Search Results
6/10/2025, 4:39:19 PM
>>40505720
>>40379896
>This is just a textbook remedial reification aka begging the question fallacy, as you are attempting to use the alleged effects of gravity (ie: escape velocity) as proof of the very thing that you are attempting to prove - gravity’s alleged effects. Gas molecules have 100% of the energy needed to escape into a comparatively weak vacuum when they are nearest the center of mass where gravity is said to be strongest and effecting them the most. As altitude is increased from earth’s surface, gravity gets weaker in the globe model, not stronger, so why would gas molecules magically need to reach “muh escape velocity” in order to escape into a vacuum at higher altitudes where gravity is WEAKER when they have 100% of the velocity/energy needed to escape gravity into a vacuum at earths surface where gravity is STRONGEST (as shown empirically by opening a pressurized box inside of a vacuum chamber)
>You cant claim that gravity’s alleged effects on gas molecules exists when the Parabox empirically proves that there is no escape velocity to begin with. Gas molecules OBJECTIVELY escape up into a vacuum when they are exposed to one near the surface where gravity is said to be strongest. If gravity does not prevent gas molecules from Escaping into a vacuum near the surface, then why would it prevent them from escaping into a vacuum at higher altitudes where gravity is said to be weaker?
>>40382968
>Again, this is just a remedial reification fallacy known as begging the question. The gas molecules provably don’t need to reach “Escape velocity” to escape gravity and disperse into the vacuum chamber at earth’s surface where gravity is supposedly strongest. If gravity is incapable of preventing air pressure from escaping at the surface, it certainly wouldn’t be capable of preventing it from escaping into the alleged near infinite vacuum of space at higher altitudes where gravity is allegedly even weaker.
THIS is why the box kills the ball
>>40379896
>This is just a textbook remedial reification aka begging the question fallacy, as you are attempting to use the alleged effects of gravity (ie: escape velocity) as proof of the very thing that you are attempting to prove - gravity’s alleged effects. Gas molecules have 100% of the energy needed to escape into a comparatively weak vacuum when they are nearest the center of mass where gravity is said to be strongest and effecting them the most. As altitude is increased from earth’s surface, gravity gets weaker in the globe model, not stronger, so why would gas molecules magically need to reach “muh escape velocity” in order to escape into a vacuum at higher altitudes where gravity is WEAKER when they have 100% of the velocity/energy needed to escape gravity into a vacuum at earths surface where gravity is STRONGEST (as shown empirically by opening a pressurized box inside of a vacuum chamber)
>You cant claim that gravity’s alleged effects on gas molecules exists when the Parabox empirically proves that there is no escape velocity to begin with. Gas molecules OBJECTIVELY escape up into a vacuum when they are exposed to one near the surface where gravity is said to be strongest. If gravity does not prevent gas molecules from Escaping into a vacuum near the surface, then why would it prevent them from escaping into a vacuum at higher altitudes where gravity is said to be weaker?
>>40382968
>Again, this is just a remedial reification fallacy known as begging the question. The gas molecules provably don’t need to reach “Escape velocity” to escape gravity and disperse into the vacuum chamber at earth’s surface where gravity is supposedly strongest. If gravity is incapable of preventing air pressure from escaping at the surface, it certainly wouldn’t be capable of preventing it from escaping into the alleged near infinite vacuum of space at higher altitudes where gravity is allegedly even weaker.
THIS is why the box kills the ball
Page 1