Search Results
6/11/2025, 3:07:23 PM
>>63814105
Evolutionist spotted.
Evolutionist spotted.
6/10/2025, 6:15:54 PM
>>40506091
>How the hell else am I supposed to prove that the atmosphere won't jump into space, if I don't use gravity?
By showing actual empirical demonstrable evidence that gravity can prevent gas pressure from seeking equilibrium with a vacuum. If you cannot provide sufficient evidence for your claims, they’re just unsubstantiated beliefs.
>This is literally just a lie
TOPKEK! Your religious convictions have made you delusional. Objectively, gas pressure seeks equilibrium on earth. Open a soda or beer can… hear that noise? That’s the sound of your religion being falsified
>because it's highly pressurised
So is earth’s atmosphere
>The ambient air is directly (not gradually and not incrementally) next to a vacuum;
Picrel. If earth’s pressurized atmosphere really were adjacent to a 10^-17 TOR vacuum without being separated by a container, it would rush into the vacuum of space layer by layer starting at the highest altitudes and working its way downwards toward the surface until the entirety of earth’s atmosphere had been depleted into space. Upon being completely engulfed in a vacuum earth’s oceans would boil and be stripped away and earth would be left a desolate barren rock. You can actually demonstrate this process with actual scientific experimentation. Gravity has never been shown to prevent gas pressure from seeking equilibrium.
>given a low temperature, high radiative cooling and low heat environment
Already addressed this. The upper layers of the atmos allegedly have even more heat than the surface
>The escape velocity of air depends upon gravity
That’s why your answer is a remedial reification aka begging the question fallacy by definition.
>If you have more mass, gravity...etc, you WILL have a higher escape velocity
Regurgitating your religious dogma isn’t helping you here. What you need to provide is substantiating evidence to support your claims.
>just look at stars
Yet another remedial reification fallacy. See: >>40376105
>How the hell else am I supposed to prove that the atmosphere won't jump into space, if I don't use gravity?
By showing actual empirical demonstrable evidence that gravity can prevent gas pressure from seeking equilibrium with a vacuum. If you cannot provide sufficient evidence for your claims, they’re just unsubstantiated beliefs.
>This is literally just a lie
TOPKEK! Your religious convictions have made you delusional. Objectively, gas pressure seeks equilibrium on earth. Open a soda or beer can… hear that noise? That’s the sound of your religion being falsified
>because it's highly pressurised
So is earth’s atmosphere
>The ambient air is directly (not gradually and not incrementally) next to a vacuum;
Picrel. If earth’s pressurized atmosphere really were adjacent to a 10^-17 TOR vacuum without being separated by a container, it would rush into the vacuum of space layer by layer starting at the highest altitudes and working its way downwards toward the surface until the entirety of earth’s atmosphere had been depleted into space. Upon being completely engulfed in a vacuum earth’s oceans would boil and be stripped away and earth would be left a desolate barren rock. You can actually demonstrate this process with actual scientific experimentation. Gravity has never been shown to prevent gas pressure from seeking equilibrium.
>given a low temperature, high radiative cooling and low heat environment
Already addressed this. The upper layers of the atmos allegedly have even more heat than the surface
>The escape velocity of air depends upon gravity
That’s why your answer is a remedial reification aka begging the question fallacy by definition.
>If you have more mass, gravity...etc, you WILL have a higher escape velocity
Regurgitating your religious dogma isn’t helping you here. What you need to provide is substantiating evidence to support your claims.
>just look at stars
Yet another remedial reification fallacy. See: >>40376105
Page 1