Yes because each layer within a molecule is another molecule.
So again, what is the basic building block?
Can you eventually get to a point where it is just a single molecule, rather than layers?
When the layers magically peel off, do they peel of to molecules without layers, or with layers?
How are your layers any different than just having a bunch of molecules touching?
How about you try drawing a picture of such a "molecule"?
Too many molecular layers. Too dense against what it is pushing against what it's pushing through (SIEVE).
Why?
How are there to many?
You are rejecting the idea of a physical size of a molecule. So why can't these layers just get squished and pushed through?
Alternatively, why can't they just be broken off, pushed through and rebuilt on the other side?
I offered you the simplest analogy with the pyramid. Remember?
No, your pyramid is for the layering on you flat fantasy, the gobstopper is for the air.
So are you now saying they must do both together?
That a molecule cannot expand without breaking down?
To expand even a tiny bit will require them to break down?
I explained it
No, you just fled from the issue.
Again, with water, it will switch back lower down. That increasing the pressure (like what is observed lower down) causes it to switch back to water.
It does not need to go up high to where it would "naturally fit" with it being unable to be "crushed up" by the denser atmosphere around it.
So why should helium have to do that?
Why can't helium switch back at atmospheric pressure, switching back into the N2 and O2 (aka air) you claim it is broken down from?
Again, this is NOT talking about it layering, that is a separate issue you cannot explain.
This is talking about why helium doesn't magically switch back while water does.
It is demonstrating that your model is incoherent because you need to repeatedly contradict yourself. That you cannot consider multiple aspects together because they are mutually exclusive. Instead you need to consider it in isolation where you can pretend it works without any concern for the rest of your model.
Because of the energy required to allow it to break its molecular layering.
You just have to imagine the gobstopper and understand where helium would lie in a layer compared to steamed water breakdown.
And if I do so honestly, I see that it should not be possible for helium to exist near ground level at atmospheric pressure. That exposure to such an environment should cause it to switch back to atmosphere. Not get pushed up, switch back.
That you should need to take air up to those high altitudes to have it break down into helium, and that bringing it back down should cause it to switch back.
Makes no sense for any molecule to randomly move on its own.
So you are saying you model makes no sense?
Layering. I'll keep saying this until you get it, or until someone does.
Repeating the same non-answer will not help you.
Layering does NOT explain it.
Because this is what happens in denpressure.
Yes, that is what happens when you have a pile of garbage which doesn't work at all and instead need to make up excuses for specific situations which show massive problems if you try to use them in other comparable situations.
If you had a coherent model which actually worked to explain reality, you wouldn't need to do so.
It comes down to you understanding it
And I do understand it, in a far more relational manner than you.
I take some of the BS you have said for one situation and demonstrate how it causes you problems for other situations.
Because you want to pretend your delusional BS works, you entirely ignore this and only ever focus on one tiny aspect at once, because you know that doing more makes your fantasy come crashing down.
There's no contradiction, just failure to understand from you.
Your wilful ignorance of these contradictions does not make them vanish, nor does it mean I don't understand.
To justify your delusional garbage, you would need to explain them, and that would require you to stay on topic and actually address what is said.
It would also require you to consider multiple aspect of your model at once, and recognise the conflict between them.
You're arguing against denpressure.
Yes, I am arguing agaisnt your delusional BS, but that doesn't mean we ignore English.
Don't steal words which already have meaning and pretend they mean something else.
If you want your own delusional garbage with a different meaning, make up your own words and stop pretending to speak English.
Mass is density so by adding mass you add density.
No, mass is NOT density.
Mass is an extensive property, depending upon how much you have. Density is an intensive property, which doesn't depend on how much you have.
1 kg of water has the same density as 2 kg of water.
Gravity is fictional.
Your irrational hatred doesn't make it fictional.
Again, unless you have a viable alternative, all the evidence supports gravity.
Gravity works as a coherent explanation for so much of reality.
Your delusional BS repeatedly fails.
Not unless you have a strong resisting reactionary force to the decompressive force from the rocket s molecules.
Your extremely low-pressure environment offers absolutely nothing to react upon.
So you are saying the air resistance in this environment is negligible?
Again, notice your contradiction?
You repeatedly need to contradict yourself to pretend your delusional BS can work and be justified.
Either the atmosphere (and by extension its resistance) can NEVER be negligible, so even in an incredibly low pressure environment, commonly known as a vacuum, such as that which surrounds Earth, there will still be resistance and rockets can work; or, the atmosphere can be negligible, and we can discuss how in such an environment, at a given location on earth, objects accelerate downwards at the same rate. (notice how this time I said same, not fixed, because in this case the rate is the same for all objects in this environment, but changing the environment can change the rate, so it isn't fixed)
Molecular layers.
Are you just trying to say layers made of molecules, or the actual layers which make up a molecule?
It falls because it gains enough dense mass to be squeezed down through that added extra dense mass addition of displacement of the atmosphere.
But there is no air above it.
There is just air below and to the sides. So how does the air push it down?