[İntikam]

Hello guys.

I wonder is there a persuasive drawn about velocity  diagram of the atmosphere or not. I saw some diagrams about it but no one was persuasive. Because when i ask "is there horizontal force?" then usually answering me as "the friction". But when i ask about "please do the diagram start with land level to the end of the atmospher. "

I want to see the velocity diagram of the atmospher, after that i want to see the diagram of the forces acting to the atmosphere.

Actually it must be easy because we know it is starting with about 1.000 miles / hrs. So;

Show me, then show you. 

Draw the diagram and on the diagram show how the atmospher don't difuses to the space.

Thank you.

[rabinoz]

Hello guys.

I wonder is there a persuasive drawn about velocity  diagram of the atmosphere or not. I saw some diagrams about it but no one was persuasive. Because when i ask "is there horizontal force?" then usually answering me as "the friction". But when i ask about "please do the diagram start with land level to the end of the atmospher. "

I want to see the velocity diagram of the atmospher, after that i want to see the diagram of the forces acting to the atmosphere.

Actually it must be easy because we know it is starting with about 1.000 miles / hrs. So;

Show me, then show you. 

Draw the diagram and on the diagram show how the atmospher don't difuses to the space.

Thank you.

If you don't accept gravitation and the kinetic theory of gases it would be useless to try to draw any diagram.

But put very briefly, the escape velocity of an object (big like a rocket, or tiny like a molecule) is roughly velocity of 11,200 m/s, but the mean thermal velocity of nitrogen molecules is roughly 500 m/s (a bit lower for oxygen molecules) - much less than the escape velocity, so the molecules cannot escape. They are held by gravity - it's not really a matter of diffusion.

There is a tremendous amount more to it than this. For example the thermal velocity is temperature dependant and is just the average, so a few molecules can have a much higher velocity and occasionally some might escape.

But, the nett result is that very few escape, and the earth can recapture some.

There is a bit on it here: Why wouldn't Earth's atmosphere escape into space?

[İntikam]

Hello guys.

I wonder is there a persuasive drawn about velocity  diagram of the atmosphere or not. I saw some diagrams about it but no one was persuasive. Because when i ask "is there horizontal force?" then usually answering me as "the friction". But when i ask about "please do the diagram start with land level to the end of the atmospher. "

I want to see the velocity diagram of the atmospher, after that i want to see the diagram of the forces acting to the atmosphere.

Actually it must be easy because we know it is starting with about 1.000 miles / hrs. So;

Show me, then show you. 

Draw the diagram and on the diagram show how the atmospher don't difuses to the space.

Thank you.

If you don't accept gravitation and the kinetic theory of gases it would be useless to try to draw any diagram.

But put very briefly, the escape velocity of an object (big like a rocket, or tiny like a molecule) is roughly velocity of 11,200 m/s, but the mean thermal velocity of nitrogen molecules is roughly 500 m/s (a bit lower for oxygen molecules) - much less than the escape velocity, so the molecules cannot escape. They are held by gravity - it's not really a matter of diffusion.

There is a tremendous amount more to it than this. For example the thermal velocity is temperature dependant and is just the average, so a few molecules can have a much higher velocity and occasionally some might escape.

But, the nett result is that very few escape, and the earth can recapture some.

There is a bit on it here: Why wouldn't Earth's atmosphere escape into space?

Draw a diagram as gravitation, difusion and the kinetic theory of gases are true. I still don't see any diagram, and you?

[Round fact]

Hello guys.

I wonder is there a persuasive drawn about velocity  diagram of the atmosphere or not. I saw some diagrams about it but no one was persuasive. Because when i ask "is there horizontal force?" then usually answering me as "the friction". But when i ask about "please do the diagram start with land level to the end of the atmospher. "

I want to see the velocity diagram of the atmospher, after that i want to see the diagram of the forces acting to the atmosphere.

Actually it must be easy because we know it is starting with about 1.000 miles / hrs. So;

Show me, then show you. 

Draw the diagram and on the diagram show how the atmospher don't difuses to the space.

Thank you.

If you don't accept gravitation and the kinetic theory of gases it would be useless to try to draw any diagram.

But put very briefly, the escape velocity of an object (big like a rocket, or tiny like a molecule) is roughly velocity of 11,200 m/s, but the mean thermal velocity of nitrogen molecules is roughly 500 m/s (a bit lower for oxygen molecules) - much less than the escape velocity, so the molecules cannot escape. They are held by gravity - it's not really a matter of diffusion.

There is a tremendous amount more to it than this. For example the thermal velocity is temperature dependant and is just the average, so a few molecules can have a much higher velocity and occasionally some might escape.

But, the nett result is that very few escape, and the earth can recapture some.

There is a bit on it here: Why wouldn't Earth's atmosphere escape into space?

Intikam always asks for a diagram/picture, he is a visual person, he can't see the picture the words paint, like the rest of us can. Math for him even worse.

Tab A fits into slot B and is locked into place with tab A1. Simple, but for him it needs to drawn out or a photo provided.

[İntikam]

Hello guys.

I wonder is there a persuasive drawn about velocity  diagram of the atmosphere or not. I saw some diagrams about it but no one was persuasive. Because when i ask "is there horizontal force?" then usually answering me as "the friction". But when i ask about "please do the diagram start with land level to the end of the atmospher. "

I want to see the velocity diagram of the atmospher, after that i want to see the diagram of the forces acting to the atmosphere.

Actually it must be easy because we know it is starting with about 1.000 miles / hrs. So;

Show me, then show you. 

Draw the diagram and on the diagram show how the atmospher don't difuses to the space.

Thank you.

If you don't accept gravitation and the kinetic theory of gases it would be useless to try to draw any diagram.

But put very briefly, the escape velocity of an object (big like a rocket, or tiny like a molecule) is roughly velocity of 11,200 m/s, but the mean thermal velocity of nitrogen molecules is roughly 500 m/s (a bit lower for oxygen molecules) - much less than the escape velocity, so the molecules cannot escape. They are held by gravity - it's not really a matter of diffusion.

There is a tremendous amount more to it than this. For example the thermal velocity is temperature dependant and is just the average, so a few molecules can have a much higher velocity and occasionally some might escape.

But, the nett result is that very few escape, and the earth can recapture some.

There is a bit on it here: Why wouldn't Earth's atmosphere escape into space?

Intikam always asks for a diagram/picture, he is a visual person, he can't see the picture the words paint, like the rest of us can. Math for him even worse.

Tab A fits into slot B and is locked into place with tab A1. Simple, but for him it needs to drawn out or a photo provided.

I don't need a lawyer. If you have a knowledge about this matter i'm ready to listen you. If you haven't, don't make shade.

[TotesNotReptilian]

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking for, but I'll give it a shot. Everything is assumed to be at the equator, roughly at ground level, not moving relative to the ground.

"Velocity diagram" (whatever that means):

In a non-rotating reference frame centered on the earth:
1. It is moving roughly 470 m/s (1000 mph) west to east. (The same speed as the ground) (Edit: This increases linearly as you increase altitude)
2. It has a centripetal acceleration of 0.03 m/s² towards the center of the earth. (Edit: This increases linearly as you increase altitude)

"Force diagram"

Given a small chunk of atmosphere:
1. There is a gravitational force pointing downwards.
2. There is a force resulting from the altitudinal differential in pressure pointing upwards.
3. There is no horizontal force.
4. Force from gravity - force from pressure = small net downwards force. Dividing this force by the mass of the air will result in the above centripetal acceleration.

I can draw a diagram if you really really want me to.

[İntikam]

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking for, but I'll give it a shot. Everything is assumed to be at the equator, roughly at ground level, not moving relative to the ground.

"Velocity diagram" (whatever that means):

In a non-rotating reference frame centered on the earth:
1. It is moving roughly 470 m/s (1000 mph) west to east. (The same speed as the ground) (Edit: This increases linearly as you increase altitude)
2. It has a centripetal acceleration of 0.03 m/s² towards the center of the earth. (Edit: This increases linearly as you increase altitude)

"Force diagram"

Given a small chunk of atmosphere:
1. There is a gravitational force pointing downwards.
2. There is a force resulting from the altitudinal differential in pressure pointing upwards.
3. There is no horizontal force.
4. Force from gravity - force from pressure = small net downwards force. Dividing this force by the mass of the air will result in the above centripetal acceleration.

I can draw a diagram if you really really want me to.

Thank you. You understand me good. But i want to see a diagram and most of the RE's accept it.

Because when i ask a question about "movement of the atmospher", RE's continuesly answering with different argues that opposite to the others. I want to see a diagram and ask questions on it. In other ways, RE's saying "I meant something else.". But you can't escape a diagram that visible, statble, understood.

Look to the answers: "There is no horizontal force so why the atmospher is moving?" The answer they said me: "Because of friction".
"What happens on the outside of the atmospher". "There is no friction on atm".
"How atmospher is continuesly moving with us as same speed with no difference?" "because there is friction"
Then "Why atm don't difuzes the space?" ... "blabla..."
"Is every altitude the friction and gravity same, so how atmospher has same speed on everywhere" "The speed is different" >> Then draw  a "velocity (speed)" diagram.

Everytime i see different reasons and sometimes they are clearly inconsistent with each other. I want to see a diagram that true, visible, understood, acceptable.

[İntikam]

I would like to give an example in this regard. For "FET" the diagram is as follows.



 So for "RET" is a diagram of how to?



Is it hard to understand and fill the blanks?

Another example:

This is solve of "difusion of atmospher problem" on a FE model.



And this one is same problem with no solve.



Because you need something to solve this problem meanwhile you need prove it must comply with the velocity diagram.

This is one of the most problems. Most of other problem is "friction". Is there air friction or not? So we need to see how RE's explain the forces acting to atm.

Why isin't there any acceptable velocity and force diagram for atm? Because there is no answer comply to other questions. RE model can't answer the problems so they don't offer a diagram acceptable for everybody, understandable for everyone,  valid in each case.

Notice: I do not accept explanations without diagram mandatory. Because RE's do quibble to deflect.

So ask yourself why do you choose a model RE as vague, contradictory, in any case do not apply instead of FE model logical, understandable and applicable in all situations

[Round fact]

You seem to think the atmosphere is separate form the earth, it is not. Or that gravity has no effect on the atmosphere, it does.

Your last illustration in your post, seems to say you think the atmosphere wants to fly off into space. Why?

Why would gravity keep you on the earth, but not the atmosphere?

[TotesNotReptilian]

The atmosphere is rotating at approximately 1 rotation/day at every altitude. It might be rotating a bit slower than that as altitude increases, but I'm no expert. To calculate speed based on that, use the formula for calculating speed from angular velocity. Here are some numbers for your diagrams.

altitude (km) -> speed relative to a non-rotating earth (km/h)
0 -> 1667
20 -> 1673
50 -> 1681
85 -> 1690
690 -> 1848
10000 -> 4285 ? (This one is practically in space, I doubt it is rotating at exactly the same rate.)

In your diagram for diffusion, simply draw some arrows pointing towards the center of the earth and label them "gravity". Gravity cancels out the diffusion.

In your flat-earth diffusion diagram, the water is preventing the atmosphere from diffusing? This doesn't make sense. When water touches a vacuum, it turns into a gas, and diffuses away just like the atmosphere.

So ask yourself why do you choose a model RE as vague, contradictory, in any case do not apply instead of FE model logical, understandable and applicable in all situations

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is contradictory.

Look to the answers: "There is no horizontal force so why the atmospher is moving?" The answer they said me: "Because of friction".
"What happens on the outside of the atmospher". "There is no friction on atm".
"How atmospher is continuesly moving with us as same speed with no difference?" "because there is friction"
Then "Why atm don't difuzes the space?" ... "blabla..."
"Is every altitude the friction and gravity same, so how atmospher has same speed on everywhere" "The speed is different" >> Then draw  a "velocity (speed)" diagram.

1. There is no friction between the atmosphere and space. Space is made of nothing. You can't have friction between something and nothing.
2. There IS friction between the atmosphere and the ground, if the air is moving relative to the ground.
3. If the atmosphere is moving faster than 1 rotation/day, then friction causes it to slow down.
4. If the atmosphere is moving slower than 1 rotation/day, then friction causes it to speed up.
5. If the atmosphere is moving at exactly 1 rotation/day, then there is no friction.
6. Gravity prevents the atmosphere from diffusing into space. This has nothing to do with friction.

[totallackey]

The atmosphere is rotating at approximately 1 rotation/day at every altitude. It might be rotating a bit slower than that as altitude increases, but I'm no expert. To calculate speed based on that, use the formula for calculating speed from angular velocity. Here are some numbers for your diagrams.

altitude (km) -> speed relative to a non-rotating earth (km/h)
0 -> 1667
20 -> 1673
50 -> 1681
85 -> 1690
690 -> 1848
10000 -> 4285 ? (This one is practically in space, I doubt it is rotating at exactly the same rate.)

In your diagram for diffusion, simply draw some arrows pointing towards the center of the earth and label them "gravity". Gravity cancels out the diffusion.

In your flat-earth diffusion diagram, the water is preventing the atmosphere from diffusing? This doesn't make sense. When water touches a vacuum, it turns into a gas, and diffuses away just like the atmosphere.

So ask yourself why do you choose a model RE as vague, contradictory, in any case do not apply instead of FE model logical, understandable and applicable in all situations

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is contradictory.

Look to the answers: "There is no horizontal force so why the atmospher is moving?" The answer they said me: "Because of friction".
"What happens on the outside of the atmospher". "There is no friction on atm".
"How atmospher is continuesly moving with us as same speed with no difference?" "because there is friction"
Then "Why atm don't difuzes the space?" ... "blabla..."
"Is every altitude the friction and gravity same, so how atmospher has same speed on everywhere" "The speed is different" >> Then draw  a "velocity (speed)" diagram.

1. There is no friction between the atmosphere and space. Space is made of nothing. You can't have friction between something and nothing.
2. There IS friction between the atmosphere and the ground, if the air is moving relative to the ground.
3. If the atmosphere is moving faster than 1 rotation/day, then friction causes it to slow down.
4. If the atmosphere is moving slower than 1 rotation/day, then friction causes it to speed up.
5. If the atmosphere is moving at exactly 1 rotation/day, then there is no friction.
6. Gravity prevents the atmosphere from diffusing into space. This has nothing to do with friction.

Surely your list of figures presented was for a rotating earth right? Not that I agree with that concept at all...

[TotesNotReptilian]

The atmosphere is rotating at approximately 1 rotation/day at every altitude. It might be rotating a bit slower than that as altitude increases, but I'm no expert. To calculate speed based on that, use the formula for calculating speed from angular velocity. Here are some numbers for your diagrams.

altitude (km) -> speed relative to a non-rotating earth (km/h)
0 -> 1667
20 -> 1673
50 -> 1681
85 -> 1690
690 -> 1848
10000 -> 4285 ? (This one is practically in space, I doubt it is rotating at exactly the same rate.)

...

Surely your list of figures presented was for a rotating earth right? Not that I agree with that concept at all...

Yes. It assumes the earth is rotating.

By "speed relative to a non-rotating earth", I mean the speed as observed by someone who was not rotating along with the earth. A non-rotating reference frame.

[totallackey]

The atmosphere is rotating at approximately 1 rotation/day at every altitude. It might be rotating a bit slower than that as altitude increases, but I'm no expert. To calculate speed based on that, use the formula for calculating speed from angular velocity. Here are some numbers for your diagrams.

altitude (km) -> speed relative to a non-rotating earth (km/h)
0 -> 1667
20 -> 1673
50 -> 1681
85 -> 1690
690 -> 1848
10000 -> 4285 ? (This one is practically in space, I doubt it is rotating at exactly the same rate.)

...

Surely your list of figures presented was for a rotating earth right? Not that I agree with that concept at all...

Yes. It assumes the earth is rotating.

By "speed relative to a non-rotating earth", I mean the speed as observed by someone who was not rotating along with the earth. A non-rotating reference frame.

So Felix Baumgartner was traveling at (approx) 1680 MPH?  Do you have some telemetry data to back that assertion?

[TotesNotReptilian]

The atmosphere is rotating at approximately 1 rotation/day at every altitude. It might be rotating a bit slower than that as altitude increases, but I'm no expert. To calculate speed based on that, use the formula for calculating speed from angular velocity. Here are some numbers for your diagrams.

altitude (km) -> speed relative to a non-rotating earth (km/h)
0 -> 1667
20 -> 1673
50 -> 1681
85 -> 1690
690 -> 1848
10000 -> 4285 ? (This one is practically in space, I doubt it is rotating at exactly the same rate.)

...

Surely your list of figures presented was for a rotating earth right? Not that I agree with that concept at all...

Yes. It assumes the earth is rotating.

By "speed relative to a non-rotating earth", I mean the speed as observed by someone who was not rotating along with the earth. A non-rotating reference frame.

So Felix Baumgartner was traveling at (approx) 1680 MPH?  Do you have some telemetry data to back that assertion?

First, 1680 km/h, not mph.

Second, stating "Bob's velocity is ___" is meaningless without establishing a reference frame.

The figures I gave above are relative to the center of the earth. They are NOT relative to the ground. The atmosphere is rotating at approximately the same rate as the earth. Relative to the ground, the atmosphere's velocity is approximately 0 km/h at every altitude. In other words, the atmosphere isn't moving relative to the ground.

I have no idea how fast Mr. Felix was moving, but since he was in a balloon, then 0 km/h relative to the ground is a reasonable guess (which at his altitude, is the same as 1680 km/h relative to the center of the earth).

[İntikam]

The atmosphere is rotating at approximately 1 rotation/day at every altitude. It might be rotating a bit slower than that as altitude increases, but I'm no expert. To calculate speed based on that, use the formula for calculating speed from angular velocity. Here are some numbers for your diagrams.

altitude (km) -> speed relative to a non-rotating earth (km/h)
0 -> 1667
20 -> 1673
50 -> 1681
85 -> 1690
690 -> 1848
10000 -> 4285 ? (This one is practically in space, I doubt it is rotating at exactly the same rate.)

...

Surely your list of figures presented was for a rotating earth right? Not that I agree with that concept at all...

Yes. It assumes the earth is rotating.

By "speed relative to a non-rotating earth", I mean the speed as observed by someone who was not rotating along with the earth. A non-rotating reference frame.

So Felix Baumgartner was traveling at (approx) 1680 MPH?  Do you have some telemetry data to back that assertion?

First, 1680 km/h, not mph.

Second, stating "Bob's velocity is ___" is meaningless without establishing a reference frame.

The figures I gave above are relative to the center of the earth. They are NOT relative to the ground. The atmosphere is rotating at approximately the same rate as the earth. Relative to the ground, the atmosphere's velocity is approximately 0 km/h at every altitude. In other words, the atmosphere isn't moving relative to the ground.

I have no idea how fast Mr. Felix was moving, but since he was in a balloon, then 0 km/h relative to the ground is a reasonable guess (which at his altitude, is the same as 1680 km/h relative to the center of the earth).

Can you draw a drawn that show your explanation?

Can you draw a diagram of velocity?

[TotesNotReptilian]

Can you draw a drawn that show your explanation?

Can you draw a diagram of velocity?

angular velocity = how fast something rotates around a center point
linear velocity = how fast something moves in a straight line

Point B has a bigger linear velocity than point A. However, point A and point B both have the same angular velocity around point C (1 rotation/day). If someone stands at point A and looks up, point B will always be directly over head. Point B will appear to be not moving.

Keep in mind, the numbers I gave above are only true if there is no wind. At high altitudes, the wind can be VERY strong, so the numbers are probably completely wrong.

[İntikam]

Can you draw a drawn that show your explanation?

Can you draw a diagram of velocity?

angular velocity = how fast something rotates around a center point
linear velocity = how fast something moves in a straight line

Point B has a bigger linear velocity than point A. However, point A and point B both have the same angular velocity around point C (1 rotation/day). If someone stands at point A and looks up, point B will always be directly over head. Point B will appear to be not moving.

Keep in mind, the numbers I gave above are only true if there is no wind. At high altitudes, the wind can be VERY strong, so the numbers are probably completely wrong.

If it is a true diagram, most of rounders on the world and on the here must accept it. But just a few rounders accept it. Because it have great problems.. Every model that proposed by rounders have different great problems. In your model,  the centrifugal force is a major problem.

So rounders can't accept this diagram, if they do, they accept to be disproven. 

[rabinoz]

Can you draw a drawn that show your explanation?

Can you draw a diagram of velocity?

angular velocity = how fast something rotates around a center point
linear velocity = how fast something moves in a straight line

Point B has a bigger linear velocity than point A. However, point A and point B both have the same angular velocity around point C (1 rotation/day). If someone stands at point A and looks up, point B will always be directly over head. Point B will appear to be not moving.

Keep in mind, the numbers I gave above are only true if there is no wind. At high altitudes, the wind can be VERY strong, so the numbers are probably completely wrong.

If it is a true diagram, most of rounders on the world and on the here must accept it. But just a few rounders accept it. Because it have great problems.. Every model that proposed by rounders have different great problems. In your model,  the centrifugal force is a major problem.

So rounders can't accept this diagram, if they do, they accept to be disproven. 

No, centrifugal force is no problem at all. There is simple not any significant amount of air at these altitudes to matter.

As you have been told numerous times, once you get above a few hundred kilometres there is amost no atmosphere. Not enough to matter if it did escape.
Also it a particle of air (molecule, atom or ion) is to escape its velocity must exceed the escape velocity from earth, rough 11 km/s.

This is far above the mean thermal velocity, so very little air escapes.

And please do not use your poor comprehension of English as an excuse. If this is not clear, get someone to translate.

Summarising a very small amount of air does escape, but not enough to matter.

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

I think this is what Intikam wants


Values from TotesNotReptilian

altitude (km) -> speed relative to a non-rotating earth (km/h)
0 -> 1667
20 -> 1673
50 -> 1681
85 -> 1690
690 -> 1848
10000 -> 4285 ? (This one is practically in space, I doubt it is rotating at exactly the same rate.)