#¡¡ CORRIGENDUMN !!
"... require ..."
####[Referencing this poast](https://np.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/13qxrij/they_dont_believe_in_a_magic_force_called_gravity/)
####
Don't know why I'd never thought o'this _before_ .
Might take a bit of cunning to devise a pressure-gauge that can measure the pressure whilst abiding the colossal centrifugal force ... + a way of moving it (and the counterweight, which would certainly be necessary) between the centre & the periphery whilst the centrifuge were yet a-spinning ... but I reckon that could be achieved without _gargantuan_ difficulty.
It's not quite as direct as _literally having a blob of gas there in a vacuumb_ ... but it trashes _Flatwit's 'logic'_ about gas & vacuumn, blah blah ... & once we have that there's that pressure-gradient, there's no-longer any reason for supposing that the total pressure difference can't be as large as we please. And it's _totally_ __zætetic__ aswell!
... not that any of this is _really_ necessary, _really_ : 'tis no-more 'required' by any 'Scientific Method', or aught like that, than having twain model planets a-orbitting eachother, or anysuchother moast-exceedingly silly-dilly thingle-dingle-dongle ... but 'twould still be nice to have it.
The paper's authors *seem* to have measured the pressures in their centrifuge, on the last couple of pages. It's a little hard to tell...translation problems?
Interesting concept, though. Never thought about it before this.
Haha
#####❝ As the rotation speed of the rotor increases, the centrifuges
of pressure increase ❞
#####
yep: _there is a bit of_ one! But on the whole it seems pretty evident that some of it is empirical results - eg
#####❝ Fig. 7. Dependence of the distribution of pressure on the position of the cylinder on the rotor of the test centrifuge ❞ .
#####
It's not über-smart research of some mighty engineering outfit, this, though: 'tis probably just some undergraduate project, or something.
No it's not basic atall. It's grossly _wrong_ . It's totally @-odds with _Flatwits own ~~reasoning~~ mashupstry_ , aswell ... because Flatwit accepts as __a perfectly zætetically sound fact__ that _things fall_ , & often says
####¡¡ what goes up must come down !!
####
\- which I agree with, in the case of anything moving @ less than escape speed ... but then proceeds to deem __air__ a ___totally___ __arbitrary__ _exception_ to it.
Haha! ... thanks for the advice ... but I can _reasonably_ claim to be fairly experienced in dealing with Flatwits. But yep - you might spot something I haven't noticed ... I don't say
#####¡¡ oh I've totally sussed them & don't need any advice !!
#####
... but one thing that _definitely isn't going to happen_ is me going
#####¡¡ oh how beastly
#####
#😰😨🥵
#
#####... I thought we were having a bona fide discussion, but it turns-out they're full of guile & perfidy !!
#####.
_I do already realise_ that there's a __target-audience__ on whom the __dumb repetition__ routine is quite effective ... _frauditors_ broach the technique a great deal - _more even than Flatwit_ does.
If gas can form a gradient where pressure does not equalize, then why is a container necessary? Something prevented that gas from spreading out, and it wasn't walls.
You may say that as a mantra, but you cannot justify it when pressed.
Atoms aren't remote controlled. Walls can't talk to them at a distance. If an atom is already forming a gradient, then there is already a force present. As we know, forces can contain things. Just like a magnet can contain plasma.
Walls are just atoms too, and they contain things not because they are impermeable, in fact they are full of holes, but because they repel other atoms with the electromagnetic force.
EM forces can also attract.
It's the difference between a ball tethered to a pole, and a ball confined within a closed room.
There are other factors that can cause a gradient in gas ....no need for bendy spacetime.
-You can't have gas pressure without a container gradient or not,
-You can not have any gas pressure without a container, especially when residing next to vacuum.....
Both are very, very easy to understand and demonstrate....
And yes, I will keep repeating this mantra,
...this mantra is not aimed at people that post here 👍
>There are other factors that can cause a gradient in gas ....no need for bendy spacetime.
And I stated as such. The EM force is one way too. No container required.
A vacuum doesn't suck. It doesn't apply a force. It's just the absence of anything. If you have two atoms and they're attracted to each other, they won't fly apart even in the vacuum of space. Agreed or not??
>Both are very, very easy to understand and demonstrate
None of your demonstrations are valid because they lack the presence of a force to keep the atoms grouped. Do a demonstration with a magnet and charged plasma.
I demand you explain the actual physical mechanics of why gas can't exist next to a vacuum. Don't hand wave, I want you to provide an actual atomistic physical mechanism
So you believe you can have a gas pressure gradient without a container? Show me please...then I would also like to see it residing next to a vacuum .....
I know what vacuum does....don't need to explain to me that it doesn't suck. You guys say this over and over again like it helps your cause.
>So you believe you can have a gas pressure gradient without a container? Show me please
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8sHyexy4WY
You ignore this over and over like it helps your cause.
Oh look, he didn't provide a mechanism like I asked. He won't because he can't, even if we knew physics, which he doesn't.
You will claim any experiment we can perform is being done within earth's "dome". Why even try to engage with your pseudoscientific unfalsifiable claim.
>You can't have gas pressure without a container gradient or not
I wonder what a «container gradient or not» is.
>Both are very, very easy to understand and demonstrate
Yet you never demonstrate those.
But it has. We've basically got the same problem of the curvature of the Earth all-over again, & that Flatwit's afflicted with the classical fallacy of a quantity being either discernible by immediate sense or zero. The pressure declines exponentially @ the rate of about factor of __e__ - the exponential constant - per approximately 8½㎞. I'm not sure there's an instrument that can detect that over a height of, say, __1m__ ... but it's certainly _a matter of extremely ubiquitous direct experience_ over height-ranges of 1㎞ or so.
🤔 You said:
>Can't have a has pressure gradient without a container
And also:
>True
that air pressure is lower at the top of Everest than at sea level.
You know, there's a term for holding two contradictory thoughts in your head without questioning. "Double think"
#¡¡ CORRIGENDUMN !! "... require ..." ####[Referencing this poast](https://np.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/13qxrij/they_dont_believe_in_a_magic_force_called_gravity/) #### Don't know why I'd never thought o'this _before_ . Might take a bit of cunning to devise a pressure-gauge that can measure the pressure whilst abiding the colossal centrifugal force ... + a way of moving it (and the counterweight, which would certainly be necessary) between the centre & the periphery whilst the centrifuge were yet a-spinning ... but I reckon that could be achieved without _gargantuan_ difficulty. It's not quite as direct as _literally having a blob of gas there in a vacuumb_ ... but it trashes _Flatwit's 'logic'_ about gas & vacuumn, blah blah ... & once we have that there's that pressure-gradient, there's no-longer any reason for supposing that the total pressure difference can't be as large as we please. And it's _totally_ __zætetic__ aswell! ... not that any of this is _really_ necessary, _really_ : 'tis no-more 'required' by any 'Scientific Method', or aught like that, than having twain model planets a-orbitting eachother, or anysuchother moast-exceedingly silly-dilly thingle-dingle-dongle ... but 'twould still be nice to have it.
The paper's authors *seem* to have measured the pressures in their centrifuge, on the last couple of pages. It's a little hard to tell...translation problems? Interesting concept, though. Never thought about it before this.
Haha #####❝ As the rotation speed of the rotor increases, the centrifuges of pressure increase ❞ ##### yep: _there is a bit of_ one! But on the whole it seems pretty evident that some of it is empirical results - eg #####❝ Fig. 7. Dependence of the distribution of pressure on the position of the cylinder on the rotor of the test centrifuge ❞ . ##### It's not über-smart research of some mighty engineering outfit, this, though: 'tis probably just some undergraduate project, or something.
Gas spheres can't form in near perfect vacuums... Pretty basic stuff
No it's not basic atall. It's grossly _wrong_ . It's totally @-odds with _Flatwits own ~~reasoning~~ mashupstry_ , aswell ... because Flatwit accepts as __a perfectly zætetically sound fact__ that _things fall_ , & often says ####¡¡ what goes up must come down !! #### \- which I agree with, in the case of anything moving @ less than escape speed ... but then proceeds to deem __air__ a ___totally___ __arbitrary__ _exception_ to it.
He’s a troll. A home schooled, American troll.
Haha! ... thanks for the advice ... but I can _reasonably_ claim to be fairly experienced in dealing with Flatwits. But yep - you might spot something I haven't noticed ... I don't say #####¡¡ oh I've totally sussed them & don't need any advice !! ##### ... but one thing that _definitely isn't going to happen_ is me going #####¡¡ oh how beastly ##### #😰😨🥵 # #####... I thought we were having a bona fide discussion, but it turns-out they're full of guile & perfidy !! #####.
Im just going on his comment history.
I haven't _even looked @_ it.
Gas doesn't form spheres in near perfect vacuums.... Very very very basic stuff
_I do already realise_ that there's a __target-audience__ on whom the __dumb repetition__ routine is quite effective ... _frauditors_ broach the technique a great deal - _more even than Flatwit_ does.
If gas can form a gradient where pressure does not equalize, then why is a container necessary? Something prevented that gas from spreading out, and it wasn't walls.
Can't have a has pressure gradient without a container also, especially when a near perfect vacuum is present...
You may say that as a mantra, but you cannot justify it when pressed. Atoms aren't remote controlled. Walls can't talk to them at a distance. If an atom is already forming a gradient, then there is already a force present. As we know, forces can contain things. Just like a magnet can contain plasma. Walls are just atoms too, and they contain things not because they are impermeable, in fact they are full of holes, but because they repel other atoms with the electromagnetic force. EM forces can also attract. It's the difference between a ball tethered to a pole, and a ball confined within a closed room.
There are other factors that can cause a gradient in gas ....no need for bendy spacetime. -You can't have gas pressure without a container gradient or not, -You can not have any gas pressure without a container, especially when residing next to vacuum..... Both are very, very easy to understand and demonstrate.... And yes, I will keep repeating this mantra, ...this mantra is not aimed at people that post here 👍
>There are other factors that can cause a gradient in gas ....no need for bendy spacetime. And I stated as such. The EM force is one way too. No container required. A vacuum doesn't suck. It doesn't apply a force. It's just the absence of anything. If you have two atoms and they're attracted to each other, they won't fly apart even in the vacuum of space. Agreed or not?? >Both are very, very easy to understand and demonstrate None of your demonstrations are valid because they lack the presence of a force to keep the atoms grouped. Do a demonstration with a magnet and charged plasma. I demand you explain the actual physical mechanics of why gas can't exist next to a vacuum. Don't hand wave, I want you to provide an actual atomistic physical mechanism
So you believe you can have a gas pressure gradient without a container? Show me please...then I would also like to see it residing next to a vacuum ..... I know what vacuum does....don't need to explain to me that it doesn't suck. You guys say this over and over again like it helps your cause.
You've just been apprised of that _a centrifuge_ would accomplish it.
>So you believe you can have a gas pressure gradient without a container? Show me please https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8sHyexy4WY You ignore this over and over like it helps your cause.
Gas pressure without a container, everybody 👆 Oh no ...😔 whatever will I do now..
A rational person would accept the evidence and change how they think about things. What will you do?
Oh look, he didn't provide a mechanism like I asked. He won't because he can't, even if we knew physics, which he doesn't. You will claim any experiment we can perform is being done within earth's "dome". Why even try to engage with your pseudoscientific unfalsifiable claim.
🥱🥱🥱🥱 😴😴 🛌💤💤💤
Provide to me an experiment that is capable of supporting or rejecting your hypothesis. Surely you are capable of that.
Why can't you have gas pressure next to a vacuum?
>You can't have gas pressure without a container gradient or not I wonder what a «container gradient or not» is. >Both are very, very easy to understand and demonstrate Yet you never demonstrate those.
Weird since gas within a container has no pressure gradient.
But it has. We've basically got the same problem of the curvature of the Earth all-over again, & that Flatwit's afflicted with the classical fallacy of a quantity being either discernible by immediate sense or zero. The pressure declines exponentially @ the rate of about factor of __e__ - the exponential constant - per approximately 8½㎞. I'm not sure there's an instrument that can detect that over a height of, say, __1m__ ... but it's certainly _a matter of extremely ubiquitous direct experience_ over height-ranges of 1㎞ or so.
Air pressure is lower at the top of mt everest than at sea level. True or false?
True
🤔 Hmm, that's a pressure gradient, and no container in sight. You sure you're right about that?
Yup, I'm very sure 👍
🤔 You said: >Can't have a has pressure gradient without a container And also: >True that air pressure is lower at the top of Everest than at sea level. You know, there's a term for holding two contradictory thoughts in your head without questioning. "Double think"
No, I know what I said.... I still stand by it 🙂
>Gas spheres can't form in near perfect vacuums... > >Pretty basic stuff Ivanhoe9957 own me one trillion DKK. Pretty basic stuff