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:
You may ignore as much as you like. Stick your fingers in your ears and scream to your hearts content.
But reality doesn't care. The law stands, as it has for 3+ centuries precisely because there exist only measurements which confirm it and none that contradict it.
Don't you wonder at all why you can't provide a simple measurement that contradicts the law i've stated? It should be so simple considering it "isn't a law" and "isn't true" according to you - right? But instead of providing that simple measurement, you choose to stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes, and whine :(
Everyone who has measured the surface of still water and excluded the negligible (and known) surface tension artifacts. Many scientists and lay people going back centuries. But this isn't about them, it's about you!
Of course it can, and does. Why do you think it can't? Are you unfamiliar with floating/neutral buoyancy? Of course the air must be still in order for it to come to complete rest - but that is all.
Gas always expands to fill "space". Wether it can displace or is displaced itself depends on its volumetric weight (aka density) and that of the other matter involved.
You haven't stated a law, so I have made no effort to provide a contradiction. Once you state a law, not just your own summation of thought, then we can discuss it.
Great! Could you please provide the name of one, and their findings?
Do you have an example of something we can observe at rest, in midair?
At what point though does the weight of gas combat the property of it to continue expanding?
So you need to believe, and so repeat while sticking your fingers in your ears. But all the ignoring and childish wailing in the world won't change reality.
It is both a law in books (going back at least 3 centuries) and, much more importantly, a law in demonstrable reality. You can stubbornly continue to choose not to recognize that. I can't stop you, and wouldn't if i could. But i do urge you to reconsider though.
I could, yes - though the "finding" has already been made explicit in this case. What you are obstinately missing is that who measured water's demonstrably flat surface at rest is irrelevant. This isn't about them; it's about you!
Sure - the air itself is a good example. Clouds on a still day are another. If you want to demonstrate it for yourself, get a helium balloon and tie a small weight to it which matches its buoyant force. You seem to be unaware that "floating" (aka neutral buoyancy) is a possible rest state.
All points, however as long as the gas is not at absolute zero it will always be able to expand and overcome that minuscule weight. All a gas must do to expand is cool down.
You stating a thought in your own words is not an explicit finding, I'm sorry to say. If it is a law, then it would be written, as is, elsewhere aside from this forum.
Belief has nothing to do with it, it just simply is
I'm happy to be proven wrong if you can find even a single book stating this law as you have, but it doesn't appear that is possible.
Great example!
If so, why is the air so much thinner at higher altitudes? Shouldn't the gas be able to expand to be a constant pressure/density throughout our livable space, since it's not at absolute zero?
True. However, me repeating the explicit findings of MANY others in my own words doesn't somehow unmake the explicit findings themselves. As much as you desperately (and irrationally, i should urge you to recognize) hope it would :(
As i've said many times now, if you feel the explicit findings (and/or my redescribing of them in intelligible and plain english) are incorrect simply cite or record the measurements demonstrating they are incorrect! The fact that you can't do that (and what that inescapably means) should eventually sink in...
I can, but i won't (because it will only make you a lesser student). This isn't a "contest" to me, and i have no interest in "proving you wrong". It's just a discussion. Many modern hydrostatics textbooks contain the law (albeit in different words) - but if you don't want to read them, so be it. Just don't delude yourself into believing you have read them, or know what they do or do not contain in the meantime!
Good question! It certainly tries to become completely equal in pressure, to the best of its ability (largely dictated by the available thermal/kinetic energy).
The reason it ultimately fails, and the cause of the density gradient in all things - solids/liquids/gasses etc) is because it is being pushed upon by the weight of the gas above it (which ultimately itself is touching, and deriving pressure from the container ceiling).
Consider a sealed gas cylinder at constant temperature, for simplicity. The gas inside seeks equilibrium (rest). The gas expands to fill the container and then the gas settles. The gas above the gas below is settling on top of it! As a result the gas below is at a higher pressure/density - AT equilibrium (at rest).
An analogy that might help is considering a piece of compressible foam. With nothing sitting atop it (aside from air) it has one volume/density. When it has something with weight sitting above it - compressing it, it has a decreased volume and increased density. It works exactly the same way with the gas layers below the gas layers above.
The above gasses weight is greater than the force of expansion of the lower gas AND it is also (ultimately) pushing back down upon it by that same expansion force derived from the container ceiling.