Fair enough. The third law is more of a conception anyhow - i don't necessarily agree with it.
Okay, well then we've still got an issue with the contradiction in what we've discussed on gasses and how pressure is lower at higher atmospheres.
Either gas is ever expanding or gas is at rest upon the particles below it. Both cannot be simultaneously true.
But it does make things frightfully dull, both for you and the person attempting to converse with you.
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.
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.
You cannot measure or find anyone who has measured anything to contradict the law.
Your anonymous statement is not law.
Because the gas has weight, and that weight exceeds the expansion force of the gas - it isn't.
But wouldn't that require the particles to be at rest, for their weight to affect objects (other particles) below?
The reason the law is that the gas pressure is derived from the container walls is because there are no measurements of gas pressure without such a container and there are only measurements of pressure inside a container.
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.
It continues to try to expand, as that is gas' nature.
Precisely! So it never comes to rest. As I've been saying.
Consider "my law" to be brand new, established only by me, and in no books. It is being published right here and right now, in this conversation. How can you possibly be sure that the law is incorrect, especially considering that you utterly fail to find any fault in it and cannot provide any measurement (your own or anyone esles) which contradicts it? Please attempt to answer this rhetorical question if you can.
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.
surely this does not preclude the pressure the gas itself exerts in trying to expand the confines of the balloon.
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
Surely you have encountered this newtonian relativism before? Centripetal vs centrifugal?
Not relevant here, actually! These are rotational forces. We're talking about air in a container.
The gas sits on the gas beneath it
But it's not sitting. It's expanding
Why do you think that is?
Because, as I said before, I am only interested in discussing the actual laws, not your own interpretations of them.
That is certainly one way to conceptualize it. Another - equally valid - is that the pressure is from the gas itself, and the ceiling (all walls of the container, actually) prevents that pressure from dissipating to nothing.
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?
Gas largely behaves as a fluid, and fluid laws most often apply.
The key difference is the density of gas is less, allowing it to expand upward. as well as across.
No, because the number of gas molecules (in the same given area) at the top of the container is lesser.
What prevents the gas at the top from expanding all the way outward?
Many modern hydrostatics textbooks contain the law (albeit in different words)
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.
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).
So the ceiling itself of the container holding our air in is exerting pressure on the gasses in our atmosphere?
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).
There was another law you had summarized earlier:
Gas always expands to fill an available volume - it's another law.
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
It is both a law in books (going back at least 3 centuries)...I could, yes - though the "finding" has already been made explicit in this case
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.
get a helium balloon and tie a small weight to it which matches its buoyant force
Great example!
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
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?
Don't you wonder at all why you can't provide a simple measurement that contradicts the law i've stated?
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.
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.
Great! Could you please provide the name of one, and their findings?
Of course it can, and does.
Do you have an example of something we can observe at rest, in midair?
Gas always expands to fill "space"
At what point though does the weight of gas combat the property of it to continue expanding?
Just because something is written in a book does not make it consistent with reality.
I agree!
Similarly, just because a comment is written by you and you claim it's a law, also doesn't make it consistent with reality, That is exactly my point.
The reason it is a law is because it has only been measured to be correct
Who made measurements of the law as you've exactly stated it? Or are you simply referring to the general idea?
Things tend towards rest, not motion
Correct, but something with weight cannot rest in midair, thus they move down towards the earth.
So does gas displace space without gas?
A flimsy excuse.
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.
You're not following. We aren't discussing understanding
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.
Both!
Wrong. Your summary of a law != the law as written.
All matter has weight.
Great! So does gas not move downward as a result of having this property?
Please describe this "reverse logic" in detail
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.
It is a scientific law; air pressure is derived from and contingent upon the container walls.
Is that a scientific law, or is that just your own words?
I try to stay open to as many ideas as i can, even when they seem ridiculous. You might give it a try!
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?
it can be soundly deduced that a "dome" (container of some sort) exists because we have sustained and consistent air pressure.
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.
we don't know what the dome is made of, assuming it is real
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?
I guess no riots happened?