[xenotolerance]

Your thought experiment only holds if the Earth is in a balloon. Also, your metaphor is backwards: I would hypothesize that if you were to poke a hole in one of those frozen balloons, you would actually see air rush in, for the same reason the balloon is deflated in the first place: Higher pressure air rushes to lower pressure air. This is so easily observed and empirically confirmed, I'm sure your fellow Zetetics are embarrassed by your behaviour: Present direct evidence of your claims, please.

hmm I'm reading up on the ideal gas law and I'm reconsidering the hypothesis of what would happen if you popped a frozen balloon. to be continued

[Tom Bishop]

Higher pressure air rushes to lower pressure air. This is so easily observed and empirically confirmed

Before the experiment in the balloon freezing video the balloons were all higher pressure than the surrounding environment. They were all inflated. As they cooled the gases in the balloons were no longer interested in traveling into that lower pressure environment. They deflated and sat on the ground dead. This is direct evidence that temperature also plays a part in how air pressures attempt to equalize. The temperature changed the pressure inside of the balloon.

Since temperature can change pressure, how is it a given that if there were an edge somewhere thousands of miles into the icy tundra of a Flat Earth model, that the atmosphere would explode off of the edges into the vacuum of space? There would need to be a large pressure difference; and that is not a reasonable conclusion when we know that low temperatures = low pressures.

[xenotolerance]

yo stop mod-editing your posts, it's super confusing.

You and I agree that the temperature changed the pressure inside the balloon. See my first post in the thread where I say as much.

I am challenging you to present evidence of an environment where the temperature is so low, high pressure air doesn't equalize with low pressure air. Balloons in liquid nitrogen are not evidence of such a thing; you're dodging the question and derailing the thread.

There would need to be a large pressure difference; and that is not a reasonable conclusion when we know that low temperatures = low pressures.

Yooo That's the WHOLE POINT! Low temperature out on this frozen tundra you're asserting without evidence, low temperature causes low pressure, so the sun's heat causing high pressure will cause a large pressure difference!

How can you literally state the argument against flat Earth, in its own words, and not realize it?

[StinkyOne]

The balloons are clearly seen to deflate and drop when the temperatures are low. The atoms are much less excited. If the atoms were really trying harder to escape as the temperature decreased, the balloon would expand, not deflate.

Assuming that we were in a freezer of similar temperature to the liquid nitrogen, are you saying that if we were to take one of those dead and frozen balloons and cut it, that it would explode as the air violently rushes outwards? That is clearly NOT what would happen. This illustrates the concept that the air would not be "sucked off the edge of the earth" in the Flat Earth model if there were an edge at some point into the icy tundra.

OMG, Tom. Go take some basic science classes at your local community college. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, the atoms slow down (they do not stop until 0K) and the pressure in the balloon drops. At that point, the pressure in the surrounding atmosphere pushes on the balloon, flattening it. You are literally making my point without realizing it. The cold air is dense, and takes up little space. The warmer air rushes in to fill the void.  It isn't the air in the balloon causing the action. It is the higher pressure outside the balloon. Cutting the balloon open wouldn't do anything and isn't relevant. Change your Wiki because you literally proved yourself wrong.

[Tom Bishop]

The balloons are clearly seen to deflate and drop when the temperatures are low. The atoms are much less excited. If the atoms were really trying harder to escape as the temperature decreased, the balloon would expand, not deflate.

Assuming that we were in a freezer of similar temperature to the liquid nitrogen, are you saying that if we were to take one of those dead and frozen balloons and cut it, that it would explode as the air violently rushes outwards? That is clearly NOT what would happen. This illustrates the concept that the air would not be "sucked off the edge of the earth" in the Flat Earth model if there were an edge at some point into the icy tundra.

OMG, Tom. Go take some basic science classes at your local community college. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, the atoms slow down (they do not stop until 0K) and the pressure in the balloon drops. At that point, the pressure in the surrounding atmosphere pushes on the balloon, flattening it. You are literally making my point without realizing it. The cold air is dense, and takes up little space. The warmer air rushes in to fill the void.  It isn't the air in the balloon causing the action. It is the higher pressure outside the balloon. Cutting the balloon open wouldn't do anything and isn't relevant. Change your Wiki because you literally proved yourself wrong.

If warm air rushed into the icy tundras of the earth to fill the void it would also get cold and stop moving. It would just result in an accumulation of cold, heavy, non-exited, air, which is in fact what exists in places like Antarctica. The air is heavier there. At some point the columns of air would be so dense with the slow cold atoms that the excited hot atoms could not rush outwards from the sun to fill it to equalize the surrounding area.

With lower temperatures outwards into the tundra we would see slower movement of those atoms, and if the atoms are moving very slow in very low temperatures, it is not a given that they would rapidly explode off of an edge leading into the vacuum of space.

In order to quickly move or "rapidly explode" from such a state of extremely low temperature that inhibits its movement, those atoms, stopped in their tracks by temperature, would need to be moving into a higher temperature environment; and lacking any heat sources near the hypothetical edge of the earth, there is no necessitating conclusion that there is any mechanism for those atoms to move anywhere.

Since we agree that low temperature = lack of movement, you will need to describe why a sudden opening into a vacuum in such an environment would cause the atoms to rapidly explode into it.

[AATW]

The most infuriating thing about you is that you have no understanding of science. At all.
And when people who do have some understanding try and explain things to you, you just flat out ignore it and refuse to listen.
The bloke on the thread about how fast rockets go was pretty ignorant about how rockets work but he was at least prepared to listen and learn from people who knew more than him.

Bottom line is gasses at two different pressures will equalise. If the earth was a plane then there would be noting to stop the high pressure over the earth from leaking out into the vacuum of space. Your two options to solve that are:
1) A dome of some kind which keeps the atmosphere in - I know some flat earth models have this.
2) An infinite plane which has a constant pressure - that was Pete's suggestion although he admits himself that was a simplification of what he actually believes.

Your video actually demonstrates the exact effect you say wouldn't happen, the cooling of the air in the balloon reduced the pressure inside the balloon so the air outside it was able to push the balloon into a smaller shape.

Seriously. Go take some physics classes. You are arguing from a position of ignorance.

[spoonbow]

If warm air rushed into the icy tundras of the earth to fill the void it would also get cold and stop moving. It would just result in an accumulation of cold, heavy, non-exited, air, which is in fact what exists in places like Antarctica. The air is heavier there. At some point the columns of air would be so dense with the slow atoms that the excited atoms could not rush in to fill it to equalize the surrounding area.

With lower temperatures outwards into the tundra we would see slower movement of those atoms, and if the atoms are moving very slow in very low temperatures, it is not a given that they would rapidly explode off of an edge leading into the vacuum of space.

In order to quickly move or "rapidly explode" from such a state of extremely low temperature that inhibits its movement, those atoms would need to be moving into a higher temperature environment; and lacking any heat sources near the hypothetical edge of the earth, there is no necessitating conclusion that there is any mechanism for those atoms to move anywhere.

Tom, I believe you are incorrectly equating density and temperature. To be drawn into the vacuum of space, your very cold atoms would only have to exist at a higher pressure, not necessarily a lower temperature, than the surrounding vacuum. Your hypothesis above suggests that there are external forces being exerted against these super-cold atoms, suggesting that they are indeed  under pressure.

[Tom Bishop]

The most infuriating thing about you is that you have no understanding of science. At all.
And when people who do have some understanding try and explain things to you, you just flat out ignore it and refuse to listen.
The bloke on the thread about how fast rockets go was pretty ignorant about how rockets work but he was at least prepared to listen and learn from people who knew more than him.

We do generally understand these matters much better than our opponents.

Your "go back to school" comments will only end in your banning. You need to SHOW that you are correct, not simply argue by authority that the schools agree with you without actually showing that they do.

Bottom line is gasses at two different pressures will equalise.

 If the earth was a plane then there would be noting to stop the high pressure over the earth from leaking out into the vacuum of space. Your two options to solve that are:
1) A dome of some kind which keeps the atmosphere in - I know some flat earth models have this.
2) An infinite plane which has a constant pressure - that was Pete's suggestion although he admits himself that was a simplification of what he actually believes.

Your video actually demonstrates the exact effect you say wouldn't happen, the cooling of the air in the balloon reduced the pressure inside the balloon so the air outside it was able to push the balloon into a smaller shape.

Seriously. Go take some physics classes. You are arguing from a position of ignorance.

If the atoms are stopped to near immobility at the edge of the earth by very low temperatures, how are they going to leak out?

You agree that they would be stopped by temperature. How will they leak out? How?

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, I believe you are incorrectly equating density and temperature. To be drawn into the vacuum of space, your very cold atoms would only have to exist at a higher pressure, not necessarily a lower temperature, than the surrounding vacuum. Your hypothesis above suggests that there are external forces being exerted against these super-cold atoms, suggesting that they are indeed  under pressure.

There is a very important temperature variable in the equalization of pressures. Here is an example: If the last 6,000 miles of the edge of the earth were at the temperature of absolute zero, assuming that absolute zero were possible, there is no movement of atoms at that temperature. Vibration and excitement stops entirely. Those atoms can't "leak" anywhere. How can the atoms exit anywhere to equalize if they physically cannot vibrate or excite?

Answer the question directly and avoid any "go back to school" comments, please. Tell us how atoms can be excited to move in such an environment. How do you excite atoms in absolute zero?

Once you agree that they cannot excite in absolute zero, you have basically agreed that temperature does matter. Since temperature does matter, it doesn't take much to see that the same scenario would occur if the temperatures were near absolute zero as well.

[StinkyOne]

Tom, I believe you are incorrectly equating density and temperature. To be drawn into the vacuum of space, your very cold atoms would only have to exist at a higher pressure, not necessarily a lower temperature, than the surrounding vacuum. Your hypothesis above suggests that there are external forces being exerted against these super-cold atoms, suggesting that they are indeed  under pressure.

There is a very important temperature variable in the equalization of pressures. Here is an example: If the last 6,000 miles of the edge of the earth were at the temperature of absolute zero, assuming that absolute zero were possible, there is no movement of atoms. They can't "leak" anywhere. How can the atoms exit anywhere to equalize if they physically cannot vibrate or excite?

Answer the question directly and avoid any "go back to school" comments, please. Tell us how atoms can be excited to move in such an environment.

Tom, the reason you are being told to go back to school is because you clearly don't understand the topic you are trying to explain. A couple things. You are not going to hit absolute zero under the conditions you describe. From a QM perspective, you can't hit absolute zero. Second, an atom at near absolute zero can still change position. It doesn't "freeze" in time and space and cease all movement. If bumped by another atom, they would move. Further, atoms in this state can form weird, frictionless states of matter. They would not form a barrier. So to answer your question directly, they would be moved by the incoming air and gravity. And, since abs zero isn't really possible, they would still move on their own.

Instead of arguing, you should understand that some people have a better grasp on this stuff and might actually be telling you the truth. I mean, you have zero knowledge of what happens in the place that no humans even know about. You're literally just guessing. That is so NOT Zetetic.

[AATW]

We do generally understand these matters much better than our opponents.

You really don't. I've seen people endlessly try and explain things to you and you just don't listen. Facts bounce off you.
I've seen you claim that I can raise my hand above a distant lamp and the shadow from that lamp will be angled upwards even though the lamp is physically still above your hand and shadow angle is determined by the physical relationship between light source and object, not anyone's perspective.
I've seen you claim that spectroscopy is saying "this looks a bit reddish or bluish"
And now you're showing you're unable to understand the difference between pressure and temperature, between vibration and movement. But I will have another go at explaining.

Your "go back to school" comments will only end in your banning. You need to SHOW that you are correct, not simply argue by authority that the schools agree with you without actually showing that they do.

Your video shows I am correct. The video YOU posted. What happened when the air in the balloon got colder? The pressure in the balloon dropped and what happened? The higher pressure outside the balloon was then able to push the balloon into a smaller shape. The molecules inside the balloon were vibrating less, that did not stop them being moved.

If the atoms are stopped to near immobility at the edge of the earth by very low temperatures, how are they going to leak out?
You agree that they would be stopped by temperature. How will they leak out? How?

Heat is basically the vibration of molecules. As I've said, that is why there is an absolute zero, when all vibration stops. But note I said vibration, not movement.
The molecules are still free to move.
You need to understand the difference between vibration and movement. At low temperatures the vibration would be less but that does NOT mean that the molecules are frozen in place and cannot be moved. The higher pressure area would still leak into the lower pressure area. The only way to contain and atmosphere in your model is either a physical barrier which stops the "atmoplane" leaking or a higher pressure by the ice wall which contains the atmoplane.

Colder temperature means less vibration. It does not mean that molecules are unable to be moved or pushed by higher pressures.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, I believe you are incorrectly equating density and temperature. To be drawn into the vacuum of space, your very cold atoms would only have to exist at a higher pressure, not necessarily a lower temperature, than the surrounding vacuum. Your hypothesis above suggests that there are external forces being exerted against these super-cold atoms, suggesting that they are indeed  under pressure.

There is a very important temperature variable in the equalization of pressures. Here is an example: If the last 6,000 miles of the edge of the earth were at the temperature of absolute zero, assuming that absolute zero were possible, there is no movement of atoms. They can't "leak" anywhere. How can the atoms exit anywhere to equalize if they physically cannot vibrate or excite?

Answer the question directly and avoid any "go back to school" comments, please. Tell us how atoms can be excited to move in such an environment.

Tom, the reason you are being told to go back to school is because you clearly don't understand the topic you are trying to explain. A couple things. You are not going to hit absolute zero under the conditions you describe. From a QM perspective, you can't hit absolute zero. Second, an atom at near absolute zero can still change position. It doesn't "freeze" in time and space and cease all movement. If bumped by another atom, they would move. Further, atoms in this state can form weird, frictionless states of matter. They would not form a barrier. So to answer your question directly, they would be moved by the incoming air and gravity. And, since abs zero isn't really possible, they would still move on their own.

Instead of arguing, you should understand that some people have a better grasp on this stuff and might actually be telling you the truth. I mean, you have zero knowledge of what happens in the place that no humans even know about. You're literally just guessing. That is so NOT Zetetic.

At absolute zero the atoms are "movable" in the sense that they can be moved by something but they still need to be excited to escape into an area of lower pressure on their own.

In the balloon freezing video we saw that with lower temperature the atoms were less excited. The atoms inside of those balloons need to be excited in order to try and escape it. The lower temperature caused a lack of excitement.

With that established, how can you excite atoms at absolute zero in order to cause it to escape into a vacuum?

You can't. You are making NO sense. You are clearly uneducated in this matter. Atoms need to be excited in the balloon to try and escape, and the atoms at the edge of the earth would need to be excited to try and escape into a vacuum.

[Scroogie]

The balloons are clearly seen to deflate and drop when the temperatures are low. The atoms are much less excited. If the atoms were really trying harder to escape as the temperature decreased, the balloon would expand, not deflate.

Assuming that we were in a freezer of similar temperature to the liquid nitrogen, are you saying that if we were to take one of those dead and frozen balloons and cut it, that it would explode as the air violently rushes outwards? That is clearly NOT what would happen. This illustrates the concept that the air would not be "sucked off the edge of the earth" in the Flat Earth model if there were an edge at some point into the icy tundra.

I really don't know what to say here. Tom, your view of thermodynamics is so far off the mark I can see there's absolutely no hope for you. It appears to me that you're postulating a condition in which the atmosphere must transition instantly from gaseous to an inert solid at absolute zero (the point at which molecular motion ceases). Have you witnessed such a scenario? Has anyone you know, or even heard of, witnessed such a scenario?

[Tom Bishop]

The balloons are clearly seen to deflate and drop when the temperatures are low. The atoms are much less excited. If the atoms were really trying harder to escape as the temperature decreased, the balloon would expand, not deflate.

Assuming that we were in a freezer of similar temperature to the liquid nitrogen, are you saying that if we were to take one of those dead and frozen balloons and cut it, that it would explode as the air violently rushes outwards? That is clearly NOT what would happen. This illustrates the concept that the air would not be "sucked off the edge of the earth" in the Flat Earth model if there were an edge at some point into the icy tundra.

I really don't know what to say here. Tom, your view of thermodynamics is so far off the mark I can see there's absolutely no hope for you. It appears to me that you're postulating a condition in which the atmosphere must transition instantly from gaseous to an inert solid at absolute zero (the point at which molecular motion ceases). Have you witnessed such a scenario? Has anyone you know, or even heard of, witnessed such a scenario?

The scenario exemplifies that temperature does matter. At absolute zero the atoms do not, and cannot, excite. Therefore the arguments posted here that "temperature does not matter" are bunk. The colder it gets, the slower atoms excite. It can get so cold that the atoms have a hard time equalizing between environments, as illustrated by the balloon video on the previous page.

You do not seem to have an issue with the hypothetical absolute-zero-earth-rim thought experiment, except to say that true absolute zero has not been seen yet.

You do not have an issue with the fact that low temperature = slower excitement.

What do you have an issue with?

Would the atoms leak off of an absolute zero earth rim or not? If the rim was very near absolute zero, what would change? Is it that at absolute zero the atoms wouldn't leak off, but at very near absolute zero the atmosphere would suddenly explode off of the earth like a jet stream?

Explain for us.

[StinkyOne]

At absolute zero the atoms are "movable" in the sense that they can be moved by something but they still need to be excited to escape into an area of lower pressure on their own.

In the balloon freezing video we saw that with lower temperature the atoms were less excited. The atoms inside of those balloons need to be excited in order to try and escape it. The lower temperature caused a lack of excitement.

With that established, how can you excite atoms at absolute zero in order to cause it to escape into a vacuum?

You can't. You are making NO sense. You are clearly uneducated in this matter. Atoms need to be excited in the balloon to try and escape, and the atoms at the edge of the earth would need to be excited to try and escape into a vacuum.

As has been established, atoms won't reach absolute zero. As far as movement goes, the atoms are pushed by the warmer air behind it. Your balloon example, as several people have pointed out, actually proves what I was saying. Atoms do not need to be "excited" to be moved. All things in nature try to reach an equilibrium. If there is an unchecked near vacuum, air will be forced in to fill it. Warm items will exchange heat with cool items. These are very basic principles. You are wrong and should edit the Wiki because it is inaccurate. Where are the FEers rushing to defend your point of view?

[Curious Squirrel]

The balloons are clearly seen to deflate and drop when the temperatures are low. The atoms are much less excited. If the atoms were really trying harder to escape as the temperature decreased, the balloon would expand, not deflate.

Assuming that we were in a freezer of similar temperature to the liquid nitrogen, are you saying that if we were to take one of those dead and frozen balloons and cut it, that it would explode as the air violently rushes outwards? That is clearly NOT what would happen. This illustrates the concept that the air would not be "sucked off the edge of the earth" in the Flat Earth model if there were an edge at some point into the icy tundra.

I really don't know what to say here. Tom, your view of thermodynamics is so far off the mark I can see there's absolutely no hope for you. It appears to me that you're postulating a condition in which the atmosphere must transition instantly from gaseous to an inert solid at absolute zero (the point at which molecular motion ceases). Have you witnessed such a scenario? Has anyone you know, or even heard of, witnessed such a scenario?

The scenario exemplifies that temperature does matter. At absolute zero the atoms do not, and cannot, excite. Therefore the arguments posted here that "temperature does not matter" are bunk. The colder it gets, the slower atoms excite. It can get so cold that the atoms have a hard time equalizing between environments, as illustrated by the balloon video on the previous page.

I'm sorry, I might not have as firm a grasp on thermodynamics as I'd like to, but this is blatant horseshit. Your balloon video in no way shows the 'atoms have a hard time equalizing between environments' because there's a frigging balloon in the way. What you've shown is that temperature differences can create pressure differences. There's nothing there that shows or implies movement between low pressure and high pressure environments stops at lower temperatures. All you've shown is that temperature can affect pressure, and it only for sure carries over to a closed system (like the balloon).

Interestingly, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong here because my grasp on the subject is somewhat weak, but lets say that outside of the Earth we have something that is constantly cooling itself to absolute zero, or like 1K. We then have the Earth/sun, which heats up. Presuming the right amount of material/air to begin with, couldn't this reach an equilibruim, where the edge would most likely be defined by something solid? Like, say a dome/sphere? My grasp on the subject is a touch tenuous, so if I'm wrong please correct me.

[AATW]

As has been established, atoms won't reach absolute zero. As far as movement goes, the atoms are pushed by the warmer air behind it. Your balloon example, as several people have pointed out, actually proves what I was saying. Atoms do not need to be "excited" to be moved. All things in nature try to reach an equilibrium. If there is an unchecked near vacuum, air will be forced in to fill it. Warm items will exchange heat with cool items. These are very basic principles. You are wrong and should edit the Wiki because it is inaccurate. Where are the FEers rushing to defend your point of view?

Starting to think Tom might just be trolling us.
I have never seen him budge an inch in any discussion even when it's clear to everyone but him that he doesn't understand what he's talking about.
As you say, other flat earthers are not exactly leaping to his defence.

Even if Tom was right about absolute zero, the lowest temperature ever recorded on earth is around 180 Kelvin, so even allowing for lower temperatures at the mythical ice wall the temperatures would be nowhere near absolute zero. The only way of keeping the atmosphere in would be a physical dome or a high pressure area around and I presume above the plane, although then why would that not dissipate?

[Tom Bishop]

Atoms do not need to be "excited" to be moved. All things in nature try to reach an equilibrium.

Yes, they do require excitement. The atoms in a balloon are excited and are attempting to reach an equilibrium with the excitement of the outside environment.

Lack of temperature = less excitement. Do you deny this?

The lower temperature of the liquid nitrogen caused the atoms in the balloons to be less excited. Do you deny this?

Do you deny that if we were to put the balloons in a high temperature environment that the atoms would try even harder to escape?

Temperature matters.

If there is an unchecked near vacuum, air will be forced in to fill it.

By what physical mechanism? You are just mindlessly repeating that high pressure equalizes into low pressure environments without really even explaining, or THINKING, why that is.

What would be the difference between an Iron atom sitting at the bottom of a balloon and the gaseous atoms trying to escape the balloon around it? Why doesn't the Iron atom try to escape? The reason is excitement. The Iron atom is not as excited as Oxygen or Helium.

If the atmosphere were composed entirely of Iron atoms, would you be telling me that they would be sucked off of the edge of the earth?

[spoonbow]

OK, let's take this back to basics.

Tom, what causes atmospheric pressure? Why do we see areas of high and low atmospheric pressure side by side?

[spoonbow]

Lesson # 2
Tom, re inflate your balloon (imagining it to be constructed of a material that will withstand the cold) out in the tundra with your super cooled air. Will that air try to escape if you don't tie off the balloon?