Air weighs more than nothing

[Idolater]

At 3:20:
"Normally we don't notice the weight of air."

If the chamber was pressurized instead of evacuated, would the scale have said the object is now lighter?

What does the scale do if there's nothing on it to weigh (empty and zeroed) would it go negative?

 

[Right Divider]

If the chamber was pressurized instead of evacuated, would the scale have said the object is now lighter?

What does the scale do if there's nothing on it to weigh (empty and zeroed) would it go negative?

The bottom line is that molecules have weights.

Air is primarily nitrogen and oxygen (99%). That is why helium is significantly lighter than air, since helium is the second lightest element. And nothing (i.e., a vacuum) has no molecules and therefore no weight at all.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The bottom line is that molecules have weights.

Air is primarily nitrogen and oxygen (99%). That is why helium is significantly lighter than air, since helium is the second lightest element. And nothing (i.e., a vacuum) has no molecules and therefore no weight at all.

More accurately, molecules (and atoms, for that matter) have mass, which in a gravitational environment, give them weight.

Remove the molecules, and you remove any mass that would have added weight (since weight is just a function of mass and gravity).

 

[Right Divider]

More accurately, molecules (and atoms, for that matter) have mass, which in a gravitational environment, give them weight.

Remove the molecules, and you remove any mass that would have added weight (since weight is just a function of mass and gravity).

Agreed, I was skipping the middle man

 

[JudgeRightly]

Agreed, I was skipping the middle man

Probably not the best idea, given the context.

 

[Right Divider]

Probably not the best idea, given the context.

True, I'll watch myself

 

[Stripe]

If the chamber was pressurized instead of evacuated, would the scale have said the object is now lighter?

What does the scale do if there's nothing on it to weigh (empty and zeroed) would it go negative?

I think there are better ways than that set up to show that air has weight.

 

[Idolater]

I think there are better ways than that set up to show that air has weight.

They were able to evacuate a chamber. Why not weigh the chamber before and after, make a valve and disconnect so that the vacuum tube is detachable? Weigh the thing full of air and then empty it and weigh it again.

 

[Stripe]

They were able to evacuate a chamber. Why not weigh the chamber before and after, make a valve and disconnect so that the vacuum tube is detachable? Weigh the thing full of air and then empty it and weigh it again.

I believe that the scales was inside the chamber.

Indeed, if the airless chamber were weighed on a scales and compared to the air-filled one, the case would be closed.

Well. Perhaps not for 0minds1spirit.

 

[Idolater]

Our math only describes gravitation in our neck of the woods. Therefore it can't be a real, immutable law of nature or physics. In the literature I'd be called a physical law irrealist. (Compare to a moral law irrealist, someone who doesn't believe in evil in any absolute sense, there is no evil ---- that's not me ---- I'm a moral law realist, I'm only a physical law irrealist.) It means I don't believe physical laws exist. This dovetails well with Genesis chapters 1-11, because if physical laws are fake /fictional and only appear to be real, then God is very actively sustaining the World rn. The idea that physical laws exist and have reality is more congruent with Deism than with believing the Bible is literal. We just believe God is very directly sustaining everything. That we've discovered since Newton that He's applying force to masses from other concentrations of mass in a constant manner doesn't mean He's not doing it Himself. And it is obvious because our telescopes tell us so that gravity is far from constant everywhere else. Therefore it can't be a real physical law. That's just obvious.

 

[Stripe]

Our math only describes gravitation in our neck of the woods. Therefore it can't be a real, immutable law of nature or physics. In the literature I'd be called a physical law irrealist. (Compare to a moral law irrealist, someone who doesn't believe in evil in any absolute sense, there is no evil ---- that's not me ---- I'm a moral law realist, I'm only a physical law irrealist.) It means I don't believe physical laws exist. This dovetails well with Genesis chapters 1-11, because if physical laws are fake /fictional and only appear to be real, then God is very actively sustaining the World rn. The idea that physical laws exist and have reality is more congruent with Deism than with believing the Bible is literal. We just believe God is very directly sustaining everything. That we've discovered since Newton that He's applying force to masses from other concentrations of mass in a constant manner doesn't mean He's not doing it Himself. And it is obvious because our telescopes tell us so that gravity is far from constant everywhere else. Therefore it can't be a real physical law. That's just obvious.

I think you need to do a bit more research on this. There are no measurements that show gravity is not constant, the problem is that no measurement can ever be made with all of the mass (and its distribution) accounted for.

Imagine a universe that was two metal balls of known mass. A (massless) observer would be able to determine the universal gravitational constant. We can't do that in our universe.

I read once — about 15 years ago — that our universal gravitational constant is infuriatingly elusive, such that different methods of measuring it did not even have error ranges that overlapped. Ie, it was like one method to measure it put it at 2.58 plus-or-minus 0.03, while another put it at 2.21 plus-or-minus 0.04 (numbers invented).

 

[Idolater]

I think you need to do a bit more research on this. There are no measurements that show gravity is not constant, the problem is that no measurement can ever be made with all of the mass (and its distribution) accounted for.

Imagine a universe that was two metal balls of known mass. A (massless) observer would be able to determine the universal gravitational constant. We can't do that in our universe.

I read once — about 15 years ago — that our universal gravitational constant is infuriatingly elusive, such that different methods of measuring it did not even have error ranges that overlapped. Ie, it was like one method to measure it put it at 2.58 plus-or-minus 0.03, while another put it at 2.21 plus-or-minus 0.04 (numbers invented).

But that's what I said. It only works in our neck of the woods. In order for it to work everywhere we have to invent hidden matter and hidden energy because otherwise the necessarily implied gravitational constant must swing wildly and apparently arbitrarily all around. Every galaxy has its own gravitational "constant"? That's not much of a constant. This is not surprising if gravity is direct and deliberate divine act and activity, but it is intractable if gravity is a real physical force.

 

[Right Divider]

But that's what I said. It only works in our neck of the woods.

Perhaps it has escaped your notice that our measurements get less accurate the farther away something is. That is the nature of nature.

Not to mention the fact that some things are simply difficult to measure accurately in the first place. And that our knowledge of how to measure them also changes the more that we learn about our universe.

I often laugh at the extreme arrogance of detailed claims made about stuff that's "10 billion light years" away from us.

In order for it to work everywhere we have to invent hidden matter and hidden energy because otherwise the necessarily implied gravitational constant must swing wildly and apparently arbitrarily all around.

I believe that you are confusing this issue with the "big bang" model. The "big bang" model is what needs fudging.

Every galaxy has its own gravitational "constant"? That's not much of a constant.

Why would God make them all different?

This is not surprising if gravity is direct and deliberate divine act and activity, but it is intractable if gravity is a real physical force.

I disagree. This "varying gravity" would make for a capricious "god" and not the one that we have.

 

[Stripe]

But that's what I said. It only works in our neck of the woods. In order for it to work everywhere we have to invent hidden matter and hidden energy because otherwise the necessarily implied gravitational constant must swing wildly and apparently arbitrarily all around. Every galaxy has its own gravitational "constant"? That's not much of a constant. This is not surprising if gravity is direct and deliberate divine act and activity, but it is intractable if gravity is a real physical force.

No, we are not saying the same thing.

There is a universal gravitational constant (unless mass is created or eliminated).

There is not an Earth "constant" (although the changes it undergoes are negligible — probably unmeasurable — so to call it a constant is understandable).

 

[JudgeRightly]

We just believe God is very directly sustaining everything.

I don't think it's a sign of a good builder if he has to hold up the fence he built with his own hands, especially if taking his hand off of it would cause it to collapse.

A good builder is able to make a fence that stands on its own.

God is the latter, not the former.

 

[Idolater]

No, we are not saying the same thing.

There is a universal gravitational constant (unless mass is created or eliminated).

There is not an Earth "constant" (although the changes it undergoes are negligible, probably unmeasurable so to call it a constant is understandable).

That's begging the question. In order for it to be constant we must fudge the data we're collecting and recording from the telescopes. The data we fudge is called dark matter and dark energy. Once these hidden things are added in then the constant stays constant. And only if. Otherwise it's not constant.

 

[Idolater]

I don't think it's a sign of a good builder if he has to hold up the fence he built with his own hands, especially if taking his hand off of it would cause it to collapse.

A good builder is able to make a fence that stands on its own.

God is the latter, not the former.

That's what the Deists think. That's my point. And plus in broad strokes, don't you disagree with yourself here? In broad strokes, if God "takes His hand off," don't you think this all collapses? In broad strokes anyway?

 

[Right Divider]

That's begging the question. In order for it to be constant we must fudge the data we're collecting and recording from the telescopes.

Telescope provide images.

The data we fudge is called dark matter and dark energy.

Gravity does not require this; only the "big bang" model.

Once these hidden things are added in then the constant stays constant.

And only if. Otherwise it's not constant.

You constantly say that.

 

[Idolater]

Perhaps it has escaped your notice that our measurements get less accurate the farther away something is. That is the nature of nature.

That doesn't explain why so many galaxies are all expanding all over the place instead of collapsing or at least holding.

Not to mention the fact that some things are simply difficult to measure accurately in the first place. And that our knowledge of how to measure them also changes the more that we learn about our universe.

I often laugh at the extreme arrogance of detailed claims made about stuff that's "10 billion light years" away from us.

I don't believe that, not in the sense that light's been traveling for 10 billion years, that never happened.

I believe that you are confusing this issue with the "big bang" model. The "big bang" model is what needs fudging.

That too.

Why would God make them all different?

The big thing isn't even the missing mass to make our math model work, it's the missing energy.

And why would God be shoving objects up, up and away from the centers of all their galaxies? you ask?

Fireworks? That's what all the telescopes keep showing us is fireworks. All the galaxies look like fireworks, and it's because there's tons of hidden energy. I'm saying that hidden energy is God actively making fireworks happen. And that's a good enough reason for me.

I disagree. This "varying gravity" would make for a capricious "god" and not the one that we have.

That's what Deists think.

 

[Right Divider]

That doesn't explain why so many galaxies are all expanding all over the place instead of collapsing or at least holding.

Again, that is the BIG BANG model and is NOT true.

I don't believe that, not in the sense that light's been traveling for 10 billion years, that never happened.

Duh.

That too.

No, just that.

The big thing isn't even the missing mass to make our math model work, it's the missing energy.

So what? The point was that gravity does not have the problem that you are describing; just the big bang model.

And why would God be shoving objects up, up and away from the centers of all their galaxies? you ask?

What makes you think that He is?

Fireworks? That's what all the telescopes keep showing us is fireworks. All the galaxies look like fireworks, and it's because there's tons of hidden energy.

Nonsense.

I'm saying that hidden energy is God actively making fireworks happen. And that's a good enough reason for me.

Nonsense.

That's what Deists think.

Wrong.