weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)

  • 15 Replies
  • 2066 Views
?

burt

  • 849
weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« on: August 31, 2012, 09:57:17 AM »
Levee claims in one of his posts that because the atmosphere is so heavy: "4 million billion tons" it would hinder the movement of anything on the planet "We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens."
Furthermore, he postulates "Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas?"

this is the arguement he uses againt the possible rotation of the earth.

this is clearly unmitigated poppycock or mendacious codswallop, which assumes its own conclusion. the fact is that per cubic meter the weight of the atmosphere turns out ot be about 1.2g. and because it is air, and not solid, the heft behind atmospheric pressure gets distributed and so is easy to walk through. moreover, point out one animal on this planet who weighs less than 1.2 grams per cubic meter?

Even more if what levee was saying was true, then it should be impossible for fish to get trhough water, which is  1027 kg/m3 at the surface. though I admit the physics of swimming through water is a little more complicated, and relies a lot on push and pull.


 
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 09:58:57 AM by burt »

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2012, 10:05:23 AM »
Levee claims in one of his posts that because the atmosphere is so heavy: "4 million billion tons" it would hinder the movement of anything on the planet "We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens."
Furthermore, he postulates "Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas?"

this is the arguement he uses againt the possible rotation of the earth.

this is clearly unmitigated poppycock or mendacious codswallop, which assumes its own conclusion. the fact is that per cubic meter the weight of the atmosphere turns out ot be about 1.2g. and because it is air, and not solid, the heft behind atmospheric pressure gets distributed and so is easy to walk through. moreover, point out one animal on this planet who weighs less than 1.2 grams per cubic meter?

Even more if what levee was saying was true, then it should be impossible for fish to get trhough water, which is  1027 kg/m3 at the surface. though I admit the physics of swimming through water is a little more complicated, and relies a lot on push and pull.

To compound on that, the physics of moving through water is the same as moving through air. They're both considered "fluid medium." It is the air that is actually much more complicated. You either need a solid to push off of, or a lot of lightweight surface area specifically designed to create pressure differentials. This is because it's so "thin."

But other than that, you pretty much summed up anything that can be said on this topic, unless someone presents a well founded argument. Which I don't see happening.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

burt

  • 849
Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2012, 10:07:18 AM »
Levee claims in one of his posts that because the atmosphere is so heavy: "4 million billion tons" it would hinder the movement of anything on the planet "We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens."
Furthermore, he postulates "Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas?"

this is the arguement he uses againt the possible rotation of the earth.

this is clearly unmitigated poppycock or mendacious codswallop, which assumes its own conclusion. the fact is that per cubic meter the weight of the atmosphere turns out ot be about 1.2g. and because it is air, and not solid, the heft behind atmospheric pressure gets distributed and so is easy to walk through. moreover, point out one animal on this planet who weighs less than 1.2 grams per cubic meter?

Even more if what levee was saying was true, then it should be impossible for fish to get trhough water, which is  1027 kg/m3 at the surface. though I admit the physics of swimming through water is a little more complicated, and relies a lot on push and pull.

To compound on that, the physics of moving through water is the same as moving through air. They're both considered "fluid medium." It is the air that is actually much more complicated. You either need a solid to push off of, or a lot of lightweight surface area specifically designed to create pressure differentials. This is because it's so "thin."

But other than that, you pretty much summed up anything that can be said on this topic, unless someone presents a well founded argument. Which I don't see happening.

I am not too big on fluid mechanics, I would have expected water to be more complicated, but what you say makes sense.

I just thought I'd say something against levee, because he clearly thinks he makes sense, when he really does not.

you should have seen my first composition of this post I broke all the maths down and interjected some sarcastic remarks, I decided against it, because it would have too rude, and my mathematical  form are a little ropey I constantly get marked down for form (i.e stucture of my working out) rather than answers, at Uni.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 10:15:51 AM by burt »

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2012, 10:08:12 AM »
Levee claims in one of his posts that because the atmosphere is so heavy: "4 million billion tons" it would hinder the movement of anything on the planet "We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens."
Furthermore, he postulates "Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas?"

this is the arguement he uses againt the possible rotation of the earth.

this is clearly unmitigated poppycock or mendacious codswallop, which assumes its own conclusion. the fact is that per cubic meter the weight of the atmosphere turns out ot be about 1.2g. and because it is air, and not solid, the heft behind atmospheric pressure gets distributed and so is easy to walk through. moreover, point out one animal on this planet who weighs less than 1.2 grams per cubic meter?

Even more if what levee was saying was true, then it should be impossible for fish to get trhough water, which is  1027 kg/m3 at the surface. though I admit the physics of swimming through water is a little more complicated, and relies a lot on push and pull.

To compound on that, the physics of moving through water is the same as moving through air. They're both considered "fluid medium." It is the air that is actually much more complicated. You either need a solid to push off of, or a lot of lightweight surface area specifically designed to create pressure differentials. This is because it's so "thin."

But other than that, you pretty much summed up anything that can be said on this topic, unless someone presents a well founded argument. Which I don't see happening.

I am not too big on fluid mechanics, I would have expected water to be more complicated, but what you say makes sense.

I just thought I'd say something against levee, because he clearly thinks he makes sense, when he really does not.

Yes I agree. No sense at all. It makes as much sense as the thread I started yesterday.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

burt

  • 849
Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2012, 10:14:28 AM »
Levee claims in one of his posts that because the atmosphere is so heavy: "4 million billion tons" it would hinder the movement of anything on the planet "We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens."
Furthermore, he postulates "Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas?"

this is the arguement he uses againt the possible rotation of the earth.

this is clearly unmitigated poppycock or mendacious codswallop, which assumes its own conclusion. the fact is that per cubic meter the weight of the atmosphere turns out ot be about 1.2g. and because it is air, and not solid, the heft behind atmospheric pressure gets distributed and so is easy to walk through. moreover, point out one animal on this planet who weighs less than 1.2 grams per cubic meter?

Even more if what levee was saying was true, then it should be impossible for fish to get trhough water, which is  1027 kg/m3 at the surface. though I admit the physics of swimming through water is a little more complicated, and relies a lot on push and pull.

To compound on that, the physics of moving through water is the same as moving through air. They're both considered "fluid medium." It is the air that is actually much more complicated. You either need a solid to push off of, or a lot of lightweight surface area specifically designed to create pressure differentials. This is because it's so "thin."

But other than that, you pretty much summed up anything that can be said on this topic, unless someone presents a well founded argument. Which I don't see happening.

I am not too big on fluid mechanics, I would have expected water to be more complicated, but what you say makes sense.

I just thought I'd say something against levee, because he clearly thinks he makes sense, when he really does not.

Yes I agree. No sense at all. It makes as much sense as the thread I started yesterday.

I think I will go through more of his stuff, it makes interesting (if surreal) reading.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2012, 10:16:49 AM »
Levee claims in one of his posts that because the atmosphere is so heavy: "4 million billion tons" it would hinder the movement of anything on the planet "We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens."
Furthermore, he postulates "Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas?"

this is the arguement he uses againt the possible rotation of the earth.

this is clearly unmitigated poppycock or mendacious codswallop, which assumes its own conclusion. the fact is that per cubic meter the weight of the atmosphere turns out ot be about 1.2g. and because it is air, and not solid, the heft behind atmospheric pressure gets distributed and so is easy to walk through. moreover, point out one animal on this planet who weighs less than 1.2 grams per cubic meter?

Even more if what levee was saying was true, then it should be impossible for fish to get trhough water, which is  1027 kg/m3 at the surface. though I admit the physics of swimming through water is a little more complicated, and relies a lot on push and pull.

To compound on that, the physics of moving through water is the same as moving through air. They're both considered "fluid medium." It is the air that is actually much more complicated. You either need a solid to push off of, or a lot of lightweight surface area specifically designed to create pressure differentials. This is because it's so "thin."

But other than that, you pretty much summed up anything that can be said on this topic, unless someone presents a well founded argument. Which I don't see happening.

I am not too big on fluid mechanics, I would have expected water to be more complicated, but what you say makes sense.

I just thought I'd say something against levee, because he clearly thinks he makes sense, when he really does not.

Yes I agree. No sense at all. It makes as much sense as the thread I started yesterday.

I think I will go through more of his stuff, it makes interesting (if surreal) reading.

I can't read it, I've heard to many strange, mystical theories from the acid heads I used to hang around with. I am ooookaaay without any more.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35363
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2012, 07:37:35 PM »
But other than that, you pretty much summed up anything that can be said on this topic, unless someone presents a well founded argument. Which I don't see happening.

Alternatively (and more likely), levee could post a wall of text here nobody will be able to read or comprehend.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2012, 08:23:11 PM »
Levee claims

This is a terrible way to start off a post if you intend for anyone to read it.

Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2012, 02:31:23 AM »
Levee is so wrong on so many questions that it is hard to know what to start with.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5517
Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2012, 12:24:10 AM »
emperorsharkforeskin, I dare you to show where I was wrong...no such thing, not yet!

Here is the entire discussion about the rotation of the atmosphere, burt...you might learn something.

From Galileo was wrong:

If we look more closely at the overall relationship of the Earth to the atmosphere (in addition to the Coriolis forces), the air patterns we see on the Earth today do not correspond to a rotating Earth. They correspond to a fixed Earth.

Atmospheric circulation:

The conventional model

Global air circulation can be explained in a two-step model. The first starts with three simplifying assumptions:

The Earth is not rotating in space.
The Earth’s surface is composed of similar materials.
Solar heating and loss of infrared radiation cause a temperature gradient of hot air at the equator and cold air at the poles, forcing warm air away from the equator toward the poles.

The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph. Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:

If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.

The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.
Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach’s principle is still in effect, as always. But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns? It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes – that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth – it defies either logic or observation.

If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.

Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.



Do you understand these things burt? Or do I have to spell them out for you?


Have you ever heard of the restoring forces paradox? It seems not, otherwise you would have not opened this thread.

http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

A brief excerpt for you...


Conclusion

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude. In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.

If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).

Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.

Since there is no restoring field, the World and its associated atmosphere cannot be rotating about an axis. Observations of daily celestial motion in this case show that the universe must be geostationary, or else geobounded.


And this is only the tip of the iceberg...clearly you haven't done your homework to even dare to call me here to debate with you...

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2012, 02:23:38 AM »
But other than that, you pretty much summed up anything that can be said on this topic, unless someone presents a well founded argument. Which I don't see happening.

Alternatively (and more likely), levee could post a wall of text here nobody will be able to read or comprehend.

$10 to Saddam!
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2012, 03:40:05 PM »
Have you ever heard of the restoring forces paradox? It seems not, otherwise you would have not opened this thread.

http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

This is the only part of this wall of blabber that even deserves a second look (but not a third).

Why on Earth did the author decide that one of the forces on an individual molecule in the air has to be counteracted by one force in the opposite direction? In fact, the two forces the author mentions are some of the least important in defining if the molecule will stay in the atmosphere or fly away to outer space. What real physics say is that the sum total of forces on the molecule define whether it will stay or fly away.

Also, all those nice little formulas ignore a very simple fact: the atmosphere is very thin compared with the radius of the Earth. (R + h) is almost exactly the same as R, so the whole argument is about minuscule differences in minuscule forces, ignoring the really significant forces on the molecule.

Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2012, 12:49:59 AM »

http://www.realityreviewed.com/


This website is a load of shit and hatred. I'm not going to take into consideration anything said by it.

Let me quote:

"There is a very real and serious danger that the Zionist/Nazi regimes of Britain, the United States and so-called 'Israel' are going to commit another false flag atrocity in London, with a view to pinning the blame upon Iran/Syria and/or Venezuela and thus starting World War III."

"Zionism is a Vatican/Jesuism plan"

Etc.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2012, 05:26:27 AM »

http://www.realityreviewed.com/


This website is a load of shit and hatred. I'm not going to take into consideration anything said by it.

Let me quote:

"There is a very real and serious danger that the Zionist/Nazi regimes of Britain, the United States and so-called 'Israel' are going to commit another false flag atrocity in London, with a view to pinning the blame upon Iran/Syria and/or Venezuela and thus starting World War III."

"Zionism is a Vatican/Jesuism plan"

Etc.
The only redeeming quality it has is it tries to give a mathematical formulation of something. In this sense it rises the bar a few meters above levee's inconsequential tantrum. The bar is still very low, however.

I think you are right, though, in not spending one more second in a Zionist Conspiracy Theory hate publication.

?

burt

  • 849
Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« Reply #14 on: September 04, 2012, 04:13:55 AM »
Levee claims

This is a terrible way to start off a post if you intend for anyone to read it.

I'm sorry rushy, go elsewhere if you don't like it.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« Reply #15 on: September 04, 2012, 07:12:20 AM »
As I said before, I cannot read levee's crap. It's crap, and I've had way to much conspiracy theory, wacky crap spewed from acid heads in my lifetime.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.