Pascal's law applies in uniform solids and fluids for the same reason - stacking.
And there you go missing the point.
With solids, you can stack them.
You can take one solid object and place it on the ground, and then take another solid object and place it on top.
This doesn't result in the solid object spreading out, not until you exceed the yield strength.
This is not the case with fluids.
Instead, fluids spread out.
No, it wouldn't.
Wrong. Do some scale testing.
Yes, you are wrong. You should do scale testing.
See if the pressure spreads out uniformly, or if there is a pressure gradient.
For example, take a tube full of mercury and invert it, placing the open end into a dish full of mercury, and observe that there is a vacuum above the mercury, it doesn't just suck it all up.
There is a pressure gradient established.
And this pressure gradient depends upon height, gravity and density. Specifically, the pressure gradient is equal to the integral of g*rho*dh.
So if you want a scale test of air, at atmospheric pressure, with a vacuum above, with no solid separator, then you need to make sure it is a valid scale test.
The air pressure we experience, is due to the weight of the atmosphere above us.
If you try a smaller test, there is going to be a lot less atmosphere above inside your test, and thus the pressure would be expected to be much much lower.
The density of air around sea level is roughly 1.2 kg/m^3. Treating that as a constant, if your scale test was 1 m high, the pressure gradient you would expect to observe would be a mere 12 Pa, or roughly a 10000th of an atmosphere.
If instead you lower the pressure inside your test to be at 1 mbar, a reasonable vacuum, you end up with a pressure gradient of roughly 12 mPa.
It will be quite difficult to measure. Do you have such an accurate test?
That means to account for the reduction of height, you need to accept that there will be a significant reduction in the pressure, or you need to compensate by having a much greater density or by having a much greater gravitational field.
The kind of test you are implicitly appealing to, in no way shows that mainstream physics is wrong. All it shows is that you are intentionally being dishonest by misapplying physics to pretend there is a problem for the RE.
And again, there really is no need for a scale test.
We have observations of the air pressure. The air pressure is lower the higher you are.
If your blatant lies were true, this would not be the case.
After all, all a vacuum is is a lower pressure.
So this low pressure air above the high pressure air at sea level is a vacuum. Yet notice how it doesn't just magically pull all the air up to equalise the pressure?
You can even appeal to a pathetic, dishonest scale test, where you start with 2 chambers, the lower chamber with air at atmospheric pressure, and the upper chamber with air at the pressure at the cruising altitude of planes. Then open the valve, and observe how the pressure appears to equalise, because of the negligible height difference.
There is no gravitation
Who said anything about a graviton.
Yet again, you completley miss the point.
It doesn't matter if you accept gravity in the conventional sense or want to coat it in layers of BS.
The same fact applies, air has weight, as you have already admitted.
That means whatever is causing things to fall would apply to air as well.
This means air can't magically fly off into space.
Those that conceptualise Earth accelerating upwards do so to substitute for gravity.
Sort of. It's really just a straight convention/sign flip. It is for the purposes of mockery.
No, it isn't for the purpose of mockery. It is try to come up with an excuse for why things fall which gravity explains so well.
It is contained one way or another, we ALL know this from deduction and established scientific law
We know that it is contained by gravity, with it surrounding a round Earth.
The question is how it would be prevented from spilling over the edge of the FE.
Gravitation (if it were in any way real) isn't powerful enough to do the job you need it to for your worldview - this is plain fact and easy to demonstrate for yourself.
No, it is a blatant lie, made by people like you to pretend there is a problem.
If your blatant lie was true, there would be no vertical pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
The pressure at the top of Mt Everest, or where planes fly and so on, would be the same as the pressure at sea level.
All it takes to show your claim is garbage is observing ANY pressure gradient caused by gravity, and that really is trivial and is the cause of buoyancy.
So your lie is wrong, and that is a plain fact which is easy for people to demonstrate for themselves, or by using plentiful data showing a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
Gas pressure is derived from the container walls - there can be no pressure without them (though the container can in theory, be "fields" of some sort)
You mean like a gravitational field? The thing you said couldn't?
The OP didn't want to discuss the inescapable necessity of a container, so I left it out.
They pretty much did, as they explicitly excluded FE models which have a dome, i.e. a container.
Gravity, or whatever you want to substitute for it provides a top to the container.
A RE, provides a bottom, and due to the topology, removes the need for the sides, as the surface area is finite.
The question is what provides the bottom and sides for a FE?
You could have an infinite FE, with an infinite amount of air.
But how would a finite FE, without a dome, work?
You could still have the substitute for gravity providing the top, and while the FE would be a bottom for part of it, there aren't any sides to contain the air, so the air would spill over the edge. It would be like an above ground swimming pool, without the walls.
One or the other, surely?
You'd think so! But you'd be wrong.
No, you would be wrong, as you directly contradicted yourself.
On one hand you claimed air stacks and has no reason to go anywhere, but then you claimed it would expand to fill its container.
So which is it? Does it have no reason to go anywhere, or does it have reason to go and fill its container?
You can't have both.
It exhibits different behavior than most other states.
It is quite similar to other fluids.
The main distinction is that its density is very low, and varies with pressure.
This means that it doesn't have a well defined surface.
For a liquid, as you approach the top, the density remains roughly the same and you have an abrupt end.
For a gas, as you approach the top, the density drops, making the pressure gradient get smaller, so there is more distance to the top.
It's behaviour is so like other fluids (i.e. liquids) that for all substances (which don't break down at these conditions) you can get to a point where there is no distinction between liquid and gas. This is known as a supercritical fluid.
everyone knows that we don't lose our atmosphere and from that easily deduce the gas is contained.
The question is not simply is the air contained, the question is what provides this containment for a FE.
You seem to be going down the common path of circular reasoning for a FE:
"We know Earth is flat. Thus this can't be a problem for the FE. Thus this doesn't show the FE is wrong"