You subscribe to a theory that ignores the most basic principles of fluid dynamics.
And what is that?
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch4/properties2.htmlHere's a website from Perdue University describing basic qualities of gas, particularly the 2nd principle of gas "gases expand to fill their containers," and while you are there brushing up on your elementary physics try and find a principle of gas that states gas particles can stack in a heap like a bale of hay.
Because it's stacked from the bottom up and expands till it cannot agitate. IIt then goes dormant and forms the skin. The ice dome.
The ice dome? Earlier you said the upper atmosphere is not held by a solid firmament, and now you have changed your stance. If this "ice dome" does exist, then the earth is a large container and therefore the atmosphere would constantly push toward equilibrium and pressurize the entire system. You know, how gases would work in reality, instead of your untested thought experiments?
Is the atmosphere the same at the top of a high mountain as it is at the bottom?
If not, there goes your equilibrium. It's stacked.
No, the pressure changes as you change altitude because gravity is pulling the atmosphere toward the earth's center of gravity. I am telling you that in your model, based on the simplest principles of gases, air pressure shouldn't change at all because gravity doesn't exist, and the system is enclosed under the supposed "ice dome". This is because gases expand to fill their container, no matter the size of the container.
This is because air, being a gas, will expand and form the shape of any container it is placed in.
Yep, in a container it will.
You mean like the container created by the ice dome?
Note that when I say "expand" the actual size of the particles themselves remains constant, the parties just spread out more.
When you say they spread out more, do you mean they expand or do you mean they simply spread out and leave free space?
The particles spread out of course, particles themselves do not magically grow in size. Where did you get such an idea? Why would gas particles have this property when solid and liquid particles do not?
The gases aren't kept in the system by the firmament. The gases simply stop being pushed/squeezed up and simply freeze against a (possibly) a true vacuum.
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: For CO2 to freeze, it needs to be under very high pressure. Look up a phase diagram for carbon dioxide if you dont believe me. In your model (and mine) gases are at very low pressure at high altitude, so where does the sudden high pressure come from? One gram of solid CO2 has a volume of 0.641 mL. At 0C and atmospheric pressure, the same amount of CO2 gas has a volume of 556 mL, which is more than 850 times as large. At altitude, the change in volume would be exponentially greater. This means that, to form an ice dome, you need a very large amount of gas to be kept at very high pressure. The ice dome model is simply not feasible in any real sense. Since the ice dome physically cannot exist, what is keeping the entire atmosphere from diffusing into the vacuum of space?
I am sure you are familiar with the concept, "Nature abhors a vacuum"
Yep and in nature there isn't a vacuum, because a vacuum does not and cannot exist to our perception. It can to our imagination.
OK so if a vacuum cannot exist, what lies beyond the firmament? Previously you said there was a vacuum there, but you have already changed your mind on the subject of a rigid firmament, so I guess your model still needs some kinks worked out.
Because it's stacked from the bottom up.
Could you show any real, testable evidence that gases stack? Are there any experiments that could allow one to reach this conclusion?
They do stack in the way I'm describing.
Why don't you prove it? You cannot just make claims and say they are true. You need to test them in repeatable experiments. And no, making slipshod analogies comparing solid bodies to fluids doesn't count as a repeatable experiment. This entire thread is about testing the denpressure model. Can't you perform or at least devise an experiment that can verify your claims?
It doesn't really seem like you have an open mind. You rejected all of the experimental findings in this thread, without offering a single thought as to what those findings could mean.
I'm taking on-board everything that's being said. I am not just going to jump in and accept them as being correct if they do not show a true reflection.
You agreed to the experiments and their possible conclusions. I even asked you if you had any problems with the experiments before they were conducted, and you claimed you didn't. Now that the results of the experiments you agreed with initially have incontrovertibly proven denpressure to be false, only now do you claim they "do not show a true reflection". Could you possibly be more vague? Why didn't you make corrections to the experiments before the experiments were conducted?
It appears to me that your goal is to smash this theory rather than try and understand it to get it to a favourable position.
I understand the theory perfectly. That is why I am able to tell you all of the things that are wrong with it. If you had any understanding of the properties of gases, you would be able to comprehend these issues as well.