Question about atmospheric motion.

  • 91 Replies
  • 11713 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7261
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #60 on: July 24, 2020, 07:24:23 AM »
Says the guy who quotes occult fantasy websites.

You abominable and dumb ape.

You are in no position to pass judgements on anybody here: each and every message you ever posted is a testimony of your unprecedented string of failures to come to the defense of heliocentrism.

So, please STFU.

He was giving a valid analogy.

On a round earth, you must explain why the bathroom scale does not register at once 2,000 pounds of weight. That is why our lying resident from Australia concocted the scale placed in a water tank example, in order to deflect attention from his utter failure to explain the missing 2,000 pounds of weight figure.

The collapsing bottle/tanker vacuum chambers are directly related to the aether absorbing graviton model.

No such thing as AETHER.  STABLE ROTATING WORMHOLES are also another fantasy of yours. Wormholes in general are still theoretical. Nobody has seen one.

The ELLIS ether drainhole is a fact of science. Stable rotating wormholes have been proven to exist at the quantum level, plenty of papers to prove this point. Not just theoretical: quantum entanglement proves the existence of wormholes.

If you want to claim that the atmosphere applies pressure, YOU NEED A STABLE, ROTATING WORMHOLE WHICH DOES NOT ABSORB AETHER.

« Last Edit: July 24, 2020, 08:34:32 AM by sandokhan »

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #61 on: July 24, 2020, 07:44:00 AM »
If you want to claim that the atmosphere applies pressure, YOU NEED A STABLE, ROTATING WORMHOLE WHICH DOES NOT ABSORB AETHER.

Says you.  No such thing as AETHER.  STABLE ROTATING WORMHOLES are also another fantasy of yours. Wormholes in general are still theoretical. Nobody has seen one.

Say that to dr. Ellis

Does he have a STABLE, ROTATING WORMHOLE?

Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #62 on: July 24, 2020, 08:08:59 AM »
I don’t need an aether absorbing wormhole to secure a suction cup to a surface.

You most certainly do. I have the references to prove it. You got nothing so far.

The pressure on the outside is greater than the inside.

Not when your bathroom scale does not register the 2,000 pounds of weight.

You’re painfully trying to apply theoretical quantum notions to a very simple atmospheric scenario.

Very leisurely, for your information.

If you want to claim that the atmosphere applies pressure, YOU NEED A STABLE, ROTATING WORMHOLE WHICH DOES NOT ABSORB AETHER.

you say that there is 2,000 pounds of wight holding down the scale, I must have superman powers by picking up the scale off the floor.

 
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7261
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #63 on: July 24, 2020, 08:12:30 AM »
On a FE you do.

The barometer pressure paradox proves that the entire atmosphere is not subject to the "law" of attractive gravity.

The collapsing bottle/tanker vacuum chambers are directly related to the aether absorbing graviton model.

Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #64 on: July 24, 2020, 08:41:58 AM »
On a FE you do.

The barometer pressure paradox proves that the entire atmosphere is not subject to the "law" of attractive gravity.

The collapsing bottle/tanker vacuum chambers are directly related to the aether absorbing graviton model.

why would the scale Measure the 2,000 pounds of atmosphere and I not have to over come that 2,000 pounds to, pickup the scale?
I can pick up the scale, there for I am not on a FE world, but on a globe world, with attractive gravity.

The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7261
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #65 on: July 24, 2020, 08:42:40 AM »
BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX

"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."

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.


Lord Rayleigh: ‘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.’


Currently, the barometer pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL.


Richard Lindzen tried, some 40 years ago, to include the effects of ozone and water absorption in the atmospheric tide equations; notwithstanding that in his original paper he did express some doubts, the scientific community happily concluded that the barometer pressure paradox has been solved.


Not by a long shot.

Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAS3290.1

While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the influence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating profile in the troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought for driving the semidiurnal tide.


There are ONLY two phenomena which exhibit overall SEMIDIURNAL OSCILLATIONS: barometric pressure and atmospheric electricity.

One is the cause for the other, again using Weyl's electrogravitational formula.

The atom is a capacitor.

http://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/06_1074.pdf

Neutral Atoms Behave Much Like Classical Spherical Capacitors (published in the Physical Review)

https://vixra.org/pdf/1501.0094v1.pdf

Quantized Capacitance and Energy of the Atom


gps signals semidiurnal atmospheric tides (google search)

The first two pdfs carefully analyze the influence of semidiurnal atmospheric tides on GPS signals.

This means that we can immediately connect the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT with the atmospheric tides, and with the semidiurnal oscillations of atmospheric electricity.


Here is the absolute proof that the atmospheric tide is caused by the atmospheric electrical tide (both are semidiurnal):

https://ia800107.us.archive.org/14/items/philtrans07216443/07216443.pdf (the appendix provides definite proofs that the semidiurnal barometric tide is caused by the semidiurnal atmospheric electricity oscillations)





Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #66 on: July 24, 2020, 09:23:58 AM »
Just to note that this has its respective thread. Keep this related to subject in hand

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7261

*

Timeisup

  • 4048
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #68 on: July 24, 2020, 02:37:56 PM »
Sure.

Here is everything you want to know about the gases in the atmosphere paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg789442#msg789442

Stationary atmosphere:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg819201#msg819201

Hadley cells paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71601.msg2018372#msg2018372


All that you have posted has no scientific basis whatsoever, it's pure made up rubbish.

Why do I say that?

Currently, we have a number of solar observatories orbiting the sun. We have a number of ground-based solar observatories that study the sun 24/7

The Parker Solar Probe has recently returned data that have answered a number of questions about the structure of the sun's surface never before seen.

And in return, all you offer is rubbish like this:-

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#71

An extract from the Book of Enoch!
« Last Edit: July 24, 2020, 02:45:13 PM by Timeisup »
"I can accept that some aspects of FE belief are true, while others are fiction."

Jack Black

Now that is a laugh!

*

JackBlack

  • 23376
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #69 on: July 24, 2020, 02:55:44 PM »
jackblack, you are a quack science fanatic.
You sure do love projecting your own inadequacies onto others.
You are the one who seems quite fanatical about your crazy quack science, completing discarding actual science which has been backed up by mountains of evidence.

The scale placed in water in a tank example has nothing to do with a scale placed outside of that tank. You must be really desperate to even mention such a catastrophic (for you) analogy.
No, it is a quite a good example of how air pressure works.
When the scale is entirely inside the fluid, it does not feel the weight of the fluid.
That is because the hydrostatic pressure in the fluid both pushes down on the top of the scale plate and up on the bottom of the scale plate.
It is a perfect of why a normal scale does not measure the weight of the atmosphere.

In order to measure the weight of the atmosphere you need to remove the atmosphere from the bottom of the scale.

He was giving a valid analogy.
On a round earth, you must explain why the bathroom scale does not register at once 2,000 pounds of weight.
And I have.

It is the exact same reason why a scale placed inside a tank of water (at the bottom) does not register the weight of the water in the tank.

Why do you not see the equivalence of them?
Is it because you know it refutes you?

Now again, care to address the simple questions:
Just what magic do you think will stop air pressure pushing upwards on the bottom of the plate of the scale?
Why does this magic not stop air pressure pushing up on other things when there is a difference in pressure?
Why do scales when placed inside a tank of water not record the weight of the water, yet they do when placed outside?

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #70 on: July 24, 2020, 03:13:45 PM »
BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX

NOT A REAL PARADOX.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #71 on: July 24, 2020, 04:12:51 PM »
My statements on gravity are backed up by the best references available today.

When your references are theoretical physics, your statements of "fact" carry the same weight as if you provided no references.
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #72 on: July 24, 2020, 09:17:11 PM »

Currently, we have a number of solar observatories orbiting the sun.

Listen, you ape cumshot, you must explain why those observatories do not register the orbital Sagnac effect which amounts to 333ns (an effect much larger than the rotational Sagnac effect).

Because they are observatories.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #73 on: July 25, 2020, 12:04:46 AM »

Currently, we have a number of solar observatories orbiting the sun.

Listen, you ape cumshot, you must explain why those observatories do not register the orbital Sagnac effect which amounts to 333ns (an effect much larger than the rotational Sagnac effect).

And you still can’t explain how they are in orbit at all with a flat earth and tiny sun.

Your favourite argument is fundamentally based on a heliocentric model.

*

Timeisup

  • 4048
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #74 on: July 25, 2020, 02:21:30 AM »

Currently, we have a number of solar observatories orbiting the sun.

Listen, you ape cumshot, you must explain why those observatories do not register the orbital Sagnac effect which amounts to 333ns (an effect much larger than the rotational Sagnac effect).

I think what you need to come to terms with is your complete lack of reason. You pick over science choosing only those tiny bits you like which you then distort and jam them into your belief system. In the same breath you talk about an effect which you yourself have never measured, can never measure while invoking a religious text written some 2500 Years ago.
And you call that science! I call it gross Stupidity.
"I can accept that some aspects of FE belief are true, while others are fiction."

Jack Black

Now that is a laugh!

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #75 on: July 25, 2020, 03:58:14 AM »

Currently, we have a number of solar observatories orbiting the sun.

Listen, you ape cumshot, you must explain why those observatories do not register the orbital Sagnac effect which amounts to 333ns (an effect much larger than the rotational Sagnac effect).

I thought ape was my pet name. :(

I find it funny Wise says I'm a bot, when you respond instinctively to any post that says "orbit" with your cut-and-paste MISSING ORBITAL LASAGNA EFFECT without fail.

It makes it clear that you really don't know what you're talking about.  What does 333ns have to do with a telescope?  :-\

*

JackBlack

  • 23376
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #76 on: July 25, 2020, 04:31:59 AM »
you must explain ... Sagnac
No we don't; as your outright lies on the Sagnac effect have no bearing on this thread at all.

You need to explain why we should expect to see the weight of the atmosphere recorded on the scale, given the atmospheric pressure acts in all directions including up from the bottom of the scale.
In order to do so you also need to address why a scale does not measure the weight of water in a tank while it is submerged in that tank, but it does measure it when it is supporting the tank.
This is quite important as the scale submerged in water is equivalent to a scale submerged in atmosphere.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7261
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #77 on: July 25, 2020, 10:04:10 AM »
The scale in a water tank is one thing.

To explain this is quite another.



If the air is removed from the plastic bottle, it will implode immediately; instantaneously, the dextrorotatory receptive vortices will absorb any aether left in the tanker/soda can/plastic bottle, causing a complete implosion of the object.

Now, before 1964, this explanation would have been rejected by mainstream science: however, it turned out that gravity is described by rotating receptive ether wormholes.

In order to disprove this statement, you, the RE, must come up with a rotating wormhole which does not absorb aether.

The deepest connection between gravity and quantum entanglement:

“The universality of the gravitational interaction comes directly from the universality of entanglement- it is not possible to have stress-energy that doesn’t source the gravitational field because it is not possible to have degrees of freedom that don’t contribute to entanglement entropy.”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2933.pdf

Universality of Gravity from Entanglement

Quarks are linked by wormholes:


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850v2.pdf

Holographic Schwinger effect and the geometry of entanglement

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

Julian Sonner, a senior postdoc in MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Center for Theoretical Physics, has published his results in the journal Physical Review Letters, where it appears together with a related paper by Kristan Jensen of the University of Victoria and Andreas Karch of the University of Washington.

The tangled web that is gravity

He found that what emerged was a wormhole connecting the two entangled quarks, implying that the creation of quarks simultaneously creates a wormhole. More fundamentally, he says, gravity itself may be a result of entanglement. What’s more, the universe’s geometry as described by classical gravity may be a consequence of entanglement—pairs of particles strung together by tunneling wormholes.


https://newatlas.com/physics/15-trillion-atoms-quantum-entanglement/

The team mixed rubidium metal with nitrogen gas, and heated it up to 176.9 °C (350.3 °F). At that temperature, the metal vaporizes, causing free rubidium atoms to float around the chamber. There they become entangled with each other, and the team can measure that entanglement by shining a laser through the gas.

The researchers observed as many as 15 trillion entangled atoms in the gas, which they say is about 100 times more than any other experiment.

“If we stop the measurement, the entanglement remains for about one millisecond, which means that 1,000 times per second a new batch of 15 trillion atoms is being entangled,” says Jia Kong, first author of the study. “And you must think that 1 ms is a very long time for the atoms, long enough for about 50 random collisions to occur. This clearly shows that the entanglement is not destroyed by these random events. This is maybe the most surprising result of the work.”


Dr. Ellis' groundbreaking paper takes GTR from a singularity to a drainhole aether model, the paper was published in the JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS.

Now, the mathematical theory for the absorption/emission of aether through a Planck length level particle.

http://euclid.colorado.edu/~ellis/RelativityPapers/EtFlThDrPaMoGeRe.pdf

Ether flow through a drainhole: a particle model in general relativity

Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 14, no. 1, 1973



Dr. Ellis:

This ether is in general "more than a mere inert medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves; it is a restless, flowing continuum whose internal, relative motions manifest themselves to us as gravity. Mass particles appear as sources or sinks of this flowing ether."


This is the established model in quantum physics.

Gravitons which absorb aether through rotating wormholes.


You must come up with a rotating wormhole model which does not absorb aether.

Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #78 on: July 25, 2020, 10:55:35 AM »
Does air pressure even exist in you fantasy universe?

It’s quite simple.  Air outside, no air inside, bottle collapses.  Gravity doesn’t even come into that example.

In an other astonishing science breakthrough, I can inflate my bike tires by pumping air in them.  Amazing!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #79 on: July 25, 2020, 10:59:49 AM »
He doesn’t understand. Nor does he understand a pump from the top can only pump water so high. It’s why well pumps have to be at the bottom.

https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae443.cfm
« Last Edit: July 25, 2020, 11:11:32 AM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7261
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #80 on: July 25, 2020, 11:05:12 AM »
It’s quite simple.

It ain't.

You are forgetting the barometer pressure paradox which defies terrestrial gravity.

You are forgetting the fact that terrestrial gravity = aether absorbing wormholes.

You seem to be quite forgetful.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #81 on: July 25, 2020, 11:05:27 AM »
He doesn’t understand. Nor does he understand a pump from the top can only pump water so high. It’s why we’ll pumps have to be at the bottom.

https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae443.cfm

I do wonder how he explains why his SUPER DUPER ROTATING DANCING STABLE WORMHOLES are unable to pull water higher than 10 meters.

What's his explanation for that?  Why can't wormhole-aether-spinny-magic not lift water any higher? What's wrong with those little wormholes?

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #82 on: July 25, 2020, 11:14:47 AM »
He doesn’t understand. Nor does he understand a pump from the top can only pump water so high. It’s why we’ll pumps have to be at the bottom.

https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae443.cfm

I do wonder how he explains why his SUPER DUPER ROTATING DANCING STABLE WORMHOLES are unable to pull water higher than 10 meters.

What's his explanation for that?  Why can't wormhole-aether-spinny-magic not lift water any higher? What's wrong with those little wormholes?
Maybe we can get him to answer.

I guess I should add for him that the mercury in his barometer has the same effect on it. He seems to think barometers works. Yet the air pressure outside disappears when a vacuum pump is used?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Timeisup

  • 4048
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #83 on: July 25, 2020, 12:39:23 PM »
It’s quite simple.

It ain't.

You are forgetting the barometer pressure paradox which defies terrestrial gravity.

You are forgetting the fact that terrestrial gravity = aether absorbing wormholes.

You seem to be quite forgetful.

No such thing as a wormhole, nor is there any such thing as the aether.

Prove me wrong by stating where and when wormholes were discovered, and please don't quote an episode of Startrek.
Likewise, the aether was proved not to exist and be an outdated concept.

Using fiction and our dated concepts render any argument you may wish to use null and void.
"I can accept that some aspects of FE belief are true, while others are fiction."

Jack Black

Now that is a laugh!

*

Timeisup

  • 4048
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #84 on: July 25, 2020, 12:42:20 PM »
The scale in a water tank is one thing.

To explain this is quite another.



If the air is removed from the plastic bottle, it will implode immediately; instantaneously, the dextrorotatory receptive vortices will absorb any aether left in the tanker/soda can/plastic bottle, causing a complete implosion of the object.

Now, before 1964, this explanation would have been rejected by mainstream science: however, it turned out that gravity is described by rotating receptive ether wormholes.

In order to disprove this statement, you, the RE, must come up with a rotating wormhole which does not absorb aether.

The deepest connection between gravity and quantum entanglement:

“The universality of the gravitational interaction comes directly from the universality of entanglement- it is not possible to have stress-energy that doesn’t source the gravitational field because it is not possible to have degrees of freedom that don’t contribute to entanglement entropy.”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2933.pdf

Universality of Gravity from Entanglement

Quarks are linked by wormholes:


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850v2.pdf

Holographic Schwinger effect and the geometry of entanglement

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

Julian Sonner, a senior postdoc in MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Center for Theoretical Physics, has published his results in the journal Physical Review Letters, where it appears together with a related paper by Kristan Jensen of the University of Victoria and Andreas Karch of the University of Washington.

The tangled web that is gravity

He found that what emerged was a wormhole connecting the two entangled quarks, implying that the creation of quarks simultaneously creates a wormhole. More fundamentally, he says, gravity itself may be a result of entanglement. What’s more, the universe’s geometry as described by classical gravity may be a consequence of entanglement—pairs of particles strung together by tunneling wormholes.


https://newatlas.com/physics/15-trillion-atoms-quantum-entanglement/

The team mixed rubidium metal with nitrogen gas, and heated it up to 176.9 °C (350.3 °F). At that temperature, the metal vaporizes, causing free rubidium atoms to float around the chamber. There they become entangled with each other, and the team can measure that entanglement by shining a laser through the gas.

The researchers observed as many as 15 trillion entangled atoms in the gas, which they say is about 100 times more than any other experiment.

“If we stop the measurement, the entanglement remains for about one millisecond, which means that 1,000 times per second a new batch of 15 trillion atoms is being entangled,” says Jia Kong, first author of the study. “And you must think that 1 ms is a very long time for the atoms, long enough for about 50 random collisions to occur. This clearly shows that the entanglement is not destroyed by these random events. This is maybe the most surprising result of the work.”


Dr. Ellis' groundbreaking paper takes GTR from a singularity to a drainhole aether model, the paper was published in the JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS.

Now, the mathematical theory for the absorption/emission of aether through a Planck length level particle.

http://euclid.colorado.edu/~ellis/RelativityPapers/EtFlThDrPaMoGeRe.pdf

Ether flow through a drainhole: a particle model in general relativity

Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 14, no. 1, 1973



Dr. Ellis:

This ether is in general "more than a mere inert medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves; it is a restless, flowing continuum whose internal, relative motions manifest themselves to us as gravity. Mass particles appear as sources or sinks of this flowing ether."


This is the established model in quantum physics.

Gravitons which absorb aether through rotating wormholes.


You must come up with a rotating wormhole model which does not absorb aether.

Continuing to misquote science and pretend it validates your arguments is a waste of time.
Everything you attribute to these papers is wrong.
You should go back and read them properly and stop making stuff up as a result.
"I can accept that some aspects of FE belief are true, while others are fiction."

Jack Black

Now that is a laugh!

*

Timeisup

  • 4048
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #85 on: July 25, 2020, 12:45:12 PM »
On a FE you do.

The barometer pressure paradox proves that the entire atmosphere is not subject to the "law" of attractive gravity.
 any of
The collapsing bottle/tanker vacuum chambers are directly related to the aether absorbing graviton model.
the scientists

We don't live on a flat earth. Ask any of the scientists you are so fond of misquoting and not one of them will say the earth is flat. I also think they would be upset to see you misrepresenting their work.

You could prove me wrong.
"I can accept that some aspects of FE belief are true, while others are fiction."

Jack Black

Now that is a laugh!

*

JackBlack

  • 23376
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #86 on: July 25, 2020, 03:24:43 PM »
The scale in a water tank is one thing.
Yes, one thing which directly relates to your nonsense claim that a scale should record the weight of the atmosphere.
Yet you can't address it. Why?
Is it because you know it refutes you and you have no rational objection?

To explain this is quite another.

No, it is quite similar.
When there is no air in the bottle, there is no atmospheric pressure inside the bottle pushing the bottle outwards. Instead you only have the atmospheric pressure on the outside pushing in. This force crushes the bottle.
Very basic stuff and a clear and simple demonstration of the affect of atmospheric pressure.

Again, your garbage on gravity has nothing to do with the thread.

Again, explain why you think a scale should measure the weight of the atmosphere when it has the atmosphere pushing from above and below, and explain why the same shouldn't apply to scales submerged in water.

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #87 on: July 25, 2020, 11:58:57 PM »
The force holding the suction cup comes from the string of subquarks which connect the surface of the cup with the surface of the body to which it is attached, as the cup recovers its shape aether is being withdrawn from the surface of the body, along with strings of subquarks, this is the reason for the force experienced.

But have you ever seen any suction cup working while in vacuum chamber? :)

EDIT: And why are Magdeburg Hemispheres easy to separate in one position, and in the same position much harder to separate when you only pull the air out from the inside?

« Last Edit: July 26, 2020, 12:04:26 AM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #88 on: July 28, 2020, 03:21:41 AM »
So, one analogy brought up to questions like mine is spinning water in dinner plate. You start spin in central part and few seconds later all water is spinning along. But plate has boider which is keeping water near it form displaying "wave" motion, which shoud happen with air.


On geocentric Earth, there is some force which acts dowbwards at one G. So, atoms fall down at angle of 90° ans bounce. On FE, same thing happens.


But what happens when you add 1600 km/h spin? Mess. Atoms need to fall in angle, defying gravity, in order to bounce in other angle to keep up. If they were bouncing in 90° Earth whoud have rotater under them.

*

JackBlack

  • 23376
Re: Question about atmospheric motion.
« Reply #89 on: July 28, 2020, 03:55:13 AM »
It isn't the border that is important, it is if it is against something stationary.

If you have something spinning inside a stationary container, then the fluid between the spinning object and the container needs to transition between spinning with the object and being stationary with the container. However if there is no stationary container, either because the container is spinning with the object, or there simply is none, then there is no need for that transition.

Also, gravity does not demand that objects fall and bounce at 90 degrees.
That is only the direction of acceleration.
If an object already has some lateral velocity, then it will accelerate towards the ground, bounce at some angle other than 90 degrees and continue to move with that lateral velocity.

However when you deal with air, you need to deal with the ground at a molecular/atomic level, where even an object that appears flat at the macroscopic scale can be quite bumpy.