The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Ellipsis on May 18, 2010, 09:10:13 PM
-
Q: "Wouldn't the atmosphere be diffused into space?"
A1: In the general model, there is a vector field created during the interaction between DE and the Earth. This is known as the DEF, which it acts as a containment to prevent DE from affecting objects with mass on Earth. This explains why the atmolayer will not be diffused into space...
This is begging the question. It presumes that the "dark energy field" exists as some kind of wall around the edge of the Earth, holding the "atmolayer" in place. Vector field or not, if this field is strong enough to contain 100% of gases from escaping laterally, we should be able to detect it anywhere on the Earth (strengthening as we approach the geographic south pole). We detect nothing of this field, but the FAQ merely waves this away by saying it must not affect us.
(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6061/magicwall.jpg)
This magic wall must be presumed with a total lack of even indirect evidence. Not only can it not be detected, we can (as the FAQ admits) NOT EVEN DETECT ITS EFFECTS. That's neither zetetic nor scientific. It's merely idiotic. We might as well say "I see absolutely no evidence for a tiger in this office, therefor the tiger must still exist but simply be undetectable."
Because we can agree the FAQ model is completely idiotic, what do FEers actually believe?
Edit:
It also fails to address how far "on the Earth" extends. The masses of gas particles in the atmosphere certainly aren't "on" the Earth, but ABOVE it. Since the sun and moon are also above the Earth, why does UA effect them? Are they not still contained within the weird magic wall of DEF?
-
Dark energy do infact exist and can be detected. However, no significant amount of dark energy borders the Earth.... better luck next time.
sources:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVN-46RCB9D-H&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F03%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1340292224&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ef77a5906277db87f4983d94f1ade476
http://rmp.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v75/i2/p559_1
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v66/i4/e043507
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep--th/0603057
-
Dark energy does exist. Their idea of "universal acceleration," as propelling the Earth in a particular single direction (and not affecting certain things) having any factual accuracy, however, doesn't.
Edit: Ah,alright.
-
I was supporting your argument Ellipsis, meant better luck for them. Seems like in true pseudo-science fashion FE takes a scientific concept (DE) and pretends it does what ever they like (such as shoot rainbows out of its rear)
-
Seems like in true pseudo-science fashion FE takes a scientific concept (DE) and pretends it does what ever they like (such as shoot rainbows out of its rear)
The irony in this statement is so thick I can taste it. How exactly do you propose that we directly detect dark energy in the RE context?
Posting random articles you haven't read, some of which directly contradict what you have argued, is hardly citing sources for your claim.
-
Seems like in true pseudo-science fashion FE takes a scientific concept (DE) and pretends it does what ever they like (such as shoot rainbows out of its rear)
The irony in this statement is so thick I can taste it. How exactly do you propose that we directly detect dark energy in the RE context?
Posting random articles you haven't read, some of which directly contradict what you have argued, is hardly citing sources for your claim.
we can detect dark matter by assuming gravity exists.
therefore, we cannot detect it via FE
-
Seems like in true pseudo-science fashion FE takes a scientific concept (DE) and pretends it does what ever they like (such as shoot rainbows out of its rear)
The irony in this statement is so thick I can taste it. How exactly do you propose that we directly detect dark energy in the RE context?
Posting random articles you haven't read, some of which directly contradict what you have argued, is hardly citing sources for your claim.
we can detect dark matter by assuming gravity exists.
therefore, we cannot detect it via FE
We can detect it by assuming gravity exists? Ok, lets see. I'm going to assume gravity exists. Nope. I don't see any dark matter in front of me.
Also your therefore is non-sequitor.
-
Seems like in true pseudo-science fashion FE takes a scientific concept (DE) and pretends it does what ever they like (such as shoot rainbows out of its rear)
The irony in this statement is so thick I can taste it. How exactly do you propose that we directly detect dark energy in the RE context?
Posting random articles you haven't read, some of which directly contradict what you have argued, is hardly citing sources for your claim.
we can detect dark matter by assuming gravity exists.
therefore, we cannot detect it via FE
We can detect it by assuming gravity exists? Ok, lets see. I'm going to assume gravity exists. Nope. I don't see any dark matter in front of me.
Also your therefore is non-sequitor.
strawman.
I meant that while assuming gravity and GR is real, we conclude that the galaxy needs more than the amount of mass that is currently observable due to matter
-
Try to stay on topic this time, JD. You know how we're aware of dark matter and that's by observing its effects, even though we can't detect it directly. The FE model's magic wall, however, can't even have its effects detected. It's completely blind faith.
-
Fun Fact: "Dark Matter" is more then just some exotic matter; it includes normal matter gas for ex that isnt illuminated.
ex. Orion Nebula: there is a large part of it that just black gas you can not see with visible light
Left is visible light and right is infrared
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Trapezium_cluster_optical_and_infrared_comparison.jpg)
-
Fun Fact: "Dark Matter" is more then just some exotic matter; it includes normal matter gas for ex that isnt illuminated.
ex. Orion Nebula: there is a large part of it that just black gas you can not see with visible light
Left is visible light and right is infrared
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Trapezium_cluster_optical_and_infrared_comparison.jpg)
I thought dark matter was fundamentally different that matter, like how anti-matter is made of Anit-particles. and whats with the expansion? I thought only negative mass repelled
-
Thats included too but under "dark energy" "dark matter" is a catch all for any thing we can not currently detect or see.
In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation, but is undetectable by emitted or scattered electromagnetic radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_dark_matter
IIRC there was a story the other day about it, they detected some VERY cold gas that was pretty massive
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/05/mysterious-cloud-of-antimatter-discovered-near-center-of-milky-way-.html
-
Lets straighten this out. Dark matter cant be detected, however effects which may be due to its presence can be observed. There may be other explanations for these effects but dark matter is the most popular explanation.
Dark energy cant be detected. Its existence is an inference from the presence of dark matter - if dark matter exists in the form we think it does, then dark energy would also have to exist to explain how the matter works. Unlike dark matter, no effects directly attributable to it have been observed. It is a hypothetical energy only at the present time.
-
The earth needs neither a giant wall of ice, a wall of dark energy, nor does it need to be physically infinite to keep the atmosphere in. If the earth is large enough, it can simply end without the atmosphere leaking into space.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis
-
The earth needs neither a giant wall of ice, a wall of dark energy, nor does it need to be physically infinite to keep the atmosphere in. If the earth is large enough, it can simply end without the atmosphere leaking into space.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis
An infinitely wide earth has several problems beyond explanation. An infinite earth has infinite mass and requires an infinite force to push it. If the force doesn't push on all parts of the earth at once, the earth is bound to break apart by bending. On an infinite earth, the atmosphere would leak out to become as flat as an air molecule and would extende out as far as it could. On an infinite earth, the heat of one area would extend out to infinity and disappear.
There are so many infinities in this system, that the very existence of our inhabitable zone would be a miracle. Magic.
-
Thanks for citing a completely reputable and unbiased scientific source. I'm curious whose ass that explanation was pulled out of, because it must clearly be by someone with absolutely no knowledge of thermodynamics or how pressure, temperature, and volume are related. One more straw grasped at, but the camel's back was broken ages ago.
-
The earth needs neither a giant wall of ice, a wall of dark energy, nor does it need to be physically infinite to keep the atmosphere in. If the earth is large enough, it can simply end without the atmosphere leaking into space.
In the interest of full disclosure:
Created by: TomBishop, Last Modification: Thursday 20 of May, 2010 13:02:26 PDT by TomBishop
No other sources cited in that article.
-
The earth needs neither a giant wall of ice, a wall of dark energy, nor does it need to be physically infinite to keep the atmosphere in. If the earth is large enough, it can simply end without the atmosphere leaking into space.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis
no sir. air particle is moving that way ==========>
what stops it?
protip: heat= kinetic energy of particles.
Also P=V/T, so if pressure exists, (which it does, because the particle is moving) then T cannot be zero.
-
An infinitely wide earth has several problems beyond explanation. An infinite earth has infinite mass and requires an infinite force to push it. If the force doesn't push on all parts of the earth at once, the earth is bound to break apart by bending. On an infinite earth, the atmosphere would leak out to become as flat as an air molecule and would extende out as far as it could. On an infinite earth, the heat of one area would extend out to infinity and disappear.
Didn't I just say that an infinite earth wasn't necessary?
Thanks for citing a completely reputable and unbiased scientific source. I'm curious whose ass that explanation was pulled out of, because it must clearly be by someone with absolutely no knowledge of thermodynamics or how pressure, temperature, and volume are related. One more straw grasped at, but the camel's back was broken ages ago.
no sir. air particle is moving that way ==========>
what stops it?
protip: heat= kinetic energy of particles.
Also P=V/T, so if pressure exists, (which it does, because the particle is moving) then T cannot be zero.
Temperature and pressure are tightly related. Whenever temperature goes up, pressure does as well. Atoms are vibrating and moving faster to create that heat. Heat is the vibration and movement of atoms.
At temperatures near absolute zero barometric pressure is non-existent.
-
The earth needs neither a giant wall of ice, a wall of dark energy, nor does it need to be physically infinite to keep the atmosphere in. If the earth is large enough, it can simply end without the atmosphere leaking into space.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Atmolayer+Lip+Hypothesis
An infinitely wide earth has several problems beyond explanation. An infinite earth has infinite mass and requires an infinite force to push it.
The best model for an infinite earth has a finite gravitational pull due to its mass, not UA.
If the force doesn't push on all parts of the earth at once, the earth is bound to break apart by bending. On an infinite earth, the atmosphere would leak out to become as flat as an air molecule and would extende out as far as it could. On an infinite earth, the heat of one area would extend out to infinity and disappear.
There are so many infinities in this system, that the very existence of our inhabitable zone would be a miracle. Magic.
Your inferred math is flawed and makes assumptions that are plain wrong.
-
Tom Bishop doesn't seem to get where pressure comes in regarding his own idea. If we scale to presume the Earth as a very large slab with the sun making tiny circles around its center, then the sun is what's mainly putting energy into this system, meaning the "atmolayer" would have the most heat around that central region where the sun traces its inexplicable circles. Since volume isn't an issue, and a force is causing the gases to try and come as near to the Earth as they can, this hot zone in the center would quickly ascend and expand out across this big flat slab, forcing the cold air in beneath it.
(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/476/herpderp.jpg)
(http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/1268/herfderf.jpg)
Because the hotter, more highly pressurized gases (edit: this is to say they would be more highly pressurized if volume were finite) aren't bound by volume yet still affected by the downward force, they would continually spill out over the top and force the colder gases in beneath them. This would be observed in the southern hemisphere (-plane?): at high altitudes we should see an extreme current of hot air going directly south, away from the center of the sun's path, out over the ice wall and onto godknowswhere. At lower altitudes, like the ground we're standing on, we should observe cold winds rushing north.
There's what we can predict using your hypothesis. Since we observe no such thing, your hypothesis must be wrong.
-
I don't see how it could force the "hot air" out, if there is no "out".
Please recall, in my explanation there is a gradient which ranges from sea level pressure to that of the background of space. Moving away from the energy source of the sun, the atmosphere loses its energy and heat, moving slower and slower across the vast planes of ice and snow, until barometric pressure itself reaches the zero mark.
Nothing is going to be pushed "out" because there is already a gradient. As an atom of atmosphere moves away from the sun it will move slower and slower until it stops in its tracks.
The coldness itself keeps the pressures low. For example, it's well known that the environment of the Arctic and North Pole is generally a low-pressure environment. Low pressure weather systems exist in the Arctic in abundance. But how could this be, if the Arctic is surrounded from all sides by tropical High Pressure systems? Shouldn't these High Pressure Systems equalize with Low Pressure Systems?
The answer is that the temperatures of the Arctic keeps the pressures low and the temperatures of the tropical regions keeps the pressure high.
-
I don't see how it could force the "hot air" out, if there is no "out".
I only use "out" in the sense of being farther away from the central hot zone (the circular path of the sun).
As an atom of atmosphere moves away from the sun it will move slower and slower until it stops in its tracks.
No. You know what's causing it to move slower? Collision with other molecules. The energy doesn't just vanish; it gets transfered. This is why there is only exponential SLOWING and never a total "stop." If you're arguing for a natural absolute zero, I'm going to need some evidence.
In this hypothetical system where volume is essentially infinite, a downward force is continually applied, and a continual energy source is given at a point, would a cyclical exchange of the gas not take place due to the change in pressure thanks to heating? Yes or no?
Are you trying to argue that colder (less energetic) air doesn't fall, or that hotter (more energetic) air doesn't rise?
-
The coldness itself keeps the pressures low. For example, it's well known that the environment of the Arctic and North Pole is generally a low-pressure environment. Low pressure weather systems exist in the Arctic in abundance. But how could this be, if the Arctic is surrounded from all sides by tropical High Pressure systems?
What the Hell are you talking about? Like just about everything else, air gets more dense as it gets colder resulting in higher pressure, not lower.
High-pressure areas are generally associated with cooler, drier air as well as clearing skies due to their formation within areas of atmospheric subsidence, or areas of large scale air descent. The strongest high-pressure areas are associated with arctic air masses during the winter, which modify and weaken once they move over relatively warmer water bodies.
-
The coldness itself keeps the pressures low. For example, it's well known that the environment of the Arctic and North Pole is generally a low-pressure environment. Low pressure weather systems exist in the Arctic in abundance. But how could this be, if the Arctic is surrounded from all sides by tropical High Pressure systems?
What the Hell are you talking about? Like just about everything else, air gets more dense as it gets colder resulting in higher pressure, not lower.
High-pressure areas are generally associated with cooler, drier air as well as clearing skies due to their formation within areas of atmospheric subsidence, or areas of large scale air descent. The strongest high-pressure areas are associated with arctic air masses during the winter, which modify and weaken once they move over relatively warmer water bodies.
That Wikipedia article is wrong. Cold is associated with Low Pressure, not the other way around.
There are various articles on the internet which mix up this concept.
Apt examples,
- Open your refrigerator or freezer door. Does air rush in, or out?
- Preheat your oven to 400 degrees Farinheit and open the door. Does the air rush in, or out?
- Wrap a sheet of syran wrap across a bowl of water (or even an empty bowl) and put it in the microwave for several minutes. Does the syran wrap billow upwards in a bubble, or get sucked in like a crater?
Stunningly clear examples that Heat is associated with High Pressure and Cold is associated with Low Pressure.
-
Notice all your examples involve constrained volume. Once you stop constraining it, see what happens? See how that cold air from the freezer falls to your feet, and the hot air from that stove rushes up to your face? They're teaching thermodynamics in most high schools now. This shouldn't be hard to figure out. :-\
Does air rush in, or out?
Both.
-
Bishop's Ideal Gas Law.
On a serious note, Tom: Gas is classed as a fluid, and as such will tend to flow and expand to the space it is constrained in. If the pressure is lower in some places, a gas will attempt to equalised.
In your model, it would equalise out into the "tundra" and be lost forever, simply because (as you've said), the pressure is lower !
Your examples only serve to further illustrate the point.
You've been hoist by your own petard, me thinks.
-
Bishop's Ideal Gas Law.
On a serious note, Tom: Gas is classed as a fluid, and as such will tend to flow and expand to the space it is constrained in. If the pressure is lower in some places, a gas will attempt to equalised.
In your model, it would equalise out into the "tundra" and be lost forever, simply because (as you've said), the pressure is lower !
Your examples only serve to further illustrate the point.
You've been hoist by your own petard, me thinks.
There's a difference between equalizing over the span of several feet and over the span of tens of thousands of miles. Like I've said, the Arctic and Tropical areas of the earth maintain their own high and low pressure environments for very long durations of time.
-
They're mostly stuck with what the have thanks to receiving less intense sunlight, though differing air pressures do come up and fuel our weather system. Regions like the actual antarctic don't have an effectively endless volume well of gases to dip into when spaces need filling, as your model requires.
Edit:
Still has yet to answer my question:
Do less dense fluids rise above more dense fluids or not?
-
Bishop's Ideal Gas Law.
On a serious note, Tom: Gas is classed as a fluid, and as such will tend to flow and expand to the space it is constrained in. If the pressure is lower in some places, a gas will attempt to equalised.
In your model, it would equalise out into the "tundra" and be lost forever, simply because (as you've said), the pressure is lower !
Your examples only serve to further illustrate the point.
You've been hoist by your own petard, me thinks.
There's a difference between equalizing over the span of several feet and over the span of tens of thousands of miles. Like I've said, the Arctic and Tropical areas of the earth maintain their own high and low pressure environments for very long durations of time.
Thats becouse the earth is GASP ROUND and theirs no where for the air to go.
-
Bishop's Ideal Gas Law.
On a serious note, Tom: Gas is classed as a fluid, and as such will tend to flow and expand to the space it is constrained in. If the pressure is lower in some places, a gas will attempt to equalised.
In your model, it would equalise out into the "tundra" and be lost forever, simply because (as you've said), the pressure is lower !
Your examples only serve to further illustrate the point.
You've been hoist by your own petard, me thinks.
There's a difference between equalizing over the span of several feet and over the span of tens of thousands of miles. Like I've said, the Arctic and Tropical areas of the earth maintain their own high and low pressure environments for very long durations of time.
The slight deviations in pressure you speak of do not conform to your global earth pressure model. Containing air in a vacuum is a world away from pressure deviations of 80 millibars, which are due to weather patterns.
Please research "Polar high pressure (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=antarctic+high+preasure&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a)" for a direct illustration why you are wrong.
-
Bishop's Ideal Gas Law.
On a serious note, Tom: Gas is classed as a fluid, and as such will tend to flow and expand to the space it is constrained in. If the pressure is lower in some places, a gas will attempt to equalised.
In your model, it would equalise out into the "tundra" and be lost forever, simply because (as you've said), the pressure is lower !
Your examples only serve to further illustrate the point.
You've been hoist by your own petard, me thinks.
There's a difference between equalizing over the span of several feet and over the span of tens of thousands of miles. Like I've said, the Arctic and Tropical areas of the earth maintain their own high and low pressure environments for very long durations of time.
The slight deviations in pressure you speak of do not conform to your global earth pressure model. Containing air in a vacuum is a world away from pressure deviations of 80 millibars, which are due to weather patterns.
Please research "Polar high pressure (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=antarctic+high+preasure&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a)" for a direct illustration why you are wrong.
Antarctica isn't a "high pressure" environment. Antarctica has the lowest pressure systems on earth. It most definitely is a low pressure environment.
Extreme Low Pressure in Antarctica (http://forums.accuweather.com/index.php?showtopic=2405)
-
Bishop's Ideal Gas Law.
On a serious note, Tom: Gas is classed as a fluid, and as such will tend to flow and expand to the space it is constrained in. If the pressure is lower in some places, a gas will attempt to equalised.
In your model, it would equalise out into the "tundra" and be lost forever, simply because (as you've said), the pressure is lower !
Your examples only serve to further illustrate the point.
You've been hoist by your own petard, me thinks.
There's a difference between equalizing over the span of several feet and over the span of tens of thousands of miles. Like I've said, the Arctic and Tropical areas of the earth maintain their own high and low pressure environments for very long durations of time.
The slight deviations in pressure you speak of do not conform to your global earth pressure model. Containing air in a vacuum is a world away from pressure deviations of 80 millibars, which are due to weather patterns.
Please research "Polar high pressure (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=antarctic+high+preasure&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a)" for a direct illustration why you are wrong.
Antarctica isn't a "high pressure" environment. Antarctica has the lowest pressure systems on earth. It most definitely is a low pressure environment.
Extreme Low Pressure in Antarctica (http://forums.accuweather.com/index.php?showtopic=2405)
Low pressure is relative. Below is a map of a 15 year average of global atmospheric pressure at sea level. For land above sea level, scientists used the power of maths to calculate pressures.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Mslp-jja-djf.png)
Notice that the equator is a low pressure zone... and the area immediately surrounding the edge of antarctica is also a low pressure zone. In case it wasn't painfully obvious, the air immediately on antarctica has higher pressures than surrounding areas.... These match up with atmospheric circulation and convergence patterns (hadley cells, polar cells, etc). Air sinks in places, it also rises in places, very predictably. The pressure definitely DOES NOT decrease from the north to the south, or even from the equator to both the north and south. Also, notice that the average difference is significantly less than even 5%. Data is only useful when viewed collectively and in context.
Dig much deeper and the hole's going to fall in on you Tom.
-
Actually, the higher numbers indicate High Pressure and lower numbers indicate Low Pressure.
Why would low pressure zone be associated with Antarctica if pressure had nothing to do with heat or cold?
Why don't the tropics and Antarctica "balance out" if its natural for Low and High Pressure systems to equalize? Weren't we just told that the Atmospheric Lip Hypothesis couldn't work since the atmosphere would just "balance out"?
Clearly, temperature is related to pressure, and clearly, environments can and do maintain their own pressure systems in relation to the ambient temperature.
Seems like the Atmospheric Lip Hypothesis is valid and the RE'ers petty antics are not.
-
Actually, the lower numbers indicate Low Pressure.
Why would low pressure zone be associated with Antarctica if pressure had nothing to do with heat or cold?
Why don't the tropics and Antarctica "balance out" if its natural for Low and High Pressure systems to equalize? Weren't we just told that the Atmospheric Lip Hypothesis couldn't work since the atmosphere would just "balance out"?
Clearly, temperature is related to pressure, and clearly, environments can and do maintain their own pressure systems in relation to the ambient temperature.
Seems like the Atmospheric Lip Hypothesis is valid and the RE'ers petty antics are not.
Let me help you out Tom, because you clearly missed the point of my post. You've been saying that the highest pressure should be somewhere along the equator (spotlight shines there mostly, so more heat, thus more pressure). You also say that the pressure should slowly drop as you go outwards towards antarctica, until eventually the temperatures are so low that pressure is sufficiently low as to keep the atmosphere in.
But in the real world that isn't what's going on. The hottest spot, the equator, has the highest temperatures, but has lower pressures than the cooler subtropics because the air is rising. Antarctica, on the other hand, has cold, dense air travelling downwards on its center, so it's pressure is higher than the immediate surrounding area which is somewhat warmer. The bottom edge of antarctica has a higher pressure than the outer region of antarctica. So sure, it has a lower pressure than say, the equator, but it still has a higher pressure than the coast does. The system can't equalize, because there heat isn't equally spread out across the entire earth (round or flat). So air must constantly move. The hot air rises and becomes cold, while the cold air moves horizontally and becomes warmer. That air then rises and gets replaced by colder air underneath... cycle repeats ad nauseum. If incoming solar radiation all of a sudden stopped adding heat to the system or was equal at every point on the earth, then over time the pressures and temperatures would balance out.
So when you said
"Stunningly clear examples that Heat is associated with High Pressure and Cold is associated with Low Pressure."
You were dead wrong. Your oven and fridge hardly represent anything close to an atmospheric system and only apply to closed systems where volume is held constant.
Winds and pressure do not occupy a closed container and are more complicated than a simple temperature relationship given in Boyle's law. Since you missed out on 4th grade science, here's a diagram that explains perfectly why certain pressures are located at certain spots, and why temperatures cause circulation.
(http://ccrc.unh.edu/~stm/AS/Common/Three_Cell.JPG)
-
Why don't the tropics and Antarctica "balance out" if its natural for Low and High Pressure systems to equalize? Weren't we just told that the Atmospheric Lip Hypothesis couldn't work since the atmosphere would just "balance out"?
(http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/7479/facepalmm.gif)
They're mostly stuck with what the have thanks to receiving less intense sunlight, though differing air pressures do come up and fuel our weather system. Regions like the actual antarctic don't have an effectively endless volume well of gases to dip into when spaces need filling, as your model requires.
-
The coldness itself keeps the pressures low. For example, it's well known that the environment of the Arctic and North Pole is generally a low-pressure environment. Low pressure weather systems exist in the Arctic in abundance. But how could this be, if the Arctic is surrounded from all sides by tropical High Pressure systems?
What the Hell are you talking about? Like just about everything else, air gets more dense as it gets colder resulting in higher pressure, not lower.
High-pressure areas are generally associated with cooler, drier air as well as clearing skies due to their formation within areas of atmospheric subsidence, or areas of large scale air descent. The strongest high-pressure areas are associated with arctic air masses during the winter, which modify and weaken once they move over relatively warmer water bodies.
That Wikipedia article is wrong. Cold is associated with Low Pressure, not the other way around.
There are various articles on the internet which mix up this concept.
Apt examples,
- Open your refrigerator or freezer door. Does air rush in, or out?
- Preheat your oven to 400 degrees Farinheit and open the door. Does the air rush in, or out?
- Wrap a sheet of syran wrap across a bowl of water (or even an empty bowl) and put it in the microwave for several minutes. Does the syran wrap billow upwards in a bubble, or get sucked in like a crater?
Stunningly clear examples that Heat is associated with High Pressure and Cold is associated with Low Pressure.
He's actually right for once, pressure is proportional to heat times density.