# Atmospheric stringency

• 13 Replies
• 555 Views

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 21236
• All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
##### Atmospheric stringency
« on: April 03, 2017, 05:18:17 AM »

The first problem is why The pressure is not equal everywhere. Actually there is a solve but I was wating for defender of this theory defend it. I'm adding my own solution because I have not found a valid answer yet.

Example:

If the doom has a radius more 3 times than land level;

Area (Ad) =  π x (3r)²
Area (Af) = π x r²

So the Weight of the land level of an object is 9 times weight of doom level.

It's not hardly so much hard, ha?
Ignore:
Coronal Gaydafi, boydster and mr juraII:A gang killing FE'rs
NotSoSkeptical
Platonius21
Solarwind (Amoranemix)
codebeta (papa legba)

Backstage of Covid-19 in Italian Parliament, Gates' bloody plan:

?

#### JackBlack

• 12684
##### Re: Atmospheric stringency
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2017, 05:39:00 AM »

The first problem is why The pressure is not equal everywhere. Actually there is a solve but I was wating for defender of this theory defend it. I'm adding my own solution because I have not found a valid answer yet.
If you haven't found a valid answer how do you know there is a solution?

I assume you mean in the FE model, so a RE answer with gravity would be ignored?

Example:

If the doom has a radius more 3 times than land level;
But you have your dome touching land level.

Also, it seems you completely misunderstand how pressure works.
It doesn't matter what the shape is, the fluid is hydrostatic, and large areas outside doesn't magically make the inner areas higher pressure.

So the Weight of the land level of an object is 9 times weight of doom level.
Are you trying to discuss weight, which has nothing to do with air pressure (unless you mean the weight of the air), or air pressure?

?

#### Ising

• 125
• I can't hear you over the sound of my awesomeness
##### Re: Atmospheric stringency
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2017, 06:35:50 AM »
I don't understand what the problem is in the first place. Can you explain your first diagram more precisely, so that we can discuss it further ?

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 21236
• All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
##### Re: Atmospheric stringency
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2017, 07:07:58 AM »
Maybe it is explained so for just discussing only who understand it well. Can not it be?
Ignore:
Coronal Gaydafi, boydster and mr juraII:A gang killing FE'rs
NotSoSkeptical
Platonius21
Solarwind (Amoranemix)
codebeta (papa legba)

Backstage of Covid-19 in Italian Parliament, Gates' bloody plan:

#### Jonny B Smart

• 691
##### Re: Atmospheric stringency
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2017, 07:11:25 AM »
Pressure is weight--a function of gravity and mass. Any theory of air pressure should be mathematically consistent with water pressure and pressure inside the Earth.
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

?

#### Ising

• 125
• I can't hear you over the sound of my awesomeness
##### Re: Atmospheric stringency
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2017, 07:27:36 AM »
Maybe it is explained so for just discussing only who understand it well. Can not it be?

Sorry, maybe I should have been more explicit :
- your first diagram shows pressure pointing downwards for the upper blocks, and upwards for the lower blocks. But pressure doesn't have a preferred direction, it is (mostly) isotropic, so this part of the diagram doesn't make sense ;
- the same diagram reads "Pa = Pb = Pc = Pd = Pe = Pf", which is not true ;
- the same equation ends with "= 6p". Pressure doesn't add up this way, it is an intensive property.

And this is only the first diagram. So again : can you explain it further ? Because it is currently incomprehensible.

#### Novarus

• 372
##### Re: Atmospheric stringency
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2017, 10:24:26 AM »
Maybe it is explained so for just discussing only who understand it well. Can not it be?

The primary problem is your grammar. No offense to your heritage, but if you're going to engage in a scientific discussion in English, then you need to have a stronger grasp of both science and the English language.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 10:35:20 AM by Novarus »
Only the ignorant choose to ignore opposing views.
Fight for your belief, don't run away.
It's the only way anyone can take you seriously.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 21236
• All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
##### Re: Atmospheric stringency
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2017, 01:12:28 AM »
Maybe it is explained so for just discussing only who understand it well. Can not it be?

The primary problem is your grammar. No offense to your heritage, but if you're going to engage in a scientific discussion in English, then you need to have a stronger grasp of both science and the English language.

I have been writing this for years and this is not a problem. This gives me a peculiar feeling as a charism.
Ignore:
Coronal Gaydafi, boydster and mr juraII:A gang killing FE'rs
NotSoSkeptical
Platonius21
Solarwind (Amoranemix)
codebeta (papa legba)

Backstage of Covid-19 in Italian Parliament, Gates' bloody plan:

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 21236
• All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
##### Re: Atmospheric stringency
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2017, 01:15:25 AM »
Maybe it is explained so for just discussing only who understand it well. Can not it be?

Sorry, maybe I should have been more explicit :
- your first diagram shows pressure pointing downwards for the upper blocks, and upwards for the lower blocks. But pressure doesn't have a preferred direction, it is (mostly) isotropic, so this part of the diagram doesn't make sense ;
- the same diagram reads "Pa = Pb = Pc = Pd = Pe = Pf", which is not true ;
- the same equation ends with "= 6p". Pressure doesn't add up this way, it is an intensive property.

And this is only the first diagram. So again : can you explain it further ? Because it is currently incomprehensible.

This working does not address you. To discuss with the interlocutor but has not come yet. You may not understand our terms. We use similar words to classical physics, but we reject classical physics. I hope it makes a different to aware.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2017, 01:17:55 AM by İntikam »
Ignore:
Coronal Gaydafi, boydster and mr juraII:A gang killing FE'rs
NotSoSkeptical
Platonius21
Solarwind (Amoranemix)
codebeta (papa legba)

Backstage of Covid-19 in Italian Parliament, Gates' bloody plan:

?

#### JackBlack

• 12684
##### Re: Atmospheric stringency
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2017, 01:46:34 AM »
I have been writing this for years and this is not a problem. This gives me a peculiar feeling as a charism.
No. It has frequently been a problem with you not understanding others or others not understanding you, and that is just the English part.
Your ignorance of science has been an even bigger problem.

?

#### Ising

• 125
• I can't hear you over the sound of my awesomeness
##### Re: Atmospheric stringency
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2017, 02:01:23 AM »
Maybe it is explained so for just discussing only who understand it well. Can not it be?

Sorry, maybe I should have been more explicit :
- your first diagram shows pressure pointing downwards for the upper blocks, and upwards for the lower blocks. But pressure doesn't have a preferred direction, it is (mostly) isotropic, so this part of the diagram doesn't make sense ;
- the same diagram reads "Pa = Pb = Pc = Pd = Pe = Pf", which is not true ;
- the same equation ends with "= 6p". Pressure doesn't add up this way, it is an intensive property.

And this is only the first diagram. So again : can you explain it further ? Because it is currently incomprehensible.

This working does not address you. To discuss with the interlocutor but has not come yet. You may not understand our terms. We use similar words to classical physics, but we reject classical physics. I hope it makes a different to aware.

No, you misunderstood again : it is not your terms that I don't understand, it is the diagram illustrating what you seem to call a problem that doesn't make sense. But then again, if this working addresses only those who reject classical physics, carry on, I didn't mean to interrupt. You might want to move this thread away from the Debate section though.

#### Novarus

• 372
##### Re: Atmospheric stringency
« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2017, 10:03:19 AM »
Maybe it is explained so for just discussing only who understand it well. Can not it be?

The primary problem is your grammar. No offense to your heritage, but if you're going to engage in a scientific discussion in English, then you need to have a stronger grasp of both science and the English language.

I have been writing this for years and this is not a problem. This gives me a peculiar feeling as a charism.

I'm... not sure how you are using the word charism there.
Only the ignorant choose to ignore opposing views.
Fight for your belief, don't run away.
It's the only way anyone can take you seriously.

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 21236
• All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
##### Re: Atmospheric stringency
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2017, 12:31:22 PM »
Maybe it is explained so for just discussing only who understand it well. Can not it be?

The primary problem is your grammar. No offense to your heritage, but if you're going to engage in a scientific discussion in English, then you need to have a stronger grasp of both science and the English language.

I have been writing this for years and this is not a problem. This gives me a peculiar feeling as a charism.

I'm... not sure how you are using the word charism there.

You three are playing a game. I'm ignoring you three by no reason. I'll give you number of detected you are alt of which one.
Ignore:
Coronal Gaydafi, boydster and mr juraII:A gang killing FE'rs
NotSoSkeptical
Platonius21
Solarwind (Amoranemix)
codebeta (papa legba)

Backstage of Covid-19 in Italian Parliament, Gates' bloody plan:

#### Novarus

• 372
##### Re: Atmospheric stringency
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2017, 12:54:07 PM »
Maybe it is explained so for just discussing only who understand it well. Can not it be?

The primary problem is your grammar. No offense to your heritage, but if you're going to engage in a scientific discussion in English, then you need to have a stronger grasp of both science and the English language.

I have been writing this for years and this is not a problem. This gives me a peculiar feeling as a charism.

I'm... not sure how you are using the word charism there.

You three are playing a game. I'm ignoring you three by no reason. I'll give you number of detected you are alt of which one.

The rational outnumber the irrational.

And now the rest of the world can watch you ignore proof!
Only the ignorant choose to ignore opposing views.
Fight for your belief, don't run away.
It's the only way anyone can take you seriously.