They are never individual molecules.
Think of the gobstopper.
The gobstopper is what would be the densest matter. Now it peels down and attaches, depending on the vibration and energy applied.
They don't just inflate like big balloons and expand.
The gaseous parts are a section of the gobstopper and depending on what we understand as gases is in how they are peeled and configured into molecular structures.
So Earth is a giant gobstopper, i.e. round, with the atmosphere layers of it?
But so far all your arguments appealed to individual magic air pieces, so why say they aren't individual now?
All answered and all misunderstood by yourself.
Nope. I have pointed out how your answers contradict themselves.
Not my issue if you are only able to copy stuff from mainstream to argue with and can't use your own brain on its own.
But it is your issue if I can use my brain, understand your model/"explanations" and show they don't work.
I explained but my mistake was probably not giving you a mainstream answer what you crave.
No, your mistake was giving 2 partial explanations in isolation rather than considering them together resulting in the 2 partial explanations contradicting one another resulting in no explanation.
I already know the mainstream answer. I want you to prove your model can work, or admit it can't.
So far you have shown it can't work.
All explained and all ignored by yourself.
You seem to love asserting that things are explained, even though you are yet to explain them.
What causes this liquid to gas phase transition?
How about you try to actually the issues raised rather than continually dismissing them with lies that you have already explained them?
Of course. Your mind is fully focused on your mainstream answers and that's why you'll never grasp what I'm saying.
These are not mainstream answers.
They are observations of reality.
It takes a lot of energy to turn liquid water into gaseous water (steam).
There is no justification for this energy requirement in your model.
The conversion from liquid to steam results in a massive expansion.
There is no justification for this sudden, massive expansion in your model.
I do grasp what you say, although lately it has just been assertions that it has already been explained.
The issue is that your explanations do not make sense when considered with reality.
This has been explained, but guess what?
It actually hasn't and you are just saying it has to avoid addressing the issue?
Remember how I gave you the sponge ball analogy?
Yes. Guess what? They are always touching, there is no reason for the massive discontinuity there.
How about you try addressing the issue instead of skirting around it?
Life would cease if that was the case because the entire point of it all is attachment of everything from the densest to the least dense, from bottom to top and everywhere in between.
No, that isn't the point of life at all.
The point of life is primarily to reproduce.
It relies upon breaking and remaking bonds.
It still works even with empty spaces existing.
They key is going back to square one. Something people like you can never do because your ready to absorb and narrate books are your mind. They dictate your mindset and no rival will change that unless the rival is another mainstream tweak.
And there you go insulting yet again.
I do that often, especially with you.
The problem is that I don't ignore reality while doing so.
This makes me realise your model doesn't work.
The other problem is that I build up from square one, rather than just considering each problem in isolation.
That means if something is established you can't just contradict it later on.
You're a waste of effort to be fair.
Only to people like you who cannot justify their claims.
But it doesn't seem like you are even putting in any significant effort.
What I say is for people to understand it from my side. A different take on .....wait for it.....
Too many people live on too many stories without any physical proof to the stories. of mainstream so called science.
So you want to set up a double standard where it is fine for you to assert whatever BS you want without any justification or backing and expect it to be accepted, while you reject mainstream science, even with all the evidence it provides.
You are almost bullied or peer pressured (similar thing) to follow what I said in that statement.
You literally do live on the stuff without any physical proof.
No, we don't.
We don't get bullied or pressured into it.
It is taught, with experiments and evidence provided.
If you want to reject it, go ahead, just don't be surprised when you are called out for your BS.
There is plenty of physical evidence which you have repeatedly ignored.
Meanwhile you are trying to bully people into accepting your BS, without any evidence at all.
I am asking nobody to live on what I say. I am asking those who are interested in questioning the bullied unprovable model to take a different mindset and look at other potentials without the burden on their bullies.
We have examined both. Guess what? Your model fails miserably. It is not a potential model to explain reality.
Meanwhile the mainstream model works fine with plenty of evidence backing it up.
At the very least people need to question.
People do question, that is how science grows. But you don't seem to like people questioning your model. Why is that?
Is it because you know it can't hold up?
If people don't want to question then don't waste a second trying to argue against me. But what do I see?
What you want to see.
What is actually there?
Rational people asking you questions which you are unable to answer and pointing out problems with your model which you are unable to address.
Why?
Because you have completely rejected reality and see what you want.
The thing is ....(this is for people looking in and those that are genuinely interested)..... there's some real experiments for people to do that show reality
Yes, experiments which show reality, including things like the centripetal force being an apparent force and inertia and gravity. Experiments you repeatedly ignore.
centripetal one in the evacuation chamber of which I showed in a diagram is just one small proof
No, it is proof of nothing.
You refused to answer questions on it, making it impossible to try to recreate it and leaving you room to dismiss any experiments that go against you.
You also failed to provide any evidence showing what occurred.
So what we have is really just your baseless claim.
That's just the start but denpressure answers all the reality problems
No it doesn't.
As this thread has shown, denspressure is unable to answer several "problems" from reality.
Meanwhile mainstream science explains it just fine.
A bloody spinning globe in a vacuum 
...for crying out frigging loud. 
And there you go with the ridicule again, almost like you know you can't provide a rational argument.
It doesn't work, that's what.
So did your balls stay on the disc, just sitting there, or better still, just spinning around with the disc without being thrown out?
No. In fact, you said they did fly out. The issue was that they didn't get stopped by the lid.