The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Atmospheric pressure and its effect  (Read 57729 times)

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« on: 21/04/2007 15:17:46 »
Hi. I'm new around here.

It seems odd, that if gravity is a “force” which supposedly attracts matter, that when something falls through the atmosphere, and/or through the water, the fall (or sink) velocity increases at a rate that is globally uniform. Magnetism, as an “attractor”, between masses, is not as plausible, in this opinion.

Every element is different, and almost no natural elements are magnetic. It seems like there should be something besides mass/ weight/magnetism that would account for the global uniformity of rates of falling speed. Is it not more logical, that a reliable factor like overhead atmospheric pressure would be the influential factor? Acceleration by overhead and gradually increasing downward pressure seems like a far more responsible agent of rising velocity.

I have a gravity theory about this, if there is any interest.

I also have to keep wondering why, in what must be billions of years, Janus and Prometheus, two of Saturn’s moons, have never attracted each other and collided, when they are but a short distance apart whenever they trade orbits.


 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #1 on: 21/04/2007 15:25:54 »
Those are good questions, someone will come soon and reply I hope.

I wanted to welcome you to the forum and thank you for your participation here.. Any questions feel free to ask! We will do our best to answer them..
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #2 on: 21/04/2007 16:08:24 »
Firstly, it is not strictly true that almost no elements are magnetic - what is true is that most elements are not magnetic on a large scale (i.e. all the little bits of magnetism do not line up to form one big magnet, but simply cancel themselves out, so we cannot see the magnetism on a large scale).

Secondly, if the downward force of an object was down to atmospheric pressure, it should not exist within a vacuum chamber (i.e. things should be able to float simply by being placed in a vacuum chamber, while still remaining on this Earth - this simply does not happen).

Thirdly, if solids were forced down by air pressure, then an object with greater surface area should fall faster.  In fact the opposite is true, an object with a larger surface area actually falls slower through air, because the aerodynamic drag on the object is actually greater.  Simply drop a flat sheet of paper, and thendrop the same piece of paper scrunched up into a ball - the ball of paper will fall faster, showing that the air is resisting the fall rather than providing the force for it.
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #3 on: 21/04/2007 19:57:48 »

Hi. Thanks for the input. I don't profess to be exactly or always right, so questions and disputes are wlcome. My responses are between your points made, as below.

Firstly, it is not strictly true that almost no elements are magnetic - what is true is that most elements are not magnetic on a large scale (i.e. all the little bits of magnetism do not line up to form one big magnet, but simply cancel themselves out, so we cannot see the magnetism on a large scale).

O.K. I won't argue this, but what about the Janus and Prometheus example? There has been a considerable amount of time for attraction to have caused a collision there.

======================================================
Secondly, if the downward force of an object was down to atmospheric pressure, it should not exist within a vacuum chamber (i.e. things should be able to float simply by being placed in a vacuum chamber, while still remaining on this Earth - this simply does not happen).

Secondly -

The shuttle leaves our atmosphere and goes into the vacuum. The ship has no realization of where it is, of course, or of what is going on.

The ship and everything in it, (discounting fuel consumed), is now exactly the same as it was on the tarmac. Everything had gravity in it, and it still does. The ship is pressurized with the same volume as it was sealed on the tarmac. Everything is exactly the same, until the crew removes their seat belts and begins to float in the artificial atmosphere of the ship.
Back on Earth, they were able to walk to those seats. What just happened here? Why are people floating around?

The ship is sealed with pressure that artificially approximates our atmosphere.
The ship carried away everything that it contained when it was on the tarmac.
The Earth’s gravity is still inside the people and everything else in the ship.
The ship can not “know” when it is falling through space.
There is no friction in space, or any way to physically measure the velocity of the fall.
There is no “concept” of time or motion that the ship can “know”.
The ship does not even “know” that it has left the Earth, or is in a vacuum.
So, why are the unchanged people, in an unchanged ship, floating in the air?

Science ascribes falling through the vacuum of space as a cause of “weightlessness”, but the word itself is only a description of the event. I think that the cause of floating is this:

On the Earth, the crew was surrounded by, and sitting under an overhead atmospheric pressure. The pressure chamber of the atmosphere had a “floor”, which was the Earth itself.  In the ship, they are now surrounded by a like rate of pressure, but not in a like chamber of pressure. The pressure is fairly identical, and is coming from every direction all over their bodies, but, it is a pressure that has been given no “orders”. It surrounds the floating crew, with no physical reason, no definable direction, and no identifiable “surface” upon which the pressure is “instructed to set people down”. The pressure has no “floor”, so stuff floats in the air.

 A real atmosphere like the one on the Earth, weighs downwards from overhead, and it “knows” where matter with gravity in it “belongs”. The bottom 3.5 miles contains half of the entire weight of the atmosphere, effectively, “trapped against the surface of the planet”. The other half of the atmosphere’s weight is spread out for many tens of miles above the bottom 50%, all the way out to the vacuum.
It is then, a natural rule of physics that masses throughout the atmosphere have gravity, and they have pressure above and around them, in the very same way that the lower atmosphere does. The atmosphere has weight, so it presses down globally upon the planet It would be illogical to say that the atmosphere, which is made of “matter”, is being “pressed downwards”, but a bird that is also made of matter, while gliding through that material atmosphere, is said to be “pulled downwards”, (according to Newton’s theory).

The bird is supported aloft by aeronautic principles and physical design. All unsupported weight simply falls through atmosphere, in the same way that it falls through space. Gravity is neither “pulling” nor “pushing” downwards. In my theory, it is inert and benign. It is a property of matter. Gravity just falls.

We calculate barometric pressure from an overhead column of atmospheric weight, not from a downward pulling force. What we personally weigh is the sum total of all the atomic weights that comprise our individual bodies. There is nothing “pulling us down”. Every atom within our bodies is a “closed vessel”, and they all actually qualify us to be governed by Pascal’s Law. Acceleration related to falling simply has to be from the downward increase in pressure above a falling object.

So where does this notion come from, that gravity “pulls us down”? Sir Isaac Newton theorized it late in the 17th century. It was a theory then, and remains widely taught today, even in the face of the obvious evidence to the contrary.

Early in the 20th century, Einstein predicted we might someday find a “Cosmological Constant” in the universe. He was proven correct when it was discovered in 2005 by the Supernova Legacy Team, under the leadership of Dr. Ray Carlberg. The phenomenon is actually a “negative pressure” that exists throughout the cosmos, permeating everything; whether matter or vacuum. Some call it “dark energy”. The old gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton then, back in 1687, was postulated without any knowledge of this critically important new factor, establishing the real possibility that the gravity portion of his theory is incorrect. (It now seems fairly obvious that gravity is not a “force” at all.) Benign matter simply “falls”, whether in the atmosphere, or in the vacuum.


Equilibrium between pressures:

Newton’s 3rd Law of motion states: “For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.”
While he is correct in this law, and has long been proven to be so, gravity seems not a “force” that emanates from mass as Newton theorized elsewhere. Any mass that is balanced under Newton’s 3rd Law has gravity within it, but the positive (atmospheric pressure) force pushes globally inwards on the nucleus, and the negative pressure of the cosmos, as a reverse force, “neutralizes that inward pressure”. The availability of both pressures forms a “force cancellation” which is thereby contained as a “closed vessel”, thus fulfilling both Newton’s 3rd and Pascal’s Law, and "creating" gravity. (In my theory).

The word “gravity” (itself), within a material object, should really be a statement that the mass is inert and stable. I believe that all matter in the universe can only be either in equilibrium, (as it is within an atmosphere), or else in some stage of “unbalance”, (as it is within the vacuum of space). Globular masses are “filled” with gravity, and thus are “closed vessels” within the context of Pascal’s Law and Newton’s 3rd Law.

We should have a combination of Pascal’s Law, and Newton’s 3rd Law, and the liberty is taken here to combine both laws and express it in this new way:

“Pascal-Newton Pressure Law” (PNPL):

“A positive atmospheric pressure exerted towards the core of a mass, is cancelled by an equivalent negative pressure exerting back to the positive boundary, creating a closed and pressure-balanced vessel.”
====================================================

Thirdly, if solids were forced down by air pressure, then an object with greater surface area should fall faster.  In fact the opposite is true, an object with a larger surface area actually falls slower through air, because the aerodynamic drag on the object is actually greater.  Simply drop a flat sheet of paper, and thendrop the same piece of paper scrunched up into a ball - the ball of paper will fall faster, showing that the air is resisting the fall rather than providing the force for it.
=====================================================

Thirdly - Of course you are correct about atmospheric drag. It will be a natural effect that I have not mentioned, because it's taken for granted.

That's my reply for now.
 

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #4 on: 21/04/2007 21:28:46 »
I think there are a few inconsistencies in what you say:

-Why would a gas have 'weight' and so be stuck tho the planet but a solid would only fall due to the atmospheric pressure? This idea that every object has intrinsic properties, and only behaves according to those properties, is what Aristotle taught. Early scientists such as Galileo were able to prove that this is simply not the case.
 
- What about gravity on the Moon. The astronauts found it behaved just like on Earth, at abount 1/6 of the strength despite there being no atmosphere?

Quote
On the Earth, the crew was surrounded by, and sitting under an overhead atmospheric pressure. The pressure chamber of the atmosphere had a “floor”, which was the Earth itself.  In the ship, they are now surrounded by a like rate of pressure, but not in a like chamber of pressure. The pressure is fairly identical, and is coming from every direction all over their bodies, but, it is a pressure that has been given no “orders”. It surrounds the floating crew, with no physical reason, no definable direction, and no identifiable “surface” upon which the pressure is “instructed to set people down”. The pressure has no “floor”, so stuff floats in the air.

You seem to be ascribing some consciouness - or at least ability to follow instructions - to the air molecules. There is no need for such a metaphysical  explanation. The astronauts and the shuttle and everything in it are in 'free fall'. What this means is that each object is separately in orbit around the earth, so relative to each other they appear to 'float'. All being 'in orbit' means is that you are travelling fast enough that the rate at which you are being accelerated towards the earth is exactly matched by the curvature of the earth -you're falling towards it but it keeps moving out of the way! Nothing on the shuttle (except the pilot?) knows it is in orbit, an orbit is simply a natural consequence of moving fast.

Atmospheric Pressure acts equally in all directions on earth as well as in a sealed space shuttle. There is no net force pushing you down from the atmosphere around you. Bear in mind that the pressure at the surface of the earth is ~100kPa or about 10tonnes per square meter. If this were acting on only one side of your body, or on the top of your head it'd be pretty uncomfortable!!! Another example, take a wet plunger and stick it to a smooth overhead surface. It'll stay there. This is because atmospheric pressure is holding it up.

Janus/Prometheus - think of this as meta-stable. They'll go on for thousands of orbits like this but sooner or later one of them is going to get perturbed by the gravitational attraction of another body at just the wrong time. You'll either get a collison or an escape. I've seen something similar suggested for Earth/Venus in a few thousand million orbits...

Try this little thought experiment:

You know what an intertial accelerarometer is? A weight in the middle of a tube with a spring connecting it either end of the tube. As you accelerate forwards holding this device (perhaps in a car) the weight moves backwards - to your point of view - in other words, in the opposite direction to the acceleration and the force that cause it. You see an identical effect if instead of a car you're sitting in a spaceship with the engines running. This is the same thing that makes you feel you are being pushed back in your seat as a car speeds-up.

Now the clever bit... turn your acceloremter through 90 degrees so that it is vertical. Where does the weight go? It moves downards - yep, that means that it is being accelerated upwards. HEADLINE NEWS - the acceleration due to gravity seems to be UP not DOWN!

The trick is to remember that you are holding the weight and you are stood on the ground. The ground is pushing up at your feet at exactly the rate required to stop you accelerating downards under the 'force' of gravity - that is you aren't sinking into the floor - and it is this force/acceleration that the accelerometer is mneasuring. If you take the same device and drop out of an airplane it will (at least initially) stay dead-centre, as both you and it would be behaving 'naturally' in Earth's gravitational field i.e. accelerating at about 10m/s2. You would get an identical result falling in a vertical vacuum tube - the Germans tried this a couple of years ago to see what shape a candle flame would be in freefall!

Your combination of Pascals/Newtons ideas is novel but unnecessary. Mechanics, including gravity, orbits, gases, pressures, is already a self-consistent model that works without trying to add this sort of complication. There may well be minor flaws in the model - such as the precession of the orbit of mercury, that only gets resolved by General Relativety - but its easier to wait until you find one before you seek an alternative explanation.

Having said that, I remember when I studied chemistry we played around with a 'model' involvimg insects (electrons) and flowers (atoms) - with a bit of imagination you could 'explain' almost all of chemistry!
 

lyner

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #5 on: 21/04/2007 22:53:39 »
Until one has understood, thoroughly, the received wisdom  of established, classical, Physics, and Mechanics it is unwise to invent new systems of explanation for common phenomena.
Newton has served us well for a long time and allows us to predict more or less all large scale events.  Rigour is the watchword.
There are very few 'modern' physicists who would disagree with his equations. They WORK and explanations, using newtonian physics are remarkably self consistent. 
Only when your have something approaching the smartness and education of an Einstein can you avoid falling on your face trying to introduce new theories - even though they can be fun to toy with.
Try to read some more good Science books and follow basic rules. If you don't, you are at the mercy of salesmen who will sell you snake oil and perpetual motion machines.
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #6 on: 22/04/2007 18:25:33 »
Hi Batroost;

Thanks for the input.

I like to remember that this is a forum, and all ideas and new theories are sacred to their owners. I appreciate that you also understand this, and won’t go recommending books for me to read, and courses that I should take. I won’t debate with people that don’t contest my content. They have their minds molded to the status-quo.
 I’m walking out into the cold wind of an academic system that has its mind set on the hierarchical world they have constructed on old theories that remain “theories” to this very day When will they ever declare them to be “laws, and not “theories” anymore?” That will happen when there are no more logical questions to be answered for inquisitive minds like ours. (For one simple example, have a look at):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_universal_gravitation
(Problems with Newton)

O.K. let’s go. I’m in red, and you’re in black.
-

Why would a gas have 'weight' and so be stuck to the planet but a solid would only fall due to the atmospheric pressure? This idea that every object has intrinsic properties, and only behaves according to those properties, is what Aristotle taught. Early scientists such as Galileo were able to prove that this is simply not the case.

All atmospheric gases have atomic weight, like all other matter. It’s real “weight”, whose total burden makes it possible to state the pressure beneath it in PSI, which is an expression of weight upon a given area. Nothing except vacuum has no weight at all. Molecules of gases of various weights float around in the atmosphere just like tiny bits of debris float around in the living waters of the planet. They don’t all sink because there is atmospheric wind and pressure front movements. The necessary “breathable gases” are spread liberally through the Troposphere where they are required to sustain life.
Gases are not “stuck” to the Earth, but are in ascending “bands” like the troposphere, etc. Their combined atomic weights total 5000 trillion metric tons; i.e. – the weight of all thegases of the atmosphere.
 Hydrogen and Helium stay at the topof the atmosphere, because they are lightest, just like silt sits on sand in the water, because it’s lighter than the sand, but all the zones of the atmosphere are in effect “in orbits of relative densities” around the planet. The ocean currents too, in their separate erratic patterns caused by land mass blockages, are also “in orbit” around our planet.

 
What about gravity on the Moon. The astronauts found it behaved just like on Earth, at about 1/6 of the strength despite there being no atmosphere?

That requires a separate analysis. Let’s get past the Earth atmosphere and the shuttle atmosphere first.

On the Earth, the crew was surrounded by, and sitting under an overhead atmospheric pressure. The pressure chamber of the atmosphere had a “floor”, which was the Earth itself.  In the ship, they are now surrounded by a like rate of pressure, but not in a like chamber of pressure. The pressure is fairly identical, and is coming from every direction all over their bodies, but, it is a pressure that has been given no “orders”. It surrounds the floating crew, with no physical reason, no definable direction, and no identifiable “surface” upon which the pressure is “instructed to set people down”. The pressure has no “floor”, so stuff floats in the air.


You seem to be ascribing some consciousness - or at least ability to follow instructions - to the air molecules. There is no need for such a metaphysical  explanation. The astronauts and the shuttle and everything in it are in 'free fall'. What this means is that each object is separately in orbit around the earth, so relative to each other they appear to 'float'. All being 'in orbit' means is that you are travelling fast enough that the rate at which you are being accelerated towards the earth is exactly matched by the curvature of the earth -you're falling towards it but it keeps moving out of the way! Nothing on the shuttle (except the pilot?) knows it is in orbit, an orbit is simply a natural consequence of moving fast.

If you understand hydraulics, you will realize that pressure is a “force-command”. The molecules do what they are “pressured to do”. I know what “free-fall” means, but it is the ship which is in that state of motion. The people inside are not in “free-fall”. They are floating because the surrounding cabin pressure doesn’t have a “floor” to put them down upon, (unlike the Earth, where the surface is the “floor”.

Pascal’s Law says that “Pressure exerted on a “fluid” in a closed vessel is transmitted undiminished in all directions, with equal force on all equal surfaces, and at right angles to them.”
Draw the rocket, and point arrows out at all the walls, all the way around inside it. Now draw arrows around a couple of (drawn) people floating in the artificial atmosphere of the ship. The people are not falling in the ship; they are floating. Apollo 13 wasn’t in orbit around the Earth. It went outwards from the Earth and circled the moon. They floated around in it, just like what happens when a ship orbits the Earth. There goes the “orbiting people” theory.


Atmospheric Pressure acts equally in all directions on earth as well as in a sealed space shuttle. There is no net force pushing you down from the atmosphere around you. Bear in mind that the pressure at the surface of the earth is ~100kPa or about 10tonnes per square meter. If this were acting on only one side of your body, or on the top of your head it'd be pretty uncomfortable!!! Another example, take a wet plunger and stick it to a smooth overhead surface. It'll stay there. This is because atmospheric pressure is holding it up.

I didn’t say there was a net force “pushing us down”. I said that our gravity, (as a property of every one of our atoms), is holding us down. It’s only (non-gaseous) weight that holds everything down. As for the surrounding pressure around us, have you forgotten that the mandatory equal and opposite reaction of every molecular movement in the atmosphere is in effect at the same time? Newton’s 3rd Law prevents our being crushed by a one-way constant downward atmospheric pressure upon us.

Janus/Prometheus - think of this as meta-stable. They'll go on for thousands of orbits like this but sooner or later one of them is going to get perturbed by the gravitational attraction of another body at just the wrong time. You'll either get a collision or an escape. I've seen something similar suggested for Earth/Venus in a few thousand million orbits.

This is unsubstantiated conjecture. I stick with my question about this non-Newtonian anomaly. I think your “plunger and inertial accelerometer” examples should be re-examined too, after you prepare your arguments against what I’m explaining from my own mental perspectives.

Your ball, my friend…..

fleep
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #7 on: 23/04/2007 17:42:55 »
Hi Batroost;

Here's my answer to your, "astronauts walking on the moon, where there is no atmosphere" question.

When an astronaut is standing on the moon, which has no atmosphere, he is wearing a suit which does have an imported atmosphere. He has gravity within his body, which he also imported from the earth, so he has weight. Weight within the atmosphere in his suit is like weight within our own atmosphere, so the suit allows his gravity, and thus his weight, to make him fall back to the surface of the moon when he strides along the moon surface. This shows that gravity inside an atmosphere anywhere, is an atmospheric weight, which will remain against a “floor’, if one is available. Weight always falls. The guy has gravity, which “is” weight, (because gravity is a property of matter in my theory), and so do the gases that he is kept alive in.

Gravity/weight falls through a vacuum, if the astronaut is spacewalking. There is no atmosphere around him, and the ship is falling, so he can not stand on it, but the moon is not “falling”. It is in stable orbit beneath him, but the gravity in his body must weigh down towards the bottom through the atmosphere in his suit, so his boots keep returning to the ground when he jumps along. This logic is consistant with what I've said so far, I believe.

Waiting patiently for your arguments please. I overlook questions that my theory creates sometimes, so if you have any beefs, please let me know.

Thanks

Fleep
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #8 on: 23/04/2007 18:38:23 »
I'm reading the above but i'm still very confused .
So your saying things only stick to the surface of the moon or the earth if they have an atmosphere pushing down on them or if they contain an imported atmosphere like your moon example.

So why does anything stick to the moon, why is the moon covered in dust or more importantly when the astronauts kicked up dust on the moon why did it fall back down to the surface.

Why does a block of lead weigh more than a block of alluminium.
« Last Edit: 23/04/2007 18:53:07 by ukmicky »
 

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #9 on: 23/04/2007 19:09:48 »
Quite a construction fleep...

As a Physicist I'm taught to look for simple explanations. My advice is to look hard at what you've written and compare it with classical mechanics. Occam's razor would suggest that your constructions, like the pre-copernican/pre-keplerian proposed epicycles, is so complicated it feels wrong even before a detailed analysis.

btw: Astronatuts on Apollo 10, 11, 12, 13 etc.. heading out to the moon were also in free fall. Study the maths!

Examples where your arguments are inconsistent/incompelete:

When the astronauts on the moon dropped a golf ball - outside their pressure suits - it fell towards the moon.

When a satellite orbits teh earth it has no atmospehere but carries on orbiting - if graivity is tied-up with air pressure why woudl it do this? Why would the Moon's of Mars carry on in their orbits?

Quote
because gravity is a property of matter in my theory

Absolutely. This isn't new. Einstien claimed that intertial mass and gravitational mass were indistinguishable and (so far) no-one ha sfound any evdience to suggest otherwise - though people do look. But if you're saying this why bring the atmosphere into this at all? Why not just accept that gravity comes from matter?

Another example: Sealed containers; try a pressurised aircraft, it is possible to make these airtight, or a bathesphere in the ocean. In neither will you find yourself weightless - it is the orbital (closed or open) free-fall nature of the shuttle's motion that gives the experience of weightlessness.

Quote
This is unsubstantiated conjecture

Only in the sense that any computer model of three-(or upwards)-body problems is conjecture. But it's the best we've got (apart from watching what happens).

Quote
Your ball, my friend…..

I'd suggest, friend, that the onus was on you to disprove Newton. Whilst you have provided an alternative (albeit complex) explanation, I've yet to see anything that makes me doubt Isaac and subscribe to fleep.
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #10 on: 24/04/2007 13:20:02 »
To Ukmicky and Batroost;

Thanks for your input. Before I back up and reassemble the whole theory more briefly, I thank you for your criticisms. I made a mistake in bringing up the atmospheric consideration (in the suit)on the moon. This quickly thought-out explanation took me off my own logic track, and now I have to reconsider that part.
I am still convinced of most of what I've said about the earth's atmosphere and what goes on in the vacuum.
What I must re-think is what is going on with the surface of bodies in the vacuum that have no atmosphere. It's still a work in progress.
I have come to this point over 12 years of whittling away the traditional hyerarchichal beliefs and covenient mathematics that were created to support old anomalies in Newton and the rest. I make no apologies for thinking in my own way. That's how one of two things could happen, as with any complex study.
I will either become a believer, or I will raise an important possibility, hopefully before I die. I'm 65 now, and most of my accomplishments were in the steel industry. I retired as a Product Metallurgist, so I have a lot of experience in related chemistry and its workings. I worked in hydraulics for twelve years of my working life as well.
Please don't think I'm bragging. I am not a physicist and I never will be, but I'm not completely "unequipped" to think. Thanks for your patience.

fleep

 

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #11 on: 24/04/2007 18:04:50 »
Quote
I'm 65 now, and most of my accomplishments were in the steel industry. I retired as a Product Metallurgist, so I have a lot of experience in related chemistry and its workings. I worked in hydraulics for twelve years of my working life as well.

Thanks for the info.  Although forums like this can be tremendously enlightening - seeing how other people view things you thought you understood! - you always run the risk of alienating others. In particular, it's sometimes difficult to tell the difference between someone who's thought very carefully about what they are saying (and in consequence come up with something that is way-outside your own world view) and, in contrast a young poster who's picked-up one or two 'facts' and strung them together with no thought - or (as I sometimes supsect) simply to cause controversy.

No offence was intended. I am concerned that it is easy for someone (like me) with a tradiotional physics background to see an alternative theory as either necessary or credible. Though often I find that where I disagree strongly it's simply due to a difference in language i.e. I interepret the words one way and the original poster meant something very different.

With this particualr thread I'm still in the "I can't see the problem" box - Newton; refined by relativety, seems fine to me. I suppose I need to see a concrete example where the current explanations don't work.
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #12 on: 26/04/2007 15:43:47 »
Hi to Batroost, Ukmicky, (and any others who wish to participate:)

Here begins the whole re-expression of my theory:

Excuse me please for saying so, but I believe that the “basic processes” of the universe deserve to be examined from perspectives that might have never been considered before. I claim no special authority, but if I would like to be taken seriously in the slightest way, this theory must be as explicit as it can be expressed. Perhaps it can best be quashed at this fundamental level if it earns no higher consideration, which I am ready to admit, it might not. I only submit this thinking for a learned consideration, and I thank even those who will attack the logic. I too, am still trying to learn what truth is.
===============================================================

The weight of our atmosphere exerts a constant 14.7 pounds of pressure on every square inch of the human body, from every direction. We would be crushed if there was no equal and opposite (Newton’s 3rd Law) constant reaction to this external pressure. That reaction must originate from the very composite atoms of the body itself.

The body consists of an uncountable number of atoms, and each of their vibrating actions must have an equal and opposite reaction. Atmospheric pressure is expressed in weight over area, (as in PSI - pounds/sq. inch), so it seems logical that their collective reactions, possibly in relationship to the total external area of the body’s total mass, would automatically create a 3rd law reaction for the entire body; otherwise there would be a pressure imbalance within a human body. This reaction would have to be a constant formula that works in every human mass, regardless of its surface area, volume or density. Surface area, after all, is a definer of the contents of a closed vessel, such as a human body. A hydraulic tank’s containment volume is then, a partner in the effect of the applied pressure of the system. The fluid is the “source” of the equal and opposite reaction of the piston within the cylinder. Pascal’s law is very clear:

“Pressure exerted on a fluid in a closed vessel, is transmitted undiminished in all directions, with equal force on all equal surfaces, and at right angles to them.”

Without yet needing to consider the role of the electron clouds, every atom has a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. A proton is a sustained positive pressure, leaving the (pressure-neutral) neutron, without a role to perform.

The Supernova Legacy team discovered in 2005, that the entire universe is filled with negative pressure, (N.P.), which works (perhaps), rather like the “operating platform” of a computer. It was a confirmation that Einstein’s theory of a “Cosmological Constant” is a reality. It is what was once called “Dark Energy”, by all who were seeking to find such a thing out there. (Newton knew nothing of N.P. of course, since it was found in 2005.)

Everything in the universe is “adjacent” to negative pressure that simply must have a role to play, in association with matter. It fills the entire void (vacuum) of the universe as “dark energy”, and this is where the theory portion of this writing begins.

When N.P. comes in contact with matter, it unites within neutrons as an invisible, unreadable (being negative), pressure that balances the positivism of the proton. The net product of that union of pressures (in my theory) would be an atomic (neutron/proton) pressure balance which I believe to be what we call “gravity”. This 3rd Law simplicity of function would mean that an atom is benign, and in no way could exert a force of any kind. All that gravity would do in matter is to impart the “ability” to express the weight of its mass.

So, what would be the role of that gravity? It seems logical that this inert property called gravity would have no role to play out in the vacuum of space, because all that happens there is that that every body without a controlled “role”, such as an orbit, can do nothing but fall through the friction-free vacuum. This would seem to signify that if the open vacuum is only filled with (unused) negative pressure, then an orbiting process must operate according to an unrelated “command/process” that has no relationship with the construction rules of matter itself. That is to say, that the composition of matter has one set of rules, and “controlled motion”, such as orbiting, is derived from another process that we have not yet come to understand. The “orbiting process” would involve the movement of mass that apparently involves both controlled attraction and controlled repulsion, since once again, the 3rd Law must be in play.

By separating the roles in which matter is constructed and “operates” and orbiting processes are “controlled”, we allow ourselves to seek the independent means by which the two might be related or unrelated. An orbit seems to follow a universal set of “natural” rules, while any other pathway that we have created with our rocket ships, can not be claimed as ‘natural”. It does not seem to follow that both pathways would guarantee the same effects. That is to say, that the contents of a rocket ship might behave in one way if the ship is within a “controlled” orbit, but need not be expected to act in the same way when, (e.g.), the ship is “commanded” into a “man-made orbit” which is designed to “sling” a rocket ship around the moon, and back towards the earth. This is a “non-natural orbit”.

The fact that the contents react the same way in either circumstance, on the other hand, is almost absolute evidence that there are no natural rules for the anomaly. The contents of the ship will float in the artificial atmosphere of the ship in either (real or man-made)orbital case, because the closed pressurized vessel, in which they are contained, has no “floor’ upon which to set them down. The impression that internal masses are falling through space is not necessarily absolutely correct. The ship is falling through space. The passengers are simply riding inside an enclosed volume of surrounding pressure. They are not falling at all, but floating around in an enclosed atmospheric environment that traditionally and naturally seeks a “floor” upon which matter should drop. They are experiencing the internal 3rd Law reaction as explained earlier, but their atmosphere does not “know” where to set its gravity-laden masses down since no “atmospheric floor” is “specified” within the surrounding pressure. Even without an atmosphere, any gravity-laden body out there must still be a "floor". If something lands on, or crashes into it, why would the gravity of that new mass not just remain there, particularly if the affected mass is in a controlled orbit? gravity is weight, so when a falling mass finds a "floor", there seems no logical reason for it to fall off again into space.

There is no natural situation in the universe (that I am aware of), to which a closed vessel containing an atmosphere can be compared, so my theory seems more credible to me, than something that the universe might never have encountered naturally, (before space travel was initiated.)
===============================================================

Before I go too far again, please consider what has been said and create your questions or arguments. I will attempt to defend myself, even while fully expecting that I might have missed something important once again. I will proceed from where the theory stands now, only with your agreement, or with the “permission” that an accepted answer to your (any) questions will resolve. Some questions might slow the process, and some might even end the whole theory. C’est la vie”.

I have not begun from scratch as a “new thread”, in case what has been said in earlier expressions of this theory must be returned for reference purposes.

I thank you for your challenges. That’s what keeps old folks feeling young again.

Best wishes;

fleep
 

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #13 on: 26/04/2007 19:59:32 »
Such a detailed post deserves a detailed answer:

Quote
That reaction must originate from the very composite atoms of the body itself.

Strictly No. The reaction comes from the stress you're putting on the bonding between molecules.

If you stand in a bath filled with atoms or molecules that are not bonded togerther you'd simply displace them and sink - perhaps liquid helium is your best bet as the intra-atomic forces are very low (only Van de Waals forces remain). If that hasn't given you cold feet ( [:0]) think of standing on a concrete floor. The reason you don't sink into the concrete is that the atoms in the concrete are so strongly held togeteher they won't move out of the way; and as your molecules/atoms are locked in a similar tight array and both sets are strongly electrically negative on the outside, you appear to be encountering a 'solid' surface. In other words, the illusion of solidity on a macroscopic scale is down to electrostatic forces between atoms that are constrained not to move by interatomic or molecular bonds.

Quote
The body consists of an uncountable number of atoms, and each of their vibrating actions must have an equal and opposite reaction.

You have to remember that macroscopic models break down once you get to the microscopic level. Classical (macroscopic) electromagnetic theory would have us believe that an electron would radiate away all of its energy as it orbited a nucleus. In reality this doesn't happen at all, and its one of the reasons why the simple orbiting electron model has to be abandoned - though of course it is still a useful model in chemistry.

Quote
Without yet needing to consider the role of the electron clouds, every atom has a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. A proton is a sustained positive pressure, leaving the (pressure-neutral) neutron, without a role to perform.

Nope you've lost me here :(. The protons and neutrons in a nuecleus are held together by a (pretty well quantified) nuclear attraction that is strong enough to overcome the mutual electrical repulsion of the protons. There are 'models' of this behaviour that look a bit like a fluid (e.g. Gamov's Liquid Drop model) but these are very much introductory learning tools/simplifications. There are many measureable properties of an atomic nucleaus that don't fit such a simple model. I can't see any reason/evidence to consider neutrons and protons to be exterting any kind of pressure on anything - surely this is pure invention on your part?

Quote
The Supernova Legacy team discovered in 2005, that the entire universe is filled with negative pressure, (N.P.), which works (perhaps), rather like the “operating platform” of a computer. It was a confirmation that Einstein’s theory of a “Cosmological Constant” is a reality. It is what was once called “Dark Energy”, by all who were seeking to find such a thing out there. (Newton knew nothing of N.P. of course, since it was found in 2005.)

I think the jury's still out on this 'discovery'. I'm not dismissing it as it's quite an attractive idea ;). I simply regard it as not yet proven - but I'm not an astrophysicist.

Quote
This 3rd Law simplicity of function would mean that an atom is benign, and in no way could exert a force of any kind.


This isn't bourne out by experiment. It's possible to see the force exterted by accelerated atoms on a target and/or the damage they cause.

Quote
It seems logical that this inert property called gravity would have no role to play out in the vacuum of space, because all that happens there is that that every body without a controlled “role”, such as an orbit, can do nothing but fall through the friction-free vacuum.

But how does this explain an 'open' orbit i.e. something moving past an object without being in a closed orbit. For example, the Voyager spacecraft's path was clearly affected by passage past Jupiter but they aren't coming back..?

Quote
That is to say, that the composition of matter has one set of rules, and “controlled motion”, such as orbiting, is derived from another process that we have not yet come to understand.


A trite answer would be "Occam's Razor?". I'm not going to use trite answers. Oops I just did! ::)

Quote
An orbit seems to follow a universal set of “natural” rules, while any other pathway that we have created with our rocket ships, can not be claimed as ‘natural”. It does not seem to follow that both pathways would guarantee the same effects.

A strong anthropocentric principle this one. As a Physicist (and, personally but not necessarily, an athiest) I can't accept this one. But that's a point of faith. Ah. Bugger!  >:( Anyway there are natural objects in open 'orbits'.

Quote
The contents of the ship will float in the artificial atmosphere of the ship in either (real or man-made) orbital case, because the closed pressurized vessel, in which they are contained, has no “floor’ upon which to set them down.


As they would in an evacuated ship. The air is irrelevant to weightlessness. And what about natural gas bubbles in meteors? They appear to follow 'natural' orbits?

Quote
If something lands on, or crashes into it, why would the gravity of that new mass not just remain there, particularly if the affected mass is in a controlled orbit? gravity is weight, so when a falling mass finds a "floor", there seems no logical reason for it to fall off again into space.

Because gravity is (roughly) 36 order of magnitude weaker  :o than the electromagnetic force! The only reason that gravity is 'everyday' for us is because the earth is so massive. There is a gravitational attraction between obejcts in a spaceship but this is tiny compared with, for example, the forces acting on teh objects from the air conditioning!

Fleep: - thanks for this. Nothing is more fun for a physicist than being asked difficult questions. It forces all of us to think in new ways about things we thought we understood. In this instance I think where you're going wrong is mixing properties of macroscopic matter (e.g. pressure) with those of microscopic matter. For the first newton/relativety works pretty well. For the second, quantum mechanics. Nope the two theories don't fit together everywhere but if you're looking for a mioddle ground perhaps an exploration into statistical thermodynamics might help? I seem to remember that Maxwell's statistical theory of gases is quite an eye opener; as long as you accept it is only a modelling tool.

Or put another way, people often describe the behaviour of electrons in a metal as a 'fluid'. Much of their behaviour does seem to fit this model but it can't, for example, explain how a zener diode works; this requires an understanding (or at least a belief in!) quantum tunneling.

Re-reading this post I can see that I've mixed macro/micro models myself in a few places. But that's just the nature of physics. You pick models up and use them where they are useful. If you get evidence that doesn't fit the model then tyou look for a model that it useful in different circumstances. That's not to say that either model is truly correct and, more importantly, you must be very careful not to use a model in an inappropriate place and expect to get the right answer.

Best wishes.



 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #14 on: 27/04/2007 17:58:24 »
Hi Batroost;

Your comments are in red. The quotes are mine that you took exception to.

Quote
That (3rd Law) reaction must originate from the very composite atoms of the body itself.

Strictly No. The reaction comes from the stress you're putting on the bonding between molecules.

Isn’t that conjectural? Is evidence available to show that a covalent or an ionic or any other kind of bond is under stress to separate? Bonds are bonds. Covalence even implies a cooperative bond, not a stressful attempt for the atoms to separate from their “love for each other”, does it not?

Quote
The body consists of an uncountable number of atoms, and each of their vibrating actions must have an equal and opposite reaction.

You have to remember that macroscopic models break down once you get to the microscopic level. Classical (macroscopic) electromagnetic theory would have us believe that an electron would radiate away all of its energy as it orbited a nucleus. In reality this doesn't happen at all, and its one of the reasons why the simple orbiting electron model has to be abandoned - though of course it is still a useful model in chemistry.
 
Pls look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_vibrations
There is nothing there which says that the bonds are “under stress”. They “deviate from their equilibrium positions”, but “stress”, which is an implication of possible bond failure, is not a possibility that is mentioned. My explanation has taken some of these factors into consideration, and that’s the reason why some of my explanations sometimes sound “elementary”.

Sorry Batroost, but I don’t understand your implication here. The vibrations are always present, and it is those never-ending vibrations that I see as the actions that need 3rd Law balancing, and achieve it in the way I have described. I’m sticking to that.

Quote
Without yet needing to consider the role of the electron clouds, every atom has a nucleus composed of neutrons and protons. A proton is a sustained positive pressure, leaving the (pressure-neutral) neutron, without a role to perform

Nope you've lost me here. The protons and neutrons in a nucleus are held together by a (pretty well quantified) nuclear attraction that is strong enough to overcome the mutual electrical repulsion of the protons. I can't see any reason/evidence to consider neutrons and protons to be exerting any kind of pressure on anything - surely this is pure invention on your part?

Exactly. It is part of my theory, which is an invention in a thought process, (like the current theory is), designed to explain something that may be a truth that has been disguised by tailor-made math that is created to compensate for something that may have not been adequately understood in the first place.The discovery of negative pressure has been an opportunity to re-think.

 Math has been used as a ‘fix’ for many such enigmas, and that’s how the whole hierarchical mess might have come to be. Nobody ever questions math that “works”, once it is set in place, as a “bandaid”, or a “bridge’ to get past a gap in our actual knowledge. I’m not insisting I’m right, just suggesting another theory. Don’t forget that please.

Quote
This 3rd Law simplicity of function would mean that an atom is benign, and in no way could exert a force of any kind.

This isn't born out by experiment. It's possible to see the force exerted by accelerated atoms on a target and/or the damage they cause.

Maybe I should not have said that “it” could not exert a force, but that gravity in an atom could not exert an (externally radiant) force at all. You are stating that an accelerated atom (if you mean as in a cyclotron), will cause damage, and being solid matter, I certainly agree that it will, upon impact. I am saying that it has no ability to do things like “control the tides”, because it is not acting outside of itself because an atom can not do this. It is benign. It is inert. The only forces (pressures) are internal, canceling each other as a nucleic bond.

Quote
It seems logical that this inert property called gravity would have no role to play out in the vacuum of space, because all that happens there is that that every body without a controlled “role”, such as an orbit, can do nothing but fall through the friction-free vacuum.

But how does this explain an 'open' orbit i.e. something moving past an object without being in a closed orbit. For example, the Voyager spacecraft's path was clearly affected by passage past Jupiter but they aren't coming back?

I regard this as being a question that requires a specific scientific answer (that may not exist)from the experts. Jupiter has a substantial atmosphere much different than our own, and the effects relating to the bypassing of any body or planet in space are probably peculiar to the environment of each specific body. As a simple theoretical example, if there was a “super-magnetic body” out there, and a rocket tried to pass it; this might be far more difficult to accomplish than getting by one that was not magnetic.

Quote
An orbit seems to follow a universal set of “natural” rules, while any other pathway that we have created with our rocket ships, can not be claimed as ‘natural”. It does not seem to follow that both pathways would guarantee the same effects.

A strong anthropocentric principle this one. As a Physicist (and, personally but not necessarily, an athiest) I can't accept this one. But that's a point of faith. Anyway there are natural objects in open 'orbits'.

Again, it is a theoretical possibility that has nothing to do with ‘faith’. Yes, there are things like comets in open “orbits”, but who am I to explain what has never been explained by any of the experts. You ask much of me, sir.

The contents of the ship will float in the artificial atmosphere of the ship in an either (real or man-made) orbital case, because the closed pressurized vessel, in which they are contained, has no “floor’ upon which to set them down.

As they would in an evacuated ship. The air is irrelevant to weightlessness. And what about natural gas bubbles in meteors? They appear to follow 'natural' orbits?

I assume you mean that objects would float about inside either an open or a sealed ship “containing” a vacuum, as well as they would in a ship that has a pressurized atmosphere. I disagree.
I believe that without a pressurized atmosphere in an unnatural closed chamber like a ship, the whole interior of the ship is simply a “floor”, because there is no “pressure confusion” as I described it. If it is in an open or closed vacuum chamber, anything could rest against any inside wall that it falls upon. See next.

Quote
If something lands on, or crashes into it, (the moon), why would the gravity of that new mass not just remain there, particularly if the affected mass is in a controlled orbit? Gravity is weight, so when a falling mass finds a "floor", (like a body without an atmosphere, or even without a natural orbit), there seems no logical reason for it to fall off again into space.

There is a gravitational attraction between objects in a spaceship …

Remember that my theory contends that gravity is benign/inert. I don’t theorize there to be any such thing as “gravitational attraction”, because gravity has no properties that are a ‘force” that can exert itself outside the nucleic boundary,within my theory.

Maybe we are looking at the word ‘properties” in different ways. My reference for the word “properties”, is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_and_extrinsic_properties

All in all, that’s where I’m at right now. Do you want me to continue into the theory, or have you more questions? Do you want to identify where we agree to disagree for now?

Thanks, and best wishes.

Fleep
 

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #15 on: 27/04/2007 19:27:46 »
SORRY - hit the POST button before I'd finished - please forgive the Modify...

Fleep - I have't tried to address all your comments; I think it is becoming clearer where are differences in understanding and approach might lie:

Quote
Isn’t that conjectural? Is evidence available to show that a covalent or an ionic or any other kind of bond is under stress to separate? Bonds are bonds. Covalence even implies a cooperative bond, not a stressful attempt for the atoms to separate from their “love for each other”, does it not?

No this isn't conjectural at all. Bonds are not an absolute. As an example consider hydrogen bonding between water molecules. These affect the macroscopic properties of the fluid (e.g. the boiling point is raised) but there is nothing permanent about any of these bonds - they are in a (very) dynamic equilibrium. There are many examples of bonds being pushed to higher potential energy states before breaking. This is all I intended to convey by stress.

Quote
There is nothing there which says that the bonds are “under stress”.

That's an odd statement? The only reason that the atoms have vibrational behaviour, rather than simply flying off into space is that they are pulled back by the bond. You stretch the bond without putting in enough energy and it pulls the atom back.

Quote
The vibrations are always present, and it is those never-ending vibrations that I see as the actions that need 3rd Law balancing,

The 3rd law is perfectly satisfied by the vibration - e.g. stretching a bond - acting on both ends of a bond simultaneously. There is no need to invoke an external reaction.

Quote
It is part of my theory, which is an invention in a thought process

But I think this is where science differs from fantasy... I could just as easily say that it is an emotional attraction between electrons and protons that holds atoms together or that the reason that liquid water is transparent to light is that they had an argument and won't talk to each other anymore. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Your use of the word 'pressure' in this context - with no evidence to show that any pressure is exerted - is, to me, no different from a New Age Hippy talking about the 'energy' that are getting from Glastonbury Tor.

Quote
gravity in an atom could not exert an (externally radiant) force at all

Why not? Gravity is a measureable phenomena. If everything material is made of atoms weher else would it come from?

Quote
I am saying that it has no ability to do things like “control the tides”, because it is not acting outside of itself because an atom can not do this.

But I can see teh effect of external electrical fields, and magnetism - both of which work fine in a vacuum. And measurements show that these exhibit the same inverse square behaviour as gravity. The Strong and Weak nuclear forces are a little differently but both are measureable as remote behaviour. So why should gravity act any differently?

Quote
It is benign. It is inert. The only forces (pressures) are internal, canceling each other as a nucleic bond.

This is not true. An atom is not like a solid billiard ball; it is a dynamic collection of dis-similar objects. Many of the propertoes of atoms such as Van de Waals forces, the ability to form ionic and/or covalent bonds, the ability to ionise, exist because an atom is not inert. The forces only ccancel out when seen at a distance - close-up it is very different.

Quote
what has never been explained by any of the experts

But classical mechanics DOES explain open orbits using exactly the same maths as closed orbits. There is no gap waiting to be filled here...

Quote
I assume you mean that objects would float about inside either an open or a sealed ship “containing” a vacuum, as well as they would in a ship that has a pressurized atmosphere. I disagree.

Ok - try this thought experiment. You contend I believe that weightlessness (floating) in a spaceship is related to atmposhere. So imagine you're there - you're floating right - and you've just died.  This makes it easier for the next bit because I'm going to let teh air out of a very small hole.... eventually there will be a vacuum in the spacecraft and (if I understand you correctly) bodies (ahem!) in that craft will now behave differently? But when - at half an atmosphere? A tenth? A millioneth? One of the beautiful things about physics is that the key theories exhibit continuous behaviour as conditions are varied continuously. So where is the change in behaviour you are advocating?

Quote
within my theory

I think we are looking at the word "theory" in a different way. In observing astonomical phenomoena it is possible to develop different theories tha could each, independently, give rise to observed measurements. These are then competing theories, and the current paradigm will often shift as new evidence is presented/disputed/refuted. In all of the examples you've given there is no inconsistency with current mechanics. Instead there are clear (to me) discrepancies between what you're suggesting and observational evidence. I really DON'T want to sound offensive (honest!) but this seems to be ignoring experiment, so can't be a valid theory.
« Last Edit: 27/04/2007 19:40:23 by Batroost »
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #16 on: 30/04/2007 02:51:23 »
Hi Batroost, (and anybody else following this, if any)

You are in red.

Quote -No this isn't conjectural at all. Bonds are not an absolute. As an example consider hydrogen bonding between water molecules. These affect the macroscopic properties of the fluid (e.g. the boiling point is raised) but there is nothing permanent about any of these bonds - they are in a (very) dynamic equilibrium. There are many examples of bonds being pushed to higher potential energy states before breaking. This is all I intended to convey by stress.

O.K. – Let’s agree on one thing, if you will. Wikipedia has an article called “Atomic THEORY”, including a sub-category called “Modern atomic “THEORY”. Atomic structure is still a THEORY today. That makes it fair game for anybody to theorize about what’s going on in there.
Suppositions of “stress”, as applied across the entire periodic table, then “explained”, not from the example of a body-centered cubic lattice structure like a diamond (carbon) crystal, but from the perspective of “hydrogen bonding in water molecules”, is a pretty big span. I don’t think you can use an argument that involves a gas, as affected by a boiling process to speak to “bonding” within all atoms in general. We are speaking of “natural atoms”, not anything as affected by any influential external factor, (like “boiling”).

Quote But I think this is where science differs from fantasy. Your use of the word 'pressure' in this context - with no evidence to show that any pressure is exerted (etc.)

What makes your “stress” theory a valid theory, and my 3rd Law theory a “fantasy”? You have quoted no proven science to support your “stress” theory. I’m still sticking with my 3rd law equalization of negative and positive pressures combined to be gravity itself, which is what imparts the “facility” for mass to express the volume of all the atomic weights contained within it as the weight of that specific total mass.

That mass can be weighed on earth because of the atmospheric pressure surrounding it. It has the same gravity and thus, the same (but unreadable/unscalable) “weight” in the vacuum of space, but in neither place is there an internally-generated “force” that extends outside the boundary of the nucleus. Each atom in a mass is balanced by the 3rd Law.
(Don’t forget that you weigh much less on the top of Mt. Everest than at sea level. The atmosphere is thinner).

Quote - Gravity is a measurable phenomenon. If everything material is made of atoms where else would it come from?

So? Newton was proven wrong because Mercury didn’t “follow his theoretical reasoning”, so Einstein came up with “General relativity” involving “curvature of space-time”, etc. (“In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to space-time curvature instead of to a force.” (Wikipedia). Einstein's theory “worked” for Mercury, so then he made up the math to show that his theory has a fundamental way to be seen. Another “doctored theory”. Everybody has the same right to compose something else, and frankly, I believe that “simplicity” is more plausible, and should at least be examined, with absolutely all due respect for the genius that could construct such an elaborate “possibility” as “space-time”..

Again I am saying that gravity has no ability to do things like “control the tides”, because it is not acting outside of itself, since an atom can not do this, (in my theory).

Quote - But I can see the effect of external electrical fields, and magnetism - both of which work fine in a vacuum. And measurements show that these exhibit the same inverse square behavior as gravity. The Strong and Weak nuclear forces are a little differently but both are measurable as remote behavior. So why should gravity act any differently?

So? We live in an electrical universe. “Radio waves” are coming in from “out there” all the time. They work fine in a vacuum. So does magnetism.  Why shouldn’t they exhibit the same “inverse behavior” as gravity? They are measurements performed on mass, where gravity “resides”. You can't "measure' transmissions from space if you have no idea, (and can't factor in) where they originated.
“Nuclear Force is responsible for binding of protons and neutrons into atomic nuclei.” (Wikipedia) This explanation does not describe “Nuclear Force” as “remote behavior”.

Quote - An atom is not like a solid billiard ball; it is a dynamic collection of dissimilar objects. Many of the properties of atoms such as Van de Waals forces, the ability to form ionic and/or covalent bonds, the ability to ionize, exist because an atom is not inert.
 
I know that that an atom isn't "solid", but my basic theory of the atom has no business talking about subatomic particles if my basic concept of the atom itself has not yet been considered as (maybe) plausible. That would be a waste of my time.
“Van der Waals forces are a class of intermolecular forces which arise from the polarization of molecules into dipoles (or multipoles). (Wikipedia). (Ergo - They are not related to the interior of individual atoms, but work at the electron cloud level.)

Quote - But classical mechanics DOES explain open orbits using exactly the same maths as closed orbits.
 
Nope. ”An open orbit has the shape of a hyperbola (when the velocity is greater than the escape velocity), or a parabola (when the velocity is exactly the escape velocity). The bodies approach each other for "a while", curve around each other "around the time" of their closest approach, and "then" separate again forever. This may be the case with some comets if they come from outside the solar system.” (Wikipedia) That must be tough to calculate with so many of the factors remaining unknown. Math also has limits.

Quote - Ok - You contend that weightlessness (floating) in a spaceship is related to atmosphere. So imagine you're floating  - and you've just died.  I'm going to let the air out of a very small hole.... eventually there will be a vacuum in the spacecraft and bodies (ahem!) in that craft will now behave differently? But when - at half an atmosphere? A tenth? A millioneth? One of the beautiful things about physics is that the key theories exhibit continuous behaviour as conditions are varied continuously. So where is the change in behaviour you are advocating?

Well, let’s look at your example, except, “backwards”. I drop dead and fall on the floor of the ship, and it takes off. I stay on the floor and the ship ascends through, and then out of the atmosphere. I am in an artificial atmosphere, and my body has its earth gravity still inside it. The ship enters the vacuum, and I don’t rise off the floor because I’m dead, and nothing is making me 'move". I’m not disturbing the air, and if there are no “strong” currents in the artificial atmosphere, I’m still surrounded by a pressure that does not “know where” to set me down, or even that I’m “against the floor”. I’m not “on” the floor, because I am weightless. There is just nothing to make me “move”, unless the ship shudders violently, or something like that, and I get “bumped” into the air by something. This too, is a “continuous behaviour” whose (any) change can only be governed by something that makes my body move. I might fall up against the overhead “pressure floor”, and lightly “bounce off”, depending on the force of the ship’s shuddering motion.
Say I had fallen dead in front of a ventilation outlet. That light breeze could “push’ my body aimlessly up into the artificial atmosphere that doesn’t have any “plan’ to put things down. Who knows where I end up? I could be floating or “laying” in the air, ½” from the floor.
 NOW. A hole appears in the ship, and the artificial atmosphere begins to “drain” into the vacuum”. Just like a jet plane being depressurized by a gunshot through the wall, or even an explosion, the pressure will all escape, perhaps instantly, if the hole is large enough. I fly out the hole, or I fall on the floor, just like a meteor lands on a planet that has no atmosphere, and stays there.
You have probably heard this, but if I was on a skating rink and there was no such thing as friction, I would simply have to breathe, and I would instantly begin to glide backwards towards the rink boards. Similarly, it takes almost nothing to make a body “float” in an artificial atmosphere that has no “floor”. Motion without a pressure’s “knowledge of its target”, is like being in the ship, without friction.

Quote - I think we are looking at the word "theory" in a different way. In observing astronomical phenomena it is possible to develop different theories that could each, independently, give rise to observed measurements. These are then competing theories and the current paradigm will often shift as new evidence is presented/disputed/refuted. In all of the examples you've given there is no inconsistency with current mechanics. Instead there are clear (to me) discrepancies between what you're suggesting and observational evidence. I really DON'T want to sound offensive (honest!) but this seems to be ignoring experiment, so can't be a valid theory.

Batroost, my friend, (and I sincerely mean that in my address to you), this might be disintegrating into a philosophical debate. We occasionally become entangled in semantics. Perhaps these things are inevitable in an exchange of thoughts that emanate from different minds, but our disagreements are becoming unfair to others who might be interested in the barest argument of the topic. Is my theory all wet, or is there a gram of genuine new consideration hidden somewhere within it? Remember that I make no such declaration. Mine is all theory, just like most of “theirs”. If you would like to isolate this exchange, then I need your e-mail address. I don’t know how we exchange these in this forum, do you? If you wish to discontinue this completely, you simply have to go silent on me.
I have, and still do, appreciate, “the chase”.

Best wishes

fleep
 

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #17 on: 30/04/2007 20:40:12 »
Fleep thank you for continuing the chase !

If you don't object I'll pursue things a little further...

Quote
That makes it fair game for anybody to theorize about what’s going on in there.

Agreed! (But also fair game for rigorous criticism).

Quote
Suppositions of “stress”, as applied across the entire periodic table, then “explained”, not from the example of a body-centered cubic lattice structure like a diamond (carbon) crystal, but from the perspective of “hydrogen bonding in water molecules”, is a pretty big span.

Ah but that IS a difference in approach. Conventional atomic theory presents an explanation for all of these phenomena across all three phases of matter. If you throw in a bit of physical chemistry you get an explanation for plasmas as well. If it's not broke...? Boiling points of fluids are highly dependent on inter-atomic or inter-molecular forces - in conventional atomic theory/chemistry this 'explains' why the boiling point of helium is lower than that of hydrogen, and why the boiling point of water is so much higher than that of other similar simple molecules e.g. methane.

Quote
What makes your “stress” theory a valid theory, and my 3rd Law theory a “fantasy”?


Without a stress being developed in the bond there would be no force to restore an atom to its original position in the lattice. A vibration requires a restorative force or you break another of Newtons laws - the one about moving at a constant velocity unless disturbed by an external force. Monatomic atoms (e.g. helium gas) do not vibrate physically - again there is no restitution force to sustain a vibration - though they do undergo continual changes e.g. charge re-distribution - whic incidentally is the original of Van De Waals forces in atomic helium ; you can't always trust Wicki to give you the whole picture. Stress - from a physical not an engineering point of view - is simply a word used to indicate that the bond is in a higher energy state than usual and is, in this case, exerting a force acting in opposition to the motion.

Quote
you weigh much less on the top of Mt. Everest than at sea level

As I do in an aircraft travelling at constant speed/height - even though the air pressure around me is (typicaly) only about 1.5 psi less than the pressure on the ground - or are you suggesting that it is the air outside the aircraft that decides how much I'm going to weigh? In which case, let's turn it around and ask about how much you weigh visiting the wreck of the titanic? The pressure outside the bathyspere is a couple of hundred atmospheres...

Actually there is a far better (and entirely natural) answer. Measured values: Your weight reduces by about 0.28% as you climb Everest. However, your weight increases by around twice as much (0.5%) as you move from the equator to the poles. This is because the Earth is not truly spherical - you are further from the Earth's centre-of-mass at the equator than at the poles so the acceleration due to gravity is less. BUT the air pressure is no different at the poles to the equator - though admittedly it is likely to be colder most of the time (but what about equatorial desert night time temperatures)? BUT we can't be suggesting that grvaity varies with air pressure of temperature can we, because air pressure at the surface varies by about +/-10%  without any measureable change in gravity? No don't go there.

Quote
Another “doctored theory”.


Quite right. This is the nature of Physics, Chemistry, Biology. We Agree!


Quote
“Nuclear Force is responsible for binding of protons and neutrons into atomic nuclei.”

Another Wicki half-story. The weak nuclear force is generally credited with holding quarks together in sub-atomic particles. So, perversely it is most easily observed in teh decay of theose particles e.g. beta-decay. The Strong nuclear force is believed to act directly on sub-atomic particles but a residual of this force is be thought to be responsible for holding proton and neutrons together into a nucleus. What is interesting here though is not the 'normal' manifestations of these forces but rather the measurements you can make of these forces by, for example, shooting high-energy particles close to other nuclei. These experiments do clearly show that these forces act remotely i.e. they can be measured (weakly) outside of the nucleus. Incidentally, there's some really interesting results here - the nucleus appears to be a different size, shape and density depending on what you use to measure it (Physics is Fun!).

Quote
An open orbit has the shape of a hyperbola (when the velocity is greater than the escape velocity), or a parabola (when the velocity is exactly the escape velocity). The bodies approach each other for "a while", curve around each other "around the time" of their closest approach, and "then" separate again forever. This may be the case with some comets if they come from outside the solar system.” (Wikipedia) That must be tough to calculate with so many of the factors remaining unknown.

No. It isn't. Wicki is unhelpful (!) if it suggests uncertainty in the outcome for the scenario described. The 'two-body' problem is algebraically solvable. There is no uncertainty in this one. It is only with three or more bodies involved that you need (usually) to resort to numerical methods. But even then, planning the paths of the Voyager spacecraft across millions of miles, past dozens of planets and moons was possible - even with 1970's computers. And you can do the same calulations for Halley's comet, or comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 colliding with Jupiter.

Quote
I’m not “on” the floor, because I am weightless. There is just nothing to make me “move”, unless the ship shudders violently, or something like that, and I get “bumped” into the air by something.

This is, I think, key to what I don't understand about your theory. If a body - lets's say a solid lump of metal with no air bubbles in it, just to keep things simple (and to avoid anyone dying) - behaves the same (weightlessly) regardless of whether or not there is any air in the ship, then what role does the air play in giving us gravity in the first place? A similar question to meteors (or spacecraft) landing on the moon I suppose?

Quote
Mine is all theory, just like most of “theirs”.

Yes - and this is perhaps getting a bit philosophical, and certainly off-topic! - I heard someone respond to this criticism of the "Theory of Evolution" by saying - "Yes, it's a theory. Just the like the theory that the Earth goes around the Sun...". Sooner or later enough evidence is accumulated for a theory to rise above its peers as simply being the most credible explanation. Never the final word, but the best one to be going on with until some credible evidence appears to discredit it.

Quote
If you would like to isolate this exchange,


I'm happy not to, if you are. I think this is just the sort of discussion the Forum is good for.

Best wishes

Batroost.
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #18 on: 01/05/2007 02:53:15 »
Hi Batroost.

Sure. We can continue right here in this forum. I might be wrong in what I say; possibly even in my entire theory, but I have thick skin. “I think, therefore I am”. (I wish it was me that said that originally).

O.K. Let’s just try for now to settle the thing that bothers you the most about my theory. (Floating in the air in a shuttle.) We can continue when we settle that point. You said:

Quote
This is, I think, key to what I don't understand about your theory. If a body - let's say a solid lump of metal with no air bubbles in it, behaves the same (weightlessly) regardless of whether or not there is any air in the ship, then what role does the air play in giving us gravity in the first place? A similar question to meteors (or spacecraft) landing on the moon I suppose?

I will address the bolded question last. First, we’ll bone up on our Pascal’ Law, (just as a written reminder of what it says and means. I realize you know that law very well, but I want to break it up here, and compare it to a hydraulic, or even a pneumatic piston pressure system.

“Pressure exerted on a fluid in a closed vessel, (pressure cylinder or shuttle interior walls), is transmitted undiminished in ALL directions, (including INWARDLY on every square inch of any mass in the fluid), with equal force on all EQUAL surfaces, (which can only be logical), and at right angles to them.”

This means “ALL surfaces” of course, including the interior walls of the closed vessel, and the surfaces of any mass that might be in the fluid.

First, we will say that the closed system is inside the sealed shuttle upon the Earth. A wrench left in the fluid of the system has gravity, as does the fluid and the vessel. The vessel has the artificial atmosphere's molecular gravity weight pushing all around the exterior of the closed system. How does the wrench in the system “know” which way is down? It “knows it”, because it is NOT weightless because nothing is weightless on the Earth, so it sinks to the bottom of the system. Every thing that “obeys gravity” is “obeying" the fact that its weight is “recognized” anywhere within our natural atmosphere, as "something" that has to either drop, or sink.
 Gravity “imparts” weight in a mass.

The fluid inside the system is its own “atmosphere”, regardless of whether it is fluid or air”. On earth, “what goes up MUST come down”.

Now. Shoot the whole works into the vacuum of space in the shuttle, and try it again, where everything that goes up, obviously does not HAVE to come down. We know that, because everything floats around in the artificial atmosphere inside the ship, and that includes a mass (like a wrench, for example,) that might have been forgotten in the hydraulic (or pneumatic) system. The wrench is floating in the fluid in the tank, because it can not be doing a different thing than what is happening in the air outside the closed system. We call it “weightlessness”, even though every mass in the ship still has its mass, and therefore, still has its weight as well, even though we can not scale that weight to verify that it’s still there. It didn’t just disappear.

What is different here? The wrench sank in the tank on the Earth. It floats in the tank in the vacuum, even though there is an artificial atmosphere in the ship that pretty closely matches the Earth atmospheric pressure. What else is different? The ship is falling through nothingness. So what? Do you believe that the ship “knows” that? Does the atmosphere inside the ship “know” that? Does the fluid in the closed hydraulic system “know” that? Every “thing” inside the ship is “ignorant” of the fact that it is “supposed to fall to the floor”, but it does not fall, because the gravity in each mass does not “know” which direction is up, down, or sideways. The pressure on everything in the ship, and everything in the tank, is “lost in space”. If the ship could stop falling and remain motionless in the vacuum by firing a powerful set of retro-engines, do you suppose that everybody would crash down to the floor? Not a chance.

If a bowling ball (on the Earth) was completely and uniformly encircled by high velocity streams of air that kept it contained within a loosely defined “sphere” of diminishing wind velocity (as the wind approached the center point, the ball would stay floating in the air within that sphere, as long as the streams stayed uniform and continuous. That is “(metaphorically) like” what is happening in a shuttle, where the people floating in the artificial atmosphere are surrounded by a sustained pressure that is being exerted all around them. They can not fall to any “floor” because, like the wind stream on Earth, the sustained pressure is coming from “everywhere”.

The people inside think they do not fall because the ship is falling through space. They were trained, like everybody everywhere, to believe that falling through space is the “reason” that they float in the air. That is no kind of “reason”. Why would anybody bother to contest what seems to be “obvious”? I seriously disagree with their “theory” because I have never found a single instance where that “theory” was tested in some way. It just seems far too obvious. Don’t believe me if you don’t want to, but that old reasoning is illogical to me. (Forgive me please, if i'm wrong.)

It is unquestionably obvious that the vacuum is a different “environment” in which the “rules’ that prevail are not the same as they are within an atmosphere. And why would they not be different? Science creates math all the time to explain exceptions that do not follow the popular theory of the day, and the result is a hierarchical mess that no one may ever be able to undo. The tragedy is, that every new theory, (including the frail possibility that anyone will believe mine), is another nail in the coffin of a “Grand Unification Theory”. Everything must be adequately proven, and I regard my unique observation to be no different than any other, in that respect. If I am proven wrong, that’s great. Something will have been verified as truth for everyone, including me.

Atmospheres create friction when motion through it occurs, while the vacuum can not. Everything falls (or sinks) within an atmosphere, but nothing falls within an artificial atmosphere inside a rocket ship in the vacuum. Does no one think that there is even a possibility that “different rules” apply between a natural atmosphere, and a closed man-made atmosphere within a vacuum?

Please don’t scoff at the metaphors like the one about the ship “not knowing anything”, and try to appreciate what I meant by that.

To answer your question about, “What role does the air play in giving us gravity in the first place? “I don’t know exactly how you took that from anything I have said since the beginning. I never said that the air “gives us gravity”, (At least, I don’t think that I ever did.)

I know I said that we brought our gravity within us from the earth when we went into space, and I believe that. Everything in the ship has its imported gravity, so its weight is “hidden”, by reason of the fact that mass is non-scalable in the vacuum. What do you set the scale upon, to weigh anything, when everything floats in the air, including the scale? “Weightless” does not mean that masses suddenly have REALLY “lost” their weight. You just are not able to weigh things that are floating in the air.

I also did say, in the very first message in my theory, “When something falls through the atmosphere, and/or through the water, the fall (or sink) velocity increases at a rate that is globally uniform. It seems like there should be something besides mass/ weight/magnetism that would account for the global uniformity of rates of falling speed. Is it not more logical, that a reliable factor like overhead atmospheric pressure would be the influential factor? Acceleration by overhead and gradually increasing downward (pushing) pressure seems like a far more responsible agent of rising velocity.”

Maybe that’s where the impression that formed your question, “What role does the air play in giving us gravity”, came into the picture.

I don’t know any other way (yet) to explain why I believe that things float in the artificial air in the ship.

Thanks for your patience. I used to have a stronger aversion to pleonasm, but constructing theory has forced me to change.

I’m starved for patience for us to agree on anything, as soon as we can. ;D

fleep
 

Offline Blue Genes

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #19 on: 01/05/2007 13:01:10 »
This is all very interesting……..Although I am struggling understand everything.

A quick question to help de-fuddle me ref the question of why Saturns Moons Janus and Prometheus don’t collide..
I don’t know the exact orbit details for the moons. Presumably they both have lots of Kinetic energy and are travelling at a fair velocity around the planet. Because there is no friction in the vacuum of space there is nothing much to reduce their velocity. They are not at escape velocity but they do have sufficient velocity to prevent them being pulled into the planet.... so they are held in orbit. This system is also held in orbit around the sun in a similar way so everything must be pretty well balanced. On that basis could I assume the forces between the moons are also balanced within the system so they cant be easily drawn together. Only if the balance changes/reaches a tipping point. I suppose they must be loosing velocity...just very very very slowly.  If they did get drawn together would it mean their relative velocities would need to change.
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #20 on: 01/05/2007 13:37:57 »
Hi;
Did I say "Prometheus"? Sorry. It's Janus and "Epimetheus".
Please see http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=210
It will explain it well, although I don't agree that the planets do not "repel" each other.

fleep
 

Offline Blue Genes

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #21 on: 01/05/2007 14:35:56 »
I dont think we or Astro Cornell disagree on this point then. :-)
 

Offline Blue Genes

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #22 on: 01/05/2007 20:59:32 »
Ok. Fortified by agreeing on something…. and a glass of wine I would like to see if I can understand and find common ground on you atmospheric theory.
Weightlessness becomes a pointless term. It describes a situation about as well as happiness describes the physical state of your prefrontal cortex.  We need a new term. Would low gravity environment (LGE) and ultra low gravity environment (ULGE) be acceptable.  If your ship was stationary in deep space it would be in an ULGE. Everything would still have its own gravity but the values would be so low that any effects would be negligible. I agree if you have got mass you wont have zero G..just ultra low G. How does all that sound?

I am less convinced by your atmosphere/gravity argument but would this Earth based experiment help prove anything:-   

Take a couple of bomb shaped cylindrical housings designed to drop nose cone first but not spin. In both the payload bays you have  ½ kg aluminium blocks suspended just above the sealed nose cone. One of the bomb payload bays is a sealed vacuum (A), the other is open to atmosphere (B). The design of B is cunning so the block wont be effected by wind and induced air pressures as the bomb drops.
You release both bombs at 50,000 feet and simultaneously the
½ kg blocks inside are released.
If you are right I expect both bombs would accelerate at a uniform rate. In Bomb B the block would accelerate at the same rate but in bomb A the block would appear to float up inside the casing as the bomb accelerates. How does that sound?
 

fleep

  • Guest
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #23 on: 02/05/2007 18:32:10 »
Hi B.G.;

Quote
Ok. Fortified by agreeing on something, I would like to find common ground on your atmospheric theory.

Tell me exactly what “something” you are agreeing on (with me) please. Is it that I said “I don't agree (with Cornell), that the planets do not "repel" each other? (I believe they are repelling each other, since I believe that gravity does not “attract” anything. Only covalence (or magnetism) can do that. If not, what did you mean?

Also, I see now that Cornell said, “Gravity makes things go faster as they fall”. I don’t agree with them on that either. In the atmosphere down here, stuff falls at 32 FPS/Sec. (Ignoring “feathers” and friction and air resistance on wide/light objects that affect the speed rate standard fall rate.) If a bolt fell off a plane, it should follow the standard pretty closely I would say. I contend that the bolt’s velocity increases because most of the Earth’s atmosphere is close to the Earth. The atmosphere has weight, so as the object falls the atmospheric weight gets continuously heavier above it, increasing the rush of the object towards the ground. As the object falls, it creates an “air void” behind it, like a moving race car tails the car in front of it to get the “free suction”. The falling bolt is the “lead car”, and the following air filling the void is continually getting heavier as the bolt nears the ground, so it’s acting like “continuously more weight” on the falling bolt. The air filling the void is like the “bow-shock” from the second car. It’s “rush-packing” the void with air, giving the lead car back (some of) the velocity that air-drag steals from it.


(In space)
Quote
Weightlessness becomes a pointless term. We need a new term. Would low gravity environment (LGE) and ultra low gravity environment (ULGE) be acceptable?  If your ship was stationary in deep space it would be in an ULGE. Everything would still have its own gravity but the values would be so low that any effects would be negligible. I agree if you have got mass you wont have zero G..just ultra low G. How does all that sound?

Nope. Vacuum means “emptiness”. If gravity is in matter, and there is no (homogeneous) gravity in nothingness, then the term “vacuum” says it all. There can of course be gravity in any bodies that are in that nothingness. The only thing that is homogeneous in the vacuum, and indeed through the whole universe”, is negative pressure, which the (international) Supernova Legacy Team of astrophysicists absolutely confirmed in November 2005. (Hence, no LGE or ULGE).

Quote
I am less convinced by your atmosphere/gravity argument but would this Earth based experiment help prove anything:-   

 
Sorry. I don’t get this. Don’t re-explain it please, unless my explanation up above in this message doesn’t solve your question. If it doesn’t, you’ll have to explain better, like “how are the blocks “suspended”, and what does “released” mean? Are the blocks falling out of the bombs? Did the nose cones come off? How is (B) “open” to the atmosphere? Which one; the atmosphere inside behind the nose cone, or the outside natural atmosphere?
Remember please. Re-explain only if you must.

Thanks

fleep

 

Offline Batroost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • There's no such thing as a dirty atom!
    • View Profile
Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #24 on: 02/05/2007 18:40:45 »
Fleep - I'm thinking hard about what you say but I'm still stuck:

Quote
The atmosphere has weight, so as the object falls the atmospheric weight gets continuously heavier above it, increasing the rush of the object towards the ground

If this is true then:

(1) Why do things accelerate when dropped in a vacuum e.g. in an evacuated tube or on the moon?

(2) Why do things accelerate when dropped in a sealed air-filled tueb - because from Pascal's law the force on them is equalised?

Batroost
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Atmospheric pressure and its effect
« Reply #24 on: 02/05/2007 18:40:45 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length