You can reach a lot of stuff with a lot of stuff based on attachments of molecules by pressures applied.
You mean attractive forces holding the molecules together?
Otherwise it isn't attachment.
This is the reason we have so many variations of elements and in whatever forms depending on pressures.
No, it isn't. As elements don't vary based upon pressure, at least not until you go to extreme pressures to allow nuclear fusion.
Yours certainly does not.
Then why does the mainstream model work so well to explain reality, with you entirely incapable of demonstrating a single fault; while your nonsense repeatedly fails, with so many faults it isn't funny?
Just for once put your own brain to work by thinking for yourself and udnerstanding what I mean by dense mass displacement of atmosphere minus natural volume.
Try to follow your own advice, and understand that the pressure gradient means the fluid pushes things up, not down.
And then understand dropping a ball from a height means energy was applied to it to actually displace the higher atmospheric layers in that stack.
And where does it go? Below the ball.
And the same happens regardless of the mass of the ball, it even happens with a balloon.
The only thing keeping that ball up is the resistance to its compression which can be a hand or something holding it.
Or the high pressure air below?
Once released the upper atmospheric pressure down to the middle of the ball squeezes that ball into the resistance below
But the pressure below is greater, so the air above can't push down into it. It CANNOT overcome the greater resistance below.
That means it can't push the ball down.
I dare you to put your brain to work.
I have, which is why I can see that your model doesn't work.
Stacked layering caters to that.
Which you can't explain, and which would push things up. It would NOT slow them down faster if they are thrown upwards.
If your track is near perfect horizontal then your vehicle sits within horizontally stacked layering near equal meaning any push forward will result in only those stacked layers being compressed and those compressed stacked layers have to decompress in order to allow the movement of that vehicle.
And the only difference if it is vertical, and your nonsense was true, was the pressure gradient pushing it up.
A wind tunnel offers massive energy consistently and that consistency compresses denser atmosphere below into less dense atmosphere above. Below layering pushed into higher layering.
It counteracts the atmosphere above overcoming the resistance below, hence why a person can lay on a higher compressive force foundation to cause them to appear to float.
No, it overcomes GRAVITY.
It has a high enough pressure below the person to push them up.
Without gravity, the pressure below is already enough to overcome the resistance above and the object should go up.
The direction of the push is at the sides and from above in natural circumstances.
And from below.
Stop ignoring it.
Again, you NEED this push from below to explain why things rise.
Stop ignoring it just because it shows your delusional BS is wrong.
Energy is required to push anything from below the very bottom of any object.
Energy is required to push (with movement), regardless of direction.
This includes from above and from below.
For the atmosphere, that energy comes from the pressure, and the pressure gradient.
If I'm lying then you should be able to offer me proof of your gravity.
We have.
You just lie and claim that the air magically does it.
Again, the fact that objects fall against the pressure gradient demonstrates there is another force.
The fact that there is a pressure gradient demonstrates that there is another force.
The fact that things falling or rising depends upon their density demonstrates that there is a force proportional to mass.
If they aren't all the same size then they don't have a fixed size.
Make your mind up.
Stop with all the dishonest BS.
You have it explained why that is BS, you were unable to provide any fault with that explanation.
Instead you just cling to this because it destroys your delusional BS.
Again, it is quite simple to understand, a molecule of H2 has a fixed size, lets call it 1. A molecule of O2 has a fixed size, lets call it 10.
That means any molecule of H2 you find, will have a size of 1. Every single one. It doesn't matter what you do to it, it will continue to have a size of 1.
That also means any molecule of O2 you find will have a size of 10. Every single one. It doesn't matter what you do to it, it will continue to have a size of 1.
If you have them at 1 atm of pressure, H2 will have a size of 1 and O2 will have a size of 10.
If you have them at 1 000 000 atm of pressure, H2 will have a size of 1 and O2 will have a size of 10.
If you have them at 0.0000000000001 atm of pressure, H2 will have a size of 1 and O2 will have a size of 10.
Their size is fixed.
But this does NOT mean that H2 and O2 have the same size. They are different.
So the size of each molecule is fixed, but that does NOT mean they are all the same.
This is why the molecular sieves work for the separation of gases.
Some molecules are small enough to go through, others are not.
Stop with all this dishonest BS and start trying to honestly and rationally defend your claim or admit your BS doesn't work.
I've experimented using low pressure in a chamber.
Vacuums do not and can not ever be a reality.
If they can't be a reality, that means you are lying, and have NEVER experimented with them (i.e. low pressure in a chamber, as that is vacuum).
Once more, stop with the dishonest BS. A vacuum does not need to be perfect.