Then why can't you or anyone else establish that empirically (i.e. scientifically)?

Copy/pasted from earlier:

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'm not interested in hearing an anonymous individual's claim and spending time looking to prove it wrong.

but you can conceptualize it that way and everything works

But it doesn't. Either the gas is constantly expanding to fill a volume, or it is at rest atop other particles. Both can't be true simultaneously.

t's newtonian relativism. You may soundly conceptualize either, and or both forces as newtons third law requires you to.

But it's not an active force. It's a reactive force.

Then why can't you or anyone else establish that empirically (i.e. scientifically)?

Copy/pasted from earlier:

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'm not interested in hearing an anonymous individual's claim and spending time looking to prove it wrong.

but you can conceptualize it that way and everything works

But it doesn't. Either the gas is constantly expanding to fill a volume, or it is at rest atop other particles. Both can't be true simultaneously.

t's newtonian relativism. You may soundly conceptualize either, and or both forces as newtons third law requires you to.

Newton's third law doesn't require that the opposite action is a force being exerted (by the glass jar) onto the original object (the particle)

Then why can't you or anyone else establish that empirically (i.e. scientifically)?

Copy/pasted from earlier:

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'm not interested in hearing an individual claim and spending time looking to prove it wrong. I would rather discuss laws that have already been proven correct.

but you can conceptualize it that way and everything works

But it doesn't. Either the gas is constantly expanding to fill a volume, or it is at rest atop other particles. Both can't be true simultaneously.

t's newtonian relativism. You may soundly conceptualize either, and or both forces as newtons third law requires you to.

Newton's third law doesn't require that the opposite action is a force being exerted (by the glass jar) onto the original object (the particle)

Then why can't you or anyone else establish that empirically (i.e. scientifically)?

Copy/pasted from earlier:

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.

but you can conceptualize it that way and everything works

But it doesn't. Either the gas is constantly expanding to fill a volume, or it is at rest atop other particles. Both can't be true simultaneously.

t's newtonian relativism. You may soundly conceptualize either, and or both forces as newtons third law requires you to.

Newton's third law doesn't require that the opposite action is a force being exerted (by the glass jar) onto the original object (the particle)