The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Scroogie on February 13, 2018, 10:41:12 AM
-
The following is from "Atmolayer Lip Hypothesis":
"In our local area the heat of the day comes from the sun, moving and swashing around wind currents between areas of low pressures and areas of high pressures with its heat. Beyond the known world, where the rays of the sun do not reach, the tundra of ice and snow lays in perpetual darkness. If one could move away from the Antarctic rim into the uncharted tundra the surrounding temperatures, and therefore pressures, would drop lower and lower. Defining the exact length of the gradient would take some looking into, but at a significant distance past the edge of the Ice Wall temperatures will drop to a point where barometric pressure nears the zero mark."
Atmospheric pressure in the habitable area of earth (here) is substantially higher than the atmospheric pressure beyond the "ice wall".
It has been observed that a gas will inevitably flow from a high pressure area to a low pressure area.
Where do you think our atmosphere is going to go under the proposed conditions?
-
The page also says
The atmosphere may very well exist as a lip upon the surface of the earth, held in by vast gradients of declining pressure.
Held IN by declining pressure? :D
How would that work?
-
Given that Tau has been gone for some time, I strongly doubt you'll get much clarification on the ALH. However, from my conversations with him in the past I speculate that you're taking the phrase "held in" more literally than what was intended. "Surrounded" would perhaps be a better word.
-
I see. OK. But given that gas will tend to flow from higher pressure to lower, what stops the atmodome from simply drifting off into space?
In the RE model it's gravity, but if you don't accept gravity then what holds the atmodome on a plane which is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s2?
I know some FE models suggest a physical dome, that would work I guess. Otherwise I don't know how that would work.
-
To my understanding, this is part of the Aetheric Whirlpool Model. As I said, the main person behind it is long gone. You are unlikely to gather much info.
-
Fair enough. Do you have any thoughts on what keeps the atmodome in place?
Physical dome? Some other force or pressure?
-
This is far from accurate, but for brevity I'll say that I believe in a de facto infinite plane. In my view, the atmolayer is just that - a layer that stretches throughout. The Earth's acceleration and the dispersal of the atmolayer are more-or-less in equilibrium.
-
This is far from accurate, but for brevity I'll say that I believe in a de facto infinite plane. In my view, the atmolayer is just that - a layer that stretches throughout. The Earth's acceleration and the dispersal of the atmolayer are more-or-less in equilibrium.
Just for clarification, when you say infinite do you mean that literally, or just in the sense that we presently have no way of determining the actual boundaries? Not nitpicking, as this has great bearing on the original question of atmosphere equalizing between high and low pressures.
Thank you
-
The following is from "Atmolayer Lip Hypothesis":
"In our local area the heat of the day comes from the sun, moving and swashing around wind currents between areas of low pressures and areas of high pressures with its heat. Beyond the known world, where the rays of the sun do not reach, the tundra of ice and snow lays in perpetual darkness. If one could move away from the Antarctic rim into the uncharted tundra the surrounding temperatures, and therefore pressures, would drop lower and lower. Defining the exact length of the gradient would take some looking into, but at a significant distance past the edge of the Ice Wall temperatures will drop to a point where barometric pressure nears the zero mark."
Atmospheric pressure in the habitable area of earth (here) is substantially higher than the atmospheric pressure beyond the "ice wall".
It has been observed that a gas will inevitably flow from a high pressure area to a low pressure area.
Where do you think our atmosphere is going to go under the proposed conditions?
There is nothing wrong with that article.
Gas will flow from a high pressure area into a low pressure area only if the temperatures can equalize. High temperature gas is defined by high pressure and low temperature gas is defined by low pressure.
If you put a balloon in a freezer it shrinks, showing that temperature also plays a part in the pressure of the balloon trying to escape.
If you could continue decreasing the temperature the balloon would get smaller and floppier until the atoms are barely moving, seemingly deflated in a heap at the bottom of the freezer.
Therefore, if the surrounding environments of the earth are cold enough, it is possible for the environment to keep the high pressures of the habitable area centralized as a gradient.
-
That all sounds like rationalization, Tom, rather than anything you have gleaned from observations.
I thought you didn't work that way?
-
Just for clarification, when you say infinite do you mean that literally, or just in the sense that we presently have no way of determining the actual boundaries?
I do not mean it literally, but it would be impractical to elaborate without stretching too far away from the thread subject. I'm already pushing the boundaries here, and I'd rather step back than press on.
-
That all sounds like rationalization, Tom, rather than anything you have gleaned from observations.
I thought you didn't work that way?
There are a lot of experiments behind the idea that there is a correlation between temperature and pressure. Its not some abstract theory.
And rationalization is fine when used as preliminary method of inquiry. That is why the title of that page is Atmolayer Lip "Hypothesis", and why I used "possible" in my last post when referring to how the surrounding cold pressures around the habitable areas could work. The point of my Empericism chapter is that many of the conclusions and truths we are taught are based on rationalization, and this is inappropriate.
-
Just for clarification, when you say infinite do you mean that literally, or just in the sense that we presently have no way of determining the actual boundaries?
I do not mean it literally, but it would be impractical to elaborate without stretching too far away from the thread subject. I'm already pushing the boundaries here, and I'd rather step back than press on.
Thanks Pete. Looks like this is going to end up being a wash, as we're heading to a discussion involving thermal mass, heat loss, radiation, and a whole other pile of physics that I don't think anyone is going to be able to present in a clear, concise manner that the entire audience can comprehend. Not to mention areas of high and low atmospheric pressure existing in conditions unrelated to atmospheric heating, etc, etc etc. :)
-
The following is from "Atmolayer Lip Hypothesis":
"In our local area the heat of the day comes from the sun, moving and swashing around wind currents between areas of low pressures and areas of high pressures with its heat. Beyond the known world, where the rays of the sun do not reach, the tundra of ice and snow lays in perpetual darkness. If one could move away from the Antarctic rim into the uncharted tundra the surrounding temperatures, and therefore pressures, would drop lower and lower. Defining the exact length of the gradient would take some looking into, but at a significant distance past the edge of the Ice Wall temperatures will drop to a point where barometric pressure nears the zero mark."
Atmospheric pressure in the habitable area of earth (here) is substantially higher than the atmospheric pressure beyond the "ice wall".
It has been observed that a gas will inevitably flow from a high pressure area to a low pressure area.
Where do you think our atmosphere is going to go under the proposed conditions?
There is nothing wrong with that article.
Gas will flow from a high pressure area into a low pressure area only if the temperatures can equalize. High temperature gas is defined by high pressure and low temperature gas is defined by low pressure.
If you put a balloon in a freezer it shrinks, showing that temperature also plays a part in the pressure of the balloon trying to escape.
If you could continue decreasing the temperature the balloon would get smaller and floppier until the atoms are barely moving, seemingly deflated in a heap at the bottom of the freezer.
Therefore, if the surrounding environments of the earth are cold enough, it is possible for the environment to keep the high pressures of the habitable area centralized as a gradient.
Tom, there is something very wrong with the article. You make the unnoticed assumption that there is something containing the realm of zero pressure. (a vacuum) The fact is, there is nothing to prevent all air being sucked into that realm. Even if your imaginary gradient existed, it would continually be pulled deeper into this super cold realm. It would never stop and would result in the atmosphere being sucked away. In the real world, this is likely what happened to less massive bodies - they lost their atmospheres to the vacuum of space.
Long story short, you've essentially hypothesized an environment equivalent to space and no method of containing the outflow. You should consider removing that from the Wiki because it is clearly and fundamentally wrong.
-
The following is from "Atmolayer Lip Hypothesis":
"In our local area the heat of the day comes from the sun, moving and swashing around wind currents between areas of low pressures and areas of high pressures with its heat. Beyond the known world, where the rays of the sun do not reach, the tundra of ice and snow lays in perpetual darkness. If one could move away from the Antarctic rim into the uncharted tundra the surrounding temperatures, and therefore pressures, would drop lower and lower. Defining the exact length of the gradient would take some looking into, but at a significant distance past the edge of the Ice Wall temperatures will drop to a point where barometric pressure nears the zero mark."
Atmospheric pressure in the habitable area of earth (here) is substantially higher than the atmospheric pressure beyond the "ice wall".
It has been observed that a gas will inevitably flow from a high pressure area to a low pressure area.
Where do you think our atmosphere is going to go under the proposed conditions?
There is nothing wrong with that article.
Gas will flow from a high pressure area into a low pressure area only if the temperatures can equalize. High temperature gas is defined by high pressure and low temperature gas is defined by low pressure.
If you put a balloon in a freezer it shrinks, showing that temperature also plays a part in the pressure of the balloon trying to escape.
If you could continue decreasing the temperature the balloon would get smaller and floppier until the atoms are barely moving, seemingly deflated in a heap at the bottom of the freezer.
Therefore, if the surrounding environments of the earth are cold enough, it is possible for the environment to keep the high pressures of the habitable area centralized as a gradient.
Tom, there is something very wrong with the article. You make the unnoticed assumption that there is something containing the realm of zero pressure. (a vacuum) The fact is, there is nothing to prevent all air being sucked into that realm. Even if your imaginary gradient existed, it would continually be pulled deeper into this super cold realm. It would never stop and would result in the atmosphere being sucked away. In the real world, this is likely what happened to less massive bodies - they lost their atmospheres to the vacuum of space.
Long story short, you've essentially hypothesized an environment equivalent to space and no method of containing the outflow. You should consider removing that from the Wiki because it is clearly and fundamentally wrong.
Take a look at this video of what happens when balloons full of air are frozen. The atoms practically come to a halt when temperatures are low:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vRMZSEF_a4
If the atoms can't move as they traverse across the icy tundra, atoms coming to a halt in very low temperature as illustrated in the above video, how could the entire atmolayer be sucked away if there were a hypothetical edge further outwards?
-
OK. I'll admit my physics is a little rusty but you need to understand the difference between movement because of temperature (that is basically what heat is - more movement = more heat, that's why there IS an absolute zero, when all movement ceases) and movement because of pressure.
It's like saying that because something is frozen solid you can't push it over.
Honestly Tom, I'm not a science graduate but you really do need to learn some physics and stop this ridiculous pseudo-science you come out with.
-
OK. I'll admit my physics is a little rusty but you need to understand the difference between movement because of temperature (that is basically what heat is - more movement = more heat, that's why there IS an absolute zero, when all movement ceases) and movement because of pressure.
It's like saying that because something is frozen solid you can't push it over.
Honestly Tom, I'm not a science graduate but you really do need to learn some physics and stop this ridiculous pseudo-science you come out with.
Look at the video I posted. When the balloons are frozen the atoms stop moving.
In the Flat Earth model, if the atoms of the atmolayer stopped moving in the icy tundra around the earth beyond the light of the sun due to very low temperatures, and if there was an edge at some distance further outwards, how could the entire atmolayer be sucked out off of the edge?
-
Bro, what
Balloons collapse in liquid nitrogen specifically because of the higher pressure room temperature air equalizing into the balloon, whose pressure approaches zero when cooled by the nitrogen. This is expressly the opposite of what you're trying to demonstrate and just supports the case against you more.
also, the atoms do not stop moving, they're not even close to absolute zero, and nothing ever has actually gotten to absolute zero, you hack
Can you provide evidence of anyone ever observing 'an extreme low temperature environment where high pressure cannot equalize into?' Can you point us to a record of empirical observations of 'the icy tundra around the earth beyond the light of the sun?' Are you even a zetetic at all? Aren't you just rationalizing the tundra into existence because you assume a priori the Earth must be flat?
The answers are no, no, no, and yes, btw
-
OK. I'll admit my physics is a little rusty but you need to understand the difference between movement because of temperature (that is basically what heat is - more movement = more heat, that's why there IS an absolute zero, when all movement ceases) and movement because of pressure.
It's like saying that because something is frozen solid you can't push it over.
Honestly Tom, I'm not a science graduate but you really do need to learn some physics and stop this ridiculous pseudo-science you come out with.
Look at the video I posted. When the balloons are frozen the atoms stop moving.
In the Flat Earth model, if the atoms of the atmolayer stopped moving in the icy tundra around the earth beyond the light of the sun due to very low temperatures, and if there was an edge at some distance further outwards, how could the entire atmolayer be sucked out off of the edge?
As things cool down the molecules vibrate less. That is the movement you are talking about, that is what slows down when something cools.
But while it's still a gas it doesn't form some barrier to stop pressure equalising. So unless the pressure is equal there is nothing to stop the "atmolayer" from being sucked off the edge.
Again, I suggest you learn some science if you don't even understand why what you're saying is nonsensical.
-
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.
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law) and I'm reconsidering the hypothesis of what would happen if you popped a frozen balloon. to be continued
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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, 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.
-
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.
-
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, 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.
-
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 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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
Lesson #3
While standing on the tundra, you draw back on a syringe. You have just created a vacuum in the barrel of the syringe. Does the super-cold air fill the barrel, or is the vacuum maintained?
-
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.
You're apparently proposing a situation in which a temperature of absolute zero is reached somewhere in the outer reaches of the hypothetical region beyond the ice wall, a region which we'll label "B". You propose that its temperature, and necessarily its pressure, is lower than that experienced on our side of the ice wall where the atmosphere is (indirectly) heated by the sun, a region which we'll label "A", resulting in a pressure gradient from A to B. Hence, the atmosphere will begin to flow from A to B. As it does it carries heat with it, warming the surroundings in the region of B. That heat will eventually radiate off into space, preventing B from ever reaching the temperature of A, hence temperature and pressure gradients will remain and the condition will remain stable, with air continually moving from A to B. Incidentally, due to the heat introduced by the ingress of air from A, temperatures approaching absolute zero would not be achievable, either.
We know A to be finite in size. It you were to, for example, postulate B to be infinite in size, or even similar in size to A, then you have a problem asserting that region B will fill up with air at a very cold temperature so that no more of the atmosphere could then migrate to this region. Why? Because there is a finite amount of atmosphere to fill that volume. If the volume of region B is of any appreciable size you would run out of air with which to fill it long before the pressure became great enough to prevent further migration of air into region B.
-
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.
I noticed your liberal use of hyperbole in the above quoted passage:
Atmosphere "rapidly exploding" into space...
Has someone suggested this mechanism? Exploding, as opposed to simply leaking or floating off into space? If so, I missed it.
"stopped in their tracks by temperature"...
They will get "stopped in their tracks" should they actually reach absolute zero. I don't believe you've demonstrated that to be the case.
"we agree that low temperature = lack of movement"
I'm quite sure that no one agreed with that statement. Low temperature = less movement. Absolute zero = lack of movement. There's a crucial difference there.
-
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.
No, they don't. You can move atoms by hitting them with other atoms, you can move them with electromagnetic fields. Further, the balloon is applying additional force from elasticity.
Lack of temperature = less excitement. Do you deny this?
No, not at all. Lower energy levels = lower temps.
The lower temperature of the liquid nitrogen caused the atoms in the balloons to be less excited. Do you deny this?
No.
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?
They will move with more force, correct.
Temperature matters.
I never said it didn't. But it doesn't matter in the way you think it does. You are conflating excitation of atoms with density. Cold air is more dense and has a higher pressure than warm air. In warm air, the molecules apply more force via their fast speed, but are also more spread out, which causes the pressure to drop. Things aren't always as simple as we'd like them to be.
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.
Second law of thermodynamics. Or, if you want to talk purely pressure, it is an equalization of force. Matter pushing on matter.
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.
You should probably lose the balloon analogy, it is only hurting your cause. The energy level of atoms can change - you can't say one is more "excited" than the other. You can say that an iron atom is heavier than oxygen and far heavier than helium, which is light enough to be lost to space.
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?
It isn't though, so you can spare us that strawman.
-
Inflate a balloon. Put it in the freezer. See what happens.
When the air inside the balloon cools down, will it deflate? Will it pop? Will it reach equilibrium with the cold air already inside the freezer and stay inflated?
//
Tom is suggesting that because air molecules have low energy near absolute zero, which is just the definition of temperature, other warmer air cannot interact with it and come to equilibrium. No, once air gets too cold, it becomes impossible to warm up again. See his use of the word 'dead.' Like, if you hit a slow moving 8 ball with a fast moving cue ball, if the 8 ball is slow enough the cue ball just ignores it, or also becomes slow, or something. His argument hasn't been consistent.
So, now we're trying to prove to Pyrrho that thermodynamics is real. Good luck everyone, I'm out
-
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.
And, people, Tom Bishop has just demonstrated that he doesn't know the difference between temperature and pressure. Lowering the temperature lowers the pressure, and the balloon deflates so the elastic force of the balloon and the pressure of the outside atmosphere balance out the internal pressure. When you have a pressure difference, the gas statistically will flow from high pressure to low pressure. This is simple kinetic molecular theory, and can be justified through the probability of collisions on one side of a gas molecule as opposed to the other.
The atmospheric pressure is not primarily a result of temperature; exert a force (normal force from Earth) on a gas, and it experiences pressure. Basic physics. I'll ask you again, Tom, please take an AP Physics test to review your knowledge of elementary physics.
-
Yes, it's amusing that Tom is so ignorant that he doesn't realise that his video shows the exact effect he claims would not happen.
High pressure over the "disc" of the earth would leak into the low pressure outside it.
If you imagine cooling a rigid ball (as opposed to a balloon) filled with air at the same pressure as the atmosphere then the pressure inside the ball would drop. If the ball then had a hole punched in it which direction would the air move? From high pressure to low. In the video Tom posted that effect is shown by the balloon getting smaller as the higher pressure outside the balloon was able to press it into a smaller shape. The only way of fixing this in the FE model are some physical barrier to stop the "atmoplane" leaking or an infinite plane with a constant pressure throughout.