[The Spoon]

As pointed out by Kryptid earlier, an arc second is a unit of angular measurement, not time. So you are wrong.

Everyone know that the arc second is a unit of angle.
Try to understand why talking of some arc second when refering to some delay of the orbital year is right.

I am sure you can do it if you think hard enough.

Don't be a patronising tool.

[Deecart]

Don't be a patronising tool.

Thats exactly what you do yourself when you say that someone who tell about second of arc is speaking of seconds.
I repeat : Everyone know the difference... So why do you think you are superior and only be the one able to know that ?

[Kryptid]

Quit with the personal attacks, everyone.

[Bored chemist]

Everyone know the difference

Not quite everyone.
The OP thinks it's a time

43 arc seconds is missing time.

And you said he was right.

[The Spoon]

Thats exactly what you do yourself when you say that someone who tell about second of arc is speaking of seconds.
I repeat : Everyone know the difference... So why do you think you are superior and only be the one able to know that ?

[Quote from: JLindgaard on Yesterday at 02:34:35
43 arc seconds is missing time.[/quote]

[Bored chemist]

And it is not what he said.

It is.
It is a direct quote.
Why are you trying to pretend it isn't?

[Bored chemist]

To be technically correct, he is correct and you are wrong.

I suppose you do the confusion (because you see "arc second", but this doesent mean that this is some time...)

You are wrong.
Why are you agreeing with the guy who is plainly wrong?

You seem to have not realised that you were wrong in your supposition.
You say"I suppose you do the confusion (because you see "arc second", but this doesent mean that this is some time...)"
But it's not that I see "arc second" and think it's time.
I see the OP write "43 arc seconds is missing time." and I see that he thinks it's a measure of time.

[Bored chemist]

Laking of arguments yourself you ask mommy to end up the discussion ?

I was able to put forward an argument, and did so.
I didn't ask anyone to end the discussion.
My dead mother is only relevant in that she was an English teacher.
Would you like me to invoke her spirit and correct all your mistakes for you?

[Deecart]

My dead mother is only relevant in that she was an English teacher.
Would you like me to invoke her spirit and correct all your mistakes for you?

Perhaps you should invoke her for yourself.
I am sure she could also give you some teaching on general comprehension.

Here it is said : 43 arc seconds is missing time.

I repeat, again and again, that this sentence do no imply that arc seconds are time.
If you dont understand simple general sentences like that, you could effectivly, like you suggested yourself, ask the spirit of your mother to give you some lessons.
Because in reality this sentence mean that seeing that we have a 43 arc seconds difference we can deduce that there is some difference in time.
So simple.

 

[Bored chemist]

If I say "Spot is a brown dog" I am saying that spot is a dog. (Specifically, a dog that is green)
If I say "US presidents are tall people" I'm saying that US presidents are people. (specifically, people who are tall)

If I say "43 arc seconds is missing time."  am saying that 43 arc seconds is time. (Specifically, time that is missing)

It's not me who needs help with sentence comprehension here.

[Bored chemist]

I repeat, again and again, that this sentence do no imply that arc seconds are time.

Yes.
You keep saying that thing which is clearly not true.
People have pointed out that you should stop saying it, because it is clearly wrong.
Yet you persist in saying it.
This makes you look like an idiot.

[Bored chemist]

we can deduce that there is some difference in time.

We can't deduce anything about time.
We deduce that there is a difference in position- specifically a difference in angle.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 With science and math, we can observe a relationship between the orbits (time in Earth days) and atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth and Mars. 2 could be considered a coincidence while 3 shows a pattern. This considers both the orbital velocity and the acceleration (towards the Sun).
 This demonstrates IMO that gravity is a source of gravity's force. It is like my inferring that CO2 and H2O and a direct interaction is responsible for the IPCC's observations. And using the logic behind proving a trigonometric identity allows for "proving" atmospheric chemistry. And if my experiment verifies what I hypothesized, I guess it would suggest remembering what you learned in school.
 Anyone can check my math for the orbits having a relationship.  The formula I used had these values.
 Distance from the Sun greater than Venus with Venus being 1. And then that value squared. Both are added and then divided by 2. An example is
(224 * 1.38) + (224 * 1.91)/2 =  (309.12 + 427.84)/2 = 736.92/2 = 368.48 and another example is
(224 * 2.12) + (224 * 4.03)/2 = (474.88 + 902.72)/2 = 1377.6/2 = 688.8

 Venus orbit is 224 days, Earth is 265.26 and Mars is 687. With the math I used, I used times further from the Sun plus its inverse square value averaged. This is why I tend to think that gravity has energy. And IMO this allows both the orbital velocity and its acceleration to have a proportional relationship with matter in its field.
 I think it would be interesting to associate this relationship with why the tropopause is barrier that does not allow warm air to rise. It would be changing the way the Earth's atmosphere is considered. And with my build, I am making some minor adjustments. My own videos reminds me I had to have everything properly aligned and lubricated.
 With dry needle bearings, After 45º it needed 0.14 kg of force to keep it rotating. And with needle bearings, they are not like radial bearings where precise alignment is necessary. Basically with the bearing being 1 inch or 2.54cm wide, the axle can bind inside the bearing creating a lot of resistance.
 As for my math, anyone can check and will find the math is right.

[Kryptid]

Let's just drop the semantic argument about arc-seconds. It's obviously causing friction.

With science and math, we can observe a relationship between the orbits (time in Earth days) and atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth and Mars. 2 could be considered a coincidence while 3 shows a pattern.

This was debunked in an earlier thread.

And IMO this allows both the orbital velocity and its acceleration to have a proportional relationship with matter in its field.

Kepler's laws already told us there was a relationship between distance and orbital period.

[The Spoon]

 With science and math, we can observe a relationship between the orbits (time in Earth days) and atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth and Mars.

What about the atmospheric pressures of the next planets out? E.g. jupiter etc?

[JLindgaard (OP)]

@The Spoon, that would best be left for an astronomer or an astrophysicist to consider. What shows that Venus' air pressure is relative to the Earth's is to simply divide 14.69/(1-0.02339)^191 = 1349.82.
 After all, I'd be suggesting that the tropopause is denser than the troposphere and the stratosphere which is why it's colder. There are a few different specific reasons that I think plays a role in why the tropopause is different.
 Jupiter's moon Io collapses when it moves behind Jupiter. With how minimal solar radiation from the Sun is that far out,
it also is moving in rotation with the Sun's gravitational when it collapses while when it's atmosphere becomes a gas again, it is rotating against the Sun's gravitational field. If dark matter is composed of a particle that has energy (graviton),
could it generate heat in Io's atmosphere because of friction? I think after this I'll leave those planets and moons to astronomers and astrophysicists.

[Bored chemist]

2 could be considered a coincidence while 3 shows a pattern.

Not when the other 5 don't follow it.
We already explained why you were wrong about this. Why have you brought it up again?
Did you think we would have forgotten?

The formula I used had these values.

Does it agree with this 400 year old formula which gives the right answer?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion

[Bored chemist]

I think after this I'll leave those planets and moons to astronomers and astrophysicists.

I don't know about leaving those planets, but it's not clear what planet you are on.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

@Bored chemist, I haven't been proven wrong. You guys are actually showing where I am right. And when I use both the distance from the Sun (Venus is 1) and inverse square law to show a relationship between atmospheric air pressure and the orbit of a planet around the Sun, people would say that is what science is based on.
 What you are missing is that the inverse square allows for a relationship between atmospheric air pressure. With the length of an orbit, it is the distance from the Sun added to the inverse square value divided by 2.
 That would also allow for a relationship/ratio between a planet's orbit and its atmospheric pressure. Think of it as complimenting Keppler's work. And this would with what I am considering, allowing for Keppler's universal electricity, Newton's gravity and dark matter (Einstein's æther?). And this would suggest that the gas giants would obey the same laws of physics as the planets inside the asteroid belt do.
 And I did buy some oil today to lubricate my bearings and bushings with. While I wasn't aware of it then, it does seem that I damaged my radial bearings by how I cleaned them and then the lubricant I used. Very frustrating and I should have known better. If necessary I will be able to make a bearing housing that will allow needle bearings to have a limited movement so they could mimic radial bearings. They'd have a slight radial movement. And I think most people have seen my video in which I show the difference lubrication makes.
 You need to understand that I believe that Venus is denser than the Earth. And has been made known Newton about gravity, the mass/density of matter accelerates the same 9.81m/s. With Venus, the CO2 in its atmosphere came from rock. What happened to the rock? Has the floor in the Valley of the Sun (Phoenix) sink over 20 feet because water was pumped out of the ground?
 While Venus is denser than the Earth, if its rocks near the surface (its mantle) have been out-gassed, will they become denser? If people assumed I was wrong, that is their mistake. Of course some people say Venus has less gravity than the Earth. And yet its atmospheric pressure is about 92 times greater. You can say I made a mistake when I learned math and geology.
 @All, the purpose of science is to consider facts. And as some of you know, some of the research that I am pursuing is based on some researchers saying we don't have all of the answers. I like those people because they created opportunity for me. Without their research, I wouldn't have had the information I need for what I am pursing. And if I am right about atmospheric chemistry, I think they'll like hearing me say how research like theirs helped me. They didn't have the answer and yet they made known what the issue was.
Would this make Venus a smaller planet than the Earth?

[JLindgaard (OP)]

Just an FYI, the mass escape velocity of the Earth is 10.2km/s. The orbital velocity 100m/328ft above the Earth's surface is 7.9km/s. That is over 77% of the velocity need to escape the Earth's orbit. For fun we could calculate the inertia and find out how that compares to gravity being 9.81m/s.
 And yet there is a relationship between 14.7 and 30. That I'm into atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric pressure, that should make it obvious. I mean rocks out-gassing creating a denser planet wasn't obvious so we can try this one.

p.s., does this mean that Venus doesn't have water underground? I know I need to be nice with you guys. If I am right then it shows how not being a "real" American influenced me. I mean I was always made aware of why I was different one way or another.

 Could you guys imagine if scientists like my work? Then they might ask some of the same questions that you're asking. And it's basically when does the inversion become the rule? Why gas giants are not rock type planets.