Originally posted by aljhoa
View Post
Ipse dixit is an assertion without proof; or a dogmatic expression of opinion.
You can't have gas pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press on.
If you remove the barrier between the two compartments, the gas in one compartment would rapidly fill the compartment with the vacuum.
That is part of the nature of gas.
Second Law of Thermodynamics
Boyle's Law
Originally posted by aljhoa
View Post
Without clarity, it's an equivocation fallacy.
What are you talking about?
Prove it.
Originally posted by aljhoa
View Post
Prove it.
Cite the scriptures.
Balls don't have corners.
Originally posted by aljhoa
View Post
You can't have a gas pressure gradient without gas pressure. You can't have gas pressure without a container.
Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press on?
No, of course not.
A liquid is different from a gas. The two act differently.
You're committing an equivocation fallacy, also known as, doublespeak.
Equivocation
Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...1/Equivocation
Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...1/Equivocation
Originally posted by aljhoa
View Post
Ipse dixit is an assertion without proof; or a dogmatic expression of opinion.
You're trying to create a straw man fallacy.
I am simply asking, "Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press on?"
And, the answer is no.
.
Cheers
.


Leave a comment: