ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

If you reject that force, you end up with this:

Where there is no pressure gradient.

This is a better set up. If you just use F without any minus then this is the deal.

No need for any W or G. It's just nonsense.

As you can see below I've used colour for clarity of the atmospheric stacking system. The stacked layers.
As you can also see, each layer rests on the next and each layer uses the below layer as its foundation.

You can see this as a push and resistance to push in below and above aspect.
The bottom layer is under immense pressure from all the above layers that are stacked upon it.
The next layer above that is also under immense pressure but not quite the same as the below.
And so on and so on and so on, all the way up.


Basically you end up with this type of scenario, below, when imagined in a more closer molecular stacking system.





I'm absolutely sure you'll reject it and also claim I don't explain anything.


This isn't directly for you, it's just conveying the message through you. It's for those who actually want to try and understand.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 16, 2021, 11:23:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 16, 2021, 10:26:10 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 16, 2021, 10:07:40 AM

No  we agreed on the one concept as part of the point.

Constant velocity is a thing.
The application of force to maintain constant velocity is also a thing.
You failing basic physics is also a thing and not reliant on denP.

You agreed you could not have constant velocity if you have resistance to force.

Now you disagree?

Tell me how you can have constant velocity, then.

You really are stupid.

A car hits 100km/h constant velocity.
Air drag slows the car down unless the driver maintains the added gas force needed to cancel out drag and maintain 100.

There
Constant V is achieved while satisfying your criteria and maintaining my original statement.

Be less stupid.

I don't think you've been paying attention.

I'll make it bigger.

You cannot have constant velocity with force.
To keep an exact  constant velocity would require you to have absolutely no resistance to initial force.
It's an impossible scenario and you know it.

In your set up your car is going 100km/h. You say air drag slows the car down.
If air drag slows the car down and you have to apply a force to get back to the 100km/h then you never had nor never will hold a constant velocity.


In a magical world of no resistance to initial push then you would have the rate of speed of that push and nothing more and nothing less, which would mean you have constant velocity.

The problem with this is, you have to imagine it because it's an impossibility.

It's as simple as that, really.

Constant - being the same and not changing.

Velocity - crossing a distance over time in a direction, aka speed in a direction.

Constant velocity - having an unchanging speed in a direction.

Acelleration - increasing changing rate of speed over time (km per hr per hr).

Decelleration - decreasong changing rate of speed ovee time (km per hr per hr)


Speed minus drag plus gas = ??

100km/hr minus 5km/hr/hr plus 5km/hr/hr = 100km/hr

Maintaing 100km/h = constant velocity.



You sir are very stupid.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 16, 2021, 03:09:29 PM

If you reject that force, you end up with this:

Where there is no pressure gradient.

This is a better set up. If you just use F without any minus then this is the deal.

No need for any W or G. It's just nonsense.

Again, you are the one spouting nonsense.

If you just use F, there is no gradient.
The pressure is constant throughout.
You need that extra force, which you dismiss as nonsense to create the pressure gradient.

The bottom layer is under immense pressure from all the above layers that are stacked upon it.
The next layer above that is also under immense pressure but not quite the same as the below.

Why?
That is the big issue you can NEVER explain.
The only thing in your model pushing that bottom layer down is the air above.
The only thing in your model pushing the above layer down is the air above.
There is no extra force to make that intermediate layer push down more.

Again, you can try this by turning the system sideways, and using ANYTHING as an analogy.
If you push a bunch of springs or sponges or whatever against a wall, the pressure is the same throughout.
With the wall on the right:
The right layer is under the "immense pressure" from the left layers pushing it into the wall.
The next left layer is also under "immense pressure", and that is the same pressure as that on the right most layer.
It doesn't matter how many layers you have, or how much force you use, there is no magical gradient.

It can also be clear to go from the other way.
The left most layer is just being pushed by you or whatever. This uses the layer to the right as resistance, by pushing on it.
This transfer the push you are applying to that layer, effectively pushing it with the SAME force, not a magical increase like you want to pretend.
The layer
This continues all the way to the wall.
The push and resistance are balanced, and there is no increase in force/pressure at all.

Now, as a different analogy, one which actually uses the W you dismiss as nonsense:
You have a bunch of people pushing right into the wall.
They are now using the ground as resistance to push to the right.
Now the person furthest to the left has no one pushing them, but they push against the ground into the next person along.
This next person along is being pushed by the person behind, and is also pushing off the ground. This allows them to push with even greater force into the next person.
You could consider them as pushing on the people to the left using the people to the right AND THE GROUND as resistance.

Now this continues, with the force building until the person next to the wall gets crushed from the force.

As each person is using the ground to apply an additional force, the pressure builds.

Again, no extra force, no pressure gradient.

So this extra force is what you need to explain, or you need to explain how the air magically pushes down with a force greater than the force pushing the air down.

I'm absolutely sure you'll reject it and also claim I don't explain anything.

Perhaps when you stop with the pathetic dismissal and actual deal with the issue I will stop pointing out that you are continually deflecting from the issue.

This isn't directly for you, it's just conveying the message through you. It's for those who actually want to try and understand.

Again, the fact I repeatedly explain why you are wrong, and you continually deflect from that shows I do understand.

What it seems to be is for those you hope will just blindly accept whatever garbage is put forwards to pretend the globe is wrong.

Quote from: sceptimatic

You cannot have constant velocity with force.
To keep an exact  constant velocity would require you to have absolutely no resistance to initial force.
It's an impossible scenario and you know it.

In your set up your car is going 100km/h. You say air drag slows the car down.
If air drag slows the car down and you have to apply a force to get back to the 100km/h then you never had nor never will hold a constant velocity.


In a magical world of no resistance to initial push then you would have the rate of speed of that push and nothing more and nothing less, which would mean you have constant velocity.

The problem with this is, you have to imagine it because it's an impossibility.

It's as simple as that, really.

Constant - being the same and not changing.

Which is impossible.

Velocity - crossing a distance over time in a direction, aka speed in a direction.

Yep, no issue with that.

Constant velocity - having an unchanging speed in a direction.

Impossible.

Acelleration - increasing changing rate of speed over time (km per hr per hr).

No problem with that.

Decelleration - decreasong changing rate of speed ovee time (km per hr per hr)

I don't accept it but I won't argue it.

Speed minus drag plus gas = ??

There's always a force so resistance is the enemy of constant velocity, which means constant velocity is nothing more than a saying to describe a fiction/fantasy.

100km/hr minus 5km/hr/hr plus 5km/hr/hr = 100km/hr

Not constant, is it?

Maintaing 100km/h = constant velocity.

Maintaining 100 km/h kills constant velocity.
Everything changes. Nothing is perfectly set up to accept constant velocity....ever, unless you say there is zero resistance acting on the vehicle in motion but there is always changing resistance so never a constant velocity.

If you put your mind to it, you'll agree, if you want to be honest.

You sir are very stupid.

Feel free to think what you like about me but it does not heighten your understanding of what you're arguing against me with.

Terminal velocity for a falling object is also a constant velocity. Where air resistance is equal to acceleration due to gravity (or due to gobstopper sponge crush if you prefer)

Nope.
Terminal velocity cannot be constant, either.

Terminal velocity would be the slowing of the fall of an object from its maximum rate of fall to an ever changing resistance to that rate of fall, all the way to the ground/foundation.

You can never hit constant velocity...ever.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 17, 2021, 02:06:20 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 16, 2021, 03:09:29 PM

If you reject that force, you end up with this:

Where there is no pressure gradient.

This is a better set up. If you just use F without any minus then this is the deal.

No need for any W or G. It's just nonsense.

Again, you are the one spouting nonsense.

If you just use F, there is no gradient.
The pressure is constant throughout.
You need that extra force, which you dismiss as nonsense to create the pressure gradient.

If you paid attention to the diagram I made you'd understand there is always a gradient in every stacked layer.

You refuse to look at it because you know it makes sense and that kills off your gravity nonsense.

This is AMAZING!

If you paid attention to the diagram I made you'd understand there is always a gradient in every stacked layer.

And if you had paid the slightest bit of attention to what I have been saying, you would know that is dodging yet again.

Again, I know that there is a gradient.
I have never rejected that fact.
The problem is your complete inability to explain this gradient.

You have no justification at all for why each layer should push down more than the layer above, given you claim it is the layer above pushing down which causes everything to fall.

Again, it is in the simple diagram you accept:

Without an extra force, the force is constant throughout the stack. There is no gradient.

You refuse to look at it because you know it makes sense and that kills off your gravity nonsense.

You mean I repeatedly bring it up to show how your model is garbage and how gravity explains it just fine?
Again, here is the diagram which you hate, which includes gravity (which is why you hate it; but you can pretend it is some pure magic that is making objects fall instead of gravity):

Now, there IS an extra force.
This means each layer will be pushing down on the layer below with a slightly greater force than the air above is pushing it down.
This will cause a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.

Again, gravity, the thing you hate so much, explains the pressure gradient just fine, and you can find no fault with it.
But with your rejection of gravity and instead pretending air is what is making everything fall, you completely fail to explain the pressure gradient.

That is why yet again, you have made no attempt at all to explain the pressure gradient, you have made no attempt at all to explain why each layer pushes down more than the layer above.

Instead you just appeal to the existence of the pressure gradient as if that magically means your model is fine.
But guess what? It doesn't.
Instead it shows your model is garbage.

Appealing to the existence of the gradient does not help you at all.
Likewise, appealing to analogies showing the existence of the gradient due to gravity, in air or other fluids, or even using objects, doesn't help you at all.
All this shows is that there is such a gradient.
It in no way helps you to explain why there is a gradient.

Appealing to the existence of the gradient will just continue to show your model is garbage until you can actually explain WHY there is a pressure gradient.
That doesn't mean simply stating a pressure gradient exists. It means actually explain why the force increases as you go further down, and why this extra pressure doesn't push the air up to remove the pressure gradient.

So stop with the deflection and explain why there is a gradient. Why the pressure increases as you go down.

...
I'll make it bigger.

You cannot have constant velocity with force.
To keep an exact  constant velocity would require you to have absolutely no resistance to initial force.
It's an impossible scenario and you know it.

In your set up your car is going 100km/h. You say air drag slows the car down.
If air drag slows the car down and you have to apply a force to get back to the 100km/h then you never had nor never will hold a constant velocity.


In a magical world of no resistance to initial push then you would have the rate of speed of that push and nothing more and nothing less, which would mean you have constant velocity.

The problem with this is, you have to imagine it because it's an impossibility.

It's as simple as that, really.

Glad you finally agree inertia exists. You said it yourself "A force is required to slow down a moving object.'

Quote from: Bored on April 17, 2021, 05:45:08 AM

Terminal velocity for a falling object is also a constant velocity. Where air resistance is equal to acceleration due to gravity (or due to gobstopper sponge crush if you prefer)

Nope.
Terminal velocity cannot be constant, either.

Terminal velocity would be the slowing of the fall of an object from its maximum rate of fall to an ever changing resistance to that rate of fall, all the way to the ground/foundation.

...

So the air pushing the object down pushes the object up?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 18, 2021, 01:41:19 AM

Quote from: Bored on April 17, 2021, 05:45:08 AM

Terminal velocity for a falling object is also a constant velocity. Where air resistance is equal to acceleration due to gravity (or due to gobstopper sponge crush if you prefer)

Nope.
Terminal velocity cannot be constant, either.

Terminal velocity would be the slowing of the fall of an object from its maximum rate of fall to an ever changing resistance to that rate of fall, all the way to the ground/foundation.

You can never hit constant velocity...ever.

What about if I'm stationary on the stationary flat earth. Then I have a constant velocity of 0.

You are never stationary.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 18, 2021, 01:44:17 AM

If you paid attention to the diagram I made you'd understand there is always a gradient in every stacked layer.

And if you had paid the slightest bit of attention to what I have been saying, you would know that is dodging yet again.

Again, I know that there is a gradient.
I have never rejected that fact.
The problem is your complete inability to explain this gradient.

You have no justification at all for why each layer should push down more than the layer above, given you claim it is the layer above pushing down which causes everything to fall.

Again, it is in the simple diagram you accept:

Without an extra force, the force is constant throughout the stack. There is no gradient.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 18, 2021, 01:12:36 AM

You refuse to look at it because you know it makes sense and that kills off your gravity nonsense.

You mean I repeatedly bring it up to show how your model is garbage and how gravity explains it just fine?
Again, here is the diagram which you hate, which includes gravity (which is why you hate it; but you can pretend it is some pure magic that is making objects fall instead of gravity):

Now, there IS an extra force.
This means each layer will be pushing down on the layer below with a slightly greater force than the air above is pushing it down.
This will cause a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.

Again, gravity, the thing you hate so much, explains the pressure gradient just fine, and you can find no fault with it.
But with your rejection of gravity and instead pretending air is what is making everything fall, you completely fail to explain the pressure gradient.

That is why yet again, you have made no attempt at all to explain the pressure gradient, you have made no attempt at all to explain why each layer pushes down more than the layer above.

Instead you just appeal to the existence of the pressure gradient as if that magically means your model is fine.
But guess what? It doesn't.
Instead it shows your model is garbage.

Appealing to the existence of the gradient does not help you at all.
Likewise, appealing to analogies showing the existence of the gradient due to gravity, in air or other fluids, or even using objects, doesn't help you at all.
All this shows is that there is such a gradient.
It in no way helps you to explain why there is a gradient.

Appealing to the existence of the gradient will just continue to show your model is garbage until you can actually explain WHY there is a pressure gradient.
That doesn't mean simply stating a pressure gradient exists. It means actually explain why the force increases as you go further down, and why this extra pressure doesn't push the air up to remove the pressure gradient.

So stop with the deflection and explain why there is a gradient. Why the pressure increases as you go down.

If you won't or can't grasp what I've said then the problem is entirely yours.

So the air pushing the object down pushes the object up?

Nope.
The air below the object is pushed away and comes back around to aid the push down...and so on all the way to the bottom.

What you push down rises up by that compression your object creates.
It's simple atmospheric displacement and no different to any liquid displaced by an object.

If you place an object in a bucket you see the water level in that bucket, rise.
That rise means the water crushes back against the object by the amount the object displaced of it.
Exactly the same with atmosphere.

Quote from: sokarul on April 18, 2021, 06:53:29 PM

So the air pushing the object down pushes the object up?

Nope.
The air below the object is pushed away and comes back around to aid the push down...and so on all the way to the bottom.

What you push down rises up by that compression your object creates.
It's simple atmospheric displacement and no different to any liquid displaced by an object.

If you place an object in a bucket you see the water level in that bucket, rise.
That rise means the water crushes back against the object by the amount the object displaced of it.
Exactly the same with atmosphere.

Caught you slippin. Just like inertia. Just too easy.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 18, 2021, 04:25:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 18, 2021, 01:44:17 AM

If you paid attention to the diagram I made you'd understand there is always a gradient in every stacked layer.

And if you had paid the slightest bit of attention to what I have been saying, you would know that is dodging yet again.

Again, I know that there is a gradient.
I have never rejected that fact.
The problem is your complete inability to explain this gradient.

You have no justification at all for why each layer should push down more than the layer above, given you claim it is the layer above pushing down which causes everything to fall.

Again, it is in the simple diagram you accept:

Without an extra force, the force is constant throughout the stack. There is no gradient.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 18, 2021, 01:12:36 AM

You refuse to look at it because you know it makes sense and that kills off your gravity nonsense.

You mean I repeatedly bring it up to show how your model is garbage and how gravity explains it just fine?
Again, here is the diagram which you hate, which includes gravity (which is why you hate it; but you can pretend it is some pure magic that is making objects fall instead of gravity):

Now, there IS an extra force.
This means each layer will be pushing down on the layer below with a slightly greater force than the air above is pushing it down.
This will cause a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.

Again, gravity, the thing you hate so much, explains the pressure gradient just fine, and you can find no fault with it.
But with your rejection of gravity and instead pretending air is what is making everything fall, you completely fail to explain the pressure gradient.

That is why yet again, you have made no attempt at all to explain the pressure gradient, you have made no attempt at all to explain why each layer pushes down more than the layer above.

Instead you just appeal to the existence of the pressure gradient as if that magically means your model is fine.
But guess what? It doesn't.
Instead it shows your model is garbage.

Appealing to the existence of the gradient does not help you at all.
Likewise, appealing to analogies showing the existence of the gradient due to gravity, in air or other fluids, or even using objects, doesn't help you at all.
All this shows is that there is such a gradient.
It in no way helps you to explain why there is a gradient.

Appealing to the existence of the gradient will just continue to show your model is garbage until you can actually explain WHY there is a pressure gradient.
That doesn't mean simply stating a pressure gradient exists. It means actually explain why the force increases as you go further down, and why this extra pressure doesn't push the air up to remove the pressure gradient.

So stop with the deflection and explain why there is a gradient. Why the pressure increases as you go down.

If you won't or can't grasp what I've said then the problem is entirely yours.

I have shown quite clearly that I can and do grasp what you have said.

If you are unable to explain why the pressure increases such that each layer pushes down more than the layer above, that problem is entirely yours.

And that is where we are at.
You are unable to explain why the pressure increases.
You appeal to the gradient existing as if it helps you, while you are unable to explain it or justify its existence in your model.

So again, the problem is entirely yours.

Now can you answer the simple questions?

Again, why does each layer push down more than the layer above?
Especially when you claim that the only thing pushing it down is the air above.

What would happen to an object sitting on the top of your stack, squashed up against the inside of the dome? Would it get stuck there, or would something push it down?

Quote from: sokarul on April 18, 2021, 06:53:29 PM

So the air pushing the object down pushes the object up?

Nope.
The air below the object is pushed away and comes back around to aid the push down...and so on all the way to the bottom.

What you push down rises up by that compression your object creates.
It's simple atmospheric displacement and no different to any liquid displaced by an object.

If you place an object in a bucket you see the water level in that bucket, rise.
That rise means the water crushes back against the object by the amount the object displaced of it.
Exactly the same with atmosphere.

Amazing!

@scepti

Although I'm somewhat loathe to admit it, jackblack does seem to have a valid point.

In my view, the gradient is caused by the weight (an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter) of the matter in the layer(s) above.

In terms of pressure, pascal's law, it is the weight of a theoretical 2D column of matter above the pressure measurement point.

It seems clear that the pressure is additive in your view, and that above layers literally sit upon the layers below and push in an additive way.

In the case of your diagram, is the downward F always greater than the upward (resistance to the compression that the pressure from the above layer(s) causes) in some fundamental way?

Guy
He just stated that any object falling will be push up by air, then the air will wrap around it to push it down.

By this - airplanes and helium ballons  shouldnt exist.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 18, 2021, 09:21:10 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 18, 2021, 06:53:29 PM

So the air pushing the object down pushes the object up?

Nope.
The air below the object is pushed away and comes back around to aid the push down...and so on all the way to the bottom.

What you push down rises up by that compression your object creates.
It's simple atmospheric displacement and no different to any liquid displaced by an object.

If you place an object in a bucket you see the water level in that bucket, rise.
That rise means the water crushes back against the object by the amount the object displaced of it.
Exactly the same with atmosphere.

Caught you slippin. Just like inertia. Just too easy.

No slipping here.
You can't even explain what inertia is without resorting to fantasy.

I have shown quite clearly that I can and do grasp what you have said.

Seriously, you haven't.

What would happen to an object sitting on the top of your stack, squashed up against the inside of the dome? Would it get stuck there, or would something push it down?

An object, such as?

Quote from: JackBlack on April 19, 2021, 01:33:50 AM

I have shown quite clearly that I can and do grasp what you have said.

Seriously, you haven't.

Again, if that was the case you would easily be able to address the issue raised.

The fact you continue to deflect, as you have done now, and even ignore the post from jack44556677 who is typically on your side, shows clearly that the issues is yours, not mine.

Again, you are unable to provide any explanation for why the pressure increases as you get closer to Earth.
Again, if it is just the air pushing things down, then the pressure should be constant.

The fact that the pressure is not constant shows that it isn't simply the air pushing things down and instead there is something else causing the air to try to move down.

As you cannot address this massive issue for your model, you just do whatever you can to deflect.

@scepti

Although I'm somewhat loathe to admit it, jackblack does seem to have a valid point.

In my view, the gradient is caused by the weight (an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter) of the matter in the layer(s) above.

In terms of pressure, pascal's law, it is the weight of a theoretical 2D column of matter above the pressure measurement point.

It seems clear that the pressure is additive in your view, and that above layers literally sit upon the layers below and push in an additive way.

In the case of your diagram, is the downward F always greater than the upward (resistance to the compression that the pressure from the above layer(s) causes) in some fundamental way?

The below resistance is always greater than above.
Everything has to push up before it takes its place within a layer of a stacking system.

The atmospheric build is from the bottom.
The reason why the stack happens is energetic push oe expansion of dense matter, as in my gobstopper analogy.

All expanded gases (in this case) are a peel off from the dense make up of gases.
Think of it like Russian dolls.

If you lose a doll it is squeezed up because there is many Russian dolls still packing inside each other.
Like the gobstopper analogy.

This is why helium, hydrogen and what not  end up high above, because their molecular breakdown  is not dense enough to stake any place below. It is squeezed up. Pushed up, if you like.
These broken down molecules will only be stopped getting crushed up once there is no more dense atmosphere  strong enough to do that.
Those gases then sit in that stacked layer.


This happens in different densities from bottom to top.

I'll be more than happy to explain further if you require it.

Guy
He just stated that any object falling will be push up by air, then the air will wrap around it to push it down.

By this - airplanes and helium ballons  shouldnt exist.

If you seriously paid attention you'd get to understand what's been said instead of not having a clue, after all this time.
I'm still hoping you're playing games because that would make more sense.

Again, if that was the case you would easily be able to address the issue raised.

I have but it's impossible with people like you.
You have absolutely no intention of trying to understand from my side...and fair enough.
Keep saying  never answer question for as long as you like and I'll just tell you I do....because I actually do.

You may not like the answers but that's your issue.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 19, 2021, 11:16:17 PM

Again, if that was the case you would easily be able to address the issue raised.

I have but it's impossible with people like you.

No, you haven't.
You have continually dodged it using whatever dishonest BS you can.
The problem is you can't explain it so you need to make up excuses.

Keep saying  never answer question for as long as you like and I'll just tell you I do

Because you can't actually answer them. If you could answer them, you would, rather than just saying you have.

You may not like the fact that you can't answer these simple questions, but that is your issue.

Again, why is the pressure greater?
Why doesn't the higher pressure atmosphere below push the lower pressure atmosphere above up and out of the way, so it can decompress and be at a lower pressure?

You object to the idea of pressure being there without a container, but that is exactly what your model has.

Everything has to push up before it takes its place within a layer of a stacking system.

Is that to establish the stacking system, or only once it is already there.

The reason why the stack happens is energetic push oe expansion of dense matter, as in my gobstopper analogy.

So not because something is pushing them down?
Why should expansion cause a stack?
Again, why vertical?

it is squeezed up because there is many Russian dolls still packing inside each other.

Why up?
There is no justification for the directionality.

Like the gobstopper analogy.

That might work, if you instead have Earth being round and the layers on the outside are the atmosphere, but that still requires completely ignoring what matter actually is.

This is why helium, hydrogen and what not  end up high above, because their molecular breakdown  is not dense enough to stake any place below.

But you have no justification for why density should play a role at all.
This requires a force acting on mass.

It is squeezed up. Pushed up, if you like.

By what?
The pressure gradient of the atmosphere?
Again, why isn't that pushing EVERYTHING up?
Again you contradict yourself, switching between the atmosphere pushing things down and pushing them up.
You can't have it both ways.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 19, 2021, 02:20:40 PM

Guy
He just stated that any object falling will be push up by air, then the air will wrap around it to push it down.

By this - airplanes and helium ballons  shouldnt exist.

If you seriously paid attention you'd get to understand what's been said instead of not having a clue, after all this time.
I'm still hoping you're playing games because that would make more sense.

The below resistance is always greater than above.
Everything has to push up before it takes its place within a layer of a stacking system.

The atmospheric build is from the bottom.
The reason why the stack happens is energetic push oe expansion of dense matter, as in my gobstopper analogy.

All expanded gases (in this case) are a peel off from the dense make up of gases.
Think of it like Russian dolls.

If you lose a doll it is squeezed up because there is many Russian dolls still packing inside each other.
Like the gobstopper analogy.

This is why helium, hydrogen and what not  end up high above, because their molecular breakdown  is not dense enough to stake any place below. It is squeezed up. Pushed up, if you like.
These broken down molecules will only be stopped getting crushed up once there is no more dense atmosphere  strong enough to do that.
Those gases then sit in that stacked layer.


This happens in different densities from bottom to top.

I'll be more than happy to explain further if you require it.

so things have to be pushed up to be pushed down?
draw it
explain how atmospheric air differs from the other known static and dynamic air pressures.


you already cliamed static doesn't exist, but a pop can of coke proves otherwise.

if atmospheric pressure is something different than air pressure define it
go for it.
you've been asked enough times.
educate us instead of hand waving.
oh woe is sceppy, no one listens to him.
woe woe woe
a lot of pleading but everytime you're asked to present or define your points, poooof - nothing.

Quote from: sokarul on April 19, 2021, 12:33:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 18, 2021, 09:21:10 PM

Quote from: sokarul on April 18, 2021, 06:53:29 PM

So the air pushing the object down pushes the object up?

Nope.
The air below the object is pushed away and comes back around to aid the push down...and so on all the way to the bottom.

What you push down rises up by that compression your object creates.
It's simple atmospheric displacement and no different to any liquid displaced by an object.

If you place an object in a bucket you see the water level in that bucket, rise.
That rise means the water crushes back against the object by the amount the object displaced of it.
Exactly the same with atmosphere.

Caught you slippin. Just like inertia. Just too easy.

No slipping here.
You can't even explain what inertia is without resorting to fantasy.

unlike your constant word salad of misuse of commonly understood and defined words - inertia is very eloquently put.

you, who can't even contemplate basic physics, are trying to convince us your model is the most logical.
basic physics which do NOT rely on the shpae of the earth.
you've yet to even understand triangles and circles in the other thread.

fantasy.

right...

Quote from: Psychomech on April 19, 2021, 03:27:48 AM

What would happen to an object sitting on the top of your stack, squashed up against the inside of the dome? Would it get stuck there, or would something push it down?

An object, such as?

such as a suction cup

theoretically
your theory
how would a suction cup perform at the top of the dome?

a normal suction cup is pushed against a glass/ smooth surface and can even hang things upsidedown.
take this, and put it allllllllllllllllll the way up to the dome's surface.
how would it behave?

But you have no justification for why density should play a role at all.
This requires a force acting on mass.

There is always a force acting on mass....at all times.