An interesting pressure proof

Pressure distributions prove at least one error in the FE theory stated on the site.  Regardless of the force causing it (in the minds of the RE's, gravity, and in the minds of the FE's, the acceleration of the earth), the pressure felt on the earth's surface is due DIRECTLY to the height of the column of air above a set location.  This requires that the column of air above ALL parts of the earth be some set height.  This would require, in the case of a flat earth, a cylinder of air above the earth of constant altitude.  Unless one wishes to change ENTIRELY the basic laws of all physics this implies 1 thing.

Pressure, by nature, exerts an equal force in all directions (hence we aren't shoved down into the earth's surface by the 15 psi force exerted everywhere)  If this weren't true, even a piece of paper would be very difficult to lift.  This also means that the body of air over the Earth's surface would be exerting a force outward, trying to expand and relieve the pressure.  The only thing that could contain this, and still maintain the pressure experienced on earth's surface would be a wall extending hundreds of miles into the air.  Using P=density*acceleration*altitude, we get an altitude of 33,750 feet.  This wall would be visible from enormous distances, and would certainly be visible from an aircraft on a clear day, as it would extend all the way to a typical cruising altitude.  I would like to note, however, that this setup does NOT require a ceiling, as the acceleration of a flat earth would, by itself, hold the atmosphere in place.

The only argument that can be used to counteract this is to say that the equation of P=density*acceleration*height is wrong, or one of the values I assigned was in error.  I can assure anyone of the pressure on the earth's surface, as it can be easily measured in any number of experiments, any of which can be performed by anyone reading this thread.  The density is quite the same, as one can use acceleration of different bodies (say a hollow cube) along a track by a spring when two different pressures exist inside the cubes. (air has mass, more pressure=higher density=more mass, so the cube with more pressure needs more force to accelerate equally).  The fundamental equation can be proved with rather basic calculus, which I will not go into here, please look it up if you doubt the math itself.

So, what do you think?  I intend to insult no one by this, simply to bring to light an oversight.  That is, believe it or not, part of an ethics agreement I signed upon becoming an engineer.

-Jade

This idea has been brought up several times, however, i have not yet seen a single intelligent attempt to refute this. The best one i've seen is "The wall is 150m high, thats it" which is pretty piss-poor at best.

Nice explanation there. I didn't bother to check the numbers, the concept is correct.

Perhaps beyond the 150' ice wall which contains the oceans there is a higher wall of ice or rock which contains the atmosphere, but which is so far away that simple atmospheric haze obscures its visibility. Or perhaps the flat earth is infinite in extent, and the atmosphere as well. Or perhaps the Earth is round.

These all seem like valid explanations for atmospheric pressure. I don't see how one can figure out which is the case based solely on the points raised in this thread.

Or, perhaps, the entire atmosphere is contained in some sort of impermeable and invisibile shell -- a sort of "celestial sphere" -- that moves along with the Earth.

So you're saying that the earth is basically a giant snowglobe?

Or, perhaps, the entire atmosphere is contained in some sort of impermeable and invisibile shell -- a sort of "celestial sphere" -- that moves along with the Earth.

Doesn't that sound absurdal even to you?

So you're saying that the earth is basically a giant snowglobe?

No, its a giant atmosphere globe. :lol:

Doesn't that sound absurdal even to you?

Haven't you ever debated with a creationist before? No matter how absurd an idea is, there will always be people on this (round) planet stupid enough to believe it.

Doesn't that sound absurdal even to you?

Absurdity is socially constructed.  Anything that strongly conflicts with the assumptions you've in which you were indoctrinated as a child will naturally sound absurd to you.

This was a nice topic, it's sad that they are turning it into a farce

This was a nice topic, it's sad that they are turning it into a farce

I'dve thought you would be used to this sort of thing by now Phase. Remember, the flat earthers can never, ever be wrong.

I'dve thought you would be used to this sort of thing by now Phase. Remember, the flat earthers can never, ever be wrong.

Indeed, he should be used to it, since he, too, can never, ever be wrong :)

You're drifting.  Point is: MASSIVE WALL.  by the way, some more for you to think about...the outward force on that wall at sealevel would be approximately 15 psi.  not a big deal, right?  let's consider only the first 5000 feet, in which pressure is relatively constant (enough so to make my point, I promise).  

5000ft*15psi*144 psi/psf=1.08*10^(7) lbs.  That's LINEAR force, so each foot of wall laterally has to hold that.  The physics of that very number, along with the ENORMOUS moment it would create would require a wall of ENORMOUS thickness, made out of a material far stronger than ice.  I don't have the linear psf ratings for ice, as we don't generally use ice as a substrate in MSE, but if someone finds it, I'll do some more number crunching to get you the hundreds of miles of depth necessary.  Translation: high flying aircraft, like the ones we fly in commercially, would most certainly see this wall.  It would be ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to miss.

and one more thing I forgot to mention.  your little atmospheric sphere...it contradicts the very foundations of FE.  it also causes uneven pressure distributions, because the difference in height between the 'top' of the atmosphere and ay point on FE is not equal.  When this happens on RE, it means you've gained altitude.  On a FE, the outer edges would experience pressures similar to those at 33,000 feet.  (in case you don't know, those sorts of pressures, and more importantly, densities, are mostly un-survivable).  Australians would literally suffocate, unless you believe they've adapted, which then is disproved by, say, someone going from the US to Australia, and not suffocating.

You're drifting.  Point is: MASSIVE WALL. It would be ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to miss.

We have no idea where the wall is. It may be billions of miles south of the ice wall which holds in the oceans. It may be thousands of miles thick, and ten times as high as mount everest. Or the earth might be an infinite flat plane.

How cool would it be if the earth were an infinite flat plane and there were other suns circling over other warm areas with continents trillions of miles away. You could literally walk to other worlds and potentially meet other intelligent life, and it would only take a few million years.

I'm reminded of the Ringworld. Somewhere on its surface, which was 3 million times the area of the Earth, it contained a 1:1 map of the Earth in the middle of an ocean whose width was several times the distance between the earth and moon. To get from the Earth map to the next nearest body of land, one would have to make a sea voyage lasting several generations. There were walls which kept in the atmosphere, but they would be completely invisible due to distance and atmosphere. Would it be that surprising if the inhabitants of such a map thought that their little corner of the giant world they lived in was the whole thing?

An infinite plane is entirely impossible with physics, and you know that as well as I do, Skeptical.  It would require an infinite force to accelerate it.  The logistics of infinity in that sense simply are neither logical nor are they consistent with any FE theory stated previously.  As for extremely large planes, they seem to disprove entirely your concept of how the tides function.  Neither has a basis in anything, nor is in any way consistent with FE theory in the FAQ or elsewhere.

5000ft*15psi*144 psi/psf=1.08*10^(7) lbs.  That's LINEAR force, so each foot of wall laterally has to hold that.  The physics of that very number, along with the ENORMOUS moment it would create would require a wall of ENORMOUS thickness, made out of a material far stronger than ice.  I don't have the linear psf ratings for ice, as we don't generally use ice as a substrate in MSE

I assume by your statement that you are in school for MSE.  Didn't they ever teach you about dimentional analysis?

Look at the dimentions in your 'equation' above:
ft*lb/in^2*lbft^2/in^2lb = lbft^3/in^4 - That's not a dimention of force.  
Psi is a force over an area, and nowhere in your equation do you have an area.  

The force per square foot is given by 15psi*12in*12in = 2160lb
(lb/in^2*in*in = lb)

Quote from: "jadexg"

5000ft*15psi*144 psi/psf=1.08*10^(7) lbs.  That's LINEAR force, so each foot of wall laterally has to hold that.  The physics of that very number, along with the ENORMOUS moment it would create would require a wall of ENORMOUS thickness, made out of a material far stronger than ice.  I don't have the linear psf ratings for ice, as we don't generally use ice as a substrate in MSE

I assume by your statement that you are in school for MSE.  Didn't they ever teach you about dimentional analysis?

Look at the dimentions in your 'equation' above:
ft*lb/in^2*lbft^2/in^2lb = lbft^3/in^4 - That's not a dimention of force.  
Psi is a force over an area, and nowhere in your equation do you have an area.  

The force per square foot is given by 15psi*12in*12in = 2160lb
(lb/in^2*in*in = lb)

He meant lbs/ft, not lbs - this is clear when he says "each foot of wall has to hold that" - meaning each section of wall one foot wide, and however tall. I think you can forgive him for accidentally writing "lbs" instead of "lbs/ft" when it was clear what he meant? The same thing goes for writing 144psi/psf when he meant psf/psi.

Oh, I suppose I can forgive.

*EDIT*  I do think he meant lb, not lb/ft.  To get the force, we need pressure*area.  So his equation should be 15psi*12in*5000ft*12in/1ft = 1.08*10^7lb.

I was referring to the value you arise when you leave out one dimension, and yea, I had 2 papers due, so I'm a little tired.  I apologize for the typo's.  I mean to imply that you leave the length as a term L, so that when you multiply by a distance you get a force.  This simply involves multiplying the pressure by 1 of 2 area values, so that the other remains in variable form.  hence you get lb/ft^2 *ft=lb/ft.  That allows one to look at the forces a set length of the wall must account for.  I hope that clears it up, but I'm still running on 2 hrs sleep in 72, so it may not be as clear as intended.

I'd also like to state that the value I gave, going only 5,000 ft up is a GROSS underestimate.  I'll work out better, more complete numbers with a pressure integral sometime.

Gotcha.

I'd also like to state that the value I gave, going only 5,000 ft up is a GROSS underestimate.  I'll work out better, more complete numbers with a pressure integral sometime.

Why? If there is a wall keeping in the atmosphere, it would be like the Ringworld rim wall - a gigantic mountain range, meaning rock hundreds of miles high and thick. It would easily be able to withstand the force of atmospheric pressure.

And that's fine by this theory.  The point of this is less sheer dismissal of the FE theory itself, and more aimed at getting people to dismiss this idea of some little wall.  we're talking something by far taller than everest; about 1.5 times as high, in fact.  I'm also making the point that any dome structure brought up is, in fact, false.  A dome would cause uneven pressures.  This just calls for, either an adjustment to FE theory or abandonment of it.

*edit for spelling

Quote from: "Insaneman"

Doesn't that sound absurdal even to you?

Haven't you ever debated with a creationist before? No matter how absurd an idea is, there will always be people on this (round) planet stupid enough to believe it.

Every lie needs stupid people to believe it. And here it found plenty (FE's, to be clear).

[I never debated with a creationist in person (just theoretical in classes and so on). Can anybody tell me how the percentage is in America? Here they aren't easy to find...too much enlightenment and science, you know.]

And that's fine by this theory.  The point of this is less sheer dismissal of the FE theory itself, and more aimed at getting people to dismiss this idea of some little wall.  we're talking something by far taller than everest; about 1.5 times as high, in fact.  I'm also making the point that any dome structure brought up is, in fact, false.  A dome would cause uneven pressures.  This just calls for, either an adjustment to FE theory or abandonment of it.

*edit for spelling

It's also not true that a dome would cause uneven pressures. Having less air directly above you doesn't cause the pressure to be lower any more than going under a roof causes the pressure to drop. Yes, it's true that the weight of the air above causes pressure, when you assume that when you go very far up you reach vacuum, where the pressure is zero, but it's no longer true if there is a dome, because the air at the top of the dome will have a positive pressure, as opposed to vacuum which has no pressure. The weight of the air above you simply causes the pressure difference between the top of the dome and ground level.

Funny you mention it.  I am one. lol.  Now grated, I don't follow the retarded creationist stereotype, but sometime I'll make a post for my case.  There are a lot of scientists/ engineers that think like I do: God created the earth, the universe, etc, and he also created the rules that govern it.  Christ had dominion over those rules, but on the general, most of (and by most I mean a number so close to 100% it's a 'statistical anomaly') the events we see are totally governed by the rules set in place.  Anyways, not to go on a tangent, just saying, I'm a 2nd year AAE (aeronautical and astronautical enginnering) major, so I'm not exactly stupid.

note to the engineer: AAE's have to have classes in EVERYTHING, so you weren't far off, I've taken a few MSE courses along the way.

Skeptical, you're off a bit here.  the house doesn't experience pressure differences because it has atmospheric pressure in, above, and around it.  Really, the dome would cause pressure issues.  We actually study it a lot nowadays, because in aerodynamics it makes a huge difference.  you are correct in thinking that pressure distributes, but the way a dome re-enforces pressure would assure a higher pressure at the center of a flat earth than on the sides.

note to the engineer: AAE's have to have classes in EVERYTHING, so you weren't far off, I've taken a few MSE courses along the way.

Believe me, I know.  (I went for ME)

Just out of curiosity, what school?

THE Ohio State University. lol.  If you don't get the THE part, don't worry about it.(that's more aimed at the non-American's on this board, who don't have to deal with us Buckeyes. lol)

Skeptical, you're off a bit here.  the house doesn't experience pressure differences because it has atmospheric pressure in, above, and around it.  Really, the dome would cause pressure issues.  We actually study it a lot nowadays, because in aerodynamics it makes a huge difference.  you are correct in thinking that pressure distributes, but the way a dome re-enforces pressure would assure a higher pressure at the center of a flat earth than on the sides.

How is it possible that there would be higher pressure at the center than at the sides? If there were, then the higher pressure air would expand against the lower pressure air to its sides, causing the pressure to equalize, as there would be no other force holding it back. Pressure varies with altitude because gravity (or acceleration in the FE model) causes the force (or pseudoforce) balancing the pressure difference. But there is no horizontal force which would balance the pressure differences.

What you're saying just doesn't make any sense to me. You may be a rocket scientist, but I still want either a reference or an explanation of the cause of this effect before I'll believe it.