Predictions: at best some incoherent rant that they can but won't do it for some bullshit reason
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (87)
sorted by:
Reverse logic won't work with me, unfortunately. There could, theoretically, be other reasons why we have a sustained air pressure. You can't just say that it must be this because you can't think of another possibility.
So now you're open to the idea that it's not real, and may not exist. Great! Let's expand on that. What other reasons could there be?
Please describe this "reverse logic" in detail. I have no idea what you are referring to. It is "normal logic" (and scientific law) to deduce the domes [container of some sort - not necessarily a dome] existence (and necessity) from the existence of persistent air pressure.
Anything is possible in imagination, in reality - not so much. It is a scientific law; air pressure is derived from and contingent upon the container walls.
I try to stay open to as many ideas as i can, even when they seem ridiculous. You might give it a try!
None that i am aware of, and/or that are consistent with known and established scientific law. (except possibly involving impossible cold, which we do not experience and even in theory probably cannot exist in reality) Gas always expands to fill an available volume - it's another law.
From your perspective a "field" could be used instead of a physical wall - but this would require preposterously enormous and, even more preposterously, unlimited energy. In my view, fields are themselves made of matter - so the container wall is physical in every case.
Of course i remind you that "dome" is used somewhat figuratively. The true shape, composition, and size are unknown. The term "dome" is merely inherited from hebrew/christianity.
By this I mean, if you're reasoning is because you cannot think of another reason why something is the way it is, it's not something I can accept. I accept evidence, but not speculation.
Is that a scientific law, or is that just your own words?
If the idea is ridiculous, then I consider it a fun thing to talk about, nothing more. Not something that I think should carry a lot of weight.
Speaking of, weight is a property of matter. Does gas not have weight?
A flimsy excuse. Don't you think it's the least bit odd that you can't provide even a single measurement which contradicts the law which i stated?
If it isn't a law, as you seem committed to blindly believe, then why can't you refute it with a measurement?
You're not following. We aren't discussing understanding. We are discussing what demonstrably and unequivocally is as established by rigorous empiricism (aka science). My understanding, yours, and/or the lack thereof is entirely irrelevant and merely an attempt to avoid discussing something straightforward and unpleasant for you :(
Both!
Many close minded people before you thought the same, many of them scientists. What seems ridiculous to one generation easily becomes commonplace in the next. Surely you recognize and accept this? It's a recurring theme in human society/experience and (thus) the history of science.
Correct, in my view - but not in yours if you are of - what i call - the presumptive (and commonly taught) view.
All matter has weight. It is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. The density gradient found in gas containers (including our "atmosphere") is a plain manifestation of it.
If we're going to discuss laws, especially ones that you claim have been agreed upon by others, then we should discuss it as it is written, not using our own summations of what we think it says.
I'm sorry, but I will not entertain otherwise.
I realize you are avoiding the topic, but your understanding is exactly what I'm talking about. If we have different understandings of how a law is applied, then that should be addressed.
Wrong. Your summary of a law != the law as written.
Great! So does gas not move downward as a result of having this property?