sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory

Please access my messages on telluric currents.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714 (read this one carefully)

www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1394310.html#msg1394310

UNIFICATION of electricity and magnetism:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714

A magnetic field is made up of double helices of subquarks (see the first two links for the proofs).

Subquarks consist of bosons and antibosons.

Magnetism and electricity are a flow of bosons through these subquarks strings.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101 (existence of subquarks and bosons strings which make up a subquark)


TELLURIC CURRENTS

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1423468.html#msg1423468

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1424613.html#msg1424613

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1424161.html#msg1424161



ANVIL CLOUDS

Official science: Anvil clouds form in the tops of thunderstorms 5 to 10 miles high and consist mainly of ice.

That is a very interesting and complex theory you got there. I admit, I am an experimental type, not a theorist. Does your theory make any predictions? Do you have any equations or models for your system? Also, from a theory perspective, what force is holding this four loop atom vortex together? There will be a constant force twisting it apart.

Are you posing as a meteorologist again?

For someone who wrote that in order to reach the MAXIMUM amount of pressure, the same pressure has to get lower and  lower, you should be more considerate when offering advices here (to anybody).

Sandokhan, you really can believe what you want about whether I am in the profession that I say. I am an Aerographer's Mate in the Navy and we do spend every day dealing with weather. There are different levels of skill in this profession as there are in any field. In particular, I mostly deal with radar propagation and how models will effect the ability of those radars. I gave the best explanation I could about this problem and after taking a careful look I admit that this paradox is quite interesting.

I used NOAA to look at various weather station's and noticed that you were correct, the pressure seems to be doing something different than what we are taught about weather. Such details are insignificant when doing an actual forecast because the important thing to know is that in the the morning there is a minimum and then you can just base a forecast off of that. I took heed to our bickering conversation and actually brought the topic up with many of colleague's and supervisors and what spawned was an engaging conversation. Some were surprised and after much thought and consideration I was able to come up with an answer that I find satisfactory and that I hope you will too.

Semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure do not occur everywhere. As I looked at various weather stations to research your claim I didn't notice that the stations I was searching were all coastal, or at least were in areas where there was reasons for semidiurnal (as opposed to diurnal) changes to occur. These could be coastal areas, mountainous areas and areas with inversion among many other reasons. Nearly all of these spots (and there are many) have a common characteristic in the morning and that is cloud cover. Clouds form in the troposphere, and this generally happens when one or more lifting agents causes air containing water vapor to rise and cool to its dew point, the temperature at which the air becomes saturated. Depending on geography it is far more likely for cloud cover to exist in the morning. This is when a semidiurnal change in barometric pressure takes place.

In the morning, the sun does indeed warm the earths surface but at the same time the top layer of clouds, fog or marine layers are also heated and at a faster rate than that of the earths surface. As this happens the air beneath the layer of clouds can't expand and compression beneath the clouds will occur giving you a trend toward higher pressure (and of course that minimum at 4am). Typically, around 10am the clouds (or other weather related phenomena) will clear up. This allows the compressed heat to burst through and expand as it should and this gives us a maximum barometer reading as heating continues throughout the day and pressure is released, as expected.

As that explanation for semidiurnal changes in pressure was explained it occurred to us to consider, "What is an ideal environment where cloud cover is not likely in the morning?" Where could we find a place relatively flat, away from water and less likely to experience weather. That's right, the desert. It turns out that places like a desert exemplify exactly what we are taught by high school science in regards to pressure. I chose a random location (Twenty-Nine Palms, CA) to test this out and plotted my findings in MS Powerpoint to show you the relationship and that there is no paradox. All times and numbers used in the graph are taken from Sep 13th, 2013.

Here is a link where you can confirm that my graph uses the correct numbers:

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=vef&sid=KNXP&num=72&raw=0

On this graph the bottom axis is time while the left side is temperature and the right side is pressure. Notice the nearly perfect inverse relationship.



This is not the semidiurnal relationship that you said exists everywhere. This is an expected diurnal relationship. Barometric pressure does what is expected in an ideal setting. The semidiurnal relationships that you mentioned only apply in situations where there is some weather related cause and even then the laws of pressure and gravity are obeyed.

You aren't really proving anything sandokhan. The atmosphere, the ocean and everything is just so much more complicated than you think it is.

The water in a cloud can have a mass of several million tons.

It is a massive object AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

WHAT? Do you know what a droplet is?

drop·let
ˈdräplit/
noun
noun: droplet; plural noun: droplets

    1.
    a very small drop of a liquid.

It's not a massive object AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY. You can say it is but then you are ignoring the fact that a cloud is full of droplets. Not sure how this is difficult to understand so whatever.

Quote from: sandokhan

The water in a cloud can have a mass of several million tons.

It is a massive object AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

WHAT? Do you know what a droplet is?

drop·let
ˈdräplit/
noun
noun: droplet; plural noun: droplets

    1.
    a very small drop of a liquid.

It's not a massive object AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY. You can say it is but then you are ignoring the fact that a cloud is full of droplets. Not sure how this is difficult to understand so whatever.

sandokahn doesn't understand what he posts. I tired to get him to paraphrase what he posts in his own words and he never can. If it confuses him or if it's over 100 years old, he believes in it. Nothing more.

You know what's very similar to a cloud?



CLOUD


FOG

Fog is even technically classified as a type of cloud called stratus.

Now, I don't know about you but after walking through one of these myself it is safe to say that it is not "AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY".

You still do not understand the physics involved here.

Official science: typical cumulus cloud has some 1/2 g per cubic meter of water density

Typical cumulus cloud = one cubic kilometer in size = one billion km in volume

total water content of the cloud = 500,000,000 grams of water, or 1.1 million pounds


Now, the explanation offered by science is related to the water vapour argument, which is no longer accepted so easily:

But that doesn't explain why water molecules condensed into liquid form 1000 times denser than the air directly below them, manage to suspend themselves against gravity. The cloud argument based on wind holding them up does not work in this case. And neither does the moist air less dense than dry air argument (although that doesn't work for clouds either because we are talking about condensed water in liquid form not the gaseous vapour form).

Fog can appear on frozen lakes so I doubt covection is operating in that case. We are talking about droplets that are 1000 times the density and weight of the very slow moving warm air below moving upward. There shouldn't be any physical process to overide the gravity pulling on those droplets.

I think it's obvious there is another unexplained process of an electrical nature suspending the water against the pull of gravity.

I find it hard to accept that 1000 times denser and heavier water droplets are able to be suspended by air molecules. They may counteract the pull of gravity for a short while for but the weight should overwhelm this buffeting pretty quick. For it to last even a short while the air molecules would need to be flowing mainly upwards but this certainly isn't true within a milimeter of the surface of the earth. There is a reason the gravity is counteracted and its not convection or updraft. I only state that I believe the reason to have an electrical nature.

I am certain that electricity plays a far larger role generally in the atmosphere than the mainstream is aware of or is willing to admit.

Floating clouds that defy gravity are a direct observational contradiction to the pseudoscientific cult of gravitation.


A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.



Here is the official data on the semidiurnal changes in the barometer pressure.

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

For example, here is the data on the barometric pressure in Taiwan:

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan, for example, (at 25 degrees N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST.

Furthermore, and I quote:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. (National Weather Service)


Your cloud cover argument is childish, as there are plenty of days in the year where your description does not apply at all. There are days where clouds persist THE WHOLE DAY, and yet the barometer pressure paradox exists, a clear violation of your deduction.

Typically, around 10am the clouds (or other weather related phenomena) will clear up.

Unfortunately, the clouds might clear up at 8:00 am, or 9:00 am, or even later, or not at all...

Therefore, you have explained nothing at all.


The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


Your graph/bibliographical reference used the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE, which IS NOT the actual local atmospheric pressure. Also the density of mercury will change with temperature, so a reading must be adjusted for the temperature of the instrument.

HERE IS THE LINK YOU POSTED: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=vef&sid=KNXP&num=72&raw=0

National Weather Service right?

THE SAME WEBSITE SAYS THIS ABOUT THE SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/atmos/pressure.htm




Dayton Miller proved long ago the existence of periodic waves of telluric currents (ether):


PERIODICITY OF GLOBAL ETHER-DRIFT, from Dayton Miller's Mount Wilson Ether-Drift Experiments, 1925-26. The Top Graph above plots data from four separate months or epochs, measured at different times of the year and organized by sidereal time, showing a definite periodic curve. The heavy line is the mean of all four epochs. The Bottom Graph (above) plots the same data organized by civil clock time coordinates; here, the plotted data spreads out along the graph, without apparent periodicity. This demonstrates, the detected axis and periodicity of ether drift is the same for different times of year, but can only be seen when the data is viewed within a cosmological, sidereal coordinate system. (From Miller 1928, p.362)


Dr. T. Henry Moray:

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


While investigating the output of his device, he discovered a feature of the natural static energy, which had somehow been overlooked by other aerial battery designers. The electrostatic power had a flimmering, pulsating quality to it. He learned of this "static pulsation" while listening through headphones, which were connected to telephone wires. The static came in a single, potent surge. This first "wave" subsided, with numerous "back surges" following. Soon thereafter, the process repeated itself. The static surges came "like ocean waves". Indeed, with the volume of "white noise" which they produced, they sounded like ocean waves!

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge.

You still do not understand the physics involved here.

Official science: typical cumulus cloud has some 1/2 g per cubic meter of water density

Typical cumulus cloud = one cubic kilometer in size = one billion km in volume

total water content of the cloud = 500,000,000 grams of water, or 1.1 million pounds

These numbers are not an assessment of a combined state of water in a cloud. It is just the sum of water. It is not some enormous "blob" of water as you seem to be suggesting.

Now, the explanation offered by science is related to the water vapour argument, which is no longer accepted so easily:

But that doesn't explain why water molecules condensed into liquid form 1000 times denser than the air directly below them, manage to suspend themselves against gravity. The cloud argument based on wind holding them up does not work in this case. And neither does the moist air less dense than dry air argument (although that doesn't work for clouds either because we are talking about condensed water in liquid form not the gaseous vapour form).

Fog can appear on frozen lakes so I doubt covection is operating in that case. We are talking about droplets that are 1000 times the density and weight of the very slow moving warm air below moving upward. There shouldn't be any physical process to overide the gravity pulling on those droplets.

I think it's obvious there is another unexplained process of an electrical nature suspending the water against the pull of gravity.

I find it hard to accept that 1000 times denser and heavier water droplets are able to be suspended by air molecules. They may counteract the pull of gravity for a short while for but the weight should overwhelm this buffeting pretty quick. For it to last even a short while the air molecules would need to be flowing mainly upwards but this certainly isn't true within a milimeter of the surface of the earth. There is a reason the gravity is counteracted and its not convection or updraft. I only state that I believe the reason to have an electrical nature.

I am certain that electricity plays a far larger role generally in the atmosphere than the mainstream is aware of or is willing to admit.

It is totally plausible that electricity plays a large role. I don't see the mainstream making any claims on the contrary.  My only claim is that the causes are by a multitude of factors.

Floating clouds that defy gravity are a direct observational contradiction to the pseudoscientific cult of gravitation.
[/i]

A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.

...and when that coalescence causes the droplets density to exceed the density of the air around it we have rain. This particular part is very simple.

Here is the official data on the semidiurnal changes in the barometer pressure.

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

For example, here is the data on the barometric pressure in Taiwan:


http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.htm

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan, for example, (at 25 degrees N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST.

as I've pointed out to you before, this is a useless broken link.

Furthermore, and I quote:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. (National Weather Service)

Your cloud cover argument is childish, as there are plenty of days in the year where your description does not apply at all. There are days where clouds persist THE WHOLE DAY, and yet the barometer pressure paradox exists, a clear violation of your deduction.

Typically, around 10am the clouds (or other weather related phenomena) will clear up.

Unfortunately, the clouds might clear up at 8:00 am, or 9:00 am, or even later, or not at all...

Therefore, you have explained nothing at all.

Your attempt to provide a source using a broken link with an example of a semi-diurnal pressure change is not very convincing. Here is a link of some actual observations taken recently:

Coronado:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0
I am in Coronado. Every morning here exists a deep marine layer and this means that there is a semi-diurnal relationship between pressure and temperature. Note that yesterday (14SEP) the maximum altimeter setting reached a maximum at 9am and not 10am as you suggest. Similarly, in the evening the maximum was reached at 9pm and not 10pm as you suggest.

And here is REAL data for TAIWAN and not your cherry-picked source:
http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/RCSS.html
Note that last night pressure reached a maximum at 8pm and then this morning reached a minimum at 2am. Even your example of Taiwan does not use the exact 4am, 10am, 4pm, 10pm values that you say they do.

This is not to say that when a semi-diurnal relationship is happening that these effects do not typically happen at the suggested times, but it is not always spot on.

Your objection that cloud cover is a childish argument is unwarranted considering you've yet to show one official observation of semi-diurnal barometer readings. I have shown you that not only do the times in semi-diurnal changes not always happen at the same time but under perfect conditions it isn't semi-diurnal at all.

It isn't just clouds that cause unstable conditions where high or low pressure can be trapped as I have shown. Many factors go into this and specifically with terrain and coastal areas this can include but not limit: on and off shore flow, land breezes, sea breezes, thermal low circulations driving monsoon circulations, valley breezes and mountain breezes.

Some of these describe microscale events that happen every single day in places with these attributes and contribute to their tendency for cloud cover but even without the production of clouds their effects can effect heating and pressure. For example in the morning water next to land is being heated at a slower rate than that of the land in a place like Taiwan. This creates a pressure minimum over the land due to its relative warmth, and forces higher pressure and cooler air from the sea to move inland and replace that rising warm air. This is called a sea breeze.

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


Your graph/bibliographical reference used the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE, which IS NOT the actual local atmospheric pressure. Also the density of mercury will change with temperature, so a reading must be adjusted for the temperature of the instrument.

HERE IS THE LINK YOU POSTED: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=vef&sid=KNXP&num=72&raw=0

National Weather Service right?

THE SAME WEBSITE SAYS THIS ABOUT THE SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

You are incorrect. The references used show Sea Level Pressure, Station Pressure and Altimeter setting. My graph uses Altimeter setting which is obvious if you just look at the numbers. Did you even verify if I used the correct numbers? The relationship between pressure and temperature in a "perfect air" setting like Twenty-Nine Palms, CA is as expected. Your assessment that semi-diurnal barometric pressure paradox's occur everywhere, everyday is blatantly false. Only in such a setting where there is cloud cover (near coastal and mountainous areas) or consistent microscale events is there semi-diurnal changes. You seem to be in utter denial at this point.

Your assessment of what needs to be done to a mercury barometer is a laughable straw man. When observations taken with those barometers are taken then I'm sure the proper procedures are taken to produce an accurate result before it is submitted to NOAA. My experience on Naval ships is with Aneroid Barometers and the only adjustment to be made with those is a simple tap necessary in order to release sticktion.

My source for NOAA and its assessment of basic pressure change is perfectly correct with everything I have been saying. Heating from the sun on either the clouds, mountains, land, water and the atmosphere all contribute to what is usually a semi-diurnal temperature change. It is not NOT just air parcels expanding which contribute to these effects as I have shown. A cloud could trap that pressure, low pressure can move in due to a sea breeze and so on and those events are produced by heat from the sun.

These numbers are not an assessment of a combined state of water in a cloud. It is just the sum of water. It is not some enormous "blob" of water as you seem to be suggesting.

This alone suggets you haven't passed Physics 101 at all.

Official science: typical cumulus cloud has some 1/2 g per cubic meter of water density

Typical cumulus cloud = one cubic kilometer in size = one billion m in volume

total water content of the cloud = 500,000,000 grams of water, or 1.1 million pounds

The combined state of water (your wording) in any cloud, for a certain volume and density will have a certain weight.

For that volume, one billion meters, and a density of 1/2 g per cubic meter, there will be a weight of 1.1 million pounds.


End of story.

...and when that coalescence causes the droplets density to exceed the density of the air around it we have rain. This particular part is very simple.

Remember, this is the official explanation which cannot be true.

We are talking about droplets that are 1000 times the density and weight of the very slow moving warm air below moving upward. There shouldn't be any physical process to overide the gravity pulling on those droplets.

I think it's obvious there is another unexplained process of an electrical nature suspending the water against the pull of gravity.

I find it hard to accept that 1000 times denser and heavier water droplets are able to be suspended by air molecules. They may counteract the pull of gravity for a short while for but the weight should overwhelm this buffeting pretty quick. For it to last even a short while the air molecules would need to be flowing mainly upwards but this certainly isn't true within a milimeter of the surface of the earth. There is a reason the gravity is counteracted and its not convection or updraft. I only state that I believe the reason to have an electrical nature.

I am certain that electricity plays a far larger role generally in the atmosphere than the mainstream is aware of or is willing to admit.


The cloud droplets DEFY any attractive gravity - with a density of some 800 to 1000 times of air, the water droplets defy any simple minded explanation (like the one you so readily accept).


It is amazing how you react to some broken link, given the quality of your posts so far.

Rest assured that the information contained there was and is true, no cherry picking at all.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE official information

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

My comment on the altimeter reading is very well based on real science, you simply haven't done your homework.

You continue to post links to SEA LEVEL PRESSURE and MEAN SEA LEVEL PRESSURE measurements which are useless for our discussion.


THE SAME NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAYS THIS, PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

Do you understand English?

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

Lord Rayleigh tried to explain this phenomenon using your laughable explanations but he saw very quickly they do not work at all:

The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

So far, your bumbling assessments amount to nothing at all: you have no proper explanation for the barometer pressure paradox.

LET ME REMIND YOU AGAIN, this the official data from the National Weather Service, the very same database you quote over and over again, not realizing that the measurements there are SEA LEVEL PRESSURE numbers:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

THIS HAPPENS EVERYWHERE, EVERY DAY.

Official science: typical cumulus cloud has some 1/2 g per cubic meter of water density

Why do you keep repeating yourself? And do you know that there is around 1300g of air per m³ so 0.5g/m³ is very small compared to that?

Sandy,

My choice of the phrase "combined state of water" was used to point out how I believe YOU are interpreting the numbers you've posted over and over. I compared that phrase with what it actually is and that is the sum of water. These parts or droplets as we've agreed to describe them are not "a combined state" that is AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY. Please, let that sink in.

Furthermore, as Cartesian has pointed out air is even more dense than that so there is that.

Onto barometric pressure,

I react grudgingly to your use of a broken link because it is the same broken link that you've posted before, which I also complained about already. You never fixed it then and apparently you are not fixing it now and just want me to "take you word for it". You've made it exceedingly difficult to expect you to exhibit anything resembling intellectual honesty so no, I won't just, take your word for it.

You then go on to say that I continue to post links for SEA LEVEL PRESSURE, but then I pointed out that those links (if you actually look at them) use Sea Level Pressure, Altimeter AND Station Pressure. They are all included in my links. Furthermore, all three pressure readings are proportional. So when Sea Level Pressure goes up or down then so too do Altimeter and Station Pressure. Therefore, for our purposes it is irrelevant. So stop trying to make this point.

and then finally, you've been caught pretty much lying. You have said this in another thread:

What is most amazing about the Barometric Pressure Paradox is the fact that it occurs each and every day, at those precise points in time: if the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

However, you can see from my links showing REAL-TIME observations from NOAA, the most reputable and official source regarding oceanic and atmospheric information and observations, that this is not true. The statement you keep posting from NWS is a generalized statement about what is expected and I don't disagree with it as ON THE AVERAGE a semi-diurnal change occurs at 4AM, 10AM, 4PM and 10PM but I have shown you WITH REAL OBSERVATIONS submitted by trained weather observers that not only do these changes not always occur at precisely those times but sometimes it is not even semi-diurnal and is instead diurnal. You do understand the distinction don't you?

This is the crux of your argument and I have shown you with official observations that your assessment is FALSE.

To add further harm to your arguments I have not only shown you that REAL observations do not fit in with your generalization that it ALWAYS HAPPENS AT A PRECISE TIME, but I have also given you explanations as to what causes a semi-diurnal pressure change and under what simpler conditions we would get the diurnal change that basic science would expect. I have shown you how depending on the location, most places have topographical or coastal considerations that cause consistent cloud cover and/or micro-scale events that happen with fairly regular consistency and in my opinion, I have eloquently described how this works in a way that a child could understand it.

Your final statement is "THIS HAPPENS EVERYWHERE, EVERYDAY". -FALSE

You are welcome to say this all you want but when faced with links using an official source like NOAA that show data that is to the contrary then it is apparent that you are IN DENIAL.

 

Since electricity is an important aspect of atmospheric behaviors, electricity can probably be used in some way to 'defeat' or override gravity.

Since electricity is an important aspect of atmospheric behaviors, electricity can probably be used in some way to 'defeat' or override gravity.

You mean like lightning man being in a fight with gravity man? Raiden vs Neo? Why are you so hell bent on not believing what is so obviously true? It's a round world.

These numbers are not an assessment of a combined state of water in a cloud. It is just the sum of water. It is not some enormous "blob" of water as you seem to be suggesting.

This alone suggets you haven't passed Physics 101 at all.

Official science: typical cumulus cloud has some 1/2 g per cubic meter of water density

Typical cumulus cloud = one cubic kilometer in size = one billion m in volume

total water content of the cloud = 500,000,000 grams of water, or 1.1 million pounds

The combined state of water (your wording) in any cloud, for a certain volume and density will have a certain weight.

For that volume, one billion meters, and a density of 1/2 g per cubic meter, there will be a weight of 1.1 million pounds.


End of story.

...

Fill a pot with water. Put it on your stove and bring it to a boil. There you go, water vapor floating away. End of story. You seem to be stuck on repeat and unable to think for yourself.

Quote from: sandokhan on September 16, 2013, 01:40:39 AM

Official science: typical cumulus cloud has some 1/2 g per cubic meter of water density

Why do you keep repeating yourself? And do you know that there is around 1300g of air per m³ so 0.5g/m³ is very small compared to that?

He keeps repeating himself because he can't elaborate since he doesn't understand what he is posting.

Since electricity is an important aspect of atmospheric behaviors, electricity can probably be used in some way to 'defeat' or override gravity.

That is not how science works. He keeps thinking that a Sharper Image Ionic Breeze is magic.

Why do you keep repeating yourself? And do you know that there is around 1300g of air per m3 so 0.5g/m3 is very small compared to that?

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Air = gaseous state of matter

Cloud droplets = LIQUID state of matter

Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation.


These parts or droplets as we've agreed to describe them are not "a combined state" that is AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY. Please, let that sink in.

Is this guy for real?

Does he even understand the most basic facts of physics?

OFFICIAL STANDARD TEXTBOOKS:

Clouds can have a large range of mass per volume, depending on how large and numerous the cloud droplets or ice crystals are that are in them.

How much does the water in a cumulus cloud weigh? Peggy limee, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, did the numbers.

"The water in the little cloud weighs about 550 tons," she calculates.


As I said, END OF STORY.


However, you can see from my links showing REAL-TIME observations from NOAA, the most reputable and official source regarding oceanic and atmospheric information and observations, that this is not true. The statement you keep posting from NWS is a generalized statement about what is expected and I don't disagree with it as ON THE AVERAGE a semi-diurnal change occurs at 4AM, 10AM, 4PM and 10PM but I have shown you WITH REAL OBSERVATIONS submitted by trained weather observers that not only do these changes not always occur at precisely those times but sometimes it is not even semi-diurnal and is instead diurnal.

You haven't shown anything.

Do you understand where we are and what we are discussing here?

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE official information

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm

Can you understand these basic facts of atmospheric physics?

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

As I said, do you understand what you are reading?

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


Your links use the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE OR THE MEAN SEA LEVEL PRESSURE, that is why their data cannot be used for an absolute measurement of the pressure right on the spot - feel free to call/write to the National Weather Service and you will understand these issues much better.


Here is another reference on the DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L

...that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.


I even managed to recover the link for you:

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST.


It is the end of our discussion.

Modern science CANNOT explain at all the Barometer Pressure Paradox.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

CLOUD TRAJECTORIES PARADOX

The extraordinary timelapse photography/videos which show that the Earth is completely stationary, and not rotating around its own axis with 1600 km/hr (at the equator):

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clouds Time Lapse
(four different directions for the clouds, at the same time)

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cloud Timelapse
 (Hollywood Hills, opposite directions)

We are constantly told that the Earth rotates from the west to the east.

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?

The same scientists reply: it is friction.

But friction cannot explain at all the trajectories of the clouds which float in all direction possible: east to west, north to south...

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.


From THE RESTORING FORCES PARADOX:

This implies the existence of a vector field, whose strength determines |v|. Whether this field rotates or not is immaterial. It must exert a force on our air molecule that produces an acceleration solely in the direction of the World's alleged rotation, and of a magnitude which varies according to position within the atmosphere (just as the gravitational field exerts a force whose effect is to cause acceleration toward the centre of the World).

However, such a field does not exist, for if it did we would find it exceedingly difficult to travel in any direction other than around our particular parallel of latitude in an eastwardly direction. A field that is constantly acting to push air molecules into line will act likewise on all molecules in the atmosphere, whether they be part of aeroplanes, cars or ourselves.

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.


http://web.archive.org/web/20120726102954/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm


Foucault's Pendulum explained:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=11374#p11374


Geocentric Coriolis force:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747


Angular momentum/boundary layer issues:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143


"This atmospheric rotation anomaly seems to depend on air that's schizophrenic - it's actually a non-viscous gas, but acts like a solid when surrounding the Earth! It's not mechanically coupled to the Earth, but rotates with it at basically every altitude, as though it were. It even moves fastest in the same direction as the (alleged) rotation (jet streams)! I have asked NASA, NOAA, JPL, the Australian weather forum, 2 US meteorologists and a host of internet weather 'gurus' to
explain the ARA, and get basically 3 answers:

1.. no response
2.. a description of the global circulation pattern that includes the
minor effect of the Coriolis force but ignores the primary and major effect
of the Earth's central surface speed of 1100 mph on the atmosphere.
3.. admission that they don't know, but no concern that they don't."

As I said, since there is no attractive gravity, THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION IS THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540153.html#msg1540153

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540161.html#msg1540161


Here is the best confirmation of all the above results: the defiance of attractive gravity in Dr. Bruce DePalma's classic experiment.

Dr. Bruce DePalma:

The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.


Bruce DePalma graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation. He commenced his work in Free Energy through his studies on the gyroscope and the nature of motion.

Throwing Experiments

DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also not-rotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other [enlightened] researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.

Is this a harnessing of torsional ether waves by rotation? Both balls draw energy into themselves from an unseen source, but the rotating ball absorbs more of this ethereal energy than its counterpart - energy that would be manifest as gravity, moving down into the Earth. With a decrease in torsional ether above the ball, there is a slight decrease in gravity, the ball gets slightly lighter. Needless to say, this effect defies standard theories.

The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."

It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.


Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, the barometer pressure paradox and the cloud weight paradox can ONLY be explained in the context of the existence of ether.


Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment confirms in an extraordinary manner everything we have discussed here in this thread: no attractive gravity = stationary earth with a flat surface

Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation.

So what? Water vapour rises because it is lighter than air. Once it reaches the condensation level altitude then you have two possibilities:

• If the condition is right (updraft, enough moisture and the droplets are relatively light) then you see the cloud formation.
• If the condition is not right, then cloud doesn't form, it dissipates or precipitates in form of rain, snow or ice.

So if you see a cloud, it means that the condition is right for it to be formed and stay. As simple as that!

sandokhan you can post all that and yet you can't comment on a pot of boiling water? You are afraid.

If anyone starts to think that sandokhan may be right, just boil water.

He just keeps repeating the same things. Then when showed real observations of pressure he denies it. Keep pasting sandy.

Maybe sandokhan can explain in his own words:
1. How the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT can explain Dr. Bruce DePalma experiment.
2. Explain how the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT explains the water vapor floating away from a pot of boiling water.
3. How the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT explains clouds.
4. Explain how the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT works when there is no power source or metal plates/blades present.

The key phrase being "EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS".

BTW sandokhan,

Do you realize that the link you provided points out other observations that are not at exactly 4am, 4pm, 10am and 10pm?

Do you also realize that that link also indicates that there are places with diurnal pressure changes and not just the semi-diurnal that you keep pointing out?

Are you ready to stop with your nonsense yet?

Even your own source is trying to tell you exactly what I've been saying.

So what? Water vapour rises because it is lighter than air. Once it reaches the condensation level altitude then you have two possibilities:
If the condition is right (updraft, enough moisture and the droplets are relatively light) then you see the cloud formation.
If the condition is not right, then cloud doesn't form, it dissipates or precipitates in form of rain, snow or ice.
So if you see a cloud, it means that the condition is right for it to be formed and stay. As simple as that!

You still do not understand what is going on.

Clouds ARE NOT water vapour: they are either water droplets or ice crystals.

Official science explanation: Clouds stay aloft for the same reason that dust motes floating around, also heavier than air: air drafts push them around.

But, just like the pseudo-explanation you came up with, this cannot be true.

The winds explanation and the small size of the cloud's water droplets are used. But this does not seem to be adequate, as is stated in the the quote below. The analogy of clouds to dust motes seems woefully inadequate...why do not dust motes congregate into clouds?

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

But that doesn't explain why water molecules condensed into liquid form 1000 times denser than the air directly below them, manage to suspend themselves against gravity.

Please read carefully.

The cloud argument based on wind holding them up does not work in this case. And neither does the moist air less dense than dry air argument (although that doesn't work for clouds either because we are talking about condensed water in liquid form not the gaseous vapour form).

Fog can appear on frozen lakes so I doubt covection is operating in that case. We are talking about droplets that are 1000 times the density and weight of the very slow moving warm air below moving upward. There shouldn't be any physical process to overide the gravity pulling on those droplets.

I think it's obvious there is another unexplained process of an electrical nature suspending the water against the pull of gravity.


More details.

I find it hard to accept that 1000 times denser and heavier water droplets are able to be suspended by air molecules. They may counteract the pull of gravity for a short while for but the weight should overwhelm this buffeting pretty quick. For it to last even a short while the air molecules would need to be flowing mainly upwards but this certainly isn't true within a milimeter of the surface of the earth. There is a reason the gravity is counteracted and its not convection or updraft. I only state that I believe the reason to have an electrical nature.

I am certain that electricity plays a far larger role generally in the atmosphere than the mainstream is aware of or is willing to admit.

Floating clouds that defy gravity are a direct observational contradiction to the pseudoscientific cult of gravitation.


Do you realize that the link you provided points out other observations that are not at exactly 4am, 4pm, 10am and 10pm?

Do you also realize that that link also indicates that there are places with diurnal pressure changes and not just the semi-diurnal that you keep pointing out?


You haven't done your homework, just as usual.

How to properly calculate absolute barometer pressure measurements:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L

Remember, that your links provide information about the sea level and mean sea level pressure measurements.

This is much easier to perform than the actual absolute barometer pressure calculation.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE official information

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm

THIS HAPPENS EACH AND EVERY DAY, EVERYWHERE.

Can you understand this much?

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


That this is actually the case can be readily deduced from the very links you provided.

http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/RCSS.html

Take a look at the ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF THE DATA AT THE PRESSURE INCHES COLUMN.

MUCH OF THE SAME NUMBERS, REPEATED: 29.77 - 29.80 - 29.83 - 29.85

This means that we are dealing WITH SEA LEVEL PRESSURE CALCULATIONS, which, as I have said, are much easier to perform than actual absolute barometer measurements.

HERE IS THE REAL DATA ON TAIWAN:

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.

My links provide the correct information about the maximums and minimums of the barometric pressure readings, as always.


THE SAME ARTIFICIAL NUMBERS USED IN THE CORONADO LINK YOU PROVIDED.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0

Station pressure: 29.764 - 29.774 - 29.754 - 29.744 ; also there is precise correlation between the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE data and the Station Pressure data: this only means that the sea level pressure and mean sea level pressure data was used AND NOT THE REAL ABSOLUTE BAROMETER MEASUREMENTS.


OFFICIAL ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE INFORMATION:

The mean sea level pressure (MSLP) is the atmospheric pressure at sea level or (when measured at a given elevation on land) the station pressure reduced to sea level assuming that the temperature falls at a lapse rate of 6.5 K per km in the fictive layer of air between the station and sea level.
This is the atmospheric pressure normally given in weather reports on radio, television, and newspapers or on the Internet. When barometers in the home are set to match the local weather reports, they measure pressure reduced to sea level, not the actual local atmospheric pressure. The reduction to sea level means that the normal range of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure is the same for everyone.

THIS IS THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN YOUR LINKS, NOT THE ACTUAL BAROMETER PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS.

THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF THE NUMBERS IN THE SEA LEVEL PRESSURE AND STATION PRESSURE DATA.



But what else could we expect from you? You come here without any idea of what is going on, not realizing the precise difference between sea level/mean sea level pressure measurements and ACTUAL ABSOLUTE BAROMETER MEASUREMENTS.

If the work is properly done, then this is what you will get:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.


I ask you again, do you understand English?

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”


One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


End of discussion. The daily semidiurnal changes in the barometric pressure readings, CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL:  If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

Sandokhan, can you please answer to this simple questions:

Before stating that some anti-gravity is involved, we may examine the facts, and  clarify the definition of clouds.
As you may know, there are 4 cloud families.

Firstly, lets see for the alleged upward motion
- Can you give some typical speed values of the atmospehric currents below and into a cumulus-type cloud ?
- Can you give the same data for Cirro, Alto and Strato ?

Now, for the downward motion
- What is the relationship between the water droplets size and their free fall speed ? Can you give some measured values ?

Please, try to be synthetic, I already have 8 copies of the Depalma Experiment, another 6 for Biefeld-Brown effect, and so on.

If you desire this kind of specialized data, you are most welcome to search for it and bring it to everybody's attention.

However, it will not help you at all.

You still do not understand the physics involved here.


Read very carefully, it answers each and every one of your concerns.

The winds explanation and the small size of the cloud's water droplets are used. But this does not seem to be adequate, as is stated in the the quote below. The analogy of clouds to dust motes seems woefully inadequate...why do not dust motes congregate into clouds?

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

But that doesn't explain why water molecules condensed into liquid form 1000 times denser than the air directly below them, manage to suspend themselves against gravity.

Please read carefully.

The cloud argument based on wind holding them up does not work in this case. And neither does the moist air less dense than dry air argument (although that doesn't work for clouds either because we are talking about condensed water in liquid form not the gaseous vapour form).

Fog can appear on frozen lakes so I doubt covection is operating in that case. We are talking about droplets that are 1000 times the density and weight of the very slow moving warm air below moving upward. There shouldn't be any physical process to overide the gravity pulling on those droplets.

I think it's obvious there is another unexplained process of an electrical nature suspending the water against the pull of gravity.


More details.

I find it hard to accept that 1000 times denser and heavier water droplets are able to be suspended by air molecules. They may counteract the pull of gravity for a short while for but the weight should overwhelm this buffeting pretty quick. For it to last even a short while the air molecules would need to be flowing mainly upwards but this certainly isn't true within a milimeter of the surface of the earth. There is a reason the gravity is counteracted and its not convection or updraft. I only state that I believe the reason to have an electrical nature.

I am certain that electricity plays a far larger role generally in the atmosphere than the mainstream is aware of or is willing to admit.

Floating clouds that defy gravity are a direct observational contradiction to the pseudoscientific cult of gravitation.


Again, please understand.

Clouds ARE NOT water vapour: they are either water droplets or ice crystals.

A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.

Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here.

Clouds can have a height ranging from 50 meters to over 5 km, and a length ranging from 100 meters to 1000 km; a cumulus cloud, 1 kilometer in diameter, will weigh 5 MILLION TONS, or about the weight of 1 million cars. A cumulonimbus cloud, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, will actually weigh 1 BILLION TONS.


No atmospheric current speed could account at all for these types of cloud weights: 5 million tons,  or 1 billion tons.

Remember, that the currents stop frequently, changing their position/direction often: therefore, the situation is even more hopeless for the official atmospheric science explanations.

If you desire this kind of specialized data, you are most welcome to search for it and bring it to everybody's attention.
However, it will not help you at all.
You still do not understand the physics involved here.

Of course it would help. Before claiming some out of the box theories, a real scientific approach is to face  the facts.
You do not know what is at least the magnitude of these values. Fair enough, but you cannot go further without them.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied: (..)

Be more specific. What aviators, what scientists, what gases? . Please give names, dates, places...

How do you explain this kind of phenomenon ?

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Timelapse Video - UFO Shaped Lenticular Clouds

And please refrain from posting the same text again...

I am starting to question myself whether sandokhan is real or just an automatic bot. He keeps posting the same things over and over regardless what we say.

Sandokan,

Obviously, my findings show what is happening at the station. You are correct about the methods used to derive altimeter and SLP on a typical observation, even then the altimeter reading isn't a fake number. It is the altimeter reading at the surface and I have made no suggestion that it was at any specific height. Why are you hiding in the upper atmosphere? Where in this paragraph are we talking about anything other than what is happening at the surface?

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

These paragraphs discuss pressure at weather stations!

I have shown you already that your assessment at weather stations showing an always semi-diurnal pressure variation as evidenced by the "perfect-air" at Twenty-Nine Palms, CA. I've also shown you that semi-diurnal pressure changes are not always precisely at the times you suggest. It is a new day and re-linking my same links and showing that today's observations are more in tune with your suggestions means nothing. My point was it isn't always like that and I have shown that for the days that I pointed out at the weather stations in question, you were incorrect.

So now you want to hide in the upper atmosphere? Seeing how the public think that typically weather stations don't have easy access to that information you probably expected me to not have anything to say about that sandokhan. I'd like to inform you that you are barking up the wrong tree. You should have maybe done your homework on who I am before you decided to change the argument. Your first hint was when I informed you that I specialize in AREPS.

As an Aerographer's Mate, especially one that specializes in Radar Propagation, upper air soundings are precisely what I do. I have access to weather models that provide specific information on temperature pressure and weather at every relevant height for all relevant stations to the United States all provided by round the clock balloon launches. I also have access to RA-OB codes and am fluent in decoding upper air soundings. I have over 1000 weather balloons in a storage locker just down the hall from where I currently sit with many 100's of models of Radiosonde's and Rawindsonde's. Do you really want to go down this route?

Seeing as how your original argument regarding pressure at weather stations had nothing to do with upper air sounding's I suggest you hold off on trying to shift your arguments to the upper air. Clearly, no part of that argument discussed upper air. Clearly, you are wrong about what happens at the surface and clearly, that's the point of the argument. If you want to talk about the upper air though, we can if you want. We can talk about a subject which you don't even have access to real data about. That should work out great for you.

I'll leave the arguments about droplets and clouds to other RE'rs since that is far more simple.

"Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation."

Yes, when water is in one big giant pool, it is heavier than air.  But as you've repeated over and over, the weight of a cubic meter of cloud is only 0.5g, whereas the weight of a cubic meter of air is 1290g per cubic meter.  So when it's a cloud, the water is roughly 2500 times LIGHTER than the air below it.  It doesn't matter if it is a liquid or a solid or a gas.  Obviously you never floated a penny on a pool of mercury in your physics class.



"'The water in the little cloud weighs about 550 tons,' she calculates."

It doesn't matter how heavy the cloud is.  What matters is the difference between what the cloud weighs and the weight of whatever is above and below the cloud.  So even though the cloud in the example weighs 550 tons, the air that it displaces weighs over a million tons.  Here is a quote and a link describing this:

“Another way to illustrate the relative lightness of clouds is to compare the total mass of a cloud to the mass of the air in which it resides. Consider a hypothetical but typical small cloud at an altitude of 10,000 feet, comprising one cubic kilometer and having a liquid water content of 1.0 gram per cubic meter. The total mass of the cloud particles is about 1 million kilograms, which is roughly equivalent to the weight of 500 automobiles. But the total mass of the air in that same cubic kilometer is about 1 billion kilograms--1,000 times heavier than the liquid!”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-clouds-float-when



"Then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens."

You do realize that the difference in weight between Oxygen gas and Nitrogen gas is only two protons and a few neutrons, right?  Gravity is an extremely weak force so it isn't able to overcome the Brownian - diffusion caused by the energy present in the air because of things like solar radiation and ambient temperature.

First up, I'll admit to not having read this thread thoroughly, so if I'm about to mention something that's already come up, I do apologise! I just couldn't get thru all the mind-numbing copy-pasta...

Has anyone ever seen a dam (or "ground tank"), of the type used for watering stock (cattle, sheep, etc)? Have you ever noticed that, despite particles of dirt being much more dense than water, and the water being very still, a muddy dam will stay muddy, and never really settle out? I've no idea what causes that myself, but I take it as being a similar effect to what keeps air mixed as it is.