Private Social Media Platform

I like how you like that people are talking shit while I'm banned for simply repeating the ad hom that was given to me, especially since you haven't substantiated. I'll be back in two days so you can elaborate on the claims of how you have air/ gas pressure without a container or how gravity is able to hold air/ gas in a density gradient. I expect an experiment to substantiate the claim,  you've had 30 days.

Quote from: 29 1549 direct message:

➽ I like how you like that people are talking shit while I'm banned for simply repeating the ad hom that was given to me, especially since you haven't substantiated. I'll be back in two days so you can elaborate on the claims of how you have air/ gas pressure without a container or how gravity is able to hold air/ gas in a density gradient. I expect an experiment to substantiate the claim,  you've had 30 days.

With mixed emotions of both contempt and sadness, I decline to interact with your mindless parroting presentations. I have decided to NOT delete your comments on FE in this FE / GE discussion thread. I have also decided to not delete any of your non-FE comments anywhere else.

I have more important things to present. This cold civil war that is going on in the U.S. and the world could become a hot war with people being killed... That is, with people being killed in addition to the people being killed by governments around the world daily.

When you correctly explain the phases of the moon, I'll think about resuming discussion.

cc: tim lance

Dale Eastman yeah all your ad homs don't constitute evidence of anything except a failure to make an intelligent argument. So now that I'm out of banishment for simply dishing out what i had received, do any of you have evidence of gas/air pressure absent a container, or if your claim is gravity holds the gas/air pressure to the earth i would like an experiment demonstrating such behavior. I've already shown an experiment demonstrating a gas/air pressure gradient within a container i will repost it if necessary.

When you correctly explain the phases of the moon, I'll think about resuming discussion.

no. YOU invoked the pressure gradient and i would like evidence that supports the claim. Or you can concede that you have no evidence that refutes the fact that gas/air pressure requires a container, and this a gas/air pressure gradient requires a container. If you can concede you we can get to the logical deduction of why a lens of some sort could be envoked in explaining how the sun apears in an apparent location and why the experiment of the flat table with a light source observed through a lens is plausible and viable.

You have been given MY terms for continuing this discussion.

Else:

Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use

so you concede, then. Ok. We shall go over the moon phases. The sun circles the above the earth once every 24 hours and between the two tropics yearly, the moon moves between the tropics monthly, but circles the earth at a slower pace than the sun, whereby, the sun laps the moon once every 28 days. We used to have 13 months(moonths) of 28 days. So when the moon is closest to the sun we have a "new moon". No one sees the new moon, not even with ir cameras (interesting). When the moon is farthest from the sun (on opposite sides of the earth) we get our full moon. The moon is its own light sorce, but it's phases are dependent on its position relative to the sun. Why do i say the moon is its own light sorce? Because of the inverse square law of light. On a full moon night, where the moon casts a shadow on the ground, and we are very modest, say we could call that one lumin, it's like more but if we call it just one lumin, and we have the distance to the moon its 4 lumins(as the inverse square law of light dictates) half that distance again and were at 8 lumin, and you do this all the way till your 100 miles from the moon, in the globe model, the brightness it would have to be is multitudes brighter than we see the sun from here on earth. Now speaking of moon phases, have you heard of the "impossible eclipse" or the seleninlion eclipse?

➽ so you concede, then. Ok. We shall go over the moon phases. The sun circles the above the earth once every 24 hours and between the two tropics yearly, the moon moves between the tropics monthly, but circles the earth at a slower pace than the sun, whereby, the sun laps the moon once every 28 days. We used to have 13 months(moonths) of 28 days. So when the moon is closest to the sun we have a "new moon". No one sees the new moon, not even with ir cameras (interesting). When the moon is farthest from the sun (on opposite sides of the earth) we get our full moon. The moon is its own light sorce, but it's phases are dependent on its position relative to the sun. Why do i say the moon is its own light sorce? Because of the inverse square law of light. On a full moon night, where the moon casts a shadow on the ground, and we are very modest, say we could call that one lumin, it's like more but if we call it just one lumin, and we have the distance to the moon its 4 lumins(as the inverse square law of light dictates) half that distance again and were at 8 lumin, and you do this all the way till your 100 miles from the moon, in the globe model, the brightness it would have to be is multitudes brighter than we see the sun from here on earth. Now speaking of moon phases, have you heard of the "impossible eclipse" or the seleninlion eclipse?

◎ All of the above
◎ Some of the above
◉ None of the above

https://youtu.be/4q1f0fQizyc

https://youtu.be/x0Cr_VUtY08

https://youtu.be/9US3oaEZ8dI

https://youtu.be/3vL3JCssBl4

I have no duty to address your delusions...
So:

Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use

Move along.
You are dismissed.
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/0001/No%20Delusion%20Duty.png

you clearly cannot refute what I've put forward regarding gas/air pressure and claiming gravity creates a gradient with no evidence to support this claim, and by your silence and refusal to answer it is acceptance by acquiescence, another one for the flat-basket. I've moved on to the moon phases and eclipses with several videos as my proofs of claim. A ball casting a shadow on a ball creates an elliptical shadow contrary to what's observed. The shadow of a lunar eclipse will come in from the opposite side of the direction of how the earth is said to move in relation to the moon, in the globe model (i observed this myself with the last lunar eclipse. The seleninlion eclipse can't work on the ball as both moon and sun are both above the horizon. A shadow cannot be smaller than the object casting the shadow, the solar eclipse is refuted, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Can you provide or produce evidence of an object casting a shadow smaller than the object itself?

https://youtu.be/dJbU4tSpsAY

I have no duty to address your delusions...
So:

Scroll Bar ⇉
Free To Use

Move along.
You are dismissed.

you're right but if you're claiming you can prove your claim you would show evidence, otherwise its an acceptance by acquiescence. So I've moved on to moon phases like you requested.

Repeating what I wrote:
When you correctly explain the phases of the moon, I'll think about resuming discussion.

You have NOT correctly explained the phases of the moon.
You have posted crap vids that do NOT explain the phases of the moon...
Your vids are NOT YOU explaining.
You are not even smart enough to understand that this discussion is over.
Keep shitting last words in the conversation, I will block you. I'm tired of the work required to archive your delusional posts.

Dear Dale,
you are dealing with a brainless fucking idiot. Either push him off a tall building to prove gravity is real (put him in a rubber suit first) or stop engaging with this moron.
Love, your family and friends

No one denies the EFFECT of gravity. Whats disputed is the CAUSE of gravity. I posted how a manipulating the independent veriable of the electrostatic charge of something using a vidergraph generator will cause an object to either rise or fall. Ulinke dale, here, i actually show experimental evidence to support my claims. Unless you can show me how space/time is bent, your beleive in pseudoscience.

you post pseudo science crap that proves nothing! Most of your nonsense ONLY works under very specific conditions and CAN NOT be repeated. Maybe you should study the differences between scientific LAW and scientific THEORY

Neither you nor Dale have posted anything that's observable, verifiable, and repeatable, which the scientific method requires. I understand the difference between scientific law and scientific theory, what causes the effect we see and call gravity is a theory, hence theoretical physics. If you spent more time studying the experimental evidence instead of regurgitating what's in the Rockefeller school books you could provide the evidence needed to substantiate the claims being proposed instead of just ad homing, and reifying you deeply held but erroneous beliefs because it's too hard to accept that maybe you've been duped. So no ad homs, do you have evidence that Dale can't provide or are you just triggered?

Pot, kettle, black. None of your alleged evidence is observable, repeatable, verifiable.

Again so far nothing dale has provided goes in the "globe only" basket. Maybe you're better at providing evidence than dale so I'll ask you, then. Do you have or can you provide an experiment that shows air pressure next to vacuum without equalization or a physical barrier? Or if you contend that gravity nullifies this LAW of thermodynamics, can you provide an experiment whereby gravity can defy the force of a vacuum?

get this through your thick stupid skull. Pressure gradients!!! Apparently you do NOT understand Gradients. Hint: figure out what GRADUAL means

again, in order to have air pressure a container is required. Do you have evidence of air pressure absent a container? Providing this could shut me up for good.

gas/air pressure requires a container.

Again- ignoring the key word GRADIENT as in GRADUAL; figure that out first. I will NOT waste my time on more of your BS until YOU can prove you understand what GRADUAL means

again I've already shown that pressure gradients exist within a container. Can you show air/gas pressure period without a container? You listen worse than dale.

pressure gradient existing within a container. Do you have evidence of pressure gradients absent a container, with out begging the question, and reification?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnaVvgaYY8

You still do not understand what gradual means. Let’s try this is the air pressure in Chicago. The same as it is I need Evans Colorado?

Your begging the question. Your presuming that you're not in a contained system. That's why I'm asking a prerequisite question of whether it's possible to have air pressure without a container in the first place.

YOU prove your bullshit first. Without throwing more bullshit videos that do NoT answer a single question. Also go back and read you own words. You contradict yourself in nearly every post

i just did, air and gas pressure requires a container. I just showed 4 screen shots and a video as proof of my claim. Now stop shifting the burden of proof and show me where you can have air pressure without a container.

All garbage and does not prove anything. Now you get your head out of your rectum and prove you understand what gradients and gradual mean

at sea level relative air pressure is 14.7 the higher the altitude the lower the air pressure gets. That's the gradient. Density and buoyancy can account for this as the denser air is settled at the bottom. Now can you show me air pressure without a container? Can you show cacuum without a container? Can you show high pressure next to low pressure without equalization or a physical barrier? I've been asking Dale this for a month now and he can't seem to answer without a logical fallacy of being the question fallacy or a reification fallacy, or an ad hom. Is there an experiment you can site that demonstrates either of those things.

Now I understand what Robert Heinlein meant when he said, never try to teach a pig to sing.

gradient isn't an answer to the question. Gradients exist within containers. I'm asking for evidence of a air pressure with our without a gradient without containment. Do you have evidence or just now ad homs?

Sing, Piggy, come on sing!

ad homs, cool. I didn't think I'd get an intelligent answer from you.

Kitty Eastman you do realize you're projecting right now. You're the pig that can't learn to sing.

every flat earther used to beleive in the globe they were indoctrinated to believe. Then upon closer examination we actually humbled ourselves and admitting we were wrong.

you’re own words right back at you

so you have no evidence for what you're claiming either? Why did you even chime in?

are you saying believing in your nonsense is a 12 step program?

More ad homs. Why don't you go fuck yourself.

Fecalbook deleted this. I'm putting it back.
It is my intent to present you as you present yourself.

you are refusing to answer and provide evidence to a simple question, and using fallacious arguments. Like that appeal to authority you just used. Galileo a man you don't even know whether he existef or not. So can you provide the evidence for the claim that gravity can defy the force of a vacuum, or do you concede that there is no evidence that gravity can hold atmos in defiance of a vacuum?

I've provided evidence for every claim I've made thus far, I'm asking you extend me the same courtesy.

➽ I've provided evidence for every claim I've made thus far, <SNIP>
➽ You mean a recording studio?
⇉ I am reading that comment as if you openly stated Virgin Galactic doesn't launch folks into and above the upper atmosphere.
Present 𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓯𝓲𝓪𝓫𝓵𝓮 𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮 of this claim.

You mean a recording studio? See this is how science works if there's a claim you need evidence to support it. If there were actual evidence, there wouldn't be any globe deniers. Saying gravity can hold water and air to the earth needs something to back it. When i can easily demonstrate the minute amount of low pressure from my mouth and lungs and easly defeat gravity and pull water and air away from the earth, but you can't show me one experiment where this magical gravity can defy the low pressure of space. If you can't validate this notion of gravity must have to understand you have pseudoscience and a dogmatic religious belief.

still nothing has gone on the "globe only" basket.

Sign up and book a flight to take your delusional ass to the edge of space.

➽ You mean a recording studio?

I am reading that comment as if you openly stated Virgin Galactic doesn't launch folks into and above the upper atmosphere.

Present verifiable evidence of this claim. Absolute proof is the only way to make your claim not libelous.

Then wtf is earth's air pressure contained by next to the vaccume of space. If you say gravity I'm going to need to see an experiment of gravity defying the force of vaccume in an experiment otherwise its pseudoscience. Do you understand that? I'm looking for an experiment that substantiates that claim.

First read: November 25 @ 09:36 hrs.
Second read: November 25 @ 12:31hrs.

Part 1

November 18 1235
➽ That's what this whole conversation was stated for, definitive proof of the globe, you said you have.

The only reason this conversation has continued as long as it has is because YOU managed to actually become the topic of MY study.

I had become curious about what mental contortions and mental gyrations you will go through to protect your magical thinking magical beliefs.

Noticeable is your selective memory.

September 30 11:14 you posted:
➽ I know you don't like to discuss the notion that the earth isn't a ball in an infinite space vaccume but

That half sentence informs me that at some point you did read my September 8 1635 post:

⇉ If I find flat earth beliefs in your posts in my feed, I am going to pretend I am new to the earth and ask you questions. If you do not engage with me and my questions honestly, I'll remove you as a friend. ⇇
https://www.facebook.com/dale.eastman.75/posts/pfbid035NxqrAjWMRG2yWNDgJUuhis8PdXH9Jhni82Zyc73cxLBQtv1vbsodMJJaeDmKyZWl

In view of those two hard facts, I find your subtle attempt to spin the words of this discussion to support your magical belief dishonest, arrogant, and disrespectful. And not subtle enough for me to miss your attempts to control the narrative, topics, and discussion.

You have accused me of:
November 18 1234
➽ still shifting the burden of proof.

Which is EXACTLY what you are trying to do with this claim:

November 18 1235
➽ this whole conversation was stated for, definitive proof of the globe,

WOE UNTO ME... Alas, my dilemma... Was his statement a dishonest attempt to control the discussion, or just his being selectively forgetful?

November 16 1146
➽ But you've still been dodging the question about pressure systems.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Stating your opinion does not make your opinion reality.

I have continually been answering your question about pressure.

You have continually denied my answer in a manner that makes me wonder if you are too stupid to understand my answer or if you are so emotionally invested in your magical belief that you will deny anything that denies your magical belief. (I'm willing to bet you didn't believe your parents when they told you there's no monsters in the closet or under your bed. (Yes, that was an ad hominem where I attacked your brain-power.))

➽ idon't think anyone has been past 72 miles high

𝓣hat is your magical thinking. 𝓣hat is your magical belief. 𝓣hat is why I call you a historic and technical illiterate.
𝓣hat is why you refuse to understand my answer and keep spewing shit about pressure near vacuum.

𝓨ou refuse to accept that the further above earth something is, the less air pressure there is.
𝓨ou are telling me, via implication, that you don't believe barometric altimeters, the things that measure air pressure at elevation, are real.
𝓨ou are telling me that you don't believe the X-15, U-2, and SR-71 are real.
𝓨ou are telling me that you refuse to believe the altimeters until you personally get a ride in any sub-orbital machine.

Air pressure / air density is directly connected to the concept of atmospheric bending of light.

On November 3 @ 1439 you claimed:
➽ 1. Air plane windows have a concave to them.

𝓣his is your attempt to deny that I saw what I saw all those times I was a commercial airline passenger. My job was national field service. I flew a lot. So a got to look out a variety of airliner windows.
𝓣his is you telling me that you are willfully ignoring observations that prove a globe earth.
𝓣his  is you telling me that you are not a critical thinker and not able to critically examine information in your sight.

I will now critically examine your errant, biased belief that bent airliner windows cause the appearance of a curved earth on the horizon of a flat earth.

Your choice of calling the windows "concave" is you failing to address that from the other side the windows are convex. So you only focused on the part you believe bolsters your belief.

The webpage you cherry picked your curved windows proof from, to support your errant claim of a curved window causing a curved "looking" horizon, also stated:
📖 The outer panes are thicker at approximately 0.4” thick and carry the pressure loads for the life of the window, 📖

You willfully ignored from my quote of your chosen page: 📖 The outer panes [...] carry the pressure loads for the life of the window,📖 You willfully ignored the data that supports: higher elevation = less pressure, which supports different air pressure = air density GRADIENTS.

A majority of of the length of any passenger aircraft is a uniform radius tube. This means ANY window in that section of the tube will also be a uniform radius from front to back (left to right or right to left from the passenger seat) Therefore any bending you errantly assume would be different from front to back simply can not be. In order for the alleged flat horizon to bend down, the windows can NOT be uniform dimensions from front to back. This is you telling me that you did not apply any critical thought to this particular shit you threw at the wall to see if it would stick. It doesn't.

You willfully ignored when I pointed out these windows are of a uniform thickness, just like the windows on my car. And the side windows on my car are also curved just like the image from your article shows.

📖 For observers near sea level, the difference between this geometrical horizon (which assumes a perfectly flat, infinite ground plane) and the true horizon (which assumes a spherical Earth surface) is imperceptible to the unaided eye. However, for someone on a 1,000 m (3,300 ft) hill looking out across the sea, the true horizon will be about a degree below a horizontal line. 📖

No bent airliner window required.

Testing your bent window bullshit is as easy as looking out the window at a horizontal edge of something like the terminal building and seeing the same bend as the horizon. Did I mention I've looked out a lot of airliner windows?

I claimed, "you are also totally fucking clueless as to how lenses work" and you implied you understand how lenses work when you posted:
October 19 14:07 you replied:
➽ it bends toward the denser medium.

I challenged your understanding when I posted: "Why does the light bend when it enters a medium of different density?" and you  again implied you understand how lenses work when you posted:
November 12 1117
➽ In particle theory its because the speed the light travels is different in different mediums.

If the edges of the denser medium are parallel, the light leaves at the same angle it entered, though offset due to the thickness of the transparent medium.

So you have again told me what you don't know. Using your errant logic, anything horizontal I look at through my car's side windows should appear bent also.

You again fail at logic and critical thinking.

Part 2

November 9 0726
➽ the horizon is still at eye level
November 12 1207
➽ the horizon remains at eye level
November 16 0933
➽ projecting it up to the eye level of an observer.
November 16 1146
➽ Optics of the eye make an apparent horizon at the observers eye level.

Horizon:
📖 the line at the farthest place that you can see, where the sky seems to touch the land or sea📖
📖 the place in the distance where the earth and sky seem to meet📖

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Horizons.svg

As shown in the Wikipedia linked image, "eye level" does not see the horizon.
"Eye level' is depicted by the horizontal line of the astronomical horizon shown in this image.
This astronomical horizon line of sight is parallel to the tangent of the surface where the observer stands.
Parallel lines, or parallel plains NEVER intersect.
So even on the alleged plane of the flat earth you errantly believe you stand on, and the horizontal, eye level, line of sight will never intersect the plane of the flat earth. One must look at an angle down to even see the horizon.

Therefore as a point of logic and critical analysis, your claims of horizons and eye level's is just you proudly claiming how willfully uninformed you are about geometry.

This discussion started with you asking on September 30 12:10:
➽ how earth's proposed size is known

To which I answered:
Trigonometry.

October 27 15:11
➽ If the math doesn't describe reality its bad math.

𝓦hat you really said was, If the math doesn't describe flat earth magical thinking, it's bad math.
𝓦hat you really said was, I don't believe in the math of trigonometry.
𝓦hat you implied was, Trigonometry is bad math.

You implied Trig is bad math by posting anything you could to deny that Trig is how the size of the globe earth was measured.

You even posted a video of how a flat earth ℂ𝕆𝕌𝕃𝔻 have angles of shadows matching the angles of a globe earth.
ℂ𝕆𝕌𝕃𝔻 does NOT mean 𝕀𝕊.
In order for "ℂ𝕆𝕌𝕃𝔻" to be "𝕀𝕊" a VERY SPECIFIC LENS SHAPE IS REQUIRED.
Your own video proved this.
You willfully ignored these points in favor of your magical thinking.
You built your alleged disproof of the trigonometry on this magical thinking.

You even went so far with your magical thinking, to attempt to deny gravity. Your October 30 post is you not even being consistent in your magical thinking claim.

October 17 16:57
➽ we'll get to the lack of evidence for gravity in due time.
October 30 1758
➽ gravity hasn't been "proven"(in taking about the causality not the effect)
November 4 1050
➽ the theory of gravity that's never been proven
November 4 1050
➽ And gravity is presupposed because we're on a ball yet you haven't qualified the ball
November 18 0854
➽ You claim gravity but theres no experimental evidence to support the claim of gravity.

Gravity is presupposed because you don't float off the ground.

So you double down on your magical thinking spewing your denial of gravity with "electrostatics" thereby telling me you do NOT understand electrostatics.

November 5 1034
➽ Are they defying gravity or repelling the earth's measurable negative charge?
November 5 1144
➽ Just by changing the positive electrostatic potential it repells earth measurable negative charge.
November 8 1127
➽ What we have done is experiment on somethings positive/ negative charge and we can cause an object to "defy gravity" just by changing its charge potential.
November 12 1349
➽ But the molecules with the higher positive electrostatic potential will draw closer to the measurably negative charge of the earth.
November 12 1533
➽ obviously there's more pressure towards the bottom because electrostatics (not gravity) create the downward vector.
November 12 1637
➽ Density makes heavier molecules settle closer to earth while lighter, less dense (more positive electrostatic potential) gases like helium, zenon, etc, settle upward.

Part 3

ELECTROSTATICS:
Opposite charges attract. Like charges repel.
You contradict your own words. Thus you have proven you don't even proof read the crap you post.
After re-reading your magical thinking claims, I doubt you understand what causes electrostatic charges.

For all your claims of pressure "equalization" I wonder why you don't understand that differential charges will transfer electrons until charge is equalized.
This magical thinking, willful ignorance claim of static charges instead of gravity is you admitting you don't understand lightening strikes.

October 8 16:31
➽ 3. Eddy currents are subject to heat because of the cury point magnets lose their magnetism, so how is a presumed molten core presumed to have any magnetism?
November 18 0854
➽ You claim earth has a molten magnetic core, but magnets lose their magnetism at the curey point.
November 18 1111
➽ You mentioned earth's magnetic field yet you have no evidence of a magnet retaining is magnetism beyond the curey point.

This is you proudly telling me that you don't understand electro-magnetics.

November 18 1207
➽ So when you can't substate the model you beleive in you attack the patchwork model of the fe?

I do agree with your claim that your flat earth magical thinking is a "patchwork" model. Your magical belief patchwork is inconsistent. Your "patchwork" model is INCOMPLETE. You admitted this when you posted:
November 18 0854
➽ i can say i don't know the causality of the motions of the celestial bodies.

Your magical belief patchwork requires the imagining (making shit up) of a specific shaped lens at a specific distance. This magical lens requires a magical force to shape it and hold it in a specific position for the FE angles to match the GE measurements. You have built your alleged disproof of the globe math on this magical thinking.

The globe earth model is self consistent, is not a patchwork, incorporates all the physical science you deny with your magical thinking.

November 12 1438
➽ Earth has air pressure 14.7 psi. Space is a vaccume 10-17 tore.

17 torr = 0.32872517psi

Changing the units. Dishonest.
Or you did not learn negative numbers in math class.

November 16 1203
➽ There is no 24 video of the 24 hour sunlight in Antarctica. There's like 2 videos and they are heavily edited.

You willfully ignored this question:
November 16 1317
Is this one of those two videos?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndlQNicOeso

I found your rectal-cranial inversion.
November 6 0927
➽ rather than the center of an intelligently dedigned relm

Based on the nature of air pressure you are either presupposing that you don't need a container for air pressure, or that something is keeping the atmos from escaping into space. An altimeter is evidence of pressure/ density gradients that's not in dispute. What's in dispute is the ability to have a pressure system with gradients therein, without a physical barrier containing them.

That doesn't prove the gas isn't contained. There is no experiment that can demonstrate a sealed box, in a vacuum, being opened up(removing the physical barrier) and it not equalizing. How does the earth maintain its atmos without it equalizing into space?

➽ How does the earth maintain its atmos without it equalizing into space?

That would be the "something" ... "keeping the atmos from escaping into space"

➽ something is keeping the atmos from escaping into space

Huzzah!

That "something" is what is causing the pressure density gradients.
That "something" has everything to do with what is called "down".

Gravity! Why could you not have said that sooner? So gravity is pulling the water and air towards the center of the earth and the vacuum of space isn't able to over power it?

➽ Gravity! Why could you not have said that sooner?

October 17 16:57
➽ we'll get to the lack of evidence for gravity in due time
October 30 1758
➽ gravity hasn't been "proven"(in taking about the causality not the effect)
November 4 1050
➽ the theory of gravity that's never been proven
November 5 1144
➽ I'll wait for an experiment to qualify and quantify gravity.
November 12 1533
➽ No, obviously there's more pressure towards the bottom because electrostatics (not gravity) create the downward vector.

➽ So gravity is pulling the water and air towards the center of the earth and the vacuum of space isn't able to over power it?

Huzzah!

ok let me see if i understand this correctly. The weak low pressure i can generate with my cheeks and lungs can pull air and water up away from the earth though a drinking straw effortlessly, yet the more powerful tore 17 vacuum of space can't?

So we either need an experiment to show that two pressure systems can exist without a barrier or equalization. Or we need an experiment where we can have a bowl in a vaccume chamber and the chamber pumped out through the bottom leaving a pocket of air in the bowl because gravity is holding it in place? I would hypothesize that ask the air would be ducked out because the bowl isn't a container. Would you hypothesize that gravity would hold some air in the bowl?

Your are NOT vacuuming anything up that straw. Assuming you are creating a perfect vacuum, it is the approximate 14.7 psi PUSHING the drink up the straw. This is why the development of a perfect vacuum on one side of a "U" shaped tube will NEVER draw more than 29.929503666738164 inches of mercury.

Do the same thing with a "U" tube of water, the water on the vacuum side of the tube will boil. If not for the low pressure causing a boil, you could get 407.8 inches of water. Inverse affect of a pressure cooking pot, and the reason why high elevation cooking requires more time to cook.

Fill your sink with water. Dip a glass and let the air bubble out. Tip the glass upside down. Pull the glass, bottom first, out of the sink. The glass of water will remain in the glass until the lip breaks the seal with the sink's water surface, at which time the air will rush to the top of the glass releasing the vacuum and the hold on the water in the upside down glass.

See the vid I will attempt to upload next.

The vacuum in the glass is contained when you broke the seal(the container) it equalized. That's not evidence of high pressure next to low without equalization or a physical barrier. That's a physical barrier being removed and then equalization happens.

I'm not creating vacuum in creating low pressure high pressure moves to low pressure the low pressure i can generate is nothing compared to what low pressure space is claimed to be. Yet the weak force of low pressure i can create cannot be negated by gravity. How is my weak low pressure able to do this yet the void of space cannot?

➽ the low pressure i can generate is nothing compared to what low pressure space is claimed to be

Which vacuum is greater? Vacuum A @ 0.000 psi or Vacuum B @ 0.000 psi.

those are the same numbers? That doesn't answer the question. Your claiming that gravity, a force you can't validate is responsible for holding on to the water and air against the extreme low pressure, that you can't validate, of space. When in thermodynamics we know that gases need a container in order to achieve pressure. You the burden of proof is on you to validate these claims.

Yes. Those are the same numbers. Now address what you claimed:
➽ the low pressure i can generate is nothing compared to what low pressure space is claimed to be

Which vacuum is greater? Vacuum A @ 0.000 psi or Vacuum B @ 0.000 psi.

The human lungs cannot generate a torr 17 vaccume, like space is claimed to be. I don't know what your are comparing.

If the weak low pressure i can generate with my lungs Is strong enough to lift water and air up away, defeating gravity, what mechanism is keeping the air from being equalized into space and preventing the water from boiling off?