You claim to be an engineer yet cant demonstrate gas pressure without a physical container.
You think that gas needs to escape into the vacuum of space to prevent buildup of pressure even though space would suck up every gas molecule that isnt protected by a physical barrier.
Gravity isnt a physical barrier and theoretical math equations arent proof without observable, repeatadble results.
I'm asking you to tell me what you believe so that we can avoid the inevitable bullshit about my assumptions and jew fairy tales, but you won't because you intend to inevitably resort to "muh joo fairy tales" and "muh joo mafs".
I'm asking what you believe so that I can explain this concept, of which you are being willfully and disingenuously ignorant, in a way that doesn't have you sperg out about jews, nasa, and "unproven" assumptions.
For example, "density gradient" is fucking retarded, yes gasses to layer out and cause a change the density as you increase altitude but pressure is decreasing as a result of concepts far more important than simply changes in density.
F=g(density)height, where "height" is not the height above the surface, but rather the vertical length from the near zero pressure point, and P=F/A
While a reduction in density ((density)) certainly does decrease pressure, the change in h (height) has a far, far greater impact on the reduction on pressure and decreases to near zero as it approaches the near zero point.
Then, it seems perfectly obvious that a slightly less perfect vaccuum can exist near perfect vaccuum, and only needs a tiny amount of gravitational attraction to maintain equilibrium.
Pressure on the surface of the earth is simply the weight of the atmosphere weighing down upon you over the surface area upon which the weight is acting.
This is a simple basic concept. And the only assumption needed is that when you get to the point in the earth's atmosphere where there is only a small amount of particles above you, weighing down upon you, the pressure is near zero.
This is why I keep asking how low do you believe the pressure gets as you climb what you call the "density gradient". You won't answer because any answer other than near zero would be laughable, but you can't/won't admit that it is near zero because it confirms the very easy to understand concept of gravitational attraction holding the very small amount of molecules in orbit but the beginnings of the weight weighing down on everything below it.
No, it contradicts phenomena and natural science. This is a supernatural claim that doesn't seem "perfectly obvious" at all and you must showcase it with repeatable, provable experimentation. Start by showcasing gas pressure without physical containment.
Pressure is nothing, absolutely nothing, but Force acting over an Area.
P=F/A
In this case, the force is the mass of the object times the gravitational constant, which decreases as you increase altitude (distance from earth), called "weight".
If the tiny amount of mass at distances far from the earth's core/surfact has very little weight, it has very little pressure. The earth's gravitational attraction is able to overcome the tiny amount of pressure and attract the molecule toward the center of gravity.
Seems obvious.
But, when you're discussing these basic, simple, and obvious concepts with someone who clings to a 1842 drawing by a machinist in Buffalo NY who specifically stated that the drawing is nothing more than a reproduction of a globe, flattened out by straightening the meridian lines of that globe, and who makes reference to our 2 poles, as the model of what the earth "actually" looks like, and then will ignore everything that contradicts this blatantly fucking retarded model, things that are "obvious" become, somehow, too complex to understand.
You keep trying to invoke supernatural claims in order to avoid providing actual scientific proof that gas pressure can exist without physical containment.
I explained it just fine, but like I said, when you want to ignore the obvious, you're going to ignore the obvious.
Just like the GPS issue. You'll use GPS measurements when it makes YOUR point, but will ignore GPS measurements when they completely destroy you bullshit theories. Why? Because it completely destroys your bullshit theories and you don't want to "lose" the argument.
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt 0 points 8 monthsAug 9, 2024 20:55:09 ago (+0/-0)
You think that gas needs to escape into the vacuum of space to prevent buildup of pressure even though space would suck up every gas molecule that isnt protected by a physical barrier.
Gravity isnt a physical barrier and theoretical math equations arent proof without observable, repeatadble results.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 8 monthsAug 9, 2024 21:25:04 ago (+1/-1)
Last time we chatted you showed me this.
https://files.catbox.moe/lv5287.jpg
Google Earth confirming a distance that you used to show buildings that should be over the horizon but that you can still see.
Do you now acknowledge that the GPS system that you used is accurate when measuring distances between two points?
I absolutely can demonstrate gas pressure in an open container. All I had asked was for you to answer 2 questions.
1. How do you explain the decrease in pressure as you gain altitude. You called this a "density Gradient". Explain what this means.
2. How low does the pressure get?
These aren't complex questions, right?
You answered #1, now let's hear about #2. What's your answer?
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt 0 points 8 monthsAug 9, 2024 23:17:08 ago (+0/-0)
What a shock, avoiding the question.
You claim to be an engineer yet cant demonstrate gas pressure without a physical container.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 8 monthsAug 9, 2024 23:30:24 ago (+0/-0)
I'm assuming the the lowest pressure at the most peak altitude is near zero. I'd your right? Or no?
And, again,
you showed me this.
https://files.catbox.moe/lv5287.jpg
Google Earth confirming a distance that you used to show buildings that should be over the horizon but that you can still see.
Do you now acknowledge that the GPS system that you used is accurate when measuring distances between two points?
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt 0 points 8 monthsAug 9, 2024 23:32:36 ago (+0/-0)
"I'm assuming"
Just go with whatever jew propaganda you were taught in school.
You claim to be an engineer yet cant demonstrate gas pressure without a physical container.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 8 monthsAug 10, 2024 09:35:17 ago (+0/-0)
I'm asking you to tell me what you believe so that we can avoid the inevitable bullshit about my assumptions and jew fairy tales, but you won't because you intend to inevitably resort to "muh joo fairy tales" and "muh joo mafs".
I'm asking what you believe so that I can explain this concept, of which you are being willfully and disingenuously ignorant, in a way that doesn't have you sperg out about jews, nasa, and "unproven" assumptions.
For example, "density gradient" is fucking retarded, yes gasses to layer out and cause a change the density as you increase altitude but pressure is decreasing as a result of concepts far more important than simply changes in density.
F=g(density)height, where "height" is not the height above the surface, but rather the vertical length from the near zero pressure point, and P=F/A
While a reduction in density ((density)) certainly does decrease pressure, the change in h (height) has a far, far greater impact on the reduction on pressure and decreases to near zero as it approaches the near zero point.
Then, it seems perfectly obvious that a slightly less perfect vaccuum can exist near perfect vaccuum, and only needs a tiny amount of gravitational attraction to maintain equilibrium.
Pressure on the surface of the earth is simply the weight of the atmosphere weighing down upon you over the surface area upon which the weight is acting.
This is a simple basic concept. And the only assumption needed is that when you get to the point in the earth's atmosphere where there is only a small amount of particles above you, weighing down upon you, the pressure is near zero.
This is why I keep asking how low do you believe the pressure gets as you climb what you call the "density gradient". You won't answer because any answer other than near zero would be laughable, but you can't/won't admit that it is near zero because it confirms the very easy to understand concept of gravitational attraction holding the very small amount of molecules in orbit but the beginnings of the weight weighing down on everything below it.
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt 0 points 8 monthsAug 10, 2024 09:38:16 ago (+0/-0)
No, it contradicts phenomena and natural science. This is a supernatural claim that doesn't seem "perfectly obvious" at all and you must showcase it with repeatable, provable experimentation. Start by showcasing gas pressure without physical containment.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 8 monthsAug 10, 2024 09:49:02 ago (+0/-0)*
Pressure is nothing, absolutely nothing, but Force acting over an Area.
P=F/A
In this case, the force is the mass of the object times the gravitational constant, which decreases as you increase altitude (distance from earth), called "weight".
If the tiny amount of mass at distances far from the earth's core/surfact has very little weight, it has very little pressure. The earth's gravitational attraction is able to overcome the tiny amount of pressure and attract the molecule toward the center of gravity.
Seems obvious.
But, when you're discussing these basic, simple, and obvious concepts with someone who clings to a 1842 drawing by a machinist in Buffalo NY who specifically stated that the drawing is nothing more than a reproduction of a globe, flattened out by straightening the meridian lines of that globe, and who makes reference to our 2 poles, as the model of what the earth "actually" looks like, and then will ignore everything that contradicts this blatantly fucking retarded model, things that are "obvious" become, somehow, too complex to understand.
Is the GPS system accurate?
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt 0 points 8 monthsAug 10, 2024 09:53:04 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 8 monthsAug 10, 2024 09:56:47 ago (+0/-0)
I explained it just fine, but like I said, when you want to ignore the obvious, you're going to ignore the obvious.
Just like the GPS issue. You'll use GPS measurements when it makes YOUR point, but will ignore GPS measurements when they completely destroy you bullshit theories. Why? Because it completely destroys your bullshit theories and you don't want to "lose" the argument.
Is GPS accurate?
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 8 monthsAug 10, 2024 09:36:04 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt 0 points 8 monthsAug 10, 2024 09:39:43 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 8 monthsAug 10, 2024 09:51:44 ago (+0/-0)
Not sure how pictures of a satellite matter.
Regardless of how you think GPS works, is it accurate?
You seemed to believe it was when you posted this.
https://files.catbox.moe/lv5287.jpg
What's in the suspense? Why won't you answer?
[ + ] PeckerwoodPerry
[ - ] PeckerwoodPerry 1 point 8 monthsAug 9, 2024 20:58:59 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX [op] 0 points 8 monthsAug 9, 2024 21:13:09 ago (+0/-0)