Anti-gravity

[vidbid]

So the real issue is how is pressure maintained without a can/container?

Not my question.

My question is, "Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

Refer to Boyle's Law

Refer to the Second Law of Thermodynamics

The use of term "can" or "tin can" is a red herring, a logical fallacy.

Correct but I'm leading you with the statement, and in fact I actually boldly stated there was no container, a highly dubious position no? I'm doing that on purpose because neither you nor I can see the container.

1. Denying the antecedent.

2. Ipse dixit.

It's therefore manifestly obvious that no container exists: Correct?

1. Ipse dixit.

Thermodynamics must therefore be bunk right?

1. Ipse dixit.

Straw man.

Now look see here; I attempted to pin down whether you're an Einsteinian, or an Electric Universal believer; or perhaps you're like myself and are a Wheeler fractalist.

1. Straw man.

In fact I even went so far as to plainly state as much; I said that it is maintained without a container.

1. Ipse dixit.

Container presupposes a tin can. So if that is not the case, and it isn't, then define what you mean by container?

1. The use of term "can" or "tin can" is a red herring.

Reason being I already gave two existing explanations which could explain pressure without a tin can; hence no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

1. The use of term "can" or "tin can" is a red herring.

See Second Law of Thermodynamics and Boyle's Law.

Evidently you do not like either of these concepts?

1. Straw man.

2. Red herring.

Therefore we have an invisible container; yes?

"Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

Agreed, and there are no violations of the laws of thermodynamics with the models provided under Einstein, the Electric Universe, or Wheeler.

1. Affirming the consequent.

2. Red herring.

Not really vidbid, clarify what you believe because there either there is, or there is not, a metal container which domes the planet. If not then we have existing explanations.

1. Affirming the consequent.

2. Red herring.

"Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

Under Einsteinian Physics pressure is a product of gravity because air has mass and accelerates towards the Earth's Core together with all other mass due to pothole theory of warped space.

1. Affirming the consequent.

2. Red herring.

3. Straw man.

"Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

Cheers

[Gambeir]

See:
8-4 Pressure Due to Weight of a Liquid
8-5 Pressure in a Confined Liquid
8-6 Atmospheric Pressure

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1143&context=physicskatz

Yes, well convention isn't always what it's made out to be

Ultimately, pressure is produced by inertial acceleration since mass weight is a result of the induction of energies passing through matter. Typically when it is in an EM field. Weight is as much an illusion as density is to weight. An object may be dense and yet have no weight in the right environment. Density has no real relationship to weight that we are currently aware of. However we might later find there is some cross correlation between density and induction of energies: That would make logical sense.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-Relation-Between-Intelligence-and-Religiosity-A-Meta-Analysis-and-Some-Proposed-Explanations.pdf

Al

Well, not too sure about the intelligence part, because it is the object of mind control to produce a seeming lack of intelligence.
Derren Brown: The Assassin with Stephen Fry FULL EPISODE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owootTAuxic

[Gambeir]

So the real issue is how is pressure maintained without a can/container?

That's your question.

That's not my question.

I never asked that question.

Correct but I'm leading you with the statement, and in fact I actually boldly stated there was no container, a highly dubious position no? I'm doing that on purpose because neither you nor I can see the container. It's therefore manifestly obvious that no container exists: Correct? Thermodynamics must therefore be bunk right?


Now look see here; I attempted to pin down whether you're an Einsteinian, or an Electric Universal believer; or perhaps you're like myself and are a Wheeler fractalist.

On the other hand, your question presupposes that pressure is maintained without a container.

In fact I even went so far as to plainly state as much; I said that it is maintained without a container. Container presupposes a tin can. So if that is not the case, and it isn't, then define what you mean by container?

Reason being I already gave two existing explanations which could explain pressure without a tin can; hence no violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

Evidently you do not like either of these concepts?

However, in fact, pressure can't be maintained without a container.

Therefore we have an invisible container; yes?

See Boyle's Law

See Second Law of Thermodynamics

Agreed, and there are no violations of the laws of thermodynamics with the models provided under Einstein, the Electric Universe, or Wheeler.

That's begging the question. It's a logical fallacy. I've already explain what a begging the question fallacy is.

Not really vidbid, clarify what you believe because either there is, or there is not, a metal container which domes the planet. If not then we have existing explanations.

My question is, "How can you have gas pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

The definition of antecedent here is "a thing or event that existed before or logically precedes another." (per Google)

Refer to: https://nathanoakley.com/wp-content/...20Pressure.mp4

Cheers

Under Einsteinian Physics pressure is a product of gravity because air has mass and accelerates towards the Earth's Core together with all other mass due to pothole theory of warped space.

[aljhoa]

My question is, "How can you have gas pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

See:
8-4 Pressure Due to Weight of a Liquid
8-5 Pressure in a Confined Liquid
8-6 Atmospheric Pressure

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1143&context=physicskatz

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-Relation-Between-Intelligence-and-Religiosity-A-Meta-Analysis-and-Some-Proposed-Explanations.pdf

Al

[vidbid]

Be aware of logical fallacies.

Be on the look out for logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

1. If A, then B.
For example, "If I have the (A)flu, then I'll have a (B)fever."

Affirming the consequent would be:

2. B. Therefore, A.

For example, "I have a (B)fever; therefore, I have the (A)flu.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85QJZdbgEoc[/VIDEO]

Cheers

[vidbid]

So the real issue is how is pressure maintained without a can/container?

That's your question.

That's not my question.

I never asked that question.

On the other hand, your question presupposes that pressure is maintained without a container.

However, in fact, pressure can't be maintained without a container.

See Boyle's Law

See Second Law of Thermodynamics

So the real issue is how is pressure maintained without a can/container?

That's begging the question. It's a logical fallacy. I've already explain what a begging the question fallacy is.

My question is, "How can you have gas pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

The definition of antecedent here is "a thing or event that existed before or logically precedes another." (per Google)

Refer to: https://nathanoakley.com/wp-content/...20Pressure.mp4

Cheers

[Gambeir]

Questions:

1. How can you have a gas pressure gradient without gas pressure?

2. How can you have gas pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?

https://nathanoakley.com/wp-content/...20Pressure.mp4

A fireworks to space system requires the money of Elon Musk. Notice that the Musk fireworks to space hasn't produced anything for over a decade. That ancient rockets to space system is never going to do anything and is stupid too boot. Figure out how to get in space yourself is the answer; find out what truth is first hand.

[Gambeir]

I disagree. There are several things wrong with a vacuum based aircraft, but I'll only mention one.

If the video of a vacuum holding rail tank car imploding from air pressure, with said tank rail car being made of steel, doesn't show you what's wrong with the concept of a vacuum vehicle, then I don't know what will.

I'm going to quote a video I watched about why a vacuum vehicle won't work. While I don't agree with everything the video says, I do agree with the following quote:

WITH RESPECT TO A VACUUM VEHICLE:


Talking about this imagined vacuum vehicle is red herring.

A red herring is a statement or a position that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.

The important questions is, "Can you have air pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the air (gas) to press upon?"

Cheers

Now then, first off I have an idea that I think I understand why you're focused on this idea about whether or not you need a tin can to contain air to produce pressure, but what's important is what we think might be possible, and so while you've been focused on this I'm trying to take you somewhere else as well.

There is no physical container around planet Earth and we have air pressure. The question of "can you have air pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the air" is leading and misstates what's important. There is no can/container over the planet and we have air pressure so obviously you do not need a container, and so the important question is how is this possible?

So the real issue is how is pressure maintained without a can/container?

That is why I went to good deal of trouble to outline the dynamic difference between an Einsteinian Universe and an Electric Universe. The reason for asking is what you believe will determine what you believe keeps the atmosphere intact to our own planet, and as a result will further predict other variables.

One view creates impossibilities whereby nature cannot be manipulated while the other offers the potential to manipulate and or replicate the effects of nature. For example, one cannot create an artificial air pressure if what's required is an Einsteinian gravity system whereby air has weight and thus is falling inwards with all other mass. In other words, air pressure under this system is ultimately a matter of gravity and happens because of mass.

An Electric Universe model greatly changes what's possible. Under that model the atmosphere is composed of charged air molecules which are dynamic and moving with variable pressures. Therefore discussing the possibility of a vacuum ship is not a Red Herring. Aren't we just discussing the possible? I don't think discussing a vacuum ship is a red herring. It is an antigravity thread right?

A vacuum ship is pure engineering like a skyscraper is a building. The design called for sphere's laid up with bricks of very light but strong material, and perhaps those bricks could be hollow carbon fiber blocks or perhaps ones made from an aerogel.

I'm not a materials engineer but there's sure to be some lurking about on this forum.


The supposed reason that a vacuum balloon type of ship hasn't been built, so far as we know, is that we didn't have materials strong enough and yet light enough. That's not true any longer. Carbon fiber is stronger than steel. We can make hollow blocks out of that a whole lot easier and which would be vastly lighter.

Your video of a tanker car being crushed shows the power that a vacuum can produce. It doesn't show how to resist pressure since a tanker is meant to carry liquids. That's a completely opposite engineering problem. There's no internal framing in a tanker car. It's a giant beer can for all intense and purposes.

Submarine Hull

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attachments/commercial-vehicles/1482920d1457114615-submarines-indian-navy-dc-double-hull-photo.jpg

Obviously submarines can implode, as happened to the U.S.S. Thresher, and so there is a crush depth for most submarines as well.

https://shellbuckling.com/presentations/stiffenedCylinders/pages/page_163.html

Meanwhile technology changes the possible.

https://manufacturingstories.com/the-us-navy-has-3d-printed-a-prototype-submarine-hull-business-insider-youtube/

Navy 3D Prints First Submersible Hull
[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GlxVjAHofk[/VIDEO]

[vidbid]

Science versus Pseudoscience

Questions:

1. How can you have a gas pressure gradient without gas pressure?

2. How can you have gas pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?

https://nathanoakley.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Science%20vs%20Scientism%20Gravity%20Air%20Pressure.mp4

[vidbid]

Stop listening to liars.



Use the Scientific Method.

Understand logical fallacies.

[vidbid]

Relative Density Equilibrium

The image is of a 5-Tube Galileo Thermometer



You have a certain amount of a liquid sealed in a vile within a tube filled with liquid.

You can not increase the amount of liquid sealed in a vile.

What then causes the vile to rise or lower?

How does an increase in temperature affect the liquid in the vile?

Does not the relative density of each vile changes with temperature?

What comprises the mass, density and volume of each vile?

1. Glass vile.

2. Liquid in glass vile.

3. Gas in glass vile.

4. Metal temperature tag, which displays the current air temperature.

which is density-relative to

the liquid that the vile is in.

The temperature is the independent variable.

How do you control temperature?

Easy. Turn on a space heater, for one.

Relative Density Equilibrium

[vidbid]

What then keeps the atmosphere attached to Earth?

That's begging the question.

The question presupposes that Earth is a ball.

Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself. (per Google)

Refer to Boyle's Law and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Newtonian gravity is pseudoscience.

Einsteinian gravity is pseudoscience.

Think in terms of relative density equilibrium and non-equilibrium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_density

Go to https://nathanoakley.com/ to get your education.

Learn about the Scientific Method.

Learn about logical fallacies.

Cheers

[vidbid]

There's nothing wrong with the concept of a vacuum based air/antigravity ship

I disagree. There are several things wrong with a vacuum based aircraft, but I'll only mention one.

If the video of a vacuum holding rail tank car imploding from air pressure, with said tank rail car being made of steel, doesn't show you what's wrong with the concept of a vacuum vehicle, then I don't know what will.

I'm going to quote a video I watched about why a vacuum vehicle won't work. While I don't agree with everything the video says, I do agree with the following quote:

WITH RESPECT TO A VACUUM VEHICLE:
Talking about this imagined vacuum vehicle is red herring.

A red herring is a statement or a position that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.

The important questions is, "Can you have air pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container for the air (gas) to press upon?"

Cheers

[Gambeir]

I see.

The it in your statement above is referring to a vacuum that would exists inside of an imagined vacuum vehicle.

Correct, it refers to a vacuum. In this case a vacuum balloon concept as originated in 1670.

What would keep the vacuum from collapsing the containers?

For example:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz95_VvTxZM[/VIDEO]

It seems to me that a helium balloon would be far more efficient at lifting a vehicle rather than a vacuum vehicle.

Yea, I've seen that video. Impressive huh? However, what's the vacuum? How many Bar and you have realize it's not meant to be subjected to a vacuum; just the opposite. Let's see this repeated on a submarine hull and then you've got something worthwhile to take note of.

https://vacaero.com/information-resources/vacuum-pump-technology-education-and-training/633-understanding-vacuum-measurement-units.html

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/vacuum-converter-d_460.html

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/vacuum-flow-measurement-d_836.html

There's nothing wrong with the concept of a vacuum based air/antigravity ship, it's just that it has never been possible because up till recently there's never been a material that's both light enough and yet strong enough to construct a vacuum based anti-gravity ship or balloon upon. Evidently this is changing. I don't have any idea what materials would be best. I haven't researched any of it but I'm guessing an aerogel might be one suitable material to make a brick like hollow ball out of.

Take a look see through the website that features the posted design. They say that they have run computer simulations proving their concept. I saw no mention of what materials they would be using however we can speculate and maybe it is an aerogel brick that they are basing the concept upon. That would be logical based on what little I know about aerogels; which is very little. This idea that the material might be an aerogel is something I put out for consideration and for others to dig round on.

Whereas..

The it that I was referring to is, "Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

See:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYmeIX5PrDA[/VIDEO]


Can you have gas pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container?


[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJQjAljdFGE[/VIDEO]


Cheers!

First of all: This Problem.

If you think that Einsteinian Physics is right then an Electric Universe cannot be right. If you think an Electric Universe is right then an Einstenian Universe cannot be right. What you believe is going to determine what you think is possible, but remember that all knowledge is fluid.

In an Electric/Magnetic Universe the weight of a mass is determined by induction of energy, and that works along with a set of variables, but which for the sake of simplicity we can simply say that; the rate of induction of energies from counterspace, and the material in question both combine to form a magnetic field in matter.

Since the planet is itself magnetic that would mean that the core has no magnetic field, as it is a bloch wall, and hence no gravity would exist at the core either; this is a near inverse of Einsteinian Theory. Such a realization would mean that a molten core, if there is a molten core, would require another explanation.

In an Einsteinian Universe we have the pot hole theory of mass density where density is innate to matter itself, causes space to bend into a pit, and under the same logic is the reason mass falls inwards upon other mass, and which according to Einsteinian Physics is what produces gravity. More, when mass is piled upon itself it will create increasing mass density by compaction, hence pressure, until such time as the core becomes molten. Under this model a molten core of iron resides at the core of planet earth due to the mass density over and above the core.


Earth constantly loses it's atmosphere to space. How then is this replenished? The Electric Universe model proposes that most of the matter produced at the planetary core is gas, and which is hydrogen and oxygen, in other words it mainly produces water as a byproduct of a fusion reaction. The core is not kept molten by density of increasing mass piled upon itself since the core is without gravity because it is magnetic, and so the core is a bloch wall, and would be the point whereby counterspace is exiting back to and coming into existence.

What then keeps the atmosphere attached to Earth? Is it gravity or is it an induction and hence magnetism?

[vidbid]

Question #1. Why do you have decreasing air pressure as the altitude increases?

Question #1. Why does water pressure increase as you descend in the ocean?

No straw men or begging the question, please.