Search Results
6/11/2025, 10:31:37 PM
>>40511148
>>40511222
>>40513170
I’m just going to ask you point blank and if you don’t respond to each of these direct questions, I’ll take that as a concession:
1.) can you provide a single example of gas pressure existing without a container (claiming earth’s atmos or stars or planets is your only example would be a fallacy known as “begging the question” or a “reification fallacy”)
2a.) Can you produce even a single example of equally increasing lines of electric potential without the use of 2 Gaussian surfaces?
2b.) Can you provide a single example of a static sphere that has lineally increasing voltage potential rising from its surface instead of a voltage potential that is highest near the surface which attenuates at R squared?
3.) What specifically about picrel do you not understand? If there is an error in the assertions being outlined in picrel, can you specify what that error is..?
4.) do you agree that after opening a pressurized container inside of a larger vacuum chamber, there is a measurable and consistent pressure gradient both inside the open box and outside in the surrounding vacuum chamber? If you agree to this objective fact about gas pressure gradients, how can you deny that an open box of limited size (earth), when exposed to near infinite vacuum chamber (space) would result in no measurable gradient in the small box or in the surrounding near infinite vacuum?
If your answer is:
>As the normal force does to gas in a box, so does gravity to air on earth
DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE is required.
5.) if gas disperses in a vacuum (as shown by literally every single demonstration involving gas pressure) how would gas molecules coalesce to form gas planets, stars or any other structural formations of collections of gas in the vacuum of space?
6.) Can you provide a scientific experiment in which you’ve isolated the independent variable of “gravity”, varied it, and verified it to be the cause of the effect of the downward bias?
>>40511222
>>40513170
I’m just going to ask you point blank and if you don’t respond to each of these direct questions, I’ll take that as a concession:
1.) can you provide a single example of gas pressure existing without a container (claiming earth’s atmos or stars or planets is your only example would be a fallacy known as “begging the question” or a “reification fallacy”)
2a.) Can you produce even a single example of equally increasing lines of electric potential without the use of 2 Gaussian surfaces?
2b.) Can you provide a single example of a static sphere that has lineally increasing voltage potential rising from its surface instead of a voltage potential that is highest near the surface which attenuates at R squared?
3.) What specifically about picrel do you not understand? If there is an error in the assertions being outlined in picrel, can you specify what that error is..?
4.) do you agree that after opening a pressurized container inside of a larger vacuum chamber, there is a measurable and consistent pressure gradient both inside the open box and outside in the surrounding vacuum chamber? If you agree to this objective fact about gas pressure gradients, how can you deny that an open box of limited size (earth), when exposed to near infinite vacuum chamber (space) would result in no measurable gradient in the small box or in the surrounding near infinite vacuum?
If your answer is:
>As the normal force does to gas in a box, so does gravity to air on earth
DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE is required.
5.) if gas disperses in a vacuum (as shown by literally every single demonstration involving gas pressure) how would gas molecules coalesce to form gas planets, stars or any other structural formations of collections of gas in the vacuum of space?
6.) Can you provide a scientific experiment in which you’ve isolated the independent variable of “gravity”, varied it, and verified it to be the cause of the effect of the downward bias?
Page 1