ice Wall the temperature and pressure of winds will be equalized with space. Ergo they cannot move further.
Even if the winds are equalized with space, they initially were moving in the direction away from the ice wall. They would continue to go in said direction and spread out more and more.
-
But Tom, according to your model, the air would flow towards the ice wall, and continue to move past the ice wall. It wouldn't just stay there...the point is the system would be losing air.
As the system loses air it also gains air from the currents which originate from the Ice Wall. There must be a balance; the equator cannot deplete it's air reserves because the temperature of the environment demands that the equator have a certain set pressure.
Therefore; as the equator looses pressure from high moving into low in one area the equator also takes some excess pressure from the poles in another area.
The system never gains or looses air; there is a perpetual cycle which constantly replenishes the equator and poles.
Questions:
If air is always moving from the equator (high pressure) to the North Pole (low pressure), why doesn't the equator deplete itself into the North Pole and the two areas equalize?
Why are there air currents which originate from a low pressure environment (North Pole) into a high pressure environment (North America, Europe) ?
-
Complete Nonsense.
-
deposition =/= condensation. The molecules would undergo DEPOSITION.
And I am not a climatologist, but there are several reasons for air currents as they are--
1. the spinning of the earth generates instabilities in the atmosphere
2. direct sunlight can increase temperature, thus increasing pressure in certain areas
3. amount of humidity or suspended particles in the air can effect its transit.
4. Momentum from the atmosphere's spinning keeps it moving at different speeds because of the density
Tom, you miss the fact that air both comes and goes from the north pole. There is not always a cold air current flowing down from it. In your model, the air would ONLY be able to go out, and it would be rapidly forced there when combined with the universal accelerator's effect on a fluid like air--it would be pushed and flattened along the surface of FE
-
Well, thats a different kettle of fish. In this case, we'd all sortof see a towering mountain of ice blotting out the sun in the evening.
In fact, natural perspective would mean that the Wall would quickly become invisble (indistinguishable from the horizon) to the naked eye, as well as the fact that the range of atmospheric distortion at ground level is demonstrably between 0 and about 10 miles depending on weather.
It also is interesting that in the face of imminent defeat, the FE model must suddenly and rapidly change. If THIS is the truth, the REers will once more demand any semblance of proof regarding a 40000 foot sheer cliff of ice.
There is no sudden or rapid change. I have ALWAYS argued for a 40000 foot Ice Wall, as past threads will testify.
-
Well, you're the first i've debated with to hold that view. Tom seems convinced it's the Antarctic ice shelf.
A 40000 foot cliff of ice, eh? Then why does the atmosphere extend beyond 40000 feet, even if very thin?
-
Well, you're the first i've debated with to hold that view. Tom seems convinced it's the Antarctic ice shelf.
Well you're obviously quite new. If you check my previous posts you'll find a consistent 40k foot argument.
A 40000 foot cliff of ice, eh? Then why does the atmosphere extend beyond 40000 feet, even if very thin?
It doesn't. The only "evidence" for an atmosphere higher than that comes straight from the mouth of governments, big business and other Conspiracy elements.
-
Well, you're the first i've debated with to hold that view. Tom seems convinced it's the Antarctic ice shelf.
Tom is just an idiot. The Ross Ice Shelf can't possibly perform the function that the FE ice wall would have to serve and he really should have figured that out by now. No matter what you think of how serious he is, the fact that he clings to this argument just goes to show how intellectually-challenged Tom really is.
The 40,000 foot ice wall has been in some people's arguments, including Dogplatter's, since before I came on here.
-
I've been around for a fewmonths, dogplatter, and this is the first i've seen you online.
-
Again you're arguing that air won't move from high pressure to low pressure--because the low pressure is too low. That's like arguing that Lake Erie won't flow to Lake Ontario because the drop over Niagara Falls is too steep.
Now lets take this one step at a time. Lets start afresh.
SINCE the North Pole can maintain its low pressures (whatever the cause may be) despite being surrounded by a high-pressure equator, THEN so can Antarctica.
SINCE the equator can remain high pressured while the North Pole remains low pressured (whatever the case may be), THEN so can Antarctica.
I have seen no coherent rebuttals demonstrating why this cannot be the case.
Non sequitur. The North Pole is not Antarctica. The NP is a point. Antarctica is a 70,000+ mile long area with a vast unpressurized expanse to its "south". They are not the same; they need not behave the same.
Likewise for the Equator and Antarctica. The Equator receives a great deal more heat from the Sun than does Antarctica. The Equator is shorter.
Finally, you err in arguing that since something is true then it must be true in FE. That is faulty reasoning. Yes, the atmosphere remains. Yes, Antarctica remains colder. Yes, Antarctica has an atmosphere. Yes, the NP remains colder. Yes, the NP has an atmosphere. However, none of these things need to be true on FE.
You fail.
-
The north pole doesn't hold low pressure all the time. Cold air from the north comes down all the time in winter.
There is also wind at the poles.
-
But Tom, according to your model, the air would flow towards the ice wall, and continue to move past the ice wall. It wouldn't just stay there...the point is the system would be losing air.
As the system loses air it also gains air from the currents which originate from the Ice Wall. There must be a balance; the equator cannot deplete it's air reserves because the temperature of the environment demands that the equator have a certain set pressure.
Therefore; as the equator looses pressure from high moving into low in one area the equator also takes some excess pressure from the poles in another area.
The system never gains or looses air; there is a perpetual cycle which constantly replenishes the equator and poles.
Questions:
If air is always moving from the equator (high pressure) to the North Pole (low pressure), why doesn't the equator deplete itself into the North Pole and the two areas equalize?
Why are there air currents which originate from a low pressure environment (North Pole) into a high pressure environment (North America, Europe) ?
I have a feeling I won't be able to convince you of this, but the Earth's atmosphere cannot be considered a closed system, like a sealed canister would. There is too much space and no physical barrier for the pressure to push against. Not to mention the fact that the atmosphere's composition is constantly changing due to photosynthesis, respiration and many industrial processes.
Air is always moving, but that doesn't necessarily mean from the equator to the poles. The relative differences in pressure between the poles and the equator is partly due to temperature differences but also largely due to physical processes affecting the earth due to its spinning. In the 1700s, the French Academy of Sciences dispatched two expeditions. One expedition under Pierre Louis Maupertuis (1736-37) was sent to Lapland (as far North as possible). The second mission under Pierre Bouguer was sent to what is modern-day Ecuador, near the equator (1735-44). The purpose of this mission was to measuring, for a number of points on earth, the relationship between their distance (in north-south direction) and the angles between their astronomical verticals (the projection of the vertical direction on the sky). The result of these measurements was the conclusion that the earth is not in fact spherical but oblong in shape due to the speed at which it spins and the centrifugal forces it is subjected to. To this end, the atmosphere is affected in the same way, possibly to a higher degree due to its fluid nature. The constant spinning of the earth causes the atmosphere to collect (on relative terms) along the equator, thus causing overall higher pressure (also due to the higher temperature but we'll get to that in a second). This same force causes the atmosphere to be less dense at the poles. The reason the overall pressure differences stay this way is because the centrifugal force is great enough to overcome the overall tendency for air to move from high to low pressure environments.
However, in the troposphere especially, there is still enough variation in temperature and air pressure to cause air movement. Another reason that the atmosphere does not displace itself to the poles and stay there is because there are relatively low and high pressures within both the poles and the equator that allow for movement in both directions. As the air is heated along the equator, it rises due to it's decrease in density. As this warm air rushes up into the atmosphere, a low pressure area is left along the surface. Cooler air from the surrounding areas rushes to the equator to fill this low pressure area, becomes heated, rises and continues the cycle. The same is true for the poles. The warmer air in the upper atmosphere begins to cool and condense. This causes it to fall toward the surface. The increase in pressure from this cooler air falling forces the air on the surface away and thus creates the arctic winds that cool us so much in North America. Those winds continue to warmer areas, gain energy, rise up and once again continue the same cycle.
The earth's atmosphere is constantly trying to equalize itself but it is influenced by so many factors (solar radiation, human activity, photosynthesis) that it can never happen. I have just fully explained one of the main driving forces of Earth's weather (the other is moisture differences). The problem that you are faced with, as FE believers, is that for weather to exist on the scale that it does and in the way that it does requires a round earth that allows the free flow of atmosphere in ALL directions.
-
I've been around for a fewmonths, dogplatter, and this is the first i've seen you online.
You've been registered for less than a month.
-
really? Cool. I thought I started in June, but I guess it was late july. Time is a bugger.
-
SINCE the North Pole can maintain its low pressures (whatever the cause may be) despite being surrounded by a high-pressure equator, THEN so can Antarctica.
SINCE the equator can remain high pressured while the North Pole remains low pressured (whatever the case may be), THEN so can Antarctica.
I have seen no coherent rebuttals demonstrating why this cannot be the case.
Non sequitur. The North Pole is not Antarctica. The NP is a point. Antarctica is a 70,000+ mile long area with a vast unpressurized expanse to its "south". They are not the same; they need not behave the same.
Likewise for the Equator and Antarctica. The Equator receives a great deal more heat from the Sun than does Antarctica. The Equator is shorter.
Finally, you err in arguing that since something is true then it must be true in FE. That is faulty reasoning. Yes, the atmosphere remains. Yes, Antarctica remains colder. Yes, Antarctica has an atmosphere. Yes, the NP remains colder. Yes, the NP has an atmosphere. However, none of these things need to be true on FE.
You fail.
I think you did not point out the biggest way in which Tom has failed in this regard. It actually fits quite nicely as you point out, Antarctica on a flat earth is not the same as the NP on the flat Earth, but it is on a round Earth. So therefore, because Tom is using argument that can only be held true for a round Earth (Antarctica is a point on a round Earth; so it should, and does, act much like the Arctic.) to prove a flat Earth, is, well, you decide.
-
SINCE the North Pole can maintain its low pressures (whatever the cause may be) despite being surrounded by a high-pressure equator, THEN so can Antarctica.
SINCE the equator can remain high pressured while the North Pole remains low pressured (whatever the case may be), THEN so can Antarctica.
I have seen no coherent rebuttals demonstrating why this cannot be the case.
Non sequitur. The North Pole is not Antarctica. The NP is a point. Antarctica is a 70,000+ mile long area with a vast unpressurized expanse to its "south". They are not the same; they need not behave the same.
Likewise for the Equator and Antarctica. The Equator receives a great deal more heat from the Sun than does Antarctica. The Equator is shorter.
Finally, you err in arguing that since something is true then it must be true in FE. That is faulty reasoning. Yes, the atmosphere remains. Yes, Antarctica remains colder. Yes, Antarctica has an atmosphere. Yes, the NP remains colder. Yes, the NP has an atmosphere. However, none of these things need to be true on FE.
You fail.
I think you did not point out the biggest way in which Tom has failed in this regard. It actually fits quite nicely as you point out, Antarctica on a flat earth is not the same as the NP on the flat Earth, but it is on a round Earth. So therefore, because Tom is using argument that can only be held true for a round Earth (Antarctica is a point on a round Earth; so it should, and does, act much like the Arctic.) to prove a flat Earth, is, well, you decide.
Concur. Good catch.
-
I'm assuming that Tom is arguing that the North Pole and Antarctica behave this way because of their distance from the equator - the same in both models. What Marinade is saying is therefore a straw man since it's because of their proximity from the equator that they are low-pressure zones. Tom's argument makes perfect sense if seen from this point of view, even on a FE.
-
But distance from the equator does not make them the same. It doesn't take into account the giant ring of no pressure surrounding the antarctic; into which the atmosphere should be flowing, even if it is at low temperature and pressure. Gas is always more dense than no gas, and if there is a greater density of gas near the middle it will push outward. No slow gradient drop in pressure is going to change that. If anything it only encourages the idea that it flows away as it's been getting father away and the end is the least dense as it is flowing away.
I also like Tom's argument that the atmosphere will reach an equilibrium with the vacuum of space. That's great, there's still going to be gas with higher pressure behind that pushing it outward; that is not at equilibrium with it.
His assumption does not fit with a flat Earth because they are not the same. If one property is the same, having that mean something as complex as climate will act the same way is not logical. [Tom think]We see that they do act the same way, therefore, it has to happen. And since we've already proven the Earth flat we must conclude that I am right.[/Tom think]
-
Finally, you err in arguing that since something is true then it must be true in FE. That is faulty reasoning. Yes, the atmosphere remains. Yes, Antarctica remains colder. Yes, Antarctica has an atmosphere. Yes, the NP remains colder. Yes, the NP has an atmosphere. However, none of these things need to be true on FE.
You fail.
Great point.
I'm curious as to how the ice wall acts as a seal against the vacuum of space, does the atmosphere (err atmosplane) go outside the ice wall too? Or does it meet on the top of the ice wall, and also how thick is it?
-
My explanation was better and contained less BS
Sorry. but my theory is more BS and thus a better explanation: Equivalence Principle.
-
Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham held that knowing the true dimensions of the Earth is something which will be forever be unknowable by man.
Be more optimistic Tom! Maybe not today, but in the distant future...
(http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/5913/iwcb7.th.jpg) (http://img354.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iwcb7.jpg)
ITs going to be hard to fly a craft that produces enough lift within such a low-pressure environment. That craft would have to be at such a high altitude to be in a stationary orbit, which would not exist on an infinite flat earth.
-
According to Gay-Lussac's Law (http://kekule.chem.csus.edu/gaslaws/gay-lus.html) high pressure cannot exist in a low temperature environment.
What evidence do you have contradicting the basic laws of gas physics?
Actually, high pressures can exist under low temperatures depending on density if the mass is high or volume is low according to the Ideal Gas Law.
edit - Gay-Lussac's Law only works when density remains constant.
-
pv=nrt !
-
pv=nrt !
Indeed. Tis is the most used formula I have used in my Thermodynamics and Fluid Dynamics class so it must provide more importance thus more authority over Gay-Lussac's Law.
-
Gases aren't "unpressurized". That's malarkey!
If we take a canister of air from the equator, bring it to the North Pole, open the bottle, will the air inside not escape and cool to the surrounding environment?
The sealed container with the equatorial air will condense or increase in density when moved to the North pole due to heat convection, but pressure would remain the same.
-
pv=nrt !
Welcome to page 4.
-
pv=nrt !
Welcome to page 4.
I posted after reading the first page. I really should read throughout before posting. I pulled Tom-Bishop.