I don't know better.
You act like you do.
You act like everyone is a complete moron that just can't understand anything.
You act like you know everyone else is wrong.
Even though you cannot justify any of your claims.
I do not agree with the globe for reasons given and it bugs people like you, which is why you come out with this gunk.
Except those "reasons" are pure garbage based upon a complete strawman of the globe and "backed up" by just more lies and strawmen.
It seems to be more that you actually do not agree with the globe due to an irrational hatred of it, and make up excuses to pretend you have reasons, when you clearly have none.
Clearly you don't think like me.
No, unlike you, I actually care about the truth and reason, and evidence.
You are quite happy to just throw that out the window and go with wild speculation, refuted by logic and reason, and so on.
Clearly you believe atmosphere can simply envelope a ball and just stay there with no encasement, at all.
This directly ties back to the issue we have been discussing.
It shows the problem with your garbage.
With your garbage there is no reason for any pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
This would cause the high pressure atmosphere below to push all the atmosphere above up and away, meaning you need something to contain the gas and keep that CONSTANT pressure in.
But in reality, when you start using logic, you realise there is a force acting on all matter to try to move it towards Earth (i.e. down).
This will create a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
The atmosphere is the container.
All the weight of the atmosphere above is what causes the high pressure at the surface.
So no, I'm not the one clinging to magical fantasy. That would be you.
Your garbage does not fit reality at all, as you cannot explain the pressure gradient.
You claiming that you need a container shows you either have no idea what you are talking about or are blatantly lying to pretend there is a problem when there is none.
I've already explained the pressure gradient by stacking.
No, you haven't.
You have effectively just restated the fact that there is a pressure gradient.
You have not explained it at all.
You need to explain WHY there is a pressure gradient.
Again, gravity explains this pressure gradient just fine. Your nonsense doesn't.
Each singular stacked layer pushes and resists the one above.
And it pushes and resists the one below.
There is no preferred directionality and no way to build up a pressure gradient.
Each layer of molecules are more condensed than the layer above those layers.
Again, this is the observation you can't explain.
Again, the force diagram is quite simple, without that force W, the force pushing each layer down is the same.
You can't get the lower layers more compressed unless you add an extra force.
Remember, you are claiming that
Again, this is exactly what is observed for a sideways force, the pressure is constant throughout.
There is no magical force acting on each layer in this sideways stack to increase the pressure, so it remains constant.
A sideways force is can be the effects of an object placed into the atmosphere to compress it
There you go ignoring the point again.
Once more, if your nonsense was true, and the force is magically increased without any extra force, then we should observe the same for a sideways force, where the pressure increases as you get closer to a wall.
Instead, there is no increase in pressure sideways.
This shows that air doesn't just magically create a pressure gradient.
Unless you have a force acting on each layer of air, in addition to the air around it, you don't get a pressure gradient.
Keep thinking on these lines.
I will, until you refute it, as that is what logic indicates.
You can keep thinking the opposite, and I will keep calling you out on your BS.
That means you can't appeal to atmospheric pressure to explain the pressure gradient.
I certainly can and I do and I will continue to do so.
Well technically you can try to appeal to it but it wont convince any rational, honest person as it simply doesn't work.
The fact remains that that without an extra force, the pressure remains constant. You cannot get this extra force from the air, that is the force already present which doesn't explain the pressure gradient.
If you want to try to appeal to the air around it pushing it, you need to explain how that magically causes it to push the air below down more, and that is something you simply can't do. The closest you have ever come to explaining it is by implicitly appealing to gravity by appealing to the mass of the air/object itself trying to go down.
Again, the simple diagram you continually avoid and try to escape with semantic BS shows you are wrong.
You need that extra force W, which isn't come from the air (the only vertical forces coming from the air around are F and -G), in order to get a pressure gradient.
If you reject that force, you end up with this:
Where there is no pressure gradient.
It fits perfectly. You just don't have the thought process to understand why.
You mean I have the thought process to understand it is pure BS.
That is your problem not mine.