And that is it, you wave everything away as a “very nice story”.
That's basically what they are to me. Just stories without proof and it's the same for you but you accept them as proof without actually knowing the truth.
Take your claim that pressure and air density makes objects fall to the floor. The atmosphere decides to arrange itelf into stacks and the pressure difference squeezes objects down. I chose to examine this. Realising that you could not have a stacked atmosphere in a turbulent environment I pointed out that is exactly what I have in my data centre and so I positioned pressure sensors top and bottom. The readings said no difference, equal pressure in the room.
A stacked atmosphere compared to a room is massively different.
Why do you think a room can offer you the same setup as a stacked atmosphere, I don't know but maybe that's because you failed to get what I was saying.
I'll make this simple.
You can accept the atmosphere is denser at sea level than atop a mountain, fair enough?
You can massively measure this by the body alone but gauges of varying setups can do a visual job.
In your room, you can also understand that any heat generated in that room will rise to the top of it, fair enough.
This means you should be able to get that at floor level it's going to be denser. Still stacked but hardly noticeable due to the small area and height.
No matter what happens your atmosphere is always stacked. It has to be.
Offering turbulence to that room obviously shakes up any stack but then again the stack is always under movement by expansion and contraction and neither can work without the other.
Here was clear evidence that what you said was wrong and your idea needed some revising.
Not at all.
As for revising, I think lots of stuff requires that. Not every answer will be correct and finding that happy medium may never be fully known.
It feels logical that you can’t have a stack of layers if you have grates in the floor blasting up air and taking readings proved it.
As I said above.
Offering a force to the stack creates a shake-up but this has to happen in all things and ways for anything to actually function.
You claimed the sensors were wrong.
No, I didn't. I failed to see your argument because there wasn't one and I told you so. Just like I'm telling you now.
So I swapped them over, same readings. Then you claimed I was wrong or a liar.
I never called you a liar. It seems you want to use this as some kind of dig to gain some kind of advantage. It means nothing but you carry on using it if you feel it suits your argument.
Granted you have absolutely no reason to trust me but here was yet another example where you eventually said “nice story” and moved on.
I have no more reason to trust you than you have of me or anyone in this forum or anyone, anywhere.
Trust is what?
Trust doesn't offer someone a truth, it simply offers someone a comfort blanket from someone they believe is truthful, not necessarily that they are or are always truthful.
It demonstrates that you will never never listen to anything on here that goes against your religious belief.
I always take in what's said. Agreeing with it when I have alternate theories is not something that is going to be readily accepted just as I do not accept your religious beliefs you do not accept what you think are mine. This is why the debate rumbles on and the majority against the minority does not offer an end product to a debate unless one side can accept the potential and even then it still begs questions until there is a real end product of proof.
We are at loggerheads with this, hence why this is ongoing.
