How does the atmosphere work on the flat earth? I bet you can't answer this one

How do we have a dome shaped atmosphere, how are the gases kept in place? It's certainly not gravity seeing as it would pull the gases evenly and create a sor of blanket high in the atmosphere (not to mention all the complications gravity would bring to the flar earth theory). Is it magic? Do the gases just want to exist in a dome shape? And if so, how come they don't behave like that anywhere else on earth? (with similar conditions obviously.

Also, wouldn't a dome atmosphere create a really big difference in pressure ssein as it woul d be "touching the eart in the corners? Or is its a sphere all around? And if so, why? Why would nature foema spherical atmosphere and not a planet? They are both under the same laws of physics.

Dude, why didn't you pose this question in your other thread on the topic at hand?

Dude, why didn't you pose this question in your other thread on the topic at hand?

Because I realized that it would be too much of a tangent. I'd rather have 2 separate threads for 2 diferent issues. You can relate both yes, but I think they are different enough to justify another thread

This line of thinking leads many to conclude the earth (if not the universe) is contained.

The idea that the air (atmosphere, if you insist) is naturally spherical is completely unscientific and inconsistent with all known scientific observation, demonstration, and study of gas.

Gas pressure cannot exist without containment, and the shape of the gas is ALWAYS subordinate to/defined by the container from which the pressure itself is derived - explicitly.

If you are convinced that the air must be "spherical", you may make that container spherical (or hemispherical, as one popularized conception depicts).  In the presumptive view it is magical gravity that "contains" this gas - but one can easily measure/demonstrate that the force of gravity is not up to the task here on the surface of the earth where it is presumed (never measured, as it is non-real and so not measurable) strongest.

The idea that the air (atmosphere, if you insist) is naturally spherical is completely unscientific and inconsistent with all known scientific observation, demonstration, and study of gas.

You mean it is 100% consistent with all known scientific observation, demonstration, and study of fluids (and Earth).
It is well known that fluids have a pressure gradient in them, with plenty of people understanding that this is due to gravity.
For example, it is well known that in water, for every ~10 m you dive down you increase the ambient pressure by ~1 atm.
That is pressure being contained without any rigid container.
The fluid itself acts as the "container".
The weight of the fluid above contains the pressure below.

So pressure in a fluid can easily exist without any need for a rigid containment.

one can easily measure/demonstrate that the force of gravity is not up to the task here on the surface of the earth where it is presumed (never measured, as it is non-real and so not measurable) strongest.

You mean easily assert, by dismissing it as fake.
We have been over this plenty of times, gravity is quite real and easily measurable. You not liking that doesn't change that.

So did you mean you can pretend it isn't up to the task by pretending it doesn't exist, or did you mean that even if it did exist, you can demonstrate that it couldn't work?
If the former, that is just simple rejection of reality which shows nothing.
If the latter, go ahead and try, but make sure you don't forget the ~ 10 000 kg of gas above any m^2 of the surface.

This line of thinking leads many to conclude the earth (if not the universe) is contained.

The idea that the air (atmosphere, if you insist) is naturally spherical is completely unscientific and inconsistent with all known scientific observation, demonstration, and study of gas.

Gas pressure cannot exist without containment, and the shape of the gas is ALWAYS subordinate to/defined by the container from which the pressure itself is derived - explicitly.

If you are convinced that the air must be "spherical", you may make that container spherical (or hemispherical, as one popularized conception depicts).  In the presumptive view it is magical gravity that "contains" this gas - but one can easily measure/demonstrate that the force of gravity is not up to the task here on the surface of the earth where it is presumed (never measured, as it is non-real and so not measurable) strongest.

Why does a gas require a physical container?  Why not something akin to a force, containing gas to an area.
Why is the gas pressure higher the lower in altitude you go?  What physical container is containing that higher pressure next to the lower pressure above it?  These pressure differences, overwhelmingly due to altitude, are measured many many times daily by an almost uncountable different number of people and devices.  I could show you a real-time recording of psi differential between the top and bottom of a stack tower we have at work that reacts to a large differential that always shows a 0.6 to 0.9 decrease in psi from bottom to top.  Recorded in the log at an interval of 1 second.  And that lines up perfectly to the know differential at my altitude vs the top of the tower. 
So again, what makes the pressure differential if there MUST be a physical container?  Perhaps the effect of gravity pulling molecules down vs their respective charge repulsion causing a higher density of said gas molecules from them effectively piling up?  Oh wait that's just crazy, talking about molecules being contained without something physical.  We don't see a lower pressure as we increase in altitude right?   Oh wait.

How do we have a dome shaped atmosphere, how are the gases kept in place? It's certainly not gravity seeing as it would pull the gases evenly and create a sor of blanket high in the atmosphere (not to mention all the complications gravity would bring to the flar earth theory). Is it magic? Do the gases just want to exist in a dome shape? And if so, how come they don't behave like that anywhere else on earth? (with similar conditions obviously.

Also, wouldn't a dome atmosphere create a really big difference in pressure ssein as it woul d be "touching the eart in the corners? Or is its a sphere all around? And if so, why? Why would nature foema spherical atmosphere and not a planet? They are both under the same laws of physics.

You just answered your own questions.

@jackblack

You mean easily assert, by dismissing it as fake.

You may not be understanding me.  The conclusion that gravity is purely mathematical and non-real (or "dismissing it as fake" as you would crudely describe it) is not really relevant to the point - it is an aside.

The point is that you can measure the behavior of gas, and we have done so.  When we do so we find that gravity, if such a force there be, does not play a role.  Not here on the surface of the earth where gravity is presumed strongest anyhow.

The gas laws are well established, and have no refutation (natural law can ONLY be refuted by contrary observation).  Gasses expand to fill available volumes as homogeneously as possible, and derive pressure from their container walls.  These are the basic/reduced reasons why many conclude that the earth MUST be contained in some way (especially if they cling, stubbornly, to the primitive mythology of the infinite sky vacuum above our heads).

You can easily measure that gas of any pressure next to a vacuum (lesser pressure) of any volume (in any conceivable orientation, with or against the supposed/presumed gravity) has no trouble continuing to behave in the way gas always demonstrably does.  The gas homogenizes - it follows the natural scientific laws that we have established through centuries of studying gas.

The ONLY time gas behaves in ways contrary to those established by science is in astronomy/cosmology/astrophysics - and they have only stories and pictures to point to as proof - not science.

We have been over this plenty of times, gravity is quite real and easily measurable. You not liking that doesn't change that.

Likewise, you not understanding/appreciating the distinction between the measurement of weight (trivial/commonplace), or the measurement of time (trivial/commonplace) for a weight to fall, the measurement of apparent attraction between some test masses (trivial/commonplace), and the measurement of gravitation (not possible, in any sense) is not opinion based - nor does it change reality depending on if you understand it or not.

In any case, it is irrelevant to the point.

If the latter, go ahead and try

Sure, get 2 chambers (ball/bell jars) with two pressure gauges on them and a valve connecting them.  The setup would likely be oriented vertically, and with a small diameter tube connecting them and the valve in the middle (to err on the side of helping gravity to do its trick where it prevents gas from filling the available volume as gas always does - it's scientific law!)

The top chamber will serve as "space" and should be as evacuated as possible.  The lower chamber will serve as "earth's atmosphere" under the influence of "extreme gravity nearest to the surface".

Make the second chamber any pressure lesser than the top chamber.  To give it the ABSOLUTE best chance of matching what is supposed to happen at the boundary of "the infinite sky vacuum of space", it would be best if the pressures were both as low as you could muster, and very close to one another (meaning the more accurate the pressure gauge used, the better).

When you remove the barrier between the chambers, sure as the sun will shine tomorrow, the pressure will equalize between the two chambers.  The air will more or less completely disregard gravity (if such a thing there be) and fill the container as homogeneously as possible.  There will be no surface within the container that is not in contact with gas.  This is one of the laws of gas behavior that is in direct conflict with the premise of "space" writ large.

but make sure you don't forget the ~ 10 000 kg of gas above any m^2 of the surface.

Are you suggesting that the pressure outside the container is affecting the vacuum and the speed at which established thermodynamic processes and natural behavior of gasses occur?  What if it were 2 sealed chambers THEMSELVES inside a vacuum chamber when we did the test?  How sophist are we going on this?

The point is that it is easy to demonstrate that gas behavior (inside one or several vacuums) is consistent and does not accommodate/subordinate to gravity if such a thing there be.  Gas always expands to fill its container as homogeneously/isotropically/isobarically as possible, and gravity does not prevent this property at any temperature or altitude/pressure we have ever studied.

@jackblack

Quote

You mean easily assert, by dismissing it as fake.

You may not be understanding me.  The conclusion that gravity is purely mathematical and non-real (or "dismissing it as fake" as you would crudely describe it) is not really relevant to the point - it is an aside.

The point is that you can measure the behavior of gas, and we have done so.  When we do so we find that gravity, if such a force there be, does not play a role.  Not here on the surface of the earth where gravity is presumed strongest anyhow.

The gas laws are well established, and have no refutation (natural law can ONLY be refuted by contrary observation).  Gasses expand to fill available volumes as homogeneously as possible, and derive pressure from their container walls.  These are the basic/reduced reasons why many conclude that the earth MUST be contained in some way (especially if they cling, stubbornly, to the primitive mythology of the infinite sky vacuum above our heads).

You can easily measure that gas of any pressure next to a vacuum (lesser pressure) of any volume (in any conceivable orientation, with or against the supposed/presumed gravity) has no trouble continuing to behave in the way gas always demonstrably does.  The gas homogenizes - it follows the natural scientific laws that we have established through centuries of studying gas.

The ONLY time gas behaves in ways contrary to those established by science is in astronomy/cosmology/astrophysics - and they have only stories and pictures to point to as proof - not science.

Quote

We have been over this plenty of times, gravity is quite real and easily measurable. You not liking that doesn't change that.

Likewise, you not understanding/appreciating the distinction between the measurement of weight (trivial/commonplace), or the measurement of time (trivial/commonplace) for a weight to fall, the measurement of apparent attraction between some test masses (trivial/commonplace), and the measurement of gravitation (not possible, in any sense) is not opinion based - nor does it change reality depending on if you understand it or not.

In any case, it is irrelevant to the point.

Quote

If the latter, go ahead and try

Sure, get 2 chambers (ball/bell jars) with two pressure gauges on them and a valve connecting them.  The setup would likely be oriented vertically, and with a small diameter tube connecting them and the valve in the middle (to err on the side of helping gravity to do its trick where it prevents gas from filling the available volume as gas always does - it's scientific law!)

The top chamber will serve as "space" and should be as evacuated as possible.  The lower chamber will serve as "earth's atmosphere" under the influence of "extreme gravity nearest to the surface".

Make the second chamber any pressure lesser than the top chamber.  To give it the ABSOLUTE best chance of matching what is supposed to happen at the boundary of "the infinite sky vacuum of space", it would be best if the pressures were both as low as you could muster, and very close to one another (meaning the more accurate the pressure gauge used, the better).

When you remove the barrier between the chambers, sure as the sun will shine tomorrow, the pressure will equalize between the two chambers.  The air will more or less completely disregard gravity (if such a thing there be) and fill the container as homogeneously as possible.  There will be no surface within the container that is not in contact with gas.  This is one of the laws of gas behavior that is in direct conflict with the premise of "space" writ large.

Quote

but make sure you don't forget the ~ 10 000 kg of gas above any m^2 of the surface.

Are you suggesting that the pressure outside the container is affecting the vacuum and the speed at which established thermodynamic processes and natural behavior of gasses occur?  What if it were 2 sealed chambers THEMSELVES inside a vacuum chamber when we did the test?  How sophist are we going on this?

The point is that it is easy to demonstrate that gas behavior (inside one or several vacuums) is consistent and does not accommodate/subordinate to gravity if such a thing there be.  Gas always expands to fill its container as homogeneously/isotropically/isobarically as possible, and gravity does not prevent this property at any temperature or altitude/pressure we have ever studied.

So uhh, again how is gas pressure higher at lower altitudes. 
Measured all the time, even by me. 

@mikey t

So uhh, again how is gas pressure higher at lower altitudes.
Measured all the time, even by me. 

Good question!  The answer is : due to the gas' weight.  It's all described (if not explained) by pascals law (air is a fluid too).

The natural behavior of gas is to fill the available volume as homogeneously as it can.  However, due to the weight of the gas, a pressure differential / gradient is always created that is described by pascals law (and likely for the reasons suggested therein).

As gas cools it becomes further spaced, and occupies a larger volume.  All gas must do to expand is cool off, which it can almost always do (especially if you believe that "reality"/"space" itself is a natural cold sink of inexhaustible hunger).

@mikeyT

Why does a gas require a physical container?

It doesn't, necessarily (I mean, it DOES have to be physical but I understand your meaning).  However, there is no example (observational, nor contrived/experimental) of this.  Even in cases where electric and/or magnetic fields are employed to contain gas (or cause it to turn to plasma etc.) the pressure is always derived from the walls first and then what is there is "amplified"/"concentrated" (in a sense) by the fields.  Without the initial pressure (from the container walls) there is nothing to increase, and there is good reason to suspect that without the walls, the push wouldn't "contain" the way we expect it to.  It is a bit like asking if you could swim on the top of the water effectively if there were no bottom to the pool (if the water were in free fall, for instance).

Why is the gas pressure higher the lower in altitude you go?  What physical container is containing that higher pressure next to the lower pressure above it?

All gas pressure is derived from the container walls.  Even the created pressure gradient (pascal's law) requires them, though the gradient itself is caused by the weight of the gas pushing downwards which the container walls facilitate/allow.

So again, what makes the pressure differential if there MUST be a physical container?

Let me know if you need more clarification on my answer to this!  It might be worth mentioning that because of the thermal variance that causes weather in our air, the local pressure differentials are caused mostly by this variance (all of which would be impossible without the container walls, even if made of imagined "immaterial fields", to allow for gas pressure in the first instance).

The major point is not that theoretical fields could not conceivably do the job - it is that no such fields exist in nature to do the job (none we can measure anyhow, and so nothing that is a part of empirical science).  Here where gravity is presumed strongest, is where we established these gas laws which have no refutation (the only refutation of natural law possible is contradictory observation, of which there is none and has been none for centuries).

Why can't a gravity well function as a container?

You may not be understanding me.  The conclusion that gravity is purely mathematical and non-real (or "dismissing it as fake" as you would crudely describe it) is not really relevant to the point - it is an aside.

Then why make it at all?

The point is that you can measure the behavior of gas, and we have done so.  When we do so we find that gravity, if such a force there be, does not play a role.

Only if you don't bother looking at a significant height differential.
The point I made clearly shows that gravity does play a significant role for fluids.

The gas laws are well established

Yes, and that includes those about pressure gradients in fluids due gravity.

What you are claiming is refuted by the simple fact that air pressure varies with altitude, as does the pressure of any fluid.

If you want to claim the gas laws require a container, you need to explain why you don't need a separator for that pressure gradient.
The fact we don't need a separator for that pressure gradient shows that your claim that Earth must be contained is unsupported.

The ONLY time gas behaves in ways contrary to those established by science

is NEVER!
You only pretend it does to dismiss the RE.

Likewise, you not understanding/appreciating the distinction between the measurement of weight (trivial/commonplace), or the measurement of time (trivial/commonplace) for a weight to fall, the measurement of apparent attraction between some test masses (trivial/commonplace), and the measurement of gravitation (not possible, in any sense) is not opinion based

I would say that it isn't opinion based and that you are simply wrong due to you pretending that measurement of gravitation is magically not measurement of gravity and trying to pretend it is impossible.

But for this thread, all you need is weight.

In any case, it is irrelevant to the point.

Then stop bringing it up.

Quote

If the latter, go ahead and try

Sure, get 2 chambers (ball/bell jars) with two pressure gauges on them and a valve connecting them.  The setup would likely be oriented vertically, and with a small diameter tube connecting them and the valve in the middle (to err on the side of helping gravity to do its trick where it prevents gas from filling the available volume as gas always does - it's scientific law!)

The top chamber will serve as "space" and should be as evacuated as possible.  The lower chamber will serve as "earth's atmosphere" under the influence of "extreme gravity nearest to the surface".

So you did exactly what I told you not to.
Where is the ~ 10 000 kg per m^2 in this setup?

How about this, to simulate that, instead of a simple valve, have a tube. Have a piston in that tube which makes a seal against the wall and pushes down with a force equivalent to those 10 000 kg per m^2, i.e. roughly 1 atm.
Notice how the weight of the air above (simulated by the piston) contains the air below.
This shows gravity is just fine.

Make the second chamber any pressure lesser than the top chamber.

So how about the gradient expected due to gravity?
Why don't we increase the test to something more like the height of a mountain. Then we also don't need to bother with any kind of container.
We can measure that the pressure is lower the higher up you are, showing your claim is wrong.

When you remove the barrier between the chambers, sure as the sun will shine tomorrow, the pressure will equalize between the two chambers.

No, it won't.
There will still be a pressure gradient.

The air will more or less completely disregard gravity

"more or less" not actually.
Gravity will still have an effect. Gravity will still produce a pressure gradient.

Are you suggesting that the pressure outside the container is affecting the vacuum

No. I'm suggesting the 10 000 kg per m^2 of air is what is keeping the 1 atm of pressure contained.

The point is that it is easy to demonstrate that gas behavior (inside one or several vacuums) is consistent and does not accommodate/subordinate to gravity if such a thing there be.  Gas always expands to fill its container as homogeneously/isotropically/isobarically as possible, and gravity does not prevent this property at any temperature or altitude/pressure we have ever studied.

The point is that claim of yours is pure fiction, based upon ignoring the normally miniscule pressure gradient with tiny set ups so you can ignore the real pressure gradient in the atmosphere over a much larger size.

Just like other FEers here you are ignoring small effects to pretend there is a problem.

@mikey t

Quote

So uhh, again how is gas pressure higher at lower altitudes.
Measured all the time, even by me. 

Good question!  The answer is : due to the gas' weight.

i.e. GRAVITY!
But regardless of what the answer is, it shows your claim is BS.
It shows that the gas isn't magically homogenous. There is a clear pressure gradient in direct defiance of your claim.
You are directly contradicting your claim that gas will fill a container as homogeneously/isotropically/isobarically as possible.

If you continue this pressure gradient you reach the pressure of interplanetary space, and if you keep going with that for the sun you reach it for interstellar space, and if you keep going with it for the milky way you reach the pressure of intergalactic space.

This pressure gradient shows that you DO NOT NEED A PHYSICAL CONTAINER!

However, there is no example (observational, nor contrived/experimental) of this.

Sure there is, the one you choose to ignore (and other similar ones).

The reason we don't have them all over the place is the height required.
But we do it with fluids all the time.

It is a bit like asking if you could swim on the top of the water effectively if there were no bottom to the pool (if the water were in free fall, for instance).

And the answer to that is yes.

Even the created pressure gradient (pascal's law) requires them

No it doesn't.
For an infinite expanse of a fluid on a hypothetical FE, it would still have that gradient, without any walls.
For a RE, you can have it cover the entire surface.

The only reason the container is needed for simple measurements is to stop the fluid spreading out. Having a round surface, like that of the RE, does that as well, with no walls. You don't even need a floor and can instead simply have a ball of that fluid. That will still have a pressure gradient.

Gas always expands to fill its container as homogeneously/isotropically/isobarically as possible, and gravity does not prevent this property at any temperature or altitude/pressure we have ever studied.

I think you are incorrect here in your claims about what has been observed.  As far as I know,  ever observation of any gas ever made either directly shows, or is completely consistent with a change in gas pressure with elevation off the ground, i.e the gas distribution in any measured system is NOT ISOBARIC.  At sea level, this change is observed to be about 11 Pa per meter of height.

Even without appeal to any explanatory theory, the observations alone extrapolate to a zero gas pressure not far above the surface of the earth.   What would any  "containment" be containing? 

Every piece of matter and make up end up as dense to less dense, starting with many molecules of matter withing one cell, as in this gobstopper.



Energy and friction break that down to peel away bits of this super dense matter wich then takes its place in a stacking system of every expanding and linking molecules.

Like this.

This is a pyramid down to the bare minimum at the top but look at it from a dome point of view by simply taking off the top layers.

Like this.




Basically everything stacks and no free space between any of the molecules, just less pressure the higher the stacking system.
The lower the stack the more dense the agitation is. The higher the stack, the less dense, meaning less agitation, meaning less movement due to that expansion, meaning anything that pis pushed up will be expanded to fit that environment.

A natural dome to the cell we live in, that protects us from (very possibly) all the rest of those cells doing similar things to us, for which we cannot see.

(especially if they cling, stubbornly, to the primitive mythology of the infinite sky vacuum above our heads).

Hi Jack44556677

Can you expand on this a bit?  If the idea of "infinite vacuum" above our heads is "primitive mythology", what is the modern, reason based understanding of what is above us?  Am interested. 

This line of thinking leads many to conclude the earth (if not the universe) is contained.

The idea that the air (atmosphere, if you insist) is naturally spherical is completely unscientific and inconsistent with all known scientific observation, demonstration, and study of gas.

Gas pressure cannot exist without containment, and the shape of the gas is ALWAYS subordinate to/defined by the container from which the pressure itself is derived - explicitly.

If you are convinced that the air must be "spherical", you may make that container spherical (or hemispherical, as one popularized conception depicts).  In the presumptive view it is magical gravity that "contains" this gas - but one can easily measure/demonstrate that the force of gravity is not up to the task here on the surface of the earth where it is presumed (never measured, as it is non-real and so not measurable) strongest.

Having a container would not create the pressure gradient seen at higher altitudes.
Plus having a container would make it impossible for extraterrestrial debris to fall to the earth a.k.a. meteorites

Quote from: bpgodinho on February 23, 2021, 02:25:23 AM

How do we have a dome shaped atmosphere, how are the gases kept in place? It's certainly not gravity seeing as it would pull the gases evenly and create a sor of blanket high in the atmosphere (not to mention all the complications gravity would bring to the flar earth theory). Is it magic? Do the gases just want to exist in a dome shape? And if so, how come they don't behave like that anywhere else on earth? (with similar conditions obviously.

Also, wouldn't a dome atmosphere create a really big difference in pressure ssein as it woul d be "touching the eart in the corners? Or is its a sphere all around? And if so, why? Why would nature foema spherical atmosphere and not a planet? They are both under the same laws of physics.

You just answered your own questions.

how so?