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.
Is there a dome at all that is over the flat earth?
As i already said (regardless of the shape of the world) it can be soundly deduced that a "dome" (container of some sort) exists because we have sustained and consistent air pressure. Without a container, that would not be possible - there are several scientific laws which demonstrate this.
One that can be seen, felt, or measured?
Everything real can be measured. Other than intriguing rumors of "skystone" and its description in the bible (crystal of a pale hue) we don't know what the dome is made of, assuming it is real and tangible.
Well I'm curious on what values were measured regarding the dome.-
Who measured what dome?
Also, how can you say that you've never seen a dome depiction in egyptian reliefs when earlier you declared this?
Figurative vs literal. The god ra can certainly be reasonably interpreted (in such depictions) to be the dome found in subsequent (and textually a direct descendant) depictions - such as the bible.
Dome to us implies hemisphere or portion of hemisphere. Even in the bible the dome is described as a tent. Tents can be hemispheric in our day, but they weren't back then (or even 50 years ago).
Dome figuratively, yes. Dome literally, perhaps not. The shape of the dome is not certain, assuming it exists - which, as i said, is a scientifically sound conclusion.
You must measure correctly to predict
This is incorrect. Even to make correct predictions does not require measurement. This is, of course, besides the point.
You are in FLAT DENIAL of the ENTIRE SCIENCE
Map projection is obviously not a science.
From my perspective, you are in "flat denial" of the science of hydrostatics (a branch of physics).
The field of science they teach 10 and 12 year-olds, that nobody ever taught you, mandates it.
This is wrong. Nothing abstract (in this case math or any other language) mandates anything about reality - nor can it.
The world is whatever shape it is, and the arbitrary coordinate system and/or deeply held beliefs of cartographers have no bearing on that shape.
YOUR predictions of where things will be, will be WRONG
Maps are not for prediction, but for travel. If the map is wrong, we fix it.
Your fervent and belligerent belief will not change the shape of the world. The real question remains; if you were wrong about the shape of the world - would you want to know it? Or would you prefer to just keep yelling, meaninglessly and pathetically, online?
longitude and latitude could not accurately predict on it's surface.
We don't use longitude and latitude for prediction. We use it for location.
Coordinate systems are arbitrary, despite your want that they be providential.
The lick of sense missing here is no one having ever taught you Geometry
Geometry isn't what we are discussing. We are discussing the shape of the world, and measuring/determining it with certainty. "Longitude/latitude" is not one of the ways to do that. You've been misinformed.
And prediction can only be done with proper measurement
Actually, no. But i get your meaning.
Flat maps DON'T work better
Of course they do. That's why we have used them for millennia and continue to today.
vs EVERY MAP MAKER who EVER EXISTED
Again, the depiction and coordinate system chosen (and even believed to be correct) by the mapmaker are arbitrary and irrelevant to the actual shape of the world. The map is a tool for travel, nothing more.
That's catastrophic failure of your lack of knowledge ....
Everything you say beyond this line is restating the same misunderstanding. Of course the world is depicted as spherical, and has a coordinate system that is consistent with that depiction. It's not a coincidence, nor providence of the worlds actual shape! We believe it's spherical and have for thousands of years! It has no bearing on the actual shape of the world - it's just arbitrarily chosen to be consistent with that belief.
If the world is flat, and/or not spherical, then it is your "catastrophic failure and lack of knowledge" we are actually discussing. Right?
So even though the ancient egyptians conceived a flat earth with a dome
I've never seen a dome depiction in egyptian reliefs (though it could certainly exist). Typically it is depicted as the god ra stretched out with his back arched over the world and is not a perfect dome. This is somewhat similar/connected to the atlas mythology.
But, yes the world was known to be flat by the ancient egyptians and covered by a god.
ergo they may be incorrect.
Everyone can always be incorrect! That's kind of a central pillar of flat earth research.
So about 8,000 miles? That is what's taught, but I don't know if you have another value in mind
Does the particular value matter that much? If the world isn't spherical, then the numbers are most likely wrong in any case.
The fact you thought the Earth even might POSSIBLY be flat, is PROOF POSITIVE: can ONLY MEAN no one has EVER explained how longitude and latitude
As i explained in the last comment - the coordinate system we ascribe/use is entirely arbitrary. It has nothing to do with the shape of the world. People are also encouraged to make this erroneous conflation with timezones. I find it patently absurd and plainly nonsensical - just look at the statements :
The world has to be spherical because "timezones".
or in your case
The world has to be spherical because "geometry"/"longitude and latitude".
It's doesn't make a lick of sense.
and learn to sail and fly.
Yes, sailing and flying exist. No, this doesn't prove the world is spherical... Why on earth would it?!
The world was decided to be spherical (also arbitrarily) long before longitude and latitude. They played absolutely no part in determining the shape of the world - then and now. "Your" entire argument (your is in quotes because it was given to you, and is not your own!) is retroactively backfilled/contrived.
We both agree that latitude and longitude work. We can also agree that if the world is flat that, most likely, the known sizes for the latitude lines in the "southern hemisphere" are wrong - as well as the known distances between longitude lines.
Many people think similar things about maps. Maps prove this and that about the shape of the world.
But maps and the coordinate systems on them are merely tools for travel. They don't contain (or depend on) the shape of the world, nor do they need to! When they work, we use them - when they don't we change them. The world, and its shape, remains the same.
The real question is, if the world really were flat (or at least not spherical the way we are taught), would you want to know it? Even if knowing the truth brought you ridicule, and even exile?
Thank you for proving my point.
You don't have a point. You're just yelling at invisible and largely fictional "flat earthers" because you were encouraged to :(
How far does the dome reach, stretched out?
We'd need to measure it, assuming it exists to measure, in order to know that!
Is there a measured (roughly) diameter of this dome?
Some speculate that it is the diameter of the known world, others that the dome is much further than those known bounds.
The existence of a dome, to me, is a logical conclusion of the existence and persistence of air pressure on earth - however that says nothing as to the size, composition, or nature of such a dome (even the shape - dome - may be incorrect).
Tell us nobody ever explained to you why Latitude and Longitude are the only way to predict surface point-locations on Earth,
This isn't about prediction, it's about measurement. A flat map works better than a globe shaped one - which is why our maps are flat.
Assuming the world is flat, the latitude lines are circles and the longitude lines are axial lines from the north pole. The arbitrary coordinate system we use has absolutely no bearing on the shape of the world. This is an encouraged erroneous conflation.
How did anything i have to say mean "nobody ever explained geometry" to you? Please walk me through that thought process.
I was a 12 year old too...
Do we know that these charts are (mostly) correct?
Because the periodicity is the same today - yes, i think we do. But presuming that ancient astronomers with written language lacked the ability to record the frequency of astronomical events competently seems a little extreme to me.
As in, are the rough measurements/design reflective of reality?
Much like our measurements today, and for the same reasons, i would expect that the measurements themselves are reflective of reality (i.e. reasonably accurate) - however the interpretations of those measurements are often wildly wrong.
You can't because they don't exist.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "they don't exist" is not a good way to learn about new things :(
Instead, try doing a little research. If you try and fail to find such charts, let me know what you tried and i'll do my best to help.
I will not do your research for you, because it will make you a weaker student than you already are.
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.
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.
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).