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:
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?
We can certainly approach it that way, and there are many books, including modern hydrostatics texts, that repeat the law i stated in various ways.
However it is a fundamentally unscientific and lesser way to approach scientific knowledge. It is the way of the academic, and not the way of the scientist. The scientist doesn't truly care what is in any book, they care what is; Out here, in reality - not merely in some book (revered or otherwise)
Just because something is written in a book does not make it consistent with reality. We confirm it is consistent in science through measurement alone. This is the core of empiricism (aka science).
Different perhaps than the law you may have been taught which, as i've said many times, has been amended arbitrarily and unempirically (ie. unscientifically)... But the way i have stated the law is both consistent with laws which can be found in modern textbooks as well as historical ones. Of course, as i keep trying to stress to you, the fact that it is in books is meaningless.
The reason it is a law is because it has only been measured to be correct, and there are no measurements which contradict it! That's what made it a law 3 centuries (and likely more) ago, and keeps it a law today.
The reason you can provide no measurement to contradict the law is because it is one! Furthermore, you can only provide measurement which confirms it. That's what a scientific/natural law is! It has nothing to do with books.
I'm avoiding you changing the topic to a meaningless subjective one, yes.
Before we can even begin to discuss the "understanding" of what is and/or why - we have to establish what is first! To skip step one as you want to is both silly and a waste of time. Worse than that, it's a violation/abandonment of the scientific method. Surely you realize that?
Things tend towards rest, not motion. Things move downwards because they weigh more than the media they displace - that's all. An object at rest is not moving downward (or any direction). Although we can (and do) conceptualize air as constantly moving - it largely behaves like a fluid (which is also constantly in motion). When the fluid sits upon a layer of fluid beneath it, it does not move downward as long as the weight of the layer is greater than or equal to the weight of the media it displaces.