The fiber optic cable is in fact moving.
Wild.
Only the top part of the paralellogram moves from right to left. The base is stable.
Another moving interferometer? So these are both attempts to study linear vs rotational sagnac?
I mean the air is moving the wave over at the same speed of Earth's rotation then.
Just to clarify - you think the interference pattern found in stationary rlgs and the gale pearson are due to wind far above the detector? If so, would you not expect the interference pattern to vary when the wind speed (inevitably) does?
So how could there be a noticably difference between a rotating Earth with rotating lower atmosphere and no rotation measured with this?
If you are saying that no interference pattern is detected with the wacky spinning spindle rlg - then that is certainly interesting. I wonder if the pattern returns as you slow down the rotation of the spindles - since without that rotation, this seems to be a standard rlg setup.
But from what I understand MMX was designed to look at earthbound rotational motion as well.
Perhaps, but it failed to find it in any case - presumably due to its configuration (straight legs, right angles)
Not sure how much vabration was in the system, ask Mr Wang who made it.
Perhaps it cancels out / affects both paths equally - but it would certainly affect the fringes.
The device is intended to observe Sagnac and look at how much linear motion contributes to the effect over a standard rotational only setup.
And what was the result?
If the device I cited looks odd I would first study the mechanisms behind a fiber optic gyroscrope
I think i have a pretty good grasp on the rlg and interferometery in general. That said, the device still looks a little odd to me. Are the arrows showing the fiberoptic cable moving or is that just the direction of the light?
those light beams take different paths around the circle in opposite directions, they then recombine.
Just like a standard rlg.
They have it moving linearly with the same velocity as the fiber optic cable it is measureing.
So they are moving the cable? Wild, if so.
So I think it is the parallelogram experiment that actually rules out the detector motion
Again, i may be confused about what you are saying. Unless i am very much misunderstanding the diagram - the device will ONLY show interference pattern when the device is moving (and air is irrelevant). Right?
So detecting any effects of rotation would not be possible with mmx if Sagnac is invoked.
But that is precisely what the gale-pearson (and every rlg, routinely) detected!
You're missing what I'm saying.
Very possibly.
So of course there can not be a fringe if the air is moving the wave over.
I don't think i understand what you mean by this. How do you think air is causing a fringe pattern in a stationary rlg (in a room with no wind)?
But it turns out it has nothing to do with being circular.
But this is the core difference between mmx (detected no cosmic linear motion) and gale pearson (detected local/earthbound rotational motion)
MMX just assumed the perpendicular effects are not cancelled out, but in fact they also are (at least in air).
But even if the mmx was "perpendicular blind", in a right angle configuration - one of the legs would be parallel with the motion and one perpendicular - creating the fringe pattern...
See this aparatus which did just that...
That is certainly an interesting apparatus. However if that loop is intended to spin on the spindles that is certainly going to introduce vibration (and hence fringe) in and of itself... What is the device intended to observe?
The difference being one is moving with the medium, the other perpendicular to it.
In the mmx - ideally anyhow - the medium is stationary (in the local frame of reference).
For Sagnac (including those showing linear motion, not only rotation) we see a fringe.
The fringe occurs because of motion. The fringe that didn't appear in the mmx (or rather, didn't appear outside the range of error / vibration for the device) is the measurement of that lack of motion.
That includes when the detector is NOT in rotation (some have tried to argue that this is the causal mechanism, but it is not).
The sagnac i am familiar with is basically on a spinning kitchen dolly. When stationary - a circular/curved path - would be expected to exhibit a minor fringe pattern for the same reasons the circular gale pearson (also stationary) did.
Therefore when the air is moving perpendicular to the light and with the detector as in the MMX aparatus, we would expect a null result.
It's the motion of the detector that is registered though, not the air. All the rlg's lasers go through fiber optic cable which surely doesn't have much gas within it nor would moving air affect its measurement (except, notably - through vibration).
They also rotated the apparatus many times to try and determine the "true" direction of motion of the earth around the sun. This ought to have dealt with that "perpendicular blindness issue" - right?
I appreciate the recommendation, I will look into it.
Please let me know your thoughts on it, and/or if you have trouble finding it. I've recommended it to others a few times too but haven't seen it in years. I think i ought to rewatch it myself and see if i still think as highly of it now as i did back then.
Sagnac and linear Sagnac effect. It's a popular talking point among certain "kooks", but it is an established phenomenon.
If those effects weren't real, then the mmx would be meaningless as a measurement of motion.
As I said, the model was able to explain what the previous model struggled with.
That is incorrect, but it is a popularly taught/assumed misconception. Heliocentrism was not chosen over geocentricism for that reason, and the available models at the time of the choice had equal descriptive/predictive accuracy.
In order for me to consider geocentrism I'd need to see compelling reasoning of why the failings of that previous model need not apply under some new version of it.
The point is that the models are always wrong. They are merely tools for limited use, doomed to expiration.
Wether you want to consider that the world may be stationary, or further that it may be the center of the observable universe as well - is completely up to you.
Consider this : when the geocentric model was prevailing - did that make the universe geocentric?
The failings or strengths of models are irrelevant to reality, and to what actually is. Science is empericism; it is about measurement - not models.
The mmx measured that the earth wasn't moving through space the way our cosmology/mythology said it was. God knows there are plenty of ways to rationalize that measurement in order to, paradoxically, reconcile it with "astronomical" motion as well - but it is important to recognize that this is primarily a philosophical decision, and further - one fueled by bias, not science.
The idea that the world was stationary was so philosophically abhorrent to the scientists/educated of the time that they arbitrarily discarded that as a possibility. Many of them admitted to that in their own words. Einstein would go on to believe that there was no optical apparatus that could ever be built to detect the motion that he just knew in his bones had to be there. From a few steps back, it is obviously bias and desperate delusion - whether or not the world is truly perpetually traveling at astronomical speed or not.
I can explain MMX with Sagnac then I have no need to jump the shark and turn cosmology completely on its head.
Explanations abound. It's the core of mythology, and largely - its purpose. I can "explain" the lightning as zeus throwing bolts.
Besides, you can't explain the mmx with sagnac. They are basically the same thing (except the sagnac apparatus was rotating). Interferometery works to detect motion, that we have well established. Mmx measured that our motion through "space" was negligable. Wether you want to believe that is a mistake and aether was dragged or any other contrived rationalization is again up to you.
I'm glad you mentioned that book is Catholic propaganda, in which case I'd need to read a different book.
It's a documentary, not a book. It also has lots of great historical information in it, and some of the most celebrated modern astrophysicists and cosmologists speaking in their own words on the subject.
However i (highly) recommend it with that caveat to make clear that the documentary is particularly biased. That doesn't mean it isn't well worth a watch or two!
the only issue is (and it is a large issue) is that the model for a stationary geocentric universe already fell apart.
This is a popular (and popularized) misunderstanding. There is nothing preventing you, or anyone, from using a geocentric model or creating a new one from scratch. Models are meaningless. They are merely tools used for limited purpose. They are always wrong, and the reality to study is out here! (not in some model - a crude and extremely limited approximation of that actual reality built from an even more limited dataset)
Having a model that works (limitedly!) doesn't have any bearing on what actually is, and vice versa. Even if what you were saying were true (which it isn't), a geocentric model "falling apart" wouldn't and couldn't establish that the universe isn't geocentric. I recommend the documentary "the principle" on the subject (bearing in mind that it is catholic propaganda).
All of that aside, the world can/could be stationary without the universe being geocentric! Right?
You change the geocentric model to heliocentric and those go away which is some compelling evidence.
Not really. The models are arbitrary. This is precisely what happened when we went from geocentric to heliocentric. We arbitrarily decided heliocentric was better because the math looked nicer - and this was the argument made to the pope at the time to make that switch. Check out "the principle". The world and the universe are whatever they are - they care nothing about our models (which are always wrong historically, by the by).
But I'm not against experiments to further confirm or deny that idea.
Arguably those exist, and the "mmx" (not an experiment, just an observation) is one of the quintessential ones. Not necessarily for geocentrism - but certainly for a largely stationary world.
"why doesn't the em wave fully absorb or even knock out that electron as they are known to do on contact with electrons?"
Perhaps because aether is not electrons?
matter is able to carry a wave forward.
In fact, there can be no wave without matter! There are no waves possible without media (aka matter).
There are experiments where this happens.
What did you have in mind? Generally - i don't need you to cite me a paper.
This indicates that perhaps air can act as a medium, or can carry some aether medium along with it.
Aether is all pervasive. There is no part of existence devoid of it, however it is non uniform (otherwise waves within it would not be possible, for one).
I think my question started from thinking about the Michelson Morley experiments which were later performed in vacuum by some people (so they say anyway).
I might be wrong, but i thought they pulled vacuum (of course, perfect vacuum is unattainable in any case) on the original michelson morley observation. In any case, the aether is absolutely depended upon for both the observation as well as its interpretation at the time (and today, if you ask me).
But if their vacuum had millions of particles in each cm3, how do they know matter isn't what helped keep the light beam in phase with itself? Seems like they don't.
It would certainly affect its speed (i.e. would slow it down), but as long as the air was uniform (in all legs of the interferometer) it shouldn't affect the observation (and didn't!)
So then this comes down to the question of stationary vs rotating aether as well as rotating Earth
Michelson did this later in the gale pearson "experiment". I say experiment in quotation, because in truth - both were merely observations with complex apparatus, as well as accompanying expectation and interpretation. Neither are experiments.
However, it is critical to understand (as they did at the time) that the observation itself - although observationally consistent with the expectation assuming a rotating earth - cannot distinguish between the motion of the earth and/or the motion of the aether itself. Either or both in combination are completely valid interpretations of the observation. There are other observations which further suggest that it is in fact the aether which is is rotating, and not the earth itself.
However, if MMX in vacuum didn't actually establish that, then perhaps we do have a stationary aether medium
Correct. This is what the original "mmx" (wether performed under partial vacuum or not) established. The preferred rationalization of this observation at the time (in order to be consistent with prevailing cosmology/mythology) was "frame dragging", where they could continue to believe the world was in constant motion at preposterous / astronomical speeds and the aether merely appeared stationary because it was being dragged with the earth as it moved. Very desperate stuff if you ask me. The simplest explanation tends to be the correct one...
how do we know for certain light doesn't propagate via matter, without the need for aether?
It is a valid question. Firstly, we know (and much more importantly - can demonstrate) that matter slows down light propagation, and vice versa. The more we remove the matter, the faster the wave travels. This is in contrast to waves within matter (often called sound) which stop propagating when the matter becomes too diffuse. There are also plenty of types of matter which prevent light propagation altogether (
Here's the twist though. Aether is itself matter. It's described by some experimentalists as an ultra-fine fluid. So sound is a wave comprised of and exists within matter, and light is as well but in a different type of matter. Perhaps one day we will see all these pressure waves as one entity/continuum.
I'm just pondering these things.
You are not alone, and they are well worth pondering!
Light is a wave. Waves cannot exist without media.
The media of which light is comprised is called aether/ether.
It's true that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, but the problem is even worse than that. Reality won't allow a vacuum to exist at all (nequaquam vacuum).
Even if you were able to remove all known matter from a given volume, it would still be full of aether - and possibly finer things than that to boot.
In the relativistic faith, the aether is the structure of reality itself. It cannot be purged in any way, though it can be warped/affected. The kicker being that, due to aether-mcarthyism, the faithful usually don't even know that fact :(
but the particles are infinitely working to expand, as futile as the efforts may be
True, as long as the temperature is non zero kelvin.
Even at equilibrium, the particles are still in motion at an atomic level.
Same as the first answer. However, conceptualizing the gas molecules/atoms as darting about (aka billiard balls) is only one useful framework. It is not necessarily correct, or consistent with everything we observe. Gas largely behaves as a fluid, and is an alternative useful conceptual framework. Of course, in either conceptualization - constant motion of some sort remains.
Precisely what I mean.
Except that is explicitly not what you said. Expanding to fit an available volume is not infinite expansion, obviously.
then it wouldn't be resting on other particles.
Firstly, expansion occurs in all directions... Secondly, once expansion is no longer occurring (due to reaching equilibrium/rest/the confines of the container walls), the particles of course would be resting on one another (as they are during expansion as well...)
You seem to imagine that expansion precludes falling - or they are somehow mutually exclusive. Imagine a squished foam ball (or spring) being dropped...
Either gas is ever expanding or gas is at rest upon the particles below it. Both cannot be simultaneously true.
No one ever said that gas is ever expanding, that is purely your misunderstanding. Gas always expands to fit the container. Not "gas always expands forever with eternal limitless energy"....
I'm not in this conversation for entertainment, so that's fine.
Nor evidently learning anything, sadly. You have no requirement to learn about or acknowledge the natural laws that are manifestly evident in the world around you - they endure without your consent or acknowledgement.
It seems when a new one comes to your attention that you don't like, you stick your fingers in your ears and scream instead of earnestly evaluate it. This is not a good way to learn anything, nor to discuss and exchange views with others.
If we want to discuss laws, then let's discuss laws as they've been established
We are, but you don't want to acknowledge the particular law (uncontested for at least 3 centuries) we are discussing. So be it. Shut your eyes, cover your ears, and scream to your hearts content.
I edited my comment, as I reread newton's third law.
Fair enough. The third law is more of a conception anyhow - i don't necessarily agree with it. The resistance to motion of matter is evident (law) though, so there is resistance to force applied (however it need not match that applied force).
I'm sorry, but I will not entertain otherwise.
You have no obligation to learn anything. Not in this conversation, nor any other. But it does make things frightfully dull, both for you and the person attempting to converse with you.
The choice is yours, but the laws of nature won't change or go away because you shut your eyes and ears and scream like a child.
The reason it is a law, is not because of the scores of scientists and laypersons before me who have recorded and measured it (many in published works on hydrostatics, as well as textbooks which you refuse to read yourself). It is not a law because i said it. It is a law only because it is demonstrably (empirically) so and you cannot provide any measurement (nor cite anyone else's) which contradicts it. That is the way it is with ALL laws. This is an important lesson to learn if you want to understand, discuss, or practice science.
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)
Read it again. It explicitly and unequivocally says that. For every action ... (applied force is an action).
Your anonymous statement is not law.
Then why can't you or anyone else establish that empirically (i.e. scientifically)? Purely coincidence?
But wouldn't that require the particles to be at rest, for their weight to affect objects (other particles) below?
Not really, no - but you can conceptualize it that way and everything works. Gas behaves as a fluid. Do fluids ever stop moving (brownian motion, thermal variance, atomic vibration, valence orbits etc. etc.)? Do fluids rest and have weight?
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's newtonian relativism. You may soundly conceptualize either, and or both forces as newtons third law requires you to.
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.
How about many hundreds (likely thousands) of non-anonymous statements and all the supporting data in the world coupled with none which contradicts it? That's the case here.
You can continue to refuse to research/read and doubt the former all you like, but the latter is undeniable. You cannot measure or find anyone who has measured anything to contradict the law. That's what makes it a law (and no other reason; publishing, anonymity of author, etc do not factor in in any way)
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
If gas itself had no weight, indeed that might be the case. Because the gas has weight, and that weight exceeds the expansion force of the gas - it isn't. In imagination all things are possible - not reality.
Not relevant here, actually!
It's an analogy... It is conceptualizing/modeling the same phenomenon from 2 different angles/directions. In this regard, what we are talking about is virtually identical. You can conceive of the gas applying the force (of pressure) outwards or the walls applying it inwards and either (or a combination of both) will work fine. As long as you are consistent, it doesn't matter - your equations will work and apply to what we observe.
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. Indeed, the entire concept of "pressure" is nonsensical without such a container. Gas expansion (indeed, any motion) without a container, at best, would/could be called wind.
But it's not sitting. It's expanding
Until it cannot anymore! It is prevented from expanding more by the confines of the container and the weight of the gas itself. Gas reaches rest too - or if you prefer, equilibrium.
It continues to try to expand, as that is gas' nature.
I am only interested in discussing the actual laws
But you can't know the laws if you don't study reality. You can only know what you read, and believe they are laws. Even in the latter case, you can't seriously be so foolish to believe that you know all laws as a result of having read a few books!
If you must think about it this way, and it helps, then although it is untrue - go ahead! 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.
In the second, the container is merely preventing the gas from expanding further
They are two views of the same thing, and are certainly not mutually exclusive. You can conceptualize and model either or both of them and still be consistent with what we observe. Useful is not the same as correct!
However, if I were to squeeze the balloon, now the container is exerting pressure (through me) on the gas inside.
True, but surely this does not preclude the pressure the gas itself exerts in trying to expand the confines of the balloon.
Wether you conceptualize the walls to be causing the pressure, the gas within, or a combination of both makes little difference. Surely you have encountered this newtonian relativism before? Centripetal vs centrifugal?
The key difference is the density of gas is less, allowing it to expand upward. as well as across.
The gas has no trouble expanding at any density, nor greater ease at a lower density. Its expansion is merely a property of that state of matter - regardless of its density.
What prevents the gas at the top from expanding all the way outward?
The container walls! I expect you mean - "what prevents the gas from expanding and diffusing isotropically through the entire container" and although there are many answers and potential frameworks/conceptualizations to answer that, the core answer is the weight of the gas itself.
The gas sits on the gas beneath it (all of that gas attempting to expand), which is what causes the gradient. The weight of the gas ultimately exceeds the expansion force.
Then what you have written is not the law
Then you should have no trouble finding/obtaining measurement which contradicts it. Yet you can't... Why do you think that is? Could it possibly be because it IS a law, and you are wrong?
So the ceiling itself of the container holding our air in is exerting pressure on the gasses in our atmosphere?
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.
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
That is a fine conceptual framework, but there are others too! Because such motion is averaged over the entire gas volume, you most often don't need to consider it all. Gas largely behaves as a fluid, and fluid laws most often apply. In any case, nothing ever completely stops moving (no matter the state/phase of the matter), unless all thermal energy is gone...
Doesn't the idea that in a container the gas has a lower pressure at the top of the container go against this?
No, because the number of gas molecules (in the same given area) at the top of the container is lesser. Thus lesser collisions, thus lesser pressure. As i said, it is a perfectly sound conceptual framework. It's just not necessarily correct! Being useful isn't the same as being correct, and this is most often misunderstood.
You stating a thought in your own words is not an explicit finding
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'm happy to be proven wrong if you can find even a single book stating this law as you have
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!
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?
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.
You haven't stated a law
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.
Could you please provide the name of one, and their findings?
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!
Do you have an example of something we can observe at rest, in midair?
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.
At what point though does the weight of gas combat the property of it to continue expanding?
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.
That is exactly my point.
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 :(
Who made measurements of the law as you've exactly stated 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. But this isn't about them, it's about you!
Correct, but something with weight cannot rest in midair
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.
So does gas displace space without gas?
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.
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
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).
Wrong. Your summary of a law != the law as written.
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 realize you are avoiding the topic
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?
So does gas not move downward as a result of having this property?
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.
Since I cannot and will not accept your own summation as a natural/scientific law
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?
Understanding has everything to do with your ability to understand things properly.
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 :(
Is that a scientific law, or is that just your own words?
Both!
If the idea is ridiculous, then I consider it a fun thing to talk about, nothing more
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.
Speaking of, weight is a property of matter.
Correct, in my view - but not in yours if you are of - what i call - the presumptive (and commonly taught) view.
Does gas not have weight?
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.
Reverse logic won't work with me, unfortunately.
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.
There could, theoretically, be other reasons why we have a sustained 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.
So now you're open to the idea that it's not real, and may not exist.
I try to stay open to as many ideas as i can, even when they seem ridiculous. You might give it a try!
What other reasons could there be?
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.
Even though the simplest answers are "trade", "hoax", and "theft" - they sort of miss the bigger picture here. Therianthrope iconography is quite real, and does span across these cultures and time.
I have three guesses for the root cause of this. In reverse order of plausability.