Cosmology of the Electric Universe

[Native]

But you would still expect that total to be less on the 'lee' side and more opposite that, right? may I ask by how much?

Yes, but I haven´t calculated this. If you have, then just post it.

Now, once again to be clear, the lee side is the opposite side to the direction of travel, right? NOT the opposite to the direction of the sun?

Yes to the first sentense.

So, in your picture of the magnetosphere, you expect the 'shock wave' part to be in the direction of motion, NOT in the direction of the sun, right?

Correct and on the lee side of the Earth.
I argued,
The orbital pressures depends on both the velocity and the sizes of planets.

In what way?

By the way of simple aerodynamics.

And, is ANYONE denying that atmospheric pressure exists and affects water levels? Do you see this as being the same as the tides?

NO no one is denying this. And, yes I take the orbital velocity pressure to cause the daily tidal waves according to the Earth daily rotation.

I said:
As said several times now: The general orbital velocity pressure on the Earth = the general atmospheric pressure = Newtons escape velocity.

I´m just combing the natural causes and motions without using Newton´s *occult agency*. Forget that and make the natural connections.

Pressure and velocity are not comparable concepts. So equating atmospheric pressure to velocity makes no sense.

It certainly does when calculating the reentry velocity of a space craft through atmosphere. And as the space isn´t empty, it also goes for the planetary motions in spacial media.

I said:
Take for instants the Earth average diameter of 12.742 km and the average orbital velocity of 107,208 km/h around the Sun and you´ll get a value of the orbital velocity pressure of 8.413 for the Earth. (Admitted, I don´t know how to describe this value in scientific terms)

You realize that simply dividing these things doesn't give a pressure, right?

It´s a value of "resistence" which describes the orbital velocity pressure.

A pressure is a force per unit area: you divide a force by an area. In this, you are dividing a velocity by a distance. All that tells you is what fraction of an hour it takes to move the diameter of the Earth.

You forgot to include the NOT empty space = resistance = force of pressure.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, but I haven´t calculated this. If you have, then just post it.

Since I am unclear how your orbital pressure transfers down to atmospheric pressure, this isn't a calculation I can do with the information you have given.

Yes to the first sentense.

In that case, the picture of the magnetosphere you posted shows your ideas are wrong. The shock wave in that picture is on the side of the *sun* NOT in the direction of motion.

Correct and on the lee side of the Earth.
I argued,
The orbital pressures depends on both the velocity and the sizes of planets.

By the way of simple aerodynamics.

Not responsive. What is the equation relating the orbital velocities, the size of the planet and the orbital pressure? By what you wrote in another place, it seems that you simply divide the velocity by the diameter. But that isn't what would be done in aerodynamics.

NO no one is denying this. And, yes I take the orbital velocity pressure to cause the daily tidal waves according to the Earth daily rotation.

In which case, the tides should be consistently higher on the lee side, right? (or should they be lower?) And they should be less in the direction of the sun, for example.

I said:
As said several times now: The general orbital velocity pressure on the Earth = the general atmospheric pressure = Newtons escape velocity.

I´m just combing the natural causes and motions without using Newton´s *occult agency*. Forget that and make the natural connections.

It certainly does when calculating the reentry velocity of a space craft through atmosphere. And as the space isn´t empty, it also goes for the planetary motions in spacial media.

No, that is not how the reentry velocity is calculated. Or the approach angle. The pressure is NOT obtained by dividing the velocity by a diameter.

I said:
Take for instants the Earth average diameter of 12.742 km and the average orbital velocity of 107,208 km/h around the Sun and you´ll get a value of the orbital velocity pressure of 8.413 for the Earth. (Admitted, I don´t know how to describe this value in scientific terms)

It´s a value of "resistence" which describes the orbital velocity pressure.

No, actually, it isn't. It is simply stating that in one hour, the Earth moves 8.13 diameters.

You forgot to include the NOT empty space = resistance = force of pressure.

And how much pressure do you expect? While space isn't *completely* empty, it is emptier than any vacuum we can form on the surface of the Earth.

 

[gnostic]

Yes still lots of things to do.

Preliminary summary:
1) The constant oribital velocity pressure on the Earth and all planets.
2) As the Earth revolve, this constant pressure daily afffect all areas on the Earth and creates the daily tidal waves.
3) Different stronger weather systems affect the local atmospheric/"gravitational" forces.

View attachment 48264
The constant orbital velocity pressure on the Earth

Evidences of orbital pressures
View attachment 48265
Earth magnetic Field.

View attachment 48266
Cometary Tail. Not much of a solar attraction is it?
View attachment 48267
Planet Venus Tail
------------

Newton´s "g" also varies as the atmospheric pressure.
(The precise strength of Earth's gravity varies depending on location. The nominal "average" value at Earth's surface, known as standard gravity is, by definition, 9.80665 m/s2.[4] This quantity is denoted variously as gn, ge (though this sometimes means the normal equatorial value on Earth, 9.78033 m/s2), g0, gee, or simply g (which is also used for the variable local value).

Not quite. The Earth orbital pressure is *constant* on the revolving Earth, but strong weather pressures affect locally.

I said:
Local Barometer measuring and these informations - Atmospheric pressure

Not just for the surface but all up to the top of the Earth´s atmophere.

The shokwave indicates the orbital pressure as well as the "Solar Wind". This assembled pressure goes all through to the surface on the Earth.

The main pressure is down to Earth.

I´m saying that the orbital velocity pressure on a planet is stongest in the orbital direction and lesser on the planetary lee side and if the Moon is positioned in front of Earth´s orbital direction, this creates a momentary lesser pressure on the Earth.

I said:
EDIT These gravitational anomalies clearly indicates that Newton´s "g" is just an unjustified assumption and that such variables fits more logical to changes of orbital and atmospheric pressures.

Which is the very same with the same estimated and average weigth and follows the same scientific equations - with the difference that the orbital and atmospheric pressure can be measured directly and be explained scientifially compared to Newtons occult/superstitious invention.

I replied:
Because of the lunar orbital velocity pressure on the Moon.

We´re not talking of an empty space, you know. (It´s only in artificial experiments such stages can be made )

I´ve never differed between the Newtons assumed g (escape velocity) and the orbital velocity pressure on the Earth, as I take it to be the very same - and I´m only pointing out that local stronger weather systems momentarily and evidently has further pressure or lifting affects over the Earth´s surface.

Hurricane Storm Surge | Ocean Today

All of this post, is a confused hatchet mess.

It would seem that you have cobbled up disjointed things about the Earth, earth’s orbit, sun, and atmospheric pressures without bothering to understand the physics behind it all, sort of like DIY logic, except there are no logic in your reasoning. Even the images you have posted up, your interpretations, you have taken them out-of-context.

You think you are independent thinker, but there are no logics in your claims.

But since, you have put these images up, now try including mathematical models (eg using EM equations for the orbiting Earth, for the Earth’s rotation, for the atmospheric pressures, for sun’s shock waves, etc) that support your claims.

Without the physics’ mathematical models (equations), all your interpretations are simply senseless gibberish.

 

[Polymath257]

EDIT: Informations of space media which influences the orbital pressures:

Read also - Interplanetary medium
And
Outer space

Did you read the density of the interplanetary medium?

About *5 protons* per cubic centimeter.

That is 5 hydrogen *atoms* (not even hydrogen molecules) for each cubic centimeter.

What pressure do you think those 5 protons produce?

From *your* link:

"
The volume of interplanetary space is a nearly total vacuum, with a mean free path of about one astronomical unit at the orbital distance of the Earth. This space is not completely empty, and is sparsely filled with cosmic rays, which include ionized atomic nuclei and various subatomic particles. There is also gas, plasma and dust,[80] small meteors, and several dozen types of organic molecules discovered to date by microwave spectroscopy.[81] A cloud of interplanetary dust is visible at night as a faint band called the zodiacal light.[82]

Interplanetary space contains the magnetic field generated by the Sun.[77] There are also magnetospheres generated by planets such as Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury and the Earth that have their own magnetic fields. These are shaped by the influence of the solar wind into the approximation of a teardrop shape, with the long tail extending outward behind the planet. These magnetic fields can trap particles from the solar wind and other sources, creating belts of charged particles such as the Van Allen radiation belts. Planets without magnetic fields, such as Mars, have their atmospheres gradually eroded by the solar wind.[83]"

Notice that the shock wave in your picture is towards the *sun*, NOT in the direction of the motion of the Earth (nor is the one for Venus in the direction of the motion of Venus).

In other words, you are claiming that an almost perfect vacuum, far far stronger than anything we can produce artificially, is strong enough to produce the atmospheric pressure at the surface of the Earth.

How, exactly, is that possible? The pressure 200 miles above the Earth is almost non-existent. You get a few cosmic rays, a few dust particles, and some micro-meteors.

You like to go on about the magnetic fields in the solar system. Well, how about those *actually measured by satellites*? Again, from one of your links:

"The plasma in the interplanetary medium is also responsible for the strength of the Sun's magnetic field at the orbit of the Earth being over 100 times greater than originally anticipated. If space were a vacuum, then the Sun's 10{−4} tesla magnetic dipole field would reduce with the cube of the distance to about 10{−11} tesla. But satellite observations show that it is about 100 times greater at around 10{−9} tesla."

Now, just how strong do you think a magnetic field of 10^{-9} tesla is? How would it compare to, say, that of the Earth? That of a refrigerator magnet?

Now, imagine taking a refrigerator magnet and waving it around. See how much it affects other things in the room.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Yes, but I haven´t calculated this. If you have, then just post it.

Since I am unclear how your orbital pressure transfers down to atmospheric pressure, this isn't a calculation I can do with the information you have given.

The pressure derives from the orbital velocity resistance in teh not empty space and it goes right down to the Earth surface.

In that case, the picture of the magnetosphere you posted shows your ideas are wrong. The shock wave in that picture is on the side of the *sun* NOT in the direction of motion.

The image was an artist illustration of the standard explanation of "Solar Wind", whereas I´m using the image in order to illustrate a pressure on the Earth.

Not responsive. What is the equation relating the orbital velocities, the size of the planet and the orbital pressure? By what you wrote in another place, it seems that you simply divide the velocity by the diameter. But that isn't what would be done in aerodynamics.

I don´t think it´s irrelevant to speak of "aerodynamics" when talking of a planet which is moving through the not empty space.

I know we´re having some difficulties of definitions as my ideas are "somewhat going against" the standard explanations. At the same time, I almost have to invent a new cosmological language in order to explain my points of views - and sometimes my cosmological definitions aren´t quite precise.

No, that is not how the reentry velocity is calculated. Or the approach angle. The pressure is NOT obtained by dividing the velocity by a diameter.

I know of this angle calculation, but the main question was a calculation of velocity and resistence = pressure.

I said:
Take for instants the Earth average diameter of 12.742 km and the average orbital velocity of 107,208 km/h around the Sun and you´ll get a value of the orbital velocity pressure of 8.413 for the Earth. (Admitted, I don´t know how to describe this value in scientific terms)

It´s a value of "resistence" which describes the orbital velocity pressure.

No, actually, it isn't. It is simply stating that in one hour, the Earth moves 8.13 diameters.

Yes in the not empty space = resistence = pressure.

And how much pressure do you expect? While space isn't *completely* empty, it is emptier than any vacuum we can form on the surface of the Earth.

Not a good comparison, it is?

Watch what happens when the lack of atmospheric pressure chrushes a big tank. Now THERE you have a/the real attracting force

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
EDIT: Informations of space media which influences the orbital pressures:
Read also - Interplanetary medium
And
Outer space

Did you read the density of the interplanetary medium?

About *5 protons* per cubic centimeter.

That is 5 hydrogen *atoms* (not even hydrogen molecules) for each cubic centimeter.

What pressure do you think those 5 protons produce?

From *your* link:

"
The volume of interplanetary space is a nearly total vacuum, with a mean free path of about one astronomical unit at the orbital distance of the Earth. This space is not completely empty, and is sparsely filled with cosmic rays, which include ionized atomic nuclei and various subatomic particles. There is also gas, plasma and dust,[80] small meteors, and several dozen types of organic molecules discovered to date by microwave spectroscopy.[81] A cloud of interplanetary dust is visible at night as a faint band called the zodiacal light.[82]

Interplanetary space contains the magnetic field generated by the Sun.[77] There are also magnetospheres generated by planets such as Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury and the Earth that have their own magnetic fields. These are shaped by the influence of the solar wind into the approximation of a teardrop shape, with the long tail extending outward behind the planet. These magnetic fields can trap particles from the solar wind and other sources, creating belts of charged particles such as the Van Allen radiation belts. Planets without magnetic fields, such as Mars, have their atmospheres gradually eroded by the solar wind.[83]"

Yes I´ve read it all and if you add the orbital velocity of the Earth = resistence = pressure, you got it all right.

Notice that the shock wave in your picture is towards the *sun*, NOT in the direction of the motion of the Earth (nor is the one for Venus in the direction of the motion of Venus).

We´ve been there before. It´s artists impression and illustration of the "Solar Wind" where my focus is on the physical orbital velocity pressures on planets.

In other words, you are claiming that an almost perfect vacuum, far far stronger than anything we can produce artificially, is strong enough to produce the atmospheric pressure at the surface of the Earth.

I´m NOT claming "an almost perfect vacuum" which cannot be found any places in cosmos.

You like to go on about the magnetic fields in the solar system. Well, how about those *actually measured by satellites*? Again, from one of your links:

"The plasma in the interplanetary medium is also responsible for the strength of the Sun's magnetic field at the orbit of the Earth being over 100 times greater than originally anticipated. If space were a vacuum, then the Sun's 10{−4} tesla magnetic dipole field would reduce with the cube of the distance to about 10{−11} tesla. But satellite observations show that it is about 100 times greater at around 10{−9} tesla."

Now, just how strong do you think a magnetic field of 10^{-9} tesla is? How would it compare to, say, that of the Earth? That of a refrigerator magnet?

Now, imagine taking a refrigerator magnet and waving it around. See how much it affects other things in the room.

You should know by now that I´m not discussing E&M regarding directly governing of planetary motions.

I´m only talking of the E&M regardng the very FORMATION of the sun and the planets and it´s all fine by me just to conclude how the Sun creates and supports all living things on the Earth - which represents LOTS of annual EM powers.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Yes still lots of things to do.

Preliminary summary:
1) The constant oribital velocity pressure on the Earth and all planets.
2) As the Earth revolve, this constant pressure daily afffect all areas on the Earth and creates the daily tidal waves.
3) Different stronger weather systems affect the local atmospheric/"gravitational" forces.

View attachment 48264
The constant orbital velocity pressure on the Earth

Evidences of orbital pressures
View attachment 48265
Earth magnetic Field.

View attachment 48266
Cometary Tail. Not much of a solar attraction is it?
View attachment 48267
Planet Venus Tail
------------

Newton´s "g" also varies as the atmospheric pressure.
(The precise strength of Earth's gravity varies depending on location. The nominal "average" value at Earth's surface, known as standard gravity is, by definition, 9.80665 m/s2.[4] This quantity is denoted variously as gn, ge (though this sometimes means the normal equatorial value on Earth, 9.78033 m/s2), g0, gee, or simply g (which is also used for the variable local value).

Not quite. The Earth orbital pressure is *constant* on the revolving Earth, but strong weather pressures affect locally.

I said:
Local Barometer measuring and these informations - Atmospheric pressure

Not just for the surface but all up to the top of the Earth´s atmophere.

The shokwave indicates the orbital pressure as well as the "Solar Wind". This assembled pressure goes all through to the surface on the Earth.

The main pressure is down to Earth.

I´m saying that the orbital velocity pressure on a planet is stongest in the orbital direction and lesser on the planetary lee side and if the Moon is positioned in front of Earth´s orbital direction, this creates a momentary lesser pressure on the Earth.

I said:
EDIT These gravitational anomalies clearly indicates that Newton´s "g" is just an unjustified assumption and that such variables fits more logical to changes of orbital and atmospheric pressures.

Which is the very same with the same estimated and average weigth and follows the same scientific equations - with the difference that the orbital and atmospheric pressure can be measured directly and be explained scientifially compared to Newtons occult/superstitious invention.

I replied:
Because of the lunar orbital velocity pressure on the Moon.

We´re not talking of an empty space, you know. (It´s only in artificial experiments such stages can be made )

I´ve never differed between the Newtons assumed g (escape velocity) and the orbital velocity pressure on the Earth, as I take it to be the very same - and I´m only pointing out that local stronger weather systems momentarily and evidently has further pressure or lifting affects over the Earth´s surface.

Hurricane Storm Surge | Ocean Today

All of this post, is a confused hatchet mess.

And further on:

It would seem that you have cobbled up disjointed things about the Earth, earth’s orbit, sun, and atmospheric pressures without bothering to understand the physics behind it all, sort of like DIY logic, except there are no logic in your reasoning. Even the images you have posted up, your interpretations, you have taken them out-of-context.

You think you are independent thinker, but there are no logics in your claims.

But since, you have put these images up, now try including mathematical models (eg using EM equations for the orbiting Earth, for the Earth’s rotation, for the atmospheric pressures, for sun’s shock waves, etc) that support your claims.

Without the physics’ mathematical models (equations), all your interpretations are simply senseless gibberish.

Gnostic, I didn´t expect any other kind of reply from you, as new independent critical thougths and new constructive ideas apparently is too complicated for you to take in.

You´re apparently having no troubles believing in forces which cannot be explained and on human invented dark things all over the in cosmos - and above this superstitious approach to "science", you call everything else as "senseless gibberish"!?

Get your intellectual and logical proportions in balance before you reply, please.

 

[Native]

Subject: The EU way of observing and determine cosmic events.

Just for your information

And more alternative cosmological thinking in this PDF.

 

[Native]

UPS! I apparently overlooked this conversation, sorry.

I said:
NO no one is denying this. And, yes I take the orbital velocity pressure to cause the daily tidal waves according to the Earth daily rotation.

In which case, the tides should be consistently higher on the lee side, right? (or should they be lower?) And they should be less in the direction of the sun, for example.

The overall pressure on the Earth is approximately equally strong all over on the Earth surface and the daily tidal changes are caused as the Earth rotate, thus creating pressured waves according to the main two continental and other land masses.

It´s another case when for instants a spacecraft is gaining a slingshot effect from the lee side of an orbiting planet. Just as the Moon also has a shading effect on the Earth when being positioned in front of the orbiting Earth direction.

Of course, the Sun also have a radiation effect on the Earth´s magnetic field as well as on the daily and annual temperature changes all over the Earth.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
EDIT: Informations of space media which influences the orbital pressures:
Read also - Interplanetary medium
And
Outer space

Yes I´ve read it all and if you add the orbital velocity of the Earth = resistence = pressure, you got it all right.

We´ve been there before. It´s artists impression and illustration of the "Solar Wind" where my focus is on the physical orbital velocity pressures on planets.

And where does that pressure comes from? Pressure is always from some type of material: either air (atmospheric pressure) or water (pressure in an ocean, for example), or other fluid (gas or liquid) or even from some solid.

I´m NOT claming "an almost perfect vacuum" which cannot be found any places in cosmos.

And here is where you are definitely wrong. The measurements were done by satellites in orbit. There *is* an almost perfect vacuum in space. The actual measurements are that there are around 5 *atoms* per cubic centimeter in interplanetary space close to Earth.

You should know by now that I´m not discussing E&M regarding directly governing of planetary motions.

I´m only talking of the E&M regardng the very FORMATION of the sun and the planets and it´s all fine by me just to conclude how the Sun creates and supports all living things on the Earth - which represents LOTS of annual EM powers.

OK, we can stick with your supposed orbital pressure that comes from the pressure of almost nothing.

 

[Native]

And where does that pressure comes from? Pressure is always from some type of material: either air (atmospheric pressure) or water (pressure in an ocean, for example), or other fluid (gas or liquid) or even from some solid.

And what happens when an object is moving through these medias? Resistance = a pressure.

Isaid:
I´m NOT claming "an almost perfect vacuum" which cannot be found any places in cosmos.

And here is where you are definitely wrong. The measurements were done by satellites in orbit. There *is* an almost perfect vacuum in space. The actual measurements are that there are around 5 *atoms* per cubic centimeter in interplanetary space close to Earth.

So, the Einsteinian claim of his "curved gravity space-time" has no matter to work with in space? And what then about the assumed Higgs Field in space if this is empty? And what about the assumed CMBR background?

Where are the logics of stating a "perfect vacuum" in space? This is IMO just a gravitational side stepping argument.

OK, we can stick with your supposed orbital pressure that comes from the pressure of almost nothing.

If I have to choose between something which essence can be explaned dynamically and measured, I chose to avoid all the *occult agencies*, especially the weakest ones

 

[Polymath257]

And what happens when an object is moving through these medias? Resistance = a pressure.

Isaid:
I´m NOT claming "an almost perfect vacuum" which cannot be found any places in cosmos.

So, the Einsteinian claim of his "curved gravity space-time" has no matter to work with in space? And what then about the assumed Higgs Field in space if this is empty? Where are the logics of stating a "perfect vacuum" in space?

Once again, the amount of material here is incredibly small. I said an *almost perfect vacuum*. I went on to point out the actual measurements: 5 atoms per cubic centimeter.

That should be compared to ordinary air pressure (one atmosphere), which has about 270 quintillion molecules per cubic centimeter.

So, yes, that is very very close to a perfect vacuum.

Once again:
So, the Einsteinian claim of his "curved gravity space-time" has no matter to work with in space? And what then about the assumed Higgs Field in space if this is empty? Where are the logics of stating a "perfect vacuum" in space?

See above. it *is* a nearly perfect vacuum in space. That has been *actually measured*.

If I have to choose between something which essence can be explaned dynamically and measured, I chose to avoid all the *occult agencies*, especially the weakest ones

Not a question about gravity at all. We have actual measurements of what is in interplanetary space. The actual amount of material is very, very small. Even in your shock wave, the amount of actual material is far far less than the best vacuum on Earth.

You realize in the video of a train car collapse because of a vacuum, the *actual* reason for the collapse is the air pressure, right? Air provides a pressure of over 100,000 units of pressure per square meter. if there is no pressure *inside* (because there is a vacuum), the force *outside* is what crushes the train car.

 

[Native]

You realize in the video of a train car collapse because of a vacuum, the *actual* reason for the collapse is the air pressure, right? Air provides a pressure of over 100,000 units of pressure per square meter. if there is no pressure *inside* (because there is a vacuum), the force *outside* is what crushes the train car.

Yes, isn´t "air" and the pressure on the atmosphere a huge force?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, isn´t "air" and the pressure on the atmosphere a huge force?

Yes, it is. But it works on all sides, not just from the top. So the *net* force upwards or downwards is very small (corresponding to the weight of air in the volume occupied--and that force is upwards). Air pressure is primarily a force *inwards* NOT a force downwards.

This is exactly like if you are in water. There is a net buoyant force (upwards) equal to the weight of the water that would occupy the volume of the body immersed. But that is true even if the *pressure* is immense, like at the bottom of the ocean.

 

[Native]

Yes, it is. But it works on all sides, not just from the top.

So, the atmospheric pressure on the Earth really cancel itself out when also "pushing upwards". Where are the logics in this?

Air pressure is primarily a force *inwards* NOT a force downwards.

It seems you´re having troubles combining the very concept of a "gravitational" pressure in the atmosphere with the lack of pressure in the imploded train car.

 

[Polymath257]

So, the atmospheric pressure on the Earth really cancel itself out when also "pushing upwards". Where are the logics in this?

Like I said, the pressure is the same on *all* sides with the difference in force a *small* force upwards equal to the weight of the air that would have been in that volume. The same thing (replace air by water) works under water.

It seems you´re having troubles combining the very concept of a "gravitational" pressure in the atmosphere with the lack of pressure in the imploded train car.

Not at all. The air pressure is equivalent to the weight of the air column above the surface. The same is true if you are under water: the water pressure is equal to the weight of the water column above.

But both air and water pressure produce forces on *all* sides, with the net an upward force equal to the air or water that would have been in that volume. This force is called the buoyant force.

For most things, the force of the air (or water) inside balances the force from outside. But, if there is a vacuum inside, there is no force from inside. In that case, the force from outside is NOT balanced and the result is the collapse.

A similar thing happens for a bicycle tire, only in that case the air pressure inside is more than that outside. If there is a leak in the tire, the pressure inside overcomes that outside and the air leaves the tire.

 

[Native]

Like I said, the pressure is the same on *all* sides with the difference in force a *small* force upwards equal to the weight of the air that would have been in that volume. The same thing (replace air by water) works under water.

Not at all. The air pressure is equivalent to the weight of the air column above the surface. The same is true if you are under water: the water pressure is equal to the weight of the water column above.

But both air and water pressure produce forces on *all* sides, with the net an upward force equal to the air or water that would have been in that volume. This force is called the buoyant force.

For most things, the force of the air (or water) inside balances the force from outside. But, if there is a vacuum inside, there is no force from inside. In that case, the force from outside is NOT balanced and the result is the collapse.

A similar thing happens for a bicycle tire, only in that case the air pressure inside is more than that outside. If there is a leak in the tire, the pressure inside overcomes that outside and the air leaves the tire.

I´ll still say this:

It seems you´re having troubles combining the very concept of a "gravitational" pressure in the atmosphere with the lack of pressure in the imploded train car.

1) You have the Earth orbital velocity only downwards "gravitational" pressure on airy gases which fills the entire Earth atmosphere and the train car when this emptied for it´s initial cargo.
2) Then you have the mobile pump to such the "gravitational" pressure out of the tank until it collapses.
3) It now simply lacks its atmospheric "gravitational" force which make pressures at everything on the Earth, hence it collapses by the force of the atmospheric pressure.

Make your own logical gravitational connection of this not *occult agency*.

 

[joelr]

Modern cosmology has 96% of the universe to hold unknown matters and energies - still they have this biased pleasing model to be the (unknown) truth of everything

How is not knowing "pleasing"?
Except unlike others who are anti-science they know that gravity has been demonstrated to be true on a scale you cannot fathom without actually looking into the equations.
They understand that the relativistic equations have to fix errors from both relativities. The errors are predicted by relativity and we see them exactly as predicted to several decimal points.
Then using the model they can use the equations to correct the errors. We haven't gotten past this yet.
This is just one of the many amazing confirmations we have seen with general relativistic equations.

So we don't just throw out gravity because there is no question it works. we look into other options.

I already understood long ago your thing, ignore the success of gravity theories and play up the dark matter/energy mystery.
In this area you also don't bother to look at the proposed models and what do they predict and have we seen those predictions, do we have ways to test for dark matter, what do super computer models of the universe with dark matter added in look like compared to universes with no darkmatter?
This is like the people in the 1960's who were anti-evolution and would say "I didn't evolve from a monkee?"
Such a simplistic strawman of a description.
Forget dark matter. It has nothing to do with how accurate Newtonian gravity has been in space travel among many other things and general relativity being confirmed over and over since 1926 with, stars position in the sky being different when it passes close to the sun because of gravitational influence, figuring out the error in Mercurys orbit, galactic lensing, black holes, what a black hole would look like according to GR - our first image confirmed another accurate prediction, gravity waves, atomic clocks showing time dilation exactly as predicted based on velocity.
And GPS error corrections. A marvelous confirmation of both special and general relativity working exactly as the math says it would.

 

[Native]

How is not knowing "pleasing"?

It´s pleasing when a prime assumption is "confirmed" by more assumptions.

This can be held up against the fact that "dark matter" was a scientific invention when the "Universal Law of Celestial Motion" was directly contradicted by observations in galaxies.

This law was the prime assumption. Then "dark matter" was assumed instead of revising or discarding the contradicted law accordingly to the Scientific Method - and now the entire Universe assumingly is filled up with "dark matter", "dark holes" and "dark energy".

All very pleasing for those who uncritically accept to go on with an assumption which was directly contradicted.

EDIT:

Forget dark matter. It has nothing to do with how accurate Newtonian gravity has been in space travel among many other things . . .

I´ve never said dark matter has anything to do with the Newtonian planetary and spacecraft calculations. I´m only critizising the causes in Newtons assumptive gravitational ideas - as Einstein also did: "Newtons´gravity is not a force".

The worst thing is that Newton´s assumed and contradicted "universal gravity laws of attraction" STILL haunts all consensus ideas in the observable Universe.

 

[Native]

Subject: The gravitational fantasies and inconsistent dogma´s.

From this video:

Claim: Little g = is said to be 0 in the center of the Earth, but 9,807 m/s² on the Earth´s surface.

This is obviously inconsistent as the much more mass around the “zero”-center would pull you out from the center according to the very “attractive law of mass” itself.

In this stupid video, “gravity” theoretically both pulls you towards the center of gravity and away from the center at the same time – and even with a different gradient amount of force in between.

And the students swallows it all raw without questioning the inconsistent nonsense just because it once for 350 years ago, became dogmatic consensus equations.

What is "zero-gravity" in this video is the entire ideas of gravity itself.

More consensus nonsense from this video below:

Claim: “Mass = an attractive force depending on distance”.

Does the mass of a celestial object change its given mass ("attraction") just by change of distances?

Does the Earth weigh more when the Moon and its also given mass is closer to the Earth?
----------------
Only the atmospheric pressure can be the cause for what is claimed in these two highly dogmatic videos.

There is a certain logical pressure from the Earth orbital velocity, which acts on the Earth´s atmosphere, which follows the exact same laws as the Newton´s assumed and occult g-gravity.

Newton´s g & G *occult agencies* are superstitious, inconsistent and illogical assumptions.