[Bored chemist]

I haven't been proven wrong.

What would your second guess be?

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.

It fails for almost all the planets, doesn't it?

You also need to get to grips with "curve fitting".
Here's the plot of pressure vs radius for the planets will well defined pressures.

planet pressures.JPG (30.8 kB . 507x457 - viewed 1213 times)
There is no pattern

[Bored chemist]

 While Venus is denser than the Earth,

It's not.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/

[Kartazion]

@JLindgaard Even if your theory were right, well it would explain so little compared to the true standard model of physics. Don't you?

[Kryptid]

I haven't been proven wrong.

Your equation only correctly predicted the atmospheric pressure of two planets (Earth and Mars). When you use it to try to predict the pressure on Venus, you get 8.731 bars as the answer (very wrong). I did the math in an earlier thread:

As distances from the Sun increase, the exponent will increase as well. This means that your equation predicts thinner and thinner atmospheres for planets as you get further from the Sun. However, the gas giants have thicker atmospheres than Mars, so it doesn't work for them. It also doesn't work for Venus itself:

93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^1
93.079 bars * (0.0938)^1
93.079 bars * 0.0938
= 8.731 bars

As you say, two is a coincidence, and all you have is two.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

@Kartazion , I think scientists working on the standard model will like me. While they say that 95% of the universe is made up of dark matter/dark energy, I will be trying to show a physical relationship. Of course, do Americans like me? They don't. That is how politics work. And for all anyone knows, the Earth's core was magnetized by its rotation.
 With Venus, does heat disrupt a magnetic field at its core? Does a denser gravitational field increase resistance in a planet's rotation? Sometimes the best part about science is being able to ask a question.

@Kryptid , since Venus is the baseline, it would be factored as 1350 * (1-0.02339)^0 = 1350 * 1 = 1350. Venus is not further out in its orbit from the Sun than itself. This simply means that its exponent is 0. With 1.01 being the exponent, as 1.01 it would actually be 1.0201 and gave an air pressure of 1317.796 psi. It is different doing math this way and I know I made enough mistakes when I was still learning it. And I still make mistakes. I have to check my own work and will go over it many times. What you guys see is an edited, finished product.

 @Kryptid, I got 8.73 bars on my calculator. It is possible that your computer made a mistake. I know it happens because it has happened to me. I've actually used search engines to verify my math because of my experience with this issue. And having verification from different sources allows me to know if my own computer is functioning properly.

[Kryptid]

since Venus is the baseline, it would be factored as 1350 * (1-0.02339)^0

No, you can't just arbitrarily change the rules for the equation to force-fit the data. In your other thread, the exponent was supposedly the square of how much further out the planet in question was than Venus. You had Earth as being 1.38 times further out than Venus, and squaring that number gives you 1.91 (which is the number you used as the exponent to calculate Earth's atmospheric pressure). You then did the same for Mars by squaring 2.007 to get 4.03.

Like you said, Venus is not further out from the Sun than itself, so dividing Venus' orbit by Venus' orbit gives you 1 as the exponent, not 0.

I got 8.73 bars on my calculator.

So did I. So why are you calling it a mistake? Are you saying your calculator made the same mistake as mine? Then what is the right answer?

[Bored chemist]

What you guys see is an edited, finished product.

LOL

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 When Venus is the base value, it is not further out from the Sun, its exponent is 0. A distance further out than Venus is 1.xx. I will need to finish my build and outside of that I'll be taking it easy. I might have to remake the bearing mounts so the bearings can have a little twist in them. Needle bearings have no give in them. And since I am doing wood working I know the alignment will be off. And this can allow the axle to bind inside of the bearing.  I do need to allow for a small amount of radial motion. And if it does work, it will keep stopping as it rotates. It will take time for a weight to move outward even with it being kicked out.
 And I have watched my own video using radial bearings that had good rotation so this is a little stressful. And if my build works then I can have surgery and pursue my experiment. And what will help me with that is if I give a good reason for why the tropopause is the barrier that it is. If dark matter exists and it has a uniform behavior, since it wouldn't emit any energy, how would you tell it's there? With particles like electrons and atoms, they have both linear and angular momentum. Gravity has these characteristics as well, orbital velocity and acceleration.

[Bored chemist]

if my build works then I can have surgery and pursue my experiment

That's some odd causality.
It's also worrying because the build won't work.

[Bored chemist]

If dark matter exists and it has a uniform behavior, since it wouldn't emit any energy, how would you tell it's there?

It has mass and thus has an effect via gravity.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

@Bored chemist, I could've had the prototype working 4 or 5 months ago. I wanted to build something nicer.
With needle bearings, since everything was not machined to within about 0.01 inch tolerance, the axle is trying to leverage the bearing in its mount. That creates resistance.
 And since I like my work on atmospheric chemistry, I also like my wood working. In a way it's funny but with what I'm pursuing I'll be able to say there is what KE = 3/2kT suggests. But I only need to concern myself with finishing my build and getting the details right. I will be modifying the housing for both sets of bearings. The needle bearings will have less resistance because they have less surface area so would prefer to use those. Why the mount needs to allow for some axial movement (twisting) in the bearing mount. That would allow for some "give" in the alignment of both bearings.
 

[Kryptid]

When Venus is the base value, it is not further out from the Sun, its exponent is 0. A distance further out than Venus is 1.xx.

108,000,000 kilometers divided by 108,000,000 kilometers and then squared is 1, not 0.

[Bored chemist]

I could've had the prototype working

No you couldn't.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 Maybe the 2 of you can explain this for me? Why when multiplying 2 * 2, the value is +2. Then when
multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/eAKoLxNsCuYuJzXq8

 Just an FYI, there is a solution that allows for multiplying by either 2 or -2 to change the number 2 by the same value.
At the same time there is a solution that allows for 2 * 2 to = 4 and for 2 * (-2) to = -4. Why there are 2 solutions is because they are 2 different problems. As for atmospheric pressures and my build, I am satisfied with my work.

p.s., the 2 math problems are to see if either of you can do problem solving.

[Kryptid]

Just an FYI, there is a solution that allows for multiplying by either 2 or -2 to change the number 2 by the same value.
At the same time there is a solution that allows for 2 * 2 to = 4 and for 2 * (-2) to = -4.

Question: is that a solution that was already known and confirmed by others or is it something you came up with?

As for atmospheric pressures and my build, I am satisfied with my work.

It might be satisfactory for you, but you shouldn't expect anyone else to be satisfied with (1) an equation with a mere 25% accuracy rate, and (2) a claimed perpetual motion machine that has yet to demonstrate perpetual motion.

[Bored chemist]

Why when multiplying 2 * 2, the value is +2. Then when
multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6.

It isn't.

[Bored chemist]

p.s., the 2 math problems are to see if either of you can do problem solving.

Your problem is not mathematical.

[Deecart]

Maybe the 2 of you can explain this for me? Why when multiplying 2 * 2, the value is +2. Then when
multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/eAKoLxNsCuYuJzXq8

Simple
"Why when multiplying 2 * 2, the value is +2" :
2 * 2 = 4
So 4 - 2 = 2
So the value is +2

"Then when multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6."
2 * (-2) = -4
So -4 - 2 = -6
So the value is -6

Your problem is not mathematical.

Lol.

[Colin2B]

"Then when multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6."
2 * (-2) = -4
So -4 - 2 = -6
So the value is -6

“ -4 - 2 = -6 “ was not the formula posed, it is very different from “when multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6”

[Deecart]

“ -4 - 2 = -6 “ was not the formula posed, it is very different from “when multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6”

I suppose you do the confusion between the word "value" and the word "result".