Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

Yes, I am well aware of the naming conventions (which are fucking stupid because 0g also means zero grams). You act like this is somehow proof of what you say.

It's funny how all the examples of zero gravity on Earth seem to involve motion. For example, free fall, when you reach terminal velocity.  Or being in a wind tunnel. Or the vomit comet. Or the gravitron.

Almost as though what really causes "zero gravity" is velocity against mass.  Hmmmm, velocity and mass... this sounds familiar...



If zero gravity was a real thing, then it would be easy to go into space. But the logic of that doesn't pan out. In actual fact, balloons cannot fly in vacuum. They are "weighed down by Earth's gravity." But if you punctured such balloons, they would suddenly lurch forward into the air "overcoming gravity."

That's all just clever wording for what is really happening. Motion along a surface (or lack thereof in the case of a vacuum). Too bad that in the case of a vacuum, you must at all times have something to push against. Do you have unlimited fuel? No? Then space travel is a pipe dream.

But far more importantly, that doesn't happen at all.
The water remains at the bottom of the bottle.

It's difficult to see because the bottle is fairly full, and is also moving quite quickly. But if that were the case, it would continue dripping. Also, you've showed another video of this sort of thing, and it was about half full, and you could definitely see what was happening.







Btw, I've dropped bottles of water before, so I'm not making this up.  They often wound up flipped over. So I pieced together why this happened. It turns out that even though it seems as though the water should fall faster than the bottle, this isn't what happens. Part of it is that the water is loose weight, but even if I made an ice block and shoved it in there, as long as it isn't fused to the bottle itself, it would also move upwards.

"It must be overcoming gravity!" Nope, it's swimming. That's the best analogy for what we see in the buoyancy model. Motion is causing thrust.

Buoyancy is a force.

Driven by what?

Density?

Why does a bottle with a mixture of breathing air that contains oxygen and helium not separate out by density

For a car in neutral that I can push all day long in the garage, why can’t push it up hill?

Why do tidal bores make a river flow backwards?

youtu.be.  1HoVqtjY-Og

As far as free fall.  It’s worse than a bucket with holes not leaking when dropped.


Liquids of different densities mix when in free fall. Funny how you ignore the context of the entire argument. 

Then why do these liquids mix?

Liquids in near-Zero G



Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'

If we put a lake on a curve, it does something like this...

Looks like when an object has enough mass to produce enough gravity, water sticks just fine…

https://www.brown.edu/news/2017-09-29/balloon

Again.  A flat earth group acquired a 20,000 dollar ring laser gyroscope just to prove the earth rotates.

Why not do amateur high altitude balloon flights?  Already too much proof the earth is a globe?

Anyway.  The curvature of the earth is there if you know how to make the 8 inch drop discernible to a small human with a small prospective close to the earth.
. 

Flat Earth horizon still wouldn't look flat!

Compressing the photo makes it easier to see.

Almost as though what really causes "zero gravity" is velocity against mass.  Hmmmm, velocity and mass... this sounds familiar...

Not quite.  Gravity is acceleration, not velocity.

If zero gravity was a real thing, then it would be easy to go into space.

Unfortunately, getting to space requires positive g's of acceleration to escape the earth's gravity.

But the logic of that doesn't pan out. In actual fact, balloons cannot fly in vacuum. They are "weighed down by Earth's gravity." But if you punctured such balloons, they would suddenly lurch forward into the air "overcoming gravity."

Overcoming gravity is only ever a temporary condition.  Sure, the balloon may lurch forward, for a time, but will then inevitably fall to victim to earth's gravity.

Too bad that in the case of a vacuum, you must at all times have something to push against.

Ah, so you don't understand the concept of inertia either.  Good to know.

Yes, I am well aware of the naming conventions

So you are intentionally being dishonest?

It's funny how all the examples of zero gravity on Earth seem to involve motion.

Again, 0g, and yes, that isn't surprising.
It requires you to be in free fall, accelerating with gravity.

when you reach terminal velocity.  Or being in a wind tunnel. Or the vomit comet. Or the gravitron.

The only example provided there which is 0g is the vomit comet.
None of the others are.

Almost as though what really causes "zero gravity" is velocity against mass.

No, what causes it is accelerating with gravity with no other force acting on you.

If zero gravity was a real thing, then it would be easy to go into space.

Again, is this your strawman zero gravity where gravity is magically switched off, or 0g?
If the latter, how does falling help you go into space?

Yet again you choose to spout pure BS with no justification at all.

But if you punctured such balloons, they would suddenly lurch forward into the air "overcoming gravity."

Yes, just like if you pick something up.
Again, gravity is not magic.
It is simply a force.
And like all forces, you can apply a greater force.

Do you have unlimited fuel? No? Then space travel is a pipe dream.

You have already had this BS refuted, and it appears you are yet again trying to change subject.

It's difficult to see because the bottle is fairly full, and is also moving quite quickly. But if that were the case, it would continue dripping. Also, you've showed another video of this sort of thing, and it was about half full, and you could definitely see what was happening.

Yet the screenshots you choose to use in no way demonstrates the water is going to the top.
Yet again, you are just making shit up to pretend your fantasy is true.

Btw, I've dropped bottles of water before, so I'm not making this up.

You most certainly are making it up, as you have nothing to support your claim.
A bottle rotating does not mean it is top heavy or any crap like that.  Guess what? Entirely solid objects can do the same.

If you aren't just making shit up, then provide evidence to support your BS claim, such as a video, clearly showing the water rising.

even though it seems as though the water should fall faster than the bottle

Says who?

That's the best analogy for what we see in the buoyancy model.

Given you are yet to even attempt to address the pressure gradient, it most certainly is not, as your BS buoyancy model is pure garbage.

Until you address that pressure gradient your model remains pure garbage completely incapable of describing reality.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 09, 2025, 02:25:15 PM

Yes, I am well aware of the naming conventions

So you are intentionally being dishonest?

I'm thinking more of a contrarian.  Being different just for the sake of being different thinking that it's cool.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 10, 2025, 03:28:52 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 09, 2025, 02:25:15 PM

Yes, I am well aware of the naming conventions

So you are intentionally being dishonest?

I'm thinking more of a contrarian.  Being different just for the sake of being different thinking that it's cool.

I'm sure that's it.

Also, these are the ultimate cool people. Edgy 80s dudes.



The point that I was making is that you can name something whatever you want.

Research how many laws in the US government have names that imply one thing but result in the opposite. Offhand, the Paperwork Reduction Act results in an extra sheet of paper explaining the Paperwork Reduction Act. Biden's law preventing inflation. Hell, Trump's attempts to fight inflation nonetheless ran afoul (ugh, pun) of an egg shortage or something.



Page 1 of 4, it says!

Names don't mean a damned thing. So, "zero gravity"? Does calling it that prove anything?

No, you have to prove that there is gravity, and then you have to prove there is none of it there. And you have you prove that no other explanation will work.

The point that I was making is that you can name something whatever you want.

And honest people will understand what is meant and honestly represent it.
People like you on the other hand then proceed to blatantly lie about it.

Names don't mean a damned thing. So, "zero gravity"? Does calling it that prove anything?

No, and no one said it does.

No, you have to prove that there is gravity, and then you have to prove there is none of it there. And you have you prove that no other explanation will work.

Yet again, lying about what it is.
Gravity is still there.
But we have proven there is gravity, beyond any sane doubt, and explained why your alternatives don't work.

You just keep ignoring and keep lying to everyone by pretending they do.

Again, observation of pressure gradients in fluids and how this interacts with objects tells us there must be a downwards force.
The fact this force varies for the same object in different locations on Earth shows it is not simple a magical downwards force, and that it has to be a manifestation of a different force.
Gravity explains it.
Gravity also explains orbits of objects, and the Cavendish experiment.
And it even explains the water falling from your tiny balls.

If you think there is an alternative that works, provide it.
Making sure you actually use to explain things like the pressure gradient and the expected results of it.

The point that I was making

And the points made repeatedly is the curvature of the earth is demonstrably real.

The curvature of the earth can be measure and photographed.

I never thought of the ocean as flat.  I always thought of it in terms as calm or rough.  Knowing why a ship going away from you disappears bottom up.  Why certain constellations get blocked from view by the earth’s curvature as you travel between the northern and southern hemispheres.  Why south has meaning in celestial navigation.


From this video…


Learned about this experiment using a laser tangent to the curved earth with a boat as a target on a lake 3 miles out.

Where Are We? Ch. 1 The Circumference of the Earth | Genius by Stephen Hawking

https://indiana.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/hawking_genius_ep06_clip01/where-are-we-ch-1-the-circumference-of-the-earth-genius-by-stephen-hawking/



In this clip from Genius by Stephen Hawking, learn how to calculate the circumference of the Earth. Three volunteers learn by measuring the flatness of the lake that they will be able to calculate the size and shape of the Earth. Using a powerful laser that projects a straight beam of light and a boat, the volunteers shoot the beam across the lake. This experiment shows the curvature of the lake. This was first discovered by the ancient Greek philosopher, mathematician and geometer Eratosthenes. He proved the Earth wasn't flat through observing the sun and the direction it cast shadows. If the Earth was flat, the sun would always shine at the same angle no matter what time of day it was. Using all the data collected from the curvature of the lake the volunteers are able to calculate the circumference of the Earth.

How about high altitude photography?

Interesting video with interesting pictures from the life of the Concorde Airline and the official photographer.


Photo from 1976 taken by Adrian Meredith

Quote

Concorde: A Photographic Tribute: A Photographic...
by Adrian Meredith

Amateur high altitude balloon flights?

Students film breathtaking curvature of Earth using high-altitude weather balloon

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-students-breathtaking-curvature-earth-high-altitude.amp

Cabrini School's weather balloon captures stunning footage of Earth




https://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/2020/12/11/alexandria-school-weather-balloon-captures-stunning-earth-footage/6496653002/

You just keep ignoring

Come on jack, ask this again…


Why down,
Why at a particular rate,
Why this rate varies over Earth,
Why/How this creates a pressure gradient,
Why/How this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

By what mechanism does a fluid push things up?

I answered this in the other thread. Fluid doesn't push things up.

If I shoot down a helium balloon, the helium (a different density than the air around it) forms at a different pressure than the air near it. But it would continue to drift upward (without the balloon) until it reaches its level.
It wouldn't push objects upwards because they are not that density. Buoyancy isn't propulsion, objects that don't match the buoyancy of what gas is rising are just pushed out of the way. I believe Archimedes had a word for it.  Hmmm, what was it...? Oh yea, DISPLACEMENT.

Objects rise or fall, they aren't pushed up or down. They are however pushed out of the way. 

The only time things are pushed up, is when you do something like narrow the area, as in a canal closing the walls so water rises. Water is compressed into a smaller area, so it fills that area.

Quote

No, you have to prove that there is gravity, and then you have to prove there is none of it there. And you have you prove that no other explanation will work.

Yet again, lying about what it is.
Gravity is still there.
But we have proven there is gravity, beyond any sane doubt, and explained why your alternatives don't work.

You're doing a Barnum reversal. "Can't you see? I've proved why alternatives don't work!"
No, you've said that you've proved why alternatives don't work.

Again, observation of pressure gradients in fluids and how this interacts with objects tells us there must be a downwards force.
The fact this force varies for the same object in different locations on Earth shows it is not simple a magical downwards force, and that it has to be a manifestation of a different force.
Gravity explains it.
Gravity also explains orbits of objects, and the Cavendish experiment.
And it even explains the water falling from your tiny balls.

If you think there is an alternative that works, provide it.
Making sure you actually use to explain things like the pressure gradient and the expected results of it.

More "pressure gradients" and "Cavendish experiment". Like a child calling to mommy to help them, you think that a derpy pendulum experiment proves your results. I'm afraid your balls are much tinier than mine.


Just looking at the Cavendish experiment here, I think there indeed is a force involved, but you know I think the word you're looking for is "tension."  But yeah, Eric says maybe even static electricity. He had no controls in place to rule out anything as a possible alternate idea.

The "force of gravity" varies, as your say, because different areas have different air pressure due to altitude and humidity. Death Valley is low altitude and humidity. Everest is fairly high humidity, I would imagine, and high altitude. High altitude gives you thin air, and things tend to fall more when they are denser than the air. Meanwhile, in Forks, you have low altitude and high humidity. "Gravity explains orbits" once again doesn't prove that Earth orbits the sun.  Moreover, if Cavendish's experiment proves the gravity between two objects, and the gravity of the Earth as you always say is greater than the gravity between two objects, then these two objects should consistently match the orbit of Earth, but in fact, sometimes one swung toward the other and sometimes the reverse. But the Earth rotates in a consistent direction according to your model!
Further, if static electricity (as Eric Dubay mentioned) is a factor, different parts of Earth do have different moisture, so you should see different amounts of static electricity in the Mojave Desert and rainforests of the Amazon.
Finally, if it's nothing more than tension, everything from how worn the threads are to their materials makes a difference. Cavendish's experiment is horribly sloppy.

Once again.

"No, you have to prove that there is gravity, and then you have to prove there is none of it there. And you have you prove that no other explanation will work." You haven't done this.

You can claim you have done this all you want, but you're just doing the equivalent of a magician handing a person a picture of a coin when the person asked for their coin back. The claim that you proved something is entirely different from the actual event of managing to prove it.

how do things magically move if not pushed/ pulled?

Objects rise or fall,

Then why doesn’t a gas bottle with a mix of oxygen gas and helium gas have the oxygen separated out and layer out?

If you think density is a “driving force”, then why does oil and water mix in free fall?

Then why do these liquids mix?

Liquids in near-Zero G



Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'

Seems density isn’t the driving force.

 The penny is 7.15 grams per cubic centimeter.

Now accelerate the mass of that penny without unbalanced forces. 

Why does a penny thrown straight up slow down faster than is accounted for by air resistance.  What force causes the penny to change direction of travel 180 degrees to fall down.  What force causes the penny to accelerate down.

 is a factor, different parts of Earth do have different moisture, so you should see different amounts of static electricity in the Mojave Desert and rainforests of the Amazon.

WTF?

Then show weight is dependent on humidity? 

Which is a big nope. 

Again. Evacuating the atmosphere and moister out of a chamber only causes a slight increase in an object’s weight.  So there is a force independent of atmosphere and humidity driving weight.  Sorry.

Weight is gravity working on an object. 

Objects rise or fall, they aren't pushed up or down. They are however pushed out of the way. 

Like how I can place a car in neutral, and push it all day long on a good garage floor?  So.  Why can’t I push the same car up hill?  In an atmosphere that goes from higher pressure and density down low into lower pressure and lower density above.  What causes a pressure gradient in an atmosphere mixed with oxygen, nitrogen, CO2, and argon? 

Gravity also explains orbits of objects

Yeap.  Like the paths of comets.  How the sun for example can influence their trajectories.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 11, 2025, 09:00:15 AM

 is a factor, different parts of Earth do have different moisture, so you should see different amounts of static electricity in the Mojave Desert and rainforests of the Amazon.

WTF?

Then show weight is dependent on humidity? 

Which is a big nope. 

Again. Evacuating the atmosphere and moister out of a chamber only causes a slight increase in an object’s weight.  So there is a force independent of atmosphere and humidity driving weight.  Sorry.

Weight is gravity working on an object.

You're doing bait and switch sophistry here.

I'm talking about density. I have been talking about density. You want to substitute in "weight" because weight has a meaning other than mass (in my science, the terms are interchangeable) in gravity-based science.

Humidity affects density because moist air has more molecules of water per unit of area.

I won't participate in your bait and switch however, so good luck with that one.

As for you guys who said all falling objects fall at the same rate... uh, I'm watching snow fall in our town today. Not only does it fall slower than rain (remember, water expands as it cools, so snow is less dense than water), but when it falls densely vs a light dusting of snow, it falls much faster. Right now, we're getting a heavy snowfall, and I can see it falling much faster than an hour ago. This is in line with buoyancy. There is more mass of snow per area, and so it falls more quickly.

 

You're doing bait and switch sophistry here.

How.  Unbalanced forces are required to accelerate mass.

If density is a “force”, then why do liquids break from layering and mix in free fall.

It’s been pointed out for years now.

Then why do these liquids mix?

Liquids in near-Zero G



Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'



What’s your expectation why the liquids mix?


Why do a feather and bowling ball drop at the same rate when air resistance is made negligible.

I'm talking about density. I have been talking about density.

And people have repeatedly shown density isn’t a force.


  Why does a bottle of oxygen and helium stay mixed, and not separate and layer out.

You want to substitute in "weight" because weight

Objects have a measurable weight because of gravity.

has a meaning other than mass (in my science, the terms are interchangeable) in gravity-based science.

How do you accelerate a mass without unbalanced forces.

Humidity affects density

Which has nothing to do with what I posted.

Then show weight is dependent on humidity?

Which is a big nope.

Again. Evacuating the atmosphere and moister out of a chamber only causes a slight increase in an object’s weight.  So there is a force independent of atmosphere and humidity driving weight.  Sorry.

Weight is gravity working on an object.

My car’s weight doesn’t change if it’s 25 percent humidity or 95 percent humidity because its mass didn’t change with how earth’s local gravity  is working on its mass. 

The driving force of weight is gravity.  That is reality.   

As in gravity, like the gravity of the sun which influences the trajectories of comets.  Hello.

Why do comets fly through space Bulma. 

I answered this in the other thread. Fluid doesn't push things up.

So the pressure gradient just sits there and does nothing?

So you have an object in the fluid, with a greater pressure acting on it from below than from above, and yet that does absolutely nothing?

So in your fantasy, pressure does nothing?

You're doing a Barnum reversal. "Can't you see? I've proved why alternatives don't work!"

No, I am not.
I have repeatedly explained.

Again, THE PRESSURE GRADIENT!
The thing you keep ignoring.

We know that if you have an object with a higher pressure on one side than the other the fluid will push the object.

More "pressure gradients" and "Cavendish experiment". Like a child calling to mommy to help them

No, like someone with reality on their sides, continually providing simple facts which destroy your delusional BS.


But meanwhile, you act like a pathetic child just sticking your fingers in your ears.
Try actually addressing them for once.

Eric says

I don't give a damn what your lying POS says.

This experiment and ones like it have been conducted countless times.

He had no controls in place to rule out anything as a possible alternate idea.

So go do it yourself with more controls, because it has been repeatedly plenty of times.
And those repeats have controlled for lots of variables.

But you don't care about any of that, because you don't care about the truth. All you care about is making excuses as to why it can't be gravity.

The "force of gravity" varies, as your say, because different areas have different air pressure due to altitude and humidity.

Considering you claim pressure should not magically push things up, why should that matter at all?

But as you have no basis for why there should be a particular rate or what affects it, that doesn't help you explain it at all.
Again, you are just appealing to handwavy BS to dismiss reality.

More importantly, we can use a gravimeter, which has an internal chamber which is sealed under vacuum, which doesn't allow the air from outside in, so it isn't affected by humidity or pressure of the outside air, and it still shows a difference.

Everest is fairly high humidity, I would imagine

Why?
It is quite cold. I expect it would be low humidity.

things tend to fall more when they are denser than the air.

Yet we see a steel block and an aluminium block fall at virtually identical rates.
So that clearly doesn't explain it. Try again.

"Gravity explains orbits" once again doesn't prove that Earth orbits the sun.

It makes no attempt to.
Instead, it appeals to the fact that plenty of things orbit other things, which are proven independently, and explains that fact.

if Cavendish's experiment proves the gravity between two objects, and the gravity of the Earth as you always say is greater than the gravity between two objects, then these two objects should consistently match the orbit of Earth

Why?
Yet again you assert pure BS with no justification at all.

Further, if static electricity (as Eric Dubay mentioned) is a factor

Then you ensure you ground the objects to negate the effect of static electricity.

Your lying cult leader could do that himself, but doing so would mean showing he is wrong and he can't have that.

Finally, if it's nothing more than tension

Then you can test it by moving the stationary blocks and observe it move the other way, showing it isn't tension.

So no fault shown.
You are just making excuses out of your own ignorance and following the words of your cult leader.

You can claim you have done this all you want, but you're just doing the equivalent of a magician handing a person a picture of a coin when the person asked for their coin back. The claim that you proved something is entirely different from the actual event of managing to prove it.

There you go projecting again.
You can dismiss it all you want, but that dismissal will be nothing more than a lie.

Your BS remains refuted until you actually address the issues raised, and that includes addressing the pressure gradient you still flee from.

You want to substitute in "weight" because weight has a meaning other than mass (in my science, the terms are interchangeable) in gravity-based science.

You don't have science. You have delusional BS.
In REALITY weight and mass are different.
This is because mass is a scalar, it has no directionality.
But weight is a vector. It DOES have a direction.

Additionally, as you move around Earth the weight of an object varies, while the mass remains the same.

As for you guys who said all falling objects fall at the same rate... uh, I'm watching snow fall in our town today.

This dishonest BS again?
Try it in a vacuum, where there is no air resistance.

We know air resistance is a factor and that is trivial to demonstrate by taking 2 identical sheets of alfoil and crumpling one into a ball and then dropping them both.
They have the same mass, the same volume, the same density, but the crumpled one has a lot less air resistance.

Now try it with 2 objects with a similar size and shape, like an aluminium ball and a steel ball, and watch them both fall at basically the same rate.

This is not in line with any of your BS.

look at all the fluids with no pressure and not pushing things...

As for you guys who said all falling objects fall at the same rate...

Feather and Coin in a Vacuum (A8) [1C20.10]

Or like a dropped bullet falls at the same rate as a bullet fired from a muzzle.

Bullet Fired vs Bullet Dropped - Mythbusters for the Impatient

Objects rise or fall, they aren't pushed up or down. They are however pushed out of the way. 

Done changing the subject? 

Like how I can place a car in neutral, and push it all day long on a good garage floor?  So.  Why can’t I push the same car up hill?  In an atmosphere that goes from higher pressure and density down low into lower pressure and lower density above.  What causes a pressure gradient in an atmosphere mixed with oxygen, nitrogen, CO2, and argon?  Which have different densities in a uniform mixture at sea level? 

You think by bolding it that it will change the facts.

Pressure gradient, if that's what you call it, is based on density.

In a mixture of gases, the least dense one rises to the top. Then the second least dense one. Then the next, and the next, and the next. It doesn't completely separate, because it is a molecular composite. Like granite. Granite is a mashup of about ten or twelve different molecules.

SiO2    72.04% (silica)    
Al2O3    14.42% (alumina)    
K2O    4.12%    
Na2O    3.69%    
CaO    1.82%    
FeO    1.68%    
Fe2O3    1.22%    
MgO    0.71%    
TiO2    0.30%    
P2O5    0.12%    
MnO    0.05%

Atoms join together to make molecules. Molecules in turn join together on occasion. It might gradient, but it doesn't outright separate because it's part of the same whole.

Meanwhile, if gravity had its way, all of this would be pulled not simply to the level of the ground, but continue to forced downward (forces are active, after all) until every living thing but maybe ants would be unable to breathe. But that isn't what happens. Air pools in the exact same way as filling up a pool with water. Something that is completely unaccounted for on a sphere, but makes perfect sense if the part of the Earth we live in is enclosed by an arctic rim.  If you were to somehow dye the air so that it could be seen as it enters the room, you'd see it drift in, reach a certain level, and kinda disperse out into the room. What you wouldn't see is it all forced down to reach the same level.

Why not, it's the same density, right?

I got to watch snow pile up today. And as you know, snow tends to be the same density too, with some variation to how fine the grains are for temperature. The point is, can snow occupy the same space? Well, not really.  Physical matter has a limit to the amount that will occupy a space. It packs into a general area, and then once it's as dense as it can get, less dense snow piles on top of that. And snow packs and piles on that. And more snow piles on that. We must have gotten about six to eight inches of snow when all was said and done. Whether it's air, water, or snow, the same material forms layers from least packed to most packed. Air is most packed at around sea level, but it's within tolerable limits about at high as Everest, where people often die from lack of oxygen shortly after their heroic climb.

Back to granite. If I said something about flat Earth that made you mad enough to bury me alive, what would be the easiest way to do it? Take me to a hilltop where the surface slopes away from the top? Nah, you never get anywhere like that!  You take me to a fenced area, and you only need a fraction of the granite to pour on top of me.  Even from the perspective of silencing flat Earthers you hate, a round Earth simply isn't suited for piling material.

Again, THE PRESSURE GRADIENT!

You are literally so desperate that you're screaming. Me? I couldn't care even if I were buried alive.

Loosen up!

Pressure gradient, if that's what you call it, is based on density.

No, it isn't.
As already explained.

In a mixture of gases, the least dense one rises to the top.

You appear to have overlooked the fact that it is a mixed gas. i.e. it is not separated.
And we see this on Earth with an atmosphere which is mainly made up of nitrogen and oxygen mixed quite equally rather than separated out.

But even if they do separate based upon density, that still doesn't explain the pressure gradient.
As shown by the vacuum chamber you have already seen.
These gasses don't just have a magical preferred density they sit at.
Instead, the pressure is based upon their surroundings.

If you take an aquarium and carefully fill it with sulphur hexafluoride, and an inverted one and carefully fill it with helium, you can then measure the pressure inside each and the pressure in the air surrounding them and find it virtually identical.
Even with the density of the gas drastically different, the pressure is the same.

And again, if you had a decent education you would know this.

And we further see this with pure substances.
e.g. pure water still has a pressure gradient.

So this cannot be based upon density or the different properties of the materials causing some magical separation.

A pure substance still has that pressure gradient that kills your model.

Meanwhile, if gravity had its way, all of this would be pulled not simply to the level of the ground, but continue to forced downward (forces are active, after all) until every living thing but maybe ants would be unable to breathe.

Now try it honestly.

If the ONLY force was gravity and the atmosphere was frozen, that would happen. But that isn't the case.
Other forces also act.
And the molecules in the air have quite a lot of energy.
And they don't just sit there. They bounce around and smack into each other.

So they are attracted to the ground, and then smack into it and bounce back up.

Imagine a bouncy ball, but one which doesn't lose energy with each bounce so it keeps bouncing back up.
Then imagine that these balls are bouncing at near the speed of sound.

The reason water pools is not simply because of gravity, but because of the attractive forces between the molecules.
Those attractive forces hold water together which is why they don't fly away from each other.
That is why you can get droplets of water.

Air pools in the exact same way as filling up a pool with water.

No, it doesn't.
We can see this easily by adding water and gas into an empty container.
The water pools at the bottom and fills from the bottom up.
But for a small enough container (which can still be hundreds of m tall), the gases spread out over the entire volume.

If you were educated, you would understand this.

This is even well known by FEers, who ignore the pressure gradient and claim that the RE without a dome should have the gasses fly off into space.

Something that is completely unaccounted for on a sphere

The shape of Earth has nothing to do with it.

If you were to somehow dye the air so that it could be seen as it enters the room

You would see it disperse as it enters.

You can even model this with food dye and water.
Get a syringe and inject food dye into the middle of water, and watch it disperse from the point of injection.
But air does it a hell of a lot faster.

And as you know, snow tends to be the same density too, with some variation to how fine the grains are for temperature.

No, I don't. Because I understand how it works.
Fresh snow is basically just small ice crystals very loosely packed together.
But with more stuff piling up on top of it, it gets compacted.

You are literally so desperate that you're screaming.

No, just calling out your BS.
Capitals doesn't only mean screaming.

And notice how you respond to the easy to respond to one which referred to mixtures; while you entirely ignored PURE SUBSTANCES which also show a pressure gradient.

In a mixture of gases, the least dense one rises to the top.

Really.  How.  When.  By what motive force.

You never addressed this post.

I tell them

Hello.  Bullma. Presented a real world example you ignored. 

But in a hermetically sealed room with oxygen and helium

Mean like a tank of helium, nitrogen, and oxygen used for breathing in deep sea diving?  Or just helium and oxygen.  In Trimix or Heliox?

Trimix is a breathing gas consisting of oxygen, helium, and nitrogen. It is used in deep commercial diving, during the deep phase of dives carried out using technical diving techniques,[1][2] and in advanced recreational diving.[3][4]

Heliox is a breathing gas mixture of helium (He) and oxygen (O2). It is used as a medical treatment for patients with difficulty breathing because this mixture generates less resistance than atmospheric air when passing through the airways of the lungs, and thus requires less effort by a patient to breathe in and out of the lungs. It is also used as a breathing gas for deep ambient pressure diving as it is not narcotic at high pressure, and for its low work of breathing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliox

Where the helium stays in a mixed concentration?  I don’t think the breathing mixtures would be effective if the helium layered out from the oxygen. 

You appear to have overlooked the fact that it is a mixed gas. i.e. it is not separated.

Why do you think I used granite? Do the rocks in granite separate into clean layers? No, they don't. They remain a mixture.

Really.  How.  When.  By what motive force.

By what force does the water or other liquid fill in this sink?

By no force. Water stacks into layers as it fills. Gravity does not force it down. It simply fills. When you fill a room with argon, CO2, oxygen, nitrogen, etc, it simply fills with air. There is no force pressing it up. There is no force pushing it down.

It just fills.

Where the helium stays in a mixed concentration?  I don’t think the breathing mixtures would be effective if the helium layered out from the oxygen.

 
Let's have a reading comprehension test.

I said that molecules have bonds that stay bonded unless some reaction or reason break them.

I also said that composites (like granite or air) are basically bonds of different molecules.

You heard that I think heliox will layer out.

...I think you need your eyes or ears (or brain) checked.

If you take an aquarium and carefully fill it with sulphur hexafluoride, and an inverted one and carefully fill it with helium, you can then measure the pressure inside each and the pressure in the air surrounding them and find it virtually identical.
Even with the density of the gas drastically different, the pressure is the same.

Funny how that works. Shouldn't your gravity be forcing the helium down into the aquarium?

just stacked molecules, no forces...absolutely none were pushing on the glass.
it is because it is.


right....

Why do you think I used granite?

Because you are grasping at straws, and just spouting whatever crap you want?

You certainly didn't use it to address the argument.

You still have no explanation at all for what is causing this pressure gradient, nor why this pressure gradient doesn't push things.

By what force does the water or other liquid fill in this sink?

Gravity.

By no force.

Without a force, there is nothing to accelerate the water into the sink.

Water stacks into layers as it fills.

And what force is making it fill?
What force is making it stack?

You are basically saying water just magically decides to move with no force at all, to magically produce the results expected for gravity.

When you fill a room with argon, CO2, oxygen, nitrogen, etc, it simply fills with air. There is no force pressing it up. There is no force pushing it down.

Wrong again.
There is gravity pulling it down, which is why there is the pressure gradient.
And there is a force pushing it up, the force the repeated collisions between the molecules of gas, and between the molecules of gas and the container.
And the force from the collisions of the gas behind it pushing it in.

Let's have a reading comprehension test.

Yes, lets have a reading comprehension test. You said:

In a mixture of gases, the least dense one rises to the top. Then the second least dense one. Then the next, and the next, and the next.

But that isn't what happens. Instead for these mixed gasses there is no detectable separation/layering at all.
The composition at the top of the container is the same as at the bottom.

I also said that composites (like granite or air) are basically bonds of different molecules.

And you say lots of stuff which is pure BS.

Air and other gases do not have significant forces holding them together. That is why they are a gas.
If they had significant forces holding them together, they would be a liquid.

We can even see this with simple tests.

Lets use your granite as an example. But granite isn't even a pure substance with a single composition. Instead it varies.
So lets take 2 different pieces of granite, polish the surface so they are nice and smooth and have great contact, and place them right next to each other, touching.
We can even place them in a vacuum chamber.
Then we can leave them sitting there for a month or a year or a century.
And then come back and test the composition again and find they haven't mixed at all.

You don't even need to run this test. You can do it visually by picking up a piece of granite and looking at it.

Now lets try the same with gas.
Lets take 2 large chambers which are separated by a removable wall.
We fill one with pure helium and the other with pure nitrogen.
We can measure the composition of each and see it is pure, you could even do this in a continuous manner.
Then we remove the wall.
And we observe the gasses mix.

We can even start this with the helium chamber on top of the nitrogen one.
And they still mix, just over a longer timescale.

This shows that the gasses are not being held together by some magical bond keeping their composition constant.

Funny how that works. Shouldn't your gravity be forcing the helium down into the aquarium?

If there was nothing below, yes.

Again, what you are saying is like complaining that gravity should be forcing the skinny kid on the see-saw down, while you ignore the fat kid on the other side.

In reality, there is already gas below the helium. And that gas is also being pulled down by gravity.
In order for the helium to go down it needs to force that gas up (or be at a greater pressure to be able to push it down and compress it). But because the gas below is denser, the force of gravity is greater, so it stays down.
Just like in order for the skinny kid to go down, it needs to lift the fat kid up or break the see-saw. But as the fat kid is heavier, and the weight of the kid is not enough to break the see-saw, they stay up.


Now again, care to explain what magic is causing the pressure gradient.
We know it is not simply layering of different substances, and that includes a gradient of temperature, humidity or density.

And then once you have explained or admit you can't, can you then explain why this isn't pushing everything up?

You have no explanation for it at all. Yet gravity does explain what causes it and doesn't need to pretend it doesn't push things up.

By no force.

Again…

In a mixture of gases, the least dense one rises to the top.

Really.  How.  When.  By what motive force.

You never addressed this post.

I tell them

Hello.  Bullma. Presented a real world example you ignored. 

Thermal drafts cause things to rise or fall depending on hot or cold, and hurricanes/tornadoes mix hot and cold gases together. And I was talking about oxygen with two atoms.
But in a hermetically sealed room with oxygen and helium pumped in from vents, if the helium is on the bottom and oxygen is on the top? No tornadoes, hurricanes, or thermal drafts. Just one type of gas vs another.

Mean like a tank of helium, nitrogen, and oxygen used for breathing in deep sea diving?  Or just helium and oxygen.  In Trimix or Heliox?


Back to this.

By no force.

Like how I can place a car in neutral, and push it all day long on a good garage floor?  So.  Why can’t I push the same car up hill?  In an atmosphere that goes from higher pressure and density down low into lower pressure and lower density above.


What keeps me from pushing a car up hill that I can push around in a garage.


Why do items have weight that exert a downward force.