0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The fact that the air is enclosed makes no difference at all to the pressure exerted. So what this proves is that whether or not something accelerates in falling has nothing to do with the weight of air above it.
Working from average values rather than from measured values is a classic scientific error. If you can't make your theory fit measurements then why bother calling it a theory?
So is your contention that spatial variations in gravity (i.e. at different points on the earth's surface) and chronological changes in air pressure (same place, different time) are irrelevant to a theory that links air pressure to the acceleration experienced by a falling body? Suggesting that a new mathematical structure might be needed to explain something is fine - ask Schrodinger! - but this seems to do the reverse, it is claiming something as an explanation where the simplest of maths - that of comparison and correlation - shows that that it isn't true. This isn't a theory because it ignores observation.
This isn't a guess (estimate would have been a better word to use) nor am I making up numbers - it's what physicists generally refer to as an "order of magnitude calculation". What it clearly shows is that there is no accelerating effect from the atmosphere above you - unless you're prepared to throw away that bit of science relating to gases and pressure and invent something entirely new?
Moderator – (Side note) – Why don’t you put in a field where users can show the messg number to which they are replying? Would this also make it easier to group arguments with different individuals that are corresponding between each other? Let us all know please in a separate message. Thanks.
Quote from: fleep on 09/05/2007 15:42:02Moderator – (Side note) – Why don’t you put in a field where users can show the messg number to which they are replying? Would this also make it easier to group arguments with different individuals that are corresponding between each other? Let us all know please in a separate message. Thanks.You mean like that above?You just hit the 'quote' button for the message, and it will copy the message to the reply panel, and you can then write your answer underneath it; or if you wish to intersperse your answer with the message you are quoting, then you can simply copy the quote start and quote end tags to have several quoted sections, and your replies in between.You will note that the quoted text now has a link above it, and if you click on the link, you will be taken back to the original message that you have quoted from.
The weight of the atmosphere in both tubes starts off at the top at the atmosphere, and all the air molecules that are “piled” in each tube total 14.7 lbs. per square inch (at average), at the bottom of both tubes
That downwardly increasing accumulation of molecular weight “cubes” is assigning more and more weight above the progress of the falling object. What happens after the first cushion? The atmospheric “rules of falling weights” takes over – i.e. – 32 fps – 32 fps/sec., (and on down).
What do you suppose the scientists are working with when they do globally dispersed experiments that will produce different results? They have to adjust all readings for comparison. They adjust them to the standard that science itself created. It’s called “Datum”, as you know.
All right. My theory covers the workings of the planet.
If it is correct, it could then be tested using current math methods, and the same measurements would likely result. If I was allowed to pick any single location on the globe, a time, and an altitude from which the object is dropped, what do you suppose science would use to calculate their math, if they didn’t have a “standard average” like 14.7 PSI? Their math uses it as their baseline. Why can’t I?
How does my above explanation affect your point of view on this, or does it (“sort of”) answer it?
QuoteThe weight of the atmosphere in both tubes starts off at the top at the atmosphere, and all the air molecules that are “piled” in each tube total 14.7 lbs. per square inch (at average), at the bottom of both tubesNope. If a tube is sealed (rigidly) then the atmosphere above the tube does not exert any pressure on the gas within. If this weren't true no-one could survive a trip down to see the Titanic!QuoteThat downwardly increasing accumulation of molecular weight “cubes” is assigning more and more weight above the progress of the falling object. What happens after the first cushion? The atmospheric “rules of falling weights” takes over – i.e. – 32 fps – 32 fps/sec., (and on down).I can't see how you can argue this when you youself have quoted Pascals gas law in your earlier explanations. The point of the tube 'thought-experiment' is that the falling ball bearing inside doesn't know whether it has a 100km column of air above it, or a few centimetres and then a rigid cap. It will fall in exactly the same manner. This is consistent with Pascals law - i.e. the gas inside the tube exerting an equal pressure in all directions - and wholly inconsistent with any idea that the air above the ball is somehow pushing it down/accelerating it.QuoteWhat do you suppose the scientists are working with when they do globally dispersed experiments that will produce different results? They have to adjust all readings for comparison. They adjust them to the standard that science itself created. It’s called “Datum”, as you know. This isn't how I was taught to do experiments. Yes, you have to adjust results for datum conditions in order to make meaningful comparisons but this is not the same as only using average values. For example, if I'm interested in the boiling points of different fluids then it makes sense to measure them (with a thermometer) and then adjust separately for measured atmospheric pressure at the time of each experiment. This will give the 'correct' boiling points from which deductions can be made about the relative strengths of binding forces within the liquids. However, if I simply use 'average' air pressure, with no correction, I will get misleading results. Some measurements will be high, some will be low. I will get the wrong answers. Using average values is fine for teaching people principles but it is no way to conduct experiment.QuoteAll right. My theory covers the workings of the planet.But doesn't seem to explain gravity on teh Moon where there is no atmosphere to speak of? Doesn't the non-universality of your explanation bother you (when compared with more conventional explanations)?QuoteIf it is correct, it could then be tested using current math methods, and the same measurements would likely result. If I was allowed to pick any single location on the globe, a time, and an altitude from which the object is dropped, what do you suppose science would use to calculate their math, if they didn’t have a “standard average” like 14.7 PSI? Their math uses it as their baseline. Why can’t I?There is nothing magical about 14.7 psi. I often find practical problems where using it would be a mistake. For example, the Reactor Building where I work is an airtight enclosure of, roughly speaking, 90,000 cubic metres. The air pressure within this building has to be adjusted (by cooling/heating systems) so as to be within a few millibar of atmospeheric pressure outside - which is always changing, so some active control of these systems is required. If we don't do this then we hit practical problems such as if someone opens an airlock door a differential pressure of more than a few millibar would (quite literally) blow the door and them away! I'm not joking here - this happened a few years ago in the States where the operators involved did exactly as you suggest and compared a pressure reading within their Reactor Building with "14.7 psi" rather than with the true (lower) air pressure at the time. When the door crashed open it killed one of them and seriously injured another. Science is no different to real-life here. You don't use an average value to discount observations that don't fit a theory. From measurement, air pressure varies where ethe acceleration due to gravity doesn't and vice versa.No correlation = no theory.QuoteHow does my above explanation affect your point of view on this, or does it (“sort of”) answer it?No - the more I think about this, the more examples there seem to be that contradict what you suggest.
Nope. If a tube is sealed (rigidly) then the atmosphere above the tube does not exert any pressure on the gas within. If this weren't true no-one could survive a trip down to see the Titanic!
I can't see how you can argue this when you yourself have quoted Pascals gas law in your earlier explanations. The point of the tube 'thought-experiment' is that the falling ball bearing inside doesn't know whether it has a 100km column of air above it, or a few centimetres and then a rigid cap. It will fall in exactly the same manner. This is consistent with Pascals law - i.e. the gas inside the tube exerting an equal pressure in all directions - and wholly inconsistent with any idea that the air above the ball is somehow pushing it down/accelerating it.
This isn't how I was taught to do experiments. Yes, you have to adjust results for datum conditions in order to make meaningful comparisons but this is not the same as only using average values. For example, if I'm interested in the boiling points of different fluids then it makes sense to measure them (with a thermometer) and then adjust separately for measured atmospheric pressure at the time of each experiment. This will give the 'correct' boiling points from which deductions can be made about the relative strengths of binding forces within the liquids. However, if I simply use 'average' air pressure, with no correction, I will get misleading results. Some measurements will be high, some will be low. I will get the wrong answers. Using average values is fine for teaching people principles but it is no way to conduct experiment.
But it doesn't seem to explain gravity on the Moon where there is no atmosphere to speak of? Doesn't the non-universality of your explanation bother you (when compared with more conventional explanations)?
There is nothing magical about 14.7 psi. I often find practical problems where using it would be a mistake. For example, the Reactor Building where I work is an airtight enclosure of, roughly speaking, 90,000 cubic metres. The air pressure within this building has to be adjusted (by cooling/heating systems) so as to be within a few millibar of atmospheric pressure outside - which is always changing, so some active control of these systems is required. If we don't do this then we hit practical problems such as if someone opens an airlock door a differential pressure of more than a few millibar would (quite literally) blow the door and them away! I'm not joking here - this happened a few years ago in the States where the operators involved did exactly as you suggest and compared a pressure reading within their Reactor Building with "14.7 psi" rather than with the true (lower) air pressure at the time. When the door crashed open it killed one of them and seriously injured another. Science is no different to real-life here. You don't use an average value to discount observations that don't fit a theory. From measurement, air pressure varies where the acceleration due to gravity doesn't and vice versa. No correlation = no theory.
The more I think about this, the more examples there seem to be that contradict what you suggest.
I know that the pressure varies day by day to the extent of about 10%I know that the force of gravity does not.I also know that I can measure the force of gravity at the equator and I can measure the force of gravity at the poles. If I am prepared to sit around waiting for the natural variation in air pressures then I can measure the force of gravity in different places but at the same air pressure. This force varies in exactly the way I would expect with latitude and altitude.It does not vary ( at any given location) with air pressure.How is it possible that something that changes (like air pressure) can be responsible for something that stays the same ( like gravity)Also how come something that is the same (Air pressure when its some particular measured value like 760mmHg) be responsible for something that varies (like gravity at the poles or the equator)
Heavy air molecules are at the bottom and above that are lighter/thinner air molecules, and at the top is pure helium, then pure hydrogen, then virtually nothing but individual molecules “bleeding” into space. Every one of the “spheres”, from the troposphere on up, get lighter, and they follow upward successively in lightness and thin-ness, all the way up to where the atmosphere “ends”.
Pascal’s law is about pressures that exceed fluid and/or atmospheric pressure
Heavy air molecules are at the bottom and above that are lighter/thinner air molecules, and at the top is pure helium, then pure hydrogen, then virtually nothing but individual molecules “bleeding” into space.
Come on, Batroost. Your example is a red herring, and I suspect that you know it. Are you testing me?
You’re still thinking that I’m saying that air “pushes” things down?
We can cite individually designed systems until the cows come home, but my theory is about gravity in matter in atmospheres and vacuums, etc.
In the "earth's atmosphere" part of my theory, everyone seems to keep demanding I must match and explain its workings at every global location’s elevation, weather condition, price of coffee, local hair style, etc. It looks like I’ll be dead long before we get down to the serious consideration that there is a larger fundamental theory here, that everyone is bypassing in an effort to defend traditional scientific “dogma”. If I’m wrong, I will learn that I’m wrong, (and I will learn from that) eventually, but I’m humbly asking anyone to help me finalize this
The pressure thing across doors can be a real issue even in a much less effectively sealed building. I work in a chemistry lab, with 22 fume hood extractors running full time and lowering the pressure in the lab. We have active pumps moving air back into the lab, but when these shut down for maintenance several things happen:- All the flow alarms go off... the pressure indoors is too low for the extrctors to work against effectively.- Any open windows produce a howling draft, taking anything not nailed down off the worksurface and onto the floor.- Last time it happened I and the other girls couldn't get the door open against the pressure in the corridor (in my defence my arm was in plaster at the time) and we had to get one of the guys to push it really hard and then hold it until we were ready to let it slam.No real relevance to topic, but it was quite striking at the time.
Quote from: Batroost on 10/05/2007 19:01:24Greetings to Canada! I think what we need (to get past this one) is a definitive answer to the question:(1) Do you believe that the acceleration that we attribute to gravity is actually caused by the presence of air?And if the answer to (1) is 'Yes' then(2) Why is it that we can all think of examples where there appears to be no correlation with the amount of air/air pressure and measured values of this acceleration?Does that help us to move forward? I realise that you may see this as a distraction from a fundamental idea but if we (having mis-understood) think we see a conclusion that is at odds with observed evidence then we are unlikely to accept how that conclusion was reached. Hi Batroost;I think I've said it before, but this time, I think I can best explain this if the air is "still".Even the jet stream is far away on this day, (North or South of our sample study.)The day is still, and the air all the way up to the Karman Line (62 miles), is not moving. The area of each face of the 1 cubic inch falling object is 1 square inch. It weighs 1 Lb.Now look at the column in which it is falling as a "soft closed vessel" of one sq. in. I.D.I call it a "(soft)closed vessel" because every other sq. in. I.D. column surrounding our example column is also one sq. inch I.D., and all contain the same gas "mix' for their strata level. This is to say that there is nothing special or distinct about the "column in which our sample will drop.They are all close enough together, that on a still day, all sq. in. I.D. columns are "soft closed vessels". (I realize they are not actually “closed” to anything. This is for envisioning my concept.)Our 1 Lb. object drops from the "Karman Line"/edge of space.(see Wiki)All strata (gas) layers extend flatly identically at their own altitudes in all directions.Our sample object is dropped from the Karman Line at 32 fps, then 32fps/sec. etc.Its 1 Lb. weight falls upon and displaces one cubic inch at a time, which "bends" the soft adjacent cubic inch "walls".As each succeeding soft cubic inch bends, its air content is bypassed and fills the void created behind the falling object.As the object passes, the original atmospheric weight from there up is restored to what it was in its column.All bypassed cubic inches return to normal, but the "ripple action" continues all the way down to sea level.All the way down, the 1 Lb. cubic inch object is leaving in its wake an increasing atmospheric burden behind it.Splash! At sea level, the object hits and sinks into the water, and the atmosphere behind it, in its columnar wake, is 14.7 PSI at the surface once again.Up until the splash, the content of the total weight in that column was not 14.7, but 15.7 PSI. After the splash, it went back to 14.7 PSI, without the object's 1 Lb. weight.The air did not "cause" the cube to accelerate. The air moved aside to let the solid mass have its way, and then the air returned to its continuously/temporarily "borrowed" space.Now, here's where I always seem to run into all the objections. Could I ask how you would describe what just happened?Well, Sir; I'm asking what you and others think, assuming you will agree to think in terms of the example I expressed, by remembering that science "created" a Datum area and weight to satisfy a globally comparative need for a baseline. I am simply rising up from that "any one spot" in a vertical column of the appropriate size, and creating its "Datum column", to be used for comparison(s).What do you think?Thanks Batroost and other friends.fleep
Greetings to Canada! I think what we need (to get past this one) is a definitive answer to the question:(1) Do you believe that the acceleration that we attribute to gravity is actually caused by the presence of air?And if the answer to (1) is 'Yes' then(2) Why is it that we can all think of examples where there appears to be no correlation with the amount of air/air pressure and measured values of this acceleration?Does that help us to move forward? I realise that you may see this as a distraction from a fundamental idea but if we (having mis-understood) think we see a conclusion that is at odds with observed evidence then we are unlikely to accept how that conclusion was reached.
Our sample object is dropped from the Karman Line at 32 fps, then 32fps/sec. etc.
All the way down, the 1 Lb. cubic inch object is leaving in its wake an increasing atmospheric burden behind it.Splash! At sea level, the object hits and sinks into the water, and the atmosphere behind it, in its columnar wake, is 14.7 PSI at the surface once again.Up until the splash, the content of the total weight in that column was not 14.7, but 15.7 PSI. After the splash, it went back to 14.7 PSI, without the object's 1 Lb. weight.
That's a very elegant description. Thank you for putting things so clearly.As a model (thought-experiment) I was mostly happy with what you were saying.
One small 'glitch' would be the statement:“Our sample object is dropped from the Karman Line at 32 fps, then 32fps/sec. etc.”Actually, if the object is 'dropped' rather than pushed downwards it starts from rest (not 32 fps) - this may have been what you meant? - and accelerates downwards.
I'm happy that your description of columns of air is one way of thinking of what's going on - this is not dissimilar to the approach of 'ensembles' in statistical mechanics. Also, if all you do is assume that this is an 'average day' then of course there is no reason why you shouldn't assume that we have an 'average' 14.7 psi at sea level. If this is all you use average values for then there is no disagreement.
Where I would challenge you is that I think, possibly, you are taking your model of columns a little too far with the bit about the 15.7 PSI.
We seem to be converging in our views a bit?
My theory has never had anything but resistance before, but your many intelligent challenges are what make a well educated man a real teacher. I think you have taught me a great deal.)Is it time for me to thank you and others for helping me through a very tough part of my whole theory, and may I now try to connect all the other ‘dots”? fleep
Fleep and paul.fr,Fleep - if you wish to explain further how you join the dots then I would be interested to see it. If you'd rather put your thoughts in order and save it for a later day then of course I'd understand.Batroost