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 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.
I'm not in this conversation for entertainment, so that's fine.
If we want to discuss laws, then let's discuss laws as they've been established, not just your own summary.
I edited my comment, as I reread newton's third law.
Because, as I said before, I am only interested in discussing the actual laws, not your own interpretations of them.
Well, those aren't the same. In the first description, the container is doing active exertion on the gas inside. In the second, the container is merely preventing the gas from expanding further. The difference is slight, but important to consider.
Think of it like a balloon. Under a normal state, the latex is merely preventing the gas from escaping by maintaining shape. However, if I were to squeeze the balloon, now the container is exerting pressure (through me) on the gas inside.
Which one is occurring in our atmosphere?
The key difference is the density of gas is less, allowing it to expand upward. as well as across.
What prevents the gas at the top from expanding all the way outward?
Your anonymous statement is not law.
But wouldn't that require the particles to be at rest, for their weight to affect objects (other particles) below?
Well, yeah because we're discussing the pressure of the gas against the walls.
In a rigid glass jar, there is no active pressure being pushed on the gas from the jar because the jar is rigid. It's only the pressure that the gas exerts on the container.
Precisely! So it never comes to rest. As I've been saying.
My whole point is I have no desire to give weight to an anonymous someone's bare statement that has no supporting data and consider it to be a law.
Ah, so the gas is exerting pressure trying to expand the confines! Precisely.
So, we're back to a model where, logically, the pressure should be equal throughout the balloon, as the gas is working to expand outward
Not relevant here, actually! These are rotational forces. We're talking about air in a container.
But it's not sitting. It's expanding
Then what you have written is not the law. Thank you for admitting as much. If we want to discuss the property of gasses, let's speak on the explicit laws of behavior. Not just your own words.
So the ceiling itself of the container holding our air in is exerting pressure on the gasses in our atmosphere?
There was another law you had summarized earlier:
It's the basic idea of kinetic molecular theory, that gas molecules are in a constant state of rapid motion to fill the container that they are in. Doesn't the idea that in a container the gas has a lower pressure at the top of the container go against this?
https://www.westfield.ma.edu/personalpages/cmasi/gen_chem1/Gases/KMT/kmt.htm