Atmospheric tides cause energy flows from the upper to lower atmosphere and changes in atmospheric pressure. Air pressure changes linked to the position of the Moon were first detected in 1847. The Moon's gravitational forces cause bulges and oscillations in the Earth's atmosphere
The atoms in the atmosphere have forces between them and overwhelm the distant moon
That is absolutely not the heliocent. So you're making stuff up that doesn't even happen in your model. Regardless, If tides happened in the atmosphere, then the moon would pull the atmosphere into the vacuum of space.
No. The moon's gravity would be competing for the same matter that exists under the same conditions. The only difference is that the Earth's gravity would be weaker since it is further away from its surface and the moon's gravity would be stronger because it's closer to the Moon. This battle between the Earth and the moon's gravity is occurring while the near perfect vacuum of space is also present at the edge of the atmosphere.
This is jewish bullshit if I ever saw it. This completely destroys the heliocentric claim that gravity can prevent gases from expanding into a vacuum. The second law of thermodynamics wins and heliocentrism loses.
You just completely denied this very law in your bullshit post on ISS materials "melting" in space. LMFAO.
Space is fake and gay you retard. You're so retarded that you believe the ISS can exist in the thermosphere at those temperatures. I never claimed that it does. I'm claiming that the ISS is not 250 mi away in the thermosphere.
[ - ] Love240 1 point 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 01:28:32 ago (+2/-1)
But with no container, the earth would continue to lose atmos into 'space'. (gasses move to equalize in pressure) Especially with the moon pulling atmos away from the earth with any sort of force. We would all be dead right now without the firmament.
Are you aware that different elements have different atomic weights and they bind to form new configurations and new elements?
You have nigger tier IQ informing you on reality is like trying to teach a dog calculus, you will NEVER conceptualise what I just wrote or understand it on even a rudimentary level.
Atmosphere isn’t max pressure then just stops at the void of space, atmosphere becomes gradually negligible.
You also don’t believe in gravity ffs so you don’t have a strong enough grasp of prerequisite learning to discuss this further.
It’s like denying electricity then trying to tell the electrician he needs coloured stones to make the fridge go brrrrr.
[ - ] Love240 1 point 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 08:08:36 ago (+1/-0)
Are you aware that different elements have different atomic weights and they bind to form new configurations and new elements?
Completely avoiding my question.
You have nigger tier IQ informing you on reality is like trying to teach a dog calculus, you will NEVER conceptualise what I just wrote or understand it on even a rudimentary level.
That is an Ad hominem, and you are still avoiding the question.
Atmosphere isn’t max pressure then just stops at the void of space, atmosphere becomes gradually negligible.
The atmos doesn't seem negligible to me. You've just made the claim that it becomes gradually negligible with no explanation or proof. Still avoiding the question.
You also don’t believe in gravity ffs so you don’t have a strong enough grasp of prerequisite learning to discuss this further.
Using your logic of gravity is the only way you will seem to understand this (maybe, potentially). That's another ad hominem, and still avoiding the question.
It’s like denying electricity then trying to tell the electrician he needs coloured stones to make the fridge go brrrrr.
Neat comparison. Still avoiding the question.
If the moon is closer the higher up a gas goes, and the earth cannot hold onto that gas at the surface, then what would stop all gasses from equalizing pressure between the two? Further, what keeps the gasses from continuing to diffuse out into 'space' to reach equilibrium?
Woosh, right over your head like I called it in the beginning.
You can't even understand what I'm talking about, so you ignore it and ask some other bs that you also can conceptualise the basics of.
If the earth's gravity cannot hold onto a balloon at the surface ~ LoveDumbfuckJuice
Are you aware that different elements have different atomic weight ~ UncleSuperior
Me trying to teach you, and you not understanding any of it because you are full of dumb fuck juice with your nigger brain that has holes in it. It was also an answer to your question that flew past your smooth brain at Mach 9 speed.
Heavier elements are attracted closer to the core, solids of varying weight, then liquids then gases. Some gases are heavier than other gases, go figure just like some metals are heavier than other metals. If you understand this, nod like less of a spastic than I am currently visualising you to be.
You've just made the claim that it becomes gradually negligible with no explanation or proof.
I have explained it but your room temperature IQ cant comprehend it.
How does atmosphere thin? The farther away you get from the Earth's center, the weaker GRAVITY is (if you mention buoyancy I'll fukign murder you). This is a prerequisite for you do undertand the basics of what I am trying to infer in your dogshit brain.
The weaker gravity is, the less pressure there is acting on the atmospheric gasses. Density of a gas is related to pressure. So less gravity=less pressure=less density (thinner air).
What percent of the atmosphere mass lies below the Kármán line?
99.99997% is below 100 km (62 mi; 330,000 ft), the Kármán line.
The total mass of Earth's atmosphere is about 5.5 quadrillion tons, or roughly one millionth of Earth's mass.
Fuck, thats inconceivable says flattards, how can air weight less than rocks and water. Wow, must be bouyancy and space elves or some shit.
If the moon is closer the higher up a gas goes, and the earth...
TLDR, STFU already and stick to the first question. When you get science 101 you can ask a further question. Until this stage further questions are denied until it has soaked into your thick fuckhead.
[ - ] Love240 1 point 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 13:41:48 ago (+1/-0)
TLDR, STFU already and stick to the first question. When you get science 101 you can ask a further question.
Okay, so now, having had multiple opportunities to answer my question and have only responded with ad hominems and non-sequiturs, It is clear that you have no legitimate response to my simple question.
Until this stage further questions are denied until it has soaked into your thick fuckhead.
It you take a beach ball and bring it to the bottom of the sea, it will float to the surface, yet it will not escape into the "vacuum" of air after it reaches the boundary of water and air.
It's exactly the same principle.
The earth's gravity cannot hold the beach ball at the bottom of the sea, because the water surrounding the ball weighs more than the ball itself. So the sea will "flow down", past the ball, and the ball will "flow up" because the heavier water of the sea prefers to be lower than the ball. Hence the sea moves "down", and the ball has to move "up", because the sea water prefers to pile up below the ball.
Once the ball reaches the boundary where enough sea water is below it, and there is nothing above the ball that is heavier than the ball that would prefer to flow down past the ball, we have an equilibrium where the ball stays put and it will not flow upwards any more.
Same with your balloon example in the atmosphere.
You can prove all this to yourself with a beach ball at the beach. Watch as the beach ball does not escape into space. That is proof right there that the principle of how the atmosphere can stay in place around the earth is correct and valid.
It you take a beach ball and bring it to the bottom of the sea, it will float to the surface, yet it will not escape into the "vacuum" of air after it reaches the boundary of water and air.
Okay, but I just quoted to you that the supposed 'line' between atmos and 'space' is not even universally accepted. And you have only defined that 'line' to be a barrier in word, and not in deed. Hence why it is not universally accepted. I.E. There is no physical barrier in the globe model. It is all gas-lesser pressure gas.
It's exactly the same principle.
Except it's not a physical barrier, it's semantic.
The earth's gravity cannot hold the beach ball at the bottom of the sea, because the water surrounding the ball weighs more than the ball itself. So the sea will "flow down", past the ball, and the ball will "flow up" because the heavier water of the sea prefers to be lower than the ball. Hence the sea moves "down", and the ball has to move "up", because the sea water prefers to pile up below the ball.
There is no such physical barrier between the atmos(phere) and 'space' in the globe model.
Once the ball reaches the boundary where enough sea water is below it, and there is nothing above the ball that is heavier than the ball that would prefer to flow down past the ball, we have an equilibrium where the ball stays put and it will not flow upwards any more.
Once again, there is no such physical barrier between the atmos(phere) and 'space' in the globe model.
Same with your balloon example in the atmosphere.
Except there is no physical barrier in the globe model, it's semantic.
You can prove all this to yourself with a beach ball at the beach. Watch as the beach ball does not escape into space. That is proof right there that the principle of how the atmosphere can stay in place around the earth is correct and valid.
Testing a beach ball at the beach between liquid and gas, does not replicate the gas diffusion principle that is at play in the upper atmos(phere) on the globe model.
You can type all day the same thing over and over, it doesn't change the fact that you have no explanation for why the atmos(phere) even stays on the earth without a physical barrier, you only have a semantic name for it and no proof or understanding why.
[ - ] qwop 1 point 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 10:03:54 ago (+1/-0)
I didn't say barrier. You're twisting my words. I said boundary. You're just doing pilpul now, wanting to argue about semantics.
Your firmament model doesn't predict anything, but the globe model predicts everything, and we can verify that these predictions hold true, with extremely great accuracy mind you.
When predictions and realty match, it means the model that is used is good. Firmament / flat earth model doesn't predict anything. There does not exist any formula, equation, or anything that I know of, where flat earth theory would beat the globe model in accuracy.
If you think there is something like that, please do publish a paper on it. Do the calculations, do the experiments, check if the hypothesis matches reality, then double check, and then publish.
But you've got nothing. Not a thing.
You're no better than men thinking they can give birth. Just as deluded as them.
You think like them, that by typing things on a screen, or saying things out loud, makes the world so. But that's not how it works.
The globe model can calculate sunrises, sunsets, occlusions, seasons, moon phases, planet locations, ballistics, pressure, buoyancy, acceleration, predict comet trajectories far into the future from just a few data points, predict all planet positions far into the future, as well as the positions of each moon of each planet, and on and on and on.
I didn't say barrier. You're twisting my words. I said boundary.
Then answer the question.
You haven't answered my simple question.
And it's because you can't. The beach example is a barrier between liquid water and gas atmos. In the upper atmos there is only gas, thus no physical barrier.
But you've got nothing. Not a thing.
So why you can't answer my simple question, then?
You're no better than men thinking they can give birth. Just as deluded as them.
You need to say go-go-Gadget-arm when you make a stretch like that.
You think like them, that by typing things on a screen, or saying things out loud, makes the world so. But that's not how it works.
This is literally what you and Doug were doing. Nice projection attempt.
Moon's gravity is strong enough to counter Earth's gravity on the surface where the water is. It causes the high tides. In this same position on the earth, the moon's gravity would be stronger the further away from the The surface it gets because it is closer to the Moon. So if it's strong enough to lift water on the surface then it's going to be even stronger at the edge of the atmosphere.
The Earth's gravity is weakest at the outermost layer of the atmosphere. Somehow it is able to prevent gases from escaping into a near perfect vacuum. The globe excuse is that the air is less dense and somehow the gravity can grab it better.
This all goes out the window when you consider that the moon's gravity is competing for the same exact matter that the Earth gravity is attracting. Both gravities are dealing with matter under the same exact conditions. The water on the surface is under the same condition for the Earth and the Moon. The atmosphere above is under the same condition for the Earth and the Moon. The only difference is that the moon has the additional force of the near perfect vacuum that would be demanding the atmosphere expand into it.
You cannot explain how the Earth's gravity can keep gas from expanding into a near vacuum if the moon's gravity is countering it.
It's simple. Gravity is claimed to have properties. Those properties dictate how it interacts with matter. There is no difference between the Earth's gravity and the moon's gravity. They will act on matter under the same conditions the same exact way. If the moon can pull water from the surface of the Earth, then it should absolutely be able to counter the Earth's gravity at the edge of the atmosphere and pool the atmosphere into the near perfect vacuum.
[ + ] Cantaloupe
[ - ] Cantaloupe 4 points 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 00:04:48 ago (+4/-0)
Atmospheric tides cause energy flows from the upper to lower atmosphere and changes in atmospheric pressure. Air pressure changes linked to the position of the Moon were first detected in 1847. The Moon's gravitational forces cause bulges and oscillations in the Earth's atmosphere
The atoms in the atmosphere have forces between them and overwhelm the distant moon
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] -2 points 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 14:59:20 ago (+0/-2)
That is absolutely not the heliocent. So you're making stuff up that doesn't even happen in your model. Regardless, If tides happened in the atmosphere, then the moon would pull the atmosphere into the vacuum of space.
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] -7 points 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 00:06:58 ago (+1/-8)
This is jewish bullshit if I ever saw it. This completely destroys the heliocentric claim that gravity can prevent gases from expanding into a vacuum. The second law of thermodynamics wins and heliocentrism loses.
[ + ] KosherHiveKicker
[ - ] KosherHiveKicker 7 points 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 00:11:18 ago (+7/-0)
You just completely denied every aspect of this very law in your bullshit post on ISS materials "melting" in space.
- https://www.upgoat.net/viewpost?postid=66a4c47b057c1&commentid=66a4c85349898
LMFAO.
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] -5 points 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 00:13:07 ago (+1/-6)
Space is fake and gay you retard. You're so retarded that you believe the ISS can exist in the thermosphere at those temperatures. I never claimed that it does. I'm claiming that the ISS is not 250 mi away in the thermosphere.
[ + ] Cantaloupe
[ - ] Cantaloupe 1 point 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 00:49:43 ago (+1/-0)
6.05 x 10^-22 Newtons
While the force from the moon is just
1.46 x 10^-30 Newtons
So let's not be 'tarded
The earth wins the tug of war.
The atmosphere is mostly nitrogen
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 1 point 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 01:28:32 ago (+2/-1)
(gasses move to equalize in pressure)
Especially with the moon pulling atmos away from the earth with any sort of force.
We would all be dead right now without the firmament.
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 0 points 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 07:42:54 ago (+1/-1)
The earth is not a pumped up basketball you nigger brain.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 07:48:08 ago (+1/-2)
Explain this: If the earth's gravity cannot hold onto a balloon at the surface, why would it be able to hold onto anything the further you get out?
I can accept your ad hominem as defeat, but I'll let you answer, if you can.
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 0 points 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 07:57:19 ago (+0/-0)
You have nigger tier IQ informing you on reality is like trying to teach a dog calculus, you will NEVER conceptualise what I just wrote or understand it on even a rudimentary level.
Atmosphere isn’t max pressure then just stops at the void of space, atmosphere becomes gradually negligible.
You also don’t believe in gravity ffs so you don’t have a strong enough grasp of prerequisite learning to discuss this further.
It’s like denying electricity then trying to tell the electrician he needs coloured stones to make the fridge go brrrrr.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 1 point 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 08:08:36 ago (+1/-0)
Completely avoiding my question.
That is an Ad hominem, and you are still avoiding the question.
The atmos doesn't seem negligible to me.
You've just made the claim that it becomes gradually negligible with no explanation or proof.
Still avoiding the question.
Using your logic of gravity is the only way you will seem to understand this (maybe, potentially).
That's another ad hominem, and still avoiding the question.
Neat comparison. Still avoiding the question.
If the moon is closer the higher up a gas goes, and the earth cannot hold onto that gas at the surface, then what would stop all gasses from equalizing pressure between the two? Further, what keeps the gasses from continuing to diffuse out into 'space' to reach equilibrium?
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 0 points 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 08:55:45 ago (+0/-0)
You can't even understand what I'm talking about, so you ignore it and ask some other bs that you also can conceptualise the basics of.
Me trying to teach you, and you not understanding any of it because you are full of dumb fuck juice with your nigger brain that has holes in it. It was also an answer to your question that flew past your smooth brain at Mach 9 speed.
Heavier elements are attracted closer to the core, solids of varying weight, then liquids then gases. Some gases are heavier than other gases, go figure just like some metals are heavier than other metals. If you understand this, nod like less of a spastic than I am currently visualising you to be.
I have explained it but your room temperature IQ cant comprehend it.
How does atmosphere thin?
The farther away you get from the Earth's center, the weaker GRAVITY is (if you mention buoyancy I'll fukign murder you). This is a prerequisite for you do undertand the basics of what I am trying to infer in your dogshit brain.
The weaker gravity is, the less pressure there is acting on the atmospheric gasses. Density of a gas is related to pressure. So less gravity=less pressure=less density (thinner air).
Picture time, no crayons allowed
Fuck, thats inconceivable says flattards, how can air weight less than rocks and water. Wow, must be bouyancy and space elves or some shit.
TLDR, STFU already and stick to the first question. When you get science 101 you can ask a further question. Until this stage further questions are denied until it has soaked into your thick fuckhead.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 1 point 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 13:41:48 ago (+1/-0)
Okay, so now, having had multiple opportunities to answer my question and have only responded with ad hominems and non-sequiturs, It is clear that you have no legitimate response to my simple question.
I accept your concession of defeat.
[ + ] qwop
[ - ] qwop 0 points 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 08:11:58 ago (+1/-1)
It's exactly the same principle.
The earth's gravity cannot hold the beach ball at the bottom of the sea, because the water surrounding the ball weighs more than the ball itself. So the sea will "flow down", past the ball, and the ball will "flow up" because the heavier water of the sea prefers to be lower than the ball. Hence the sea moves "down", and the ball has to move "up", because the sea water prefers to pile up below the ball.
Once the ball reaches the boundary where enough sea water is below it, and there is nothing above the ball that is heavier than the ball that would prefer to flow down past the ball, we have an equilibrium where the ball stays put and it will not flow upwards any more.
Same with your balloon example in the atmosphere.
You can prove all this to yourself with a beach ball at the beach. Watch as the beach ball does not escape into space. That is proof right there that the principle of how the atmosphere can stay in place around the earth is correct and valid.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 08:24:35 ago (+1/-2)
Okay, but I just quoted to you that the supposed 'line' between atmos and 'space' is not even universally accepted. And you have only defined that 'line' to be a barrier in word, and not in deed. Hence why it is not universally accepted.
I.E. There is no physical barrier in the globe model. It is all gas-lesser pressure gas.
Except it's not a physical barrier, it's semantic.
There is no such physical barrier between the atmos(phere) and 'space' in the globe model.
Once again, there is no such physical barrier between the atmos(phere) and 'space' in the globe model.
Except there is no physical barrier in the globe model, it's semantic.
Testing a beach ball at the beach between liquid and gas, does not replicate the gas diffusion principle that is at play in the upper atmos(phere) on the globe model.
You can type all day the same thing over and over, it doesn't change the fact that you have no explanation for why the atmos(phere) even stays on the earth without a physical barrier, you only have a semantic name for it and no proof or understanding why.
Hence, the firmament.
[ + ] qwop
[ - ] qwop 1 point 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 10:03:54 ago (+1/-0)
Your firmament model doesn't predict anything, but the globe model predicts everything, and we can verify that these predictions hold true, with extremely great accuracy mind you.
When predictions and realty match, it means the model that is used is good. Firmament / flat earth model doesn't predict anything. There does not exist any formula, equation, or anything that I know of, where flat earth theory would beat the globe model in accuracy.
If you think there is something like that, please do publish a paper on it. Do the calculations, do the experiments, check if the hypothesis matches reality, then double check, and then publish.
But you've got nothing. Not a thing.
You're no better than men thinking they can give birth. Just as deluded as them.
You think like them, that by typing things on a screen, or saying things out loud, makes the world so. But that's not how it works.
The globe model can calculate sunrises, sunsets, occlusions, seasons, moon phases, planet locations, ballistics, pressure, buoyancy, acceleration, predict comet trajectories far into the future from just a few data points, predict all planet positions far into the future, as well as the positions of each moon of each planet, and on and on and on.
What have you got?
Nothing.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 0 points 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 13:49:06 ago (+1/-1)
Then answer the question.
You haven't answered my simple question.
And it's because you can't. The beach example is a barrier between liquid water and gas atmos.
In the upper atmos there is only gas, thus no physical barrier.
So why you can't answer my simple question, then?
You need to say go-go-Gadget-arm when you make a stretch like that.
This is literally what you and Doug were doing. Nice projection attempt.
A simple question that you cannot answer.
I accept your concession of defeat.
[ + ] Cantaloupe
[ - ] Cantaloupe 0 points 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 11:37:06 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 0 points 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 13:38:28 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] 0 points 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 07:16:39 ago (+1/-1)
The Earth's gravity is weakest at the outermost layer of the atmosphere. Somehow it is able to prevent gases from escaping into a near perfect vacuum. The globe excuse is that the air is less dense and somehow the gravity can grab it better.
This all goes out the window when you consider that the moon's gravity is competing for the same exact matter that the Earth gravity is attracting. Both gravities are dealing with matter under the same exact conditions. The water on the surface is under the same condition for the Earth and the Moon. The atmosphere above is under the same condition for the Earth and the Moon. The only difference is that the moon has the additional force of the near perfect vacuum that would be demanding the atmosphere expand into it.
You cannot explain how the Earth's gravity can keep gas from expanding into a near vacuum if the moon's gravity is countering it.
[ + ] McNasty
[ - ] McNasty [op] -1 points 9 monthsJul 28, 2024 15:21:12 ago (+0/-1)