Atmoplane

Dogplatter, Gulliver and co make some good points about the impossibility of the atmoplane/layer/sphere not flying off into space in this thread.  How do you counter their arguments?

Ya, fix the link please.

I think the broken link was intentional, as we all know the atmosphere has not left the earth.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=15685.0

Sorry. 

It's 8 pages long, but based on the first page I'd say that the REers are failing to take into account two important facts -

1: The Ice Wall is as tall or taller than the atmolayer.

2: Universal Acceleration acts to negate the diffusion of matter (in this case that of the atmolayer). In order for the atmolayer to leak over the Ice Wall, its particles would have to sustain a hypothetical speed greater than that of the Earth, which is a logical impossibility.

I think it's your response to # 2 that they were really arguing about.

Gulliver and co, your response?

The FE atmosphere is denser (colder) at the southern rim. As the earth accelerates into the atmosphere, the atmosphere becomes thinner at the rim.

Are you arguing with Dogplatter's explanation of the phenomenon or -- 

It would be interesting -- when given molecular sizes and masses, acceleration of the Earth, volume of atmosphere, and pressure at sea level -- to estimate the height of the ice wall needed to contain some 'x' range of pressures for some 'y' amount of time.  If these time and pressure ranges are sufficient to support life I will give the "ice wall contains the atmosphere" theory much more weight.  I don't really want to do that calculation, though.

Err, I say all that because there IS diffusion of the atmosphere over the ice wall, no matter how tall said wall is. 

Are you arguing with Dogplatter's explanation of the phenomenon or -- 

2 seperate factors.

It would be interesting -- when given molecular sizes and masses, acceleration of the Earth, volume of atmosphere, and pressure at sea level -- to estimate the height of the ice wall needed to contain some 'x' range of pressures for some 'y' amount of time.  If these time and pressure ranges are sufficient to support life I will give the "ice wall contains the atmosphere" theory much more weight.  I don't really want to do that calculation, though.

I love this idea.

It's 8 pages long, but based on the first page I'd say that the REers are failing to take into account two important facts -

1: The Ice Wall is as tall or taller than the atmolayer.

2: Universal Acceleration acts to negate the diffusion of matter (in this case that of the atmolayer). In order for the atmolayer to leak over the Ice Wall, its particles would have to sustain a hypothetical speed greater than that of the Earth, which is a logical impossibility.

And you are failing to take into account physics. 

So the icewall is over 50 miles high? 

It's 8 pages long, but based on the first page I'd say that the REers are failing to take into account two important facts -

1: The Ice Wall is as tall or taller than the atmolayer.

2: Universal Acceleration acts to negate the diffusion of matter (in this case that of the atmolayer). In order for the atmolayer to leak over the Ice Wall, its particles would have to sustain a hypothetical speed greater than that of the Earth, which is a logical impossibility.

1. This is absurd.
a) dogplatter is arguing for a structure 70 miles (Reference: ou), 78,225 miles long (Reference FE FAQs), and airtight. This is beyond all reasonable engineering.
b) Such a structure would be detected, blocking stars, from hundreds of miles away. It hasn't been.
2. This is wrong.
a) First, the particles in a solution can reach speeds greater than the solution. Please read and understand Brownian motion.
b) Second, in order for the atmosphere to lea, it would need only to move over the edge, not move faster than the edge. Please read and understand velocities and vectors from a secondary school physics text.

If you have questions about any of these points, don't hesitate to ask.

It's 8 pages long, but based on the first page I'd say that the REers are failing to take into account two important facts -

1: The Ice Wall is as tall or taller than the atmolayer.

2: Universal Acceleration acts to negate the diffusion of matter (in this case that of the atmolayer). In order for the atmolayer to leak over the Ice Wall, its particles would have to sustain a hypothetical speed greater than that of the Earth, which is a logical impossibility.

Given perfect conditions, this would be true, but there are local disturbances (weather) which may allow some air to leak out.

Think about this argument: In order for water to evaporate, it has to boil. Hence, it has to be at 100 degrees Celsius (at 1 atmospheric pressure unit). Whence, water at room temperature cannot evaporate, because it doesn't reach 100 degrees Celsius.

Not entirely sure why this thread was locked, so I'm re-opening it pending further explanation by another mod.

It would be interesting -- when given molecular sizes and masses, acceleration of the Earth, volume of atmosphere, and pressure at sea level -- to estimate the height of the ice wall needed to contain some 'x' range of pressures for some 'y' amount of time.  If these time and pressure ranges are sufficient to support life I will give the "ice wall contains the atmosphere" theory much more weight.  I don't really want to do that calculation, though.

Wouldn't thickness relate to ability to withstand pressure more than height? And yes, this would perhaps be a worthwhile endeavour.

Err, I say all that because there IS diffusion of the atmosphere over the ice wall, no matter how tall said wall is. 

It's not the Ice Wall's height which inherently prevents diffusion, it's Universal Acceleration. Once any given particle leaves the atmolayer, it is outside the local area in which Earth-style physics (based loosely on the balance between Universal Acceleration and the air resistance of air also being Accelerated) applies, meaning the Earth would re-collide with it at what is, for the sake of argument, an essentially infinite speed. This makes the vertical escape of any matter to all intents and purposes impossible.

And you are failing to take into account physics. 

So the icewall is over 50 miles high?

Um, no. A liberal estimate would put its apex at no more than 9.5 miles above sea level.

1. This is absurd.
a) dogplatter is arguing for a structure 70 miles (Reference: ou), 78,225 miles long (Reference FE FAQs), and airtight. This is beyond all reasonable engineering.

Two things:
1: No I'm not, (see above), and
2: There's no "engineering" involved - the Ice Wall is a natural structure. How would life have evolved to construct it without the atmosphere it provides?

b) Such a structure would be detected, blocking stars, from hundreds of miles away. It hasn't been.

Nope, we did the maths on this in a previous thread. An Ice Wall of even 10 miles would only noticably block stars at fairly close proximity - much further and they'd be blocked by atmospheric distortion anyway.

2. This is wrong.
a) First, the particles in a solution can reach speeds greater than the solution. Please read and understand Brownian motion.

Notice my use of the word SUSTAIN. While in the "solution" of the atmolayer, individual particles could reach non-local speeds marginally higher than the Earth's hypothetical speed. In space, they're outside the "solution", and they couldn't maintain such a speed for any significant amount of time.

b) Second, in order for the atmosphere to lea, it would need only to move over the edge, not move faster than the edge. Please read and understand velocities and vectors from a secondary school physics text.
 

Yes, but once a tiny portion of the atmosphere HAD leaked at some point in ancient prehistory, a "lip" of ice is left preventing further spillage. An analogy: a bowl which is perfectly full of water leaks water very easily, take out a couple of milimeters and the same motion will not cause spillage.

Given perfect conditions, this would be true, but there are local disturbances (weather) which may allow some air to leak out.

Some. This would have occured millions of years ago until the atmolayer's volume had been reduced to such an extent that this no longer occured - bear in mind the intense difficulty which particles would have leaving the atmolayer in the first place.

It's not the Ice Wall's height which inherently prevents diffusion, it's Universal Acceleration. Once any given particle leaves the atmolayer, it is outside the local area in which Earth-style physics (based loosely on the balance between Universal Acceleration and the air resistance of air also being Accelerated) applies, meaning the Earth would re-collide with it at what is, for the sake of argument, an essentially infinite speed. This makes the vertical escape of any matter to all intents and purposes impossible.

Nope. This explanation defies Special Relativity. The particle that moves over the edge horizontally would be traveling upwards at the exact same upwards speed as the Earth. It would not collide with the Earth as it's over the edge and as it's traveling at the same speed. Your lack of understanding is a real problem here. Maybe you should ask for assistance.

Quote

And you are failing to take into account physics. 

So the icewall is over 50 miles high?

Um, no. A liberal estimate would put its apex at no more than 9.5 miles above sea level.

Um. yes. The atmosphere is over 50 miles high and we've demonstrated that your UA collision hypothesis is incorrect.

Quote

1. This is absurd.
a) dogplatter is arguing for a structure 70 miles (Reference: ou), 78,225 miles long (Reference FE FAQs), and airtight. This is beyond all reasonable engineering.

Two things:
1: No I'm not, (see above), and
2: There's no "engineering" involved - the Ice Wall is a natural structure. How would life have evolved to construct it without the atmosphere it provides?

Two things.
1: Then you fail.
2: I really don't care who engineered it (man, God, nature, etc.). It still requires engineering far beyond what we've ever encountered.

Quote

b) Such a structure would be detected, blocking stars, from hundreds of miles away. It hasn't been.

Nope, we did the maths on this in a previous thread. An Ice Wall of even 10 miles would only noticably block stars at fairly close proximity - much further and they'd be blocked by atmospheric distortion anyway.

The mathematics do not support you as you claim. Furthermore over Antarctica viewing conditions are excellent. They are no atmospheric distortion that last for decades that would support your hypothesis.

Quote

2. This is wrong.
a) First, the particles in a solution can reach speeds greater than the solution. Please read and understand Brownian motion.

Notice my use of the word SUSTAIN. While in the "solution" of the atmolayer, individual particles could reach non-local speeds marginally higher than the Earth's hypothetical speed. In space, they're outside the "solution", and they couldn't maintain such a speed for any significant amount of time.

SUSTAIN doesn't solve your problem. You forget Newton Law that a object in motion tends to remain in motion. These particles are traveling horizontally over the edge with a speed they will maintain. You'd run out of air fast.

Quote

b) Second, in order for the atmosphere to lea, it would need only to move over the edge, not move faster than the edge. Please read and understand velocities and vectors from a secondary school physics text.
 

Yes, but once a tiny portion of the atmosphere HAD leaked at some point in ancient prehistory, a "lip" of ice is left preventing further spillage. An analogy: a bowl which is perfectly full of water leaks water very easily, take out a couple of milimeters and the same motion will not cause spillage.

No, it would not. Brownian motion would cause ALL the atmosphere to leak out. You need to contain air not water. Air is much more energetic and prone to escape.

Quote

Given perfect conditions, this would be true, but there are local disturbances (weather) which may allow some air to leak out.

Some. This would have occured millions of years ago until the atmolayer's volume had been reduced to such an extent that this no longer occured - bear in mind the intense difficulty which particles would have leaving the atmolayer in the first place.

You're quite wrong here too. There is no intense difficulty as explained above.

It's not the Ice Wall's height which inherently prevents diffusion, it's Universal Acceleration. Once any given particle leaves the atmolayer, it is outside the local area in which Earth-style physics (based loosely on the balance between Universal Acceleration and the air resistance of air also being Accelerated) applies, meaning the Earth would re-collide with it at what is, for the sake of argument, an essentially infinite speed. This makes the vertical escape of any matter to all intents and purposes impossible.

If your idea worked then yes air couldnt escpae because the earth would hit catch the particle.  But the earth in not at infinite speed. 

Um, no. A liberal estimate would put its apex at no more than 9.5 miles above sea level.

The atmosphere is taller than 9.5 miles. 

Two things:
1: No I'm not, (see above), and
2: There's no "engineering" involved - the Ice Wall is a natural structure. How would life have evolved to construct it without the atmosphere it provides?

Mt Everest is not 10 miles high for a reason.  There is a thing called weather. 

Nope, we did the maths on this in a previous thread. An Ice Wall of even 10 miles would only noticably block stars at fairly close proximity - much further and they'd be blocked by atmospheric distortion anyway.

An object almost twice as tall as the tallest mountain would be noticed. 

Some. This would have occured millions of years ago until the atmolayer's volume had been reduced to such an extent that this no longer occured - bear in mind the intense difficulty which particles would have leaving the atmolayer in the first place.

It would be quite easy for particles to leave int he first place because gases never stop moving. 

Nope. This explanation defies Special Relativity. The particle that moves over the edge horizontally would be traveling upwards at the exact same upwards speed as the Earth. It would not collide with the Earth as it's over the edge and as it's traveling at the same speed. Your lack of understanding is a real problem here. Maybe you should ask for assistance.

The Earth is accelerating, not travelling at a constant speed. The particle would have the same speed as the Earth's hypothetical speed at the time of ejection, which would quickly change at such a steep acceleration.

Um. yes. The atmosphere is over 50 miles high and we've demonstrated that your UA collision hypothesis is incorrect.

It isn't. The atmosphere is no higher than 40-50 thousand feet, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

2: I really don't care who engineered it (man, God, nature, etc.). It still requires engineering far beyond what we've ever encountered.

You don't get it. "Engineered" IMPLIES human endeavour. The Atlantic Ocean is beyond any conceivable feat of engineering, yet it exists.

The mathematics do not support you as you claim. Furthermore over Antarctica viewing conditions are excellent. They are no atmospheric distortion that last for decades that would support your hypothesis.

In the thread I'm talking about, they did. FE basically won the thread.

Atmospheric distortion occurs wherever there is atmosphere.

SUSTAIN doesn't solve your problem. You forget Newton Law that a object in motion tends to remain in motion. These particles are traveling horizontally over the edge with a speed they will maintain. You'd run out of air fast.

To escape they have to sustain a speed greater than that of the Earth. The Earth's hypothetical speed is constantly, sharply increasing. While a small number of particles can gradually escape, no significant body of air will make it out.

You need to contain air not water. Air is much more energetic and prone to escape.

Bad analogy. However, it's still not prone enough to overcome, with sufficient frequency, the odds against its escape.

You're quite wrong here too. There is no intense difficulty as explained above.

No you're wrong, there is.

That was easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_altitude_balloon

"There is no definite boundary between the atmosphere and outer space. It slowly becomes thinner and fades into space. Three quarters of the atmosphere's mass is within 11 km of the planetary surface."

So say the Conspiracy. How does a quote which merely re-asserts the original claim constitute legitimate evidence?

The Earth is not a globe.

...the surface of all the waters of the earth is horizontal.

So say the Conspiracy. How does a quote which merely re-asserts the original claim constitute legitimate evidence?

I would take Wikipedia's peer-reviewed nature over a single scientists or organizations claims any day.

I would take Wikipedia's peer-reviewed nature over a single scientists or organizations claims any day.

Peer-reviewed? Is that a joke? A webpage which can be edited by anyone is not peer-reviewed.

Peer-reviewed? Is that a joke? A webpage which can be edited by anyone is not peer-reviewed.

It can't be edited by anyone. Especially not the ones pertaining to actual scientific information. Their mods are rather good at their jobs.

Also, people of the same profession, and such would read and contest anything with proof, hence peer review. People that have distrust in Wikipedia have misconceptions about how it really works.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 02:23:23 PM

Nope. This explanation defies Special Relativity. The particle that moves over the edge horizontally would be traveling upwards at the exact same upwards speed as the Earth. It would not collide with the Earth as it's over the edge and as it's traveling at the same speed. Your lack of understanding is a real problem here. Maybe you should ask for assistance.

The Earth is accelerating, not travelling at a constant speed. The particle would have the same speed as the Earth's hypothetical speed at the time of ejection, which would quickly change at such a steep acceleration.

Once the particle is over the edge and traveling away from the Earth, no amount of acceleration will cause the Earth to catch up with it again. You continue to spout nonsense.

Quote

Um. yes. The atmosphere is over 50 miles high and we've demonstrated that your UA collision hypothesis is incorrect.

It isn't. The atmosphere is no higher than 40-50 thousand feet, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

sokural has already answered the call.

Quote

2: I really don't care who engineered it (man, God, nature, etc.). It still requires engineering far beyond what we've ever encountered.

You don't get it. "Engineered" IMPLIES human endeavour. The Atlantic Ocean is beyond any conceivable feat of engineering, yet it exists.

I really can't prevent you from making incorrect inferences. Geology explains the mechanism for the creation of the Atlantic Ocean. An atmospheric container as you described is just another wild idea without explanation.

Quote

The mathematics do not support you as you claim. Furthermore over Antarctica viewing conditions are excellent. They are no atmospheric distortion that last for decades that would support your hypothesis.

In the thread I'm talking about, they did. FE basically won the thread.

Atmospheric distortion occurs wherever there is atmosphere.

No doubt this was a thread just like the photoelectric effect one. Your credibility still suffers from that. You always seem to remember these threads incorrectly as supporting FE.

Quote

SUSTAIN doesn't solve your problem. You forget Newton Law that a object in motion tends to remain in motion. These particles are traveling horizontally over the edge with a speed they will maintain. You'd run out of air fast.

To escape they have to sustain a speed greater than that of the Earth. The Earth's hypothetical speed is constantly, sharply increasing. While a small number of particles can gradually escape, no significant body of air will make it out.

Quote

You need to contain air not water. Air is much more energetic and prone to escape.

Bad analogy. However, it's still not prone enough to overcome, with sufficient frequency, the odds against its escape.

You don't understand probability. The RE atmosphere must be replenished constantly even with its thousand-mile-high container. A fifty-mile high container would not even come close to filling the bill. Have you done the mathematics required to support your claim?

Quote

You're quite wrong here too. There is no intense difficulty as explained above.

No you're wrong, there is.

Then show us the mathematics that show you're right.

Another phantom locking. I'm guessing the OP is repeatedly closing his own post, but I'll keep unlocking it as long as I'm online.

Once the particle is over the edge and traveling away from the Earth, no amount of acceleration will cause the Earth to catch up with it again. You continue to spout nonsense.

But air particle X has to get itself so that it is no longer vertically aligned with the Earth. I'm saying common sense dictates that this happens infrequently enough that no significant depletion occurs.

Another thing to take into account by the way, and you'll berate me for not bringing this up ealier, is that the Ice Wall's apex is easily one of the coldest points on the planet. Air particles near the edge are moving far slower than they normally would anyway.

It all stacks up to reveal that yes, particles could, theoretically spill over the edge, but cases of this are unlikely enough that the atmolayer does not significantly deplete.

sokural has already answered the call.

The say-so of the Conspiracy doesn't do it for me. I need hard evidence.

I really can't prevent you from making incorrect inferences. Geology explains the mechanism for the creation of the Atlantic Ocean. An atmospheric container as you described is just another wild idea without explanation.

Engineered always implies design, but whatever, enough word games.

There's a robust explanation for the generation of the Ice Wall too - perhaps you'd like to add it to your primer if you think "how was the Ice Wall made" is a viable criticism of FET. The path of the Sun in FET (remember that it cycles above the equator) is such that the North and South "poles" receive the least heat. The Ice Wall is the furthest Earthly point from the Sun - it represents the coldest possible locus which still remains on the Earth's surface, so naturally water there is frozen. There's nothing fanciful about the Ice Wall.

No doubt this was a thread just like the photoelectric effect one. Your credibility still suffers from that. You always seem to remember these threads incorrectly as supporting FE.

You're actually crying Conspiracy for thread display issues on this site? To think the FEers get accused of foil-hattism.

Anyway, try the search terms "waves" and "obscure". It's the one with the diagrams by yours truly, and started as an attempted attack on the law of natural perspective/a clarification of waves or something.

You don't understand probability. The RE atmosphere must be replenished constantly even with its thousand-mile-high container. A fifty-mile high container would not even come close to filling the bill. Have you done the mathematics required to support your claim?

I assume you're talking about replenishment from Earthly sources. I've never claimed that this sort of thing doesn't occur through photosynthesis, burning and all the other processes which do this.

And stop trying to debunk a 50-mile Ice Wall, I'm not arguing for that and I never have.

Then show us the mathematics that show you're right.

It's not mathematics, it's common sense. Given all the contributing factors, the escape of particles is unlikely and infrequent enough not to pose a serious threat to the Earth's atmolayer as a whole.

Quote from: divito on August 01, 2007, 02:45:47 PM

"There is no definite boundary between the atmosphere and outer space. It slowly becomes thinner and fades into space. Three quarters of the atmosphere's mass is within 11 km of the planetary surface."

So say the Conspiracy. How does a quote which merely re-asserts the original claim constitute legitimate evidence?

Hmmm. You've yet to provide any support for your figure on the height of the atmosphere.

Here's the link that I've already posted that shows the atmosphere extending over 70 miles: ou.

Hmmm. You've yet to provide any support for your figure on the height of the atmosphere.

Here's the link that I've already posted that shows the atmosphere extending over 70 miles: ou.

I know full well what REers believe about their spherical atmolayer. That link offers nothing in the way of evidence, only a breakdown of what REers believe.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 05:56:21 PM

Hmmm. You've yet to provide any support for your figure on the height of the atmosphere.

Here's the link that I've already posted that shows the atmosphere extending over 70 miles: ou.

I know full well what REers believe about their spherical atmolayer. That link offers nothing in the way of evidence, only a breakdown of what REers believe.

And I know full well that you will not change your stance no matter how many times we prove it.  The atmosphere is much higher then you think.  To say its not is to add a few more million people to the conspiracy. 

.

Quote from: Gulliver on August 01, 2007, 03:14:06 PM

Once the particle is over the edge and traveling away from the Earth, no amount of acceleration will cause the Earth to catch up with it again. You continue to spout nonsense.

But air particle X has to get itself so that it is no longer vertically aligned with the Earth. I'm saying common sense dictates that this happens infrequently enough that no significant depletion occurs.

Another thing to take into account by the way, and you'll berate me for not bringing this up ealier, is that the Ice Wall's apex is easily one of the coldest points on the planet. Air particles near the edge are moving far slower than they normally would anyway.

It all stacks up to reveal that yes, particles could, theoretically spill over the edge, but cases of this are unlikely enough that the atmolayer does not significantly deplete.

Okay, so I take it that you've given up of the ludicrous "UA catches up with the escaping particle" idea.

Your common sense is faulty. If you understood Brownian motion, you'd quickly understand that the same principle that inflates a balloon means the FE atmosphere will leak out. The air molecules bump into each other, the air moves outward. Air moves from high pressure to low pressure. Over the edge there is no pressure, so air would move other the edge. It's basic science.

Have you proven that experimentally on your own?

Quote

I really can't prevent you from making incorrect inferences. Geology explains the mechanism for the creation of the Atlantic Ocean. An atmospheric container as you described is just another wild idea without explanation.

Engineered always implies design, but whatever, enough word games.

There's a robust explanation for the generation of the Ice Wall too - perhaps you'd like to add it to your primer if you think "how was the Ice Wall made" is a viable criticism of FET. The path of the Sun in FET (remember that it cycles above the equator) is such that the North and South "poles" receive the least heat. The Ice Wall is the furthest Earthly point from the Sun - it represents the coldest possible locus which still remains on the Earth's surface, so naturally water there is frozen. There's nothing fanciful about the Ice Wall.

You fail here since the North Pole doesn't have a mile-high spire of naturally frozen water.