Atmospheric Pressures and Gravity

RiffRaff said:
I didn't know I had to be your friend to discuss science
Click to expand...
What are you talking about, no one asked you to be friends.
RiffRaff said:
Because Venus is essentially the limit then 100% = 1. Mercury's atmospheric pressure would be theoretical because it has no atmosphere. The
Earth is 1.38 times further from the Sun than Venus. 1.38^2 = 1.91 = 191%. Basically I use the inverse square law value where Venus is 1 and then
convert that to a percentage. When doing this, the values 1.91 and 191% are the same. With the inverse square law it is considering the surface
area of space. Because the Earth is 1.38 times further from the Sun than Venus (distance) the surface area of space/gravity is 191% greater.
Click to expand...
So your numerology sort of works for 3 out of 8 planets? Doesn't seem very intriguing.
RiffRaff said:
I've been stalked online by a Christian for over a decade... Because he kept me from pursuing surgery in a timely manner, to have surgery I will need to move to another country.
Click to expand...
You should have got off of the internet and gotten your surgery.
RiffRaff said:
I guess most of you guys haven't spent much time learning science. I gave a clear and concise explanation of how atmospheric pressures are relative to a planet's distance from the Sun.
Click to expand...
Clear, concise and wrong. You must have noticed your equation only sort of, kinda comes close to giving the right answer about 30% of the time. That means the equation is wrong.
 
origin said:
So your numerology sort of works for 3 out of 8 planets? Doesn't seem very intriguing.
Click to expand...
Place three points on a grid anywhere you want.
No matter where those points are, it is always possible to construct an equation that passes through all three points, if you tweak the exponents and the constants sufficiently.
This is a trivial truth.

What it doesn't accomplish is providing anything meaningful that relates the points chosen to each other.

If these points are taken from the real world, then the equation is meant to show a meaningful connection that helps explain a deeper connecton as to how the points are related. i.e. What does this constant mean in the natural world? Why that exponent?

If it's just an equation that is strong-armed into fitting the data points, then it's just numerology.

Many armchair enthusiasts with insufficient experience suffer this pitfall - contriving formulae that look cool but are meaningless.

(I recall my favorite one that showed the distance to Alpha Centauri in furlongs was correlated with the height of the statue of Liberty in angstroms - minus the number of years since the Statue was erected).)

The OP is either sincere and therefore a crank, or insincere and therefore a troll.

The OP is very blatant about spoiling for a fight. They say so in every post. Therefore, a troll.
 
I've been asked to slow it down which I do have some woodworking projects I am working on and I need to pace myself.
With atmospheric pressures and gravity, bringing gravity into the equation would actually expand what influences the Earth's atmosphere.
With p = 93/(1 + 0.02395)^x, why the exponent is a percentage and not a real number does matter. I've told students who
follow Dr. Tom Crawford on his YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/@TomRocksMaths that one day I would explain why 8^0 = 1 is wrong. This gets into function of which math is based on function just as x, /, + or - is a function.
And I know calculators will say 8^0 = 1. With using Venus as the limit in the same fashion as
f(x) = 93/(1 + 0.02395)^x
lim
x ----> 0 (0 = 1 or 100%)

You can approach 0 from higher or lower but you can never reach it because it's the limit. This allows for 8^-1 as an
example to allow x to be 12.5% which is what 1/8 or .125 is. And this allows for ∫ with upper and lower limits but it isn't necessary for this discussion.

This means when using Venus as the basis for showing a relationship with Earth and Mars and with Mercury it's theoretical then when (1 + 0.02395)^0 = 1 is the same as 8^0 = 1. But I'm not multiplying a number. What is being factored is surface area. An example is 8^0 = 1 is a surface area of 1 x 1. Then 8^1 = 8 is a surface area of 8 squares.
And the values that describe the surface area is 2.828427125^2. That is the square around the 8 squares.
I realized this when trying to understand why I needed to use the exponent differently for the equation to work. And it came back to am I describing a surface area or am I calculating a value? With the example of 8 squares, it's values are
2.828^2. And the surface area is a quantity. And with understanding the relationship between space and atmospheric pressure, the inverse square law applies.
With Newton's g = Gm/r^2, the radius squared is the inverse law increasing the surface area of space which has the inverse affect of decreasing the acceleration of gravity.
It'll probably be a few days before I have anything else to add. This is because 8 can also be multiplied using an exponent kind of like what the log function is. But to understand how atmospheric pressures relate to the Sun's gravity, then it needs to stay within what the values in the equation represent. And for people who haven't considered this before, it might take well into next year to consider that a number to a power is actually describing the surface area of something.
This is a link to the inverse square law, it might help you guys to consider what I posted in relation to what has been made known. And they do show when moving from 1 the numbers are squared and it is surface area.If you notice they are using whole numbers and with my example of 8 squares, then instead of 3r it uses something like 2.8r instead.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html
 
RiffRaff said:
I've been asked to slow it down which I do have some woodworking projects I am working on and I need to pace myself.
With atmospheric pressures and gravity, bringing gravity into the equation would actually expand what influences the Earth's atmosphere.
Click to expand...
What?
 
Pinball1970 said:
What?
Click to expand...


When it comes to a new concept, it does take time to think about it. With my finding a relationship between the atmospheric pressures of the 3 planets, that took several
months. I did change the equation to use whole numbers instead of a percentage. It became 93/(1 + 9.65)^x. Since the Earth's orbit is 1.38 times further from the Sun than
Venus is, x = 1.38^2. Mars is 2.12 times further from the Sun so it is x = 2.12^2. With how eccentric orbits are, this is just going from information I found on the internet.
Those values say Earth's atmospheric pressure is 1.014 bars while it is 1.013 bars. And Mars is 3.14 millibars while it is actually 6.518 mb. When dividing the 93 bars,
the 1 in the denominator represents Venus because 93/1 =1. And then the + 9.65 shows change relative to the exponent so it can be graphed as
f(x) = 93/(1+ 9.65)^x = y. The = y really isn't necessary because solving for x gives us y but am not sure how familiar forum members are with math (do you work with it a lot?).

Pinball, This tends to show that space is not linear but is 3 dimensional and has volume (not empty). The field of space around the Sun has apparently an equal affect on the
3 planets with an atmosphere. If space were empty then it's unlikely that the strength of the Sun's gravitational effect would have a mathematical relationship to atmospheric
pressure.

All, I'll need to do more work and change the Earth to 1 because the Earth is 1 AU or astronomical unit. With the exponent, I doubt I'll use a negative exponent. I'll
just use a decimal like 4 divided by 8 = 0.5. And if I used 4^-1/2 then I'd say I'm discussing a decrease in the surface area of 1. And since I'm not using a percentage of then
I'm not discussing the surface area of space. And this actually gets into another mathematical equation that's best left for another day.
 
Why did you make a new thread that is just repeating what you said in the other thread?
 
Since I'm not a scientist I probably shouldn't waste time on math or science. If you'd like to talk about delusional, I thought learning it would help me
but unfortunately I wasn't allowed to pursue an education like I wanted to do.
 
origin said:
I am assuming the mods will combine these threads so there is no need to point out again in this thread why your idea is wrong.
Click to expand...



I let the mod know that math and science are a waste of my time. Why do work I won't be paid for? It's funny though. I've been stalked by a child molester for 18 years and I'm the bad guy.
He says what you say plus I need to be personally pleasing to him. Any work I'm doing or have done he will receive credit for. Why? Ever want to get away from someone who wants to
sexually abuse you? Yet he's never been banned from a forum while I have been. The situation is so bad that a man who wrote a book about a guy who lived from 1680 - 1743 also supports
him. If I would've been allowed to pursue surgery that I need then I might've been able to help the guy's granddaughter. She had a medical complication similar to mine and she can't walk while
having the use of only one hand. I can't have surgery in the U.S. though. A few years ago it could've been said that radiologists aren't very good at their job. The grandfather/daughter I told you about.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...-says-joining-TikTok-given-sense-purpose.html

p.s. My stalker told me in one forum that he will not ask for my banishment if I become submissive to him. I've posted science and that's a problem how? You're trolling me is all you're doing. Why
I have no need to post anything science related. I don't think most who have posted in either thread of mine know anything about science. I simply haven't seen it and it just makes me believe the
internet is a toxic waste dump and nothing more. I actually got more out of my work staying offline.
And the avatar I'm using, that's my stalker. https://photos.app.goo.gl/rbowv4KWeNmfkKeL6

p.s.s., When you and your friends say someone's work is wrong, why not show where the mistake was made? Why I say I'm being trolled. There is nothing hard about saying Venus is 67 million miles from
the Sun and the Earth is how far? What's the ratio by dividing Venus' orbit into the Earth's? Very easy to do. Then can you x^2 (square it)? which is also very easy to do. Then can you enter the equation into a calculator and hit enter? Again very easy to do.
And for fun, you can find the Sun's mass and then calculate the Sun's a = Gm/r^2 and see if it parallels that as well. You know, does the decrease in the acceleration of the Sun's gravitational field have a decrease as well? And since we are discussing small numbers like 1.91 and 4.35, if you divide those by the Sun's acceleration at Venus, is it comparable to the Sun's gravity at Earth and Venus? Very easy to do. What was not easy was the months of work it took
to realize different ways to factor what I've done. I've done the difficult work and people who can't enter numbers into a computer are saying it's wrong. And that is typical of the internet.
 
Last edited:
Hello RiffRaff. Welcome to sciforums.

It appears that you have a lot of things you want to get off your chest, all at the same time. From what I can gather, those things include:
  • Something about greenhouse gases and ozone depletion.
  • Advertising your own website.
  • The problem of making friends on the internet.
  • Your equation for predicting atmospheric pressures.
  • Something that upsets you about moderation of internet discussion forums.
  • Something about your scientific work not being appropriately recognised or compensated in monetary terms.
  • The problem of Christian stalkers.
  • Something about postponing surgery to argue with somebody on the internet.
It would probably be better if you could post about unrelated issues separately, rather than all in a sort of disordered jumble. It's difficult for your readers to have to try to follow your stream of consciousness from one topic to the next.

For now, I'd like to concentrate on your theory of planetary pressures. I have some questions, and a suggestion or two to put to you. We can get to the rest later, if you like. So...
RiffRaff said:
It's funny but scientists have never found this relationship with atmospheric pressures.

The atmospheric pressures can be factored following f(x) = Δy/Δx. y = Venus is 1350 psi/93 bars. x = (1+.02395)^x. The exponent will be the times further from the Sun than Venus squared. That allows for the inverse square law to show a decrease in the strength of the Sun’s gravitational field. The Earth is ^191 while Mars is ^403. This allows for Earth to be 93/(1+.02395)^191 = 1.01214 bars while it is 1.013 bars. And for Mars to be 93/(1+.02395)^449 = 0.0022 bars while it is .00658 bars.
Click to expand...
I would like to start by expressing your formula more clearly. I hope this helps. Let us make the following definitions:
  • Let $p(d)$ is the atmospheric pressure predicted by your formula, as a function of a planet's distance $d$ from the Sun.
  • Let the distance of the planet Venus from the Sun be $d_V$ and Venus's atmospheric pressure be $p_V$.
If I understand you correctly, your formula is then
$$p(d)=p_V/(1.02395)^{100\left(\frac{d}{d_V}\right)^2}$$

Let us check that this is in accordance with your calculations. you have $p_V=93$ bar and, for Earth, $d=1.38d_V$. Therefore, your formula predicts

$$p_{Earth}=93/(1.02395)^{100\left(\frac{1.38d_V}{d_v}\right)^2}=93/(1.02395)^{100\times 1.38^2}=93/(1.02395)^{191}=1.012\text{ bar}$$

Is that correct?

And I have a few other questions:
  • Does your formula calculate the atmospheric pressure at the surface of the relevant planet?
  • Does your formula only work for Venus, Earth and Mars? Does it work correctly for Jupiter, Saturn or Uranus, for instance?
  • Where did the number 1.02395 come from? Is that just a value you picked to try to match some data, or does it have some basis in theory?
  • Why does the factor of 100 come into the exponent in your formula? Is this also just a number you chose to match some data, or does it have a theoretical explanation?
  • Do you have any physical theory that might explain why the atmospheric pressure of a planet would be related to its relative distance from the Sun?
  • Why did you choose Venus as your point of reference? Is there something special about Venus?
  • The formula doesn't seem to work for Venus itself, where $d=d_V$. Do you have a formula that works both for Venus and for all the other planets? Or is that something you're still working on?
I hope you can help.
 
Last edited:
Atmospheric Pressures and Gravity is not on my website. On my website I discuss the IPCC's 2013 report on climate change and NOAA's 2014 report on
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion in considering a possible solution when they both agree that;

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

This is discussing climate change. The velocity at which both the north pacific current and the north Atlantic current (Gulf Stream) flows influences the climate. It is my opinion that those 2 currents
plays a role in natural climate variance. It helps to understand why f = ma = mv = 1/2mv^2 = KE. All that shows is a relationship between force, moment and kinetic energy. With the thread that got deleted,
that is not about climate change or what influences natural climate variance. After all, I did ask if there is a relationship between Newton's g = Gm/r^2 and what I had realized. I don't care to discuss 2 different
topics in the same thread.

With the experiment on my website, it is CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 (for the Chapman cycle). Neither CO2 or H2O are considered to be NMVOCs (non-methane volatile organic compounds). And as this
research paper noted;
They point to the reaction
of CH 3 O 2 with HO 2 that in the standard reaction scheme yields
CH 3 O 2 H with 100% yield. Ayers et al. [1997] proposed a
second reaction channel directly producing CH 2 O and showed
that a 40% yield of this branch is sufficient to resolve the
discrepancy between model and measurement. Weller et al.
[2000] measured CH 2 O concentrations around 580 pptv over
the subtropical Atlantic Ocean, nearly a factor of 2 higher than
predicted by their model calculation.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001JD000722

I find it problematic that I understand what the IPCC, NOAA and these people (V. Wagner,1R. von Glasow, H. Fischer, and P. J. Crutzen, Atmospheric Chemistry Department, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany)
are refering to. With their paper having been published in 2002 like most research papers I read, it seems they can't move forward with out finding out what the 2nd reaction channel is. This is a common theme in many research
papers where there models will be off by a factor of 2, 3 or more and that is above and below what their models have predicted.
I saved some pdf's for when I get bored, I've already read most of what they have sent me and they'll resend them. I'm using their free account at academia.edu. https://photos.app.goo.gl/H4nkgxdBcfr2FUJ17
I also read books. With my experiment, if successful it might require researchers to change their models so CH4 will be the product of CH2O + CH2O (or just 2CH2O) > CH4 + CO2.
With the other thread it would suggest that gravity has energy which helps gasses to naturally occur without photolytics or the hydrogen process (bromine, chlorine, etc.). Just 2 completely different subjects.

p.s., And as I mentioned, I do not have a degree in organic chemistry (atmospheric chemistry) or what degree is necessary to consider how gravity has the energy to influence atmospheric pressure.
Even if I am right, could I earn a living researching science? That'll never happen so it'll never help me to have a life.
 
Last edited:
RiffRaff said:
It helps to understand why f = ma = mv = 1/2mv^2 = KE. All that shows is a relationship between force, moment and kinetic energy.
Click to expand...
You wrote f = ma = mv = 1/2mv^2 = KE, which is wrong on multiple levels.
Force is not inertia and force is not energy.
 
origin said:
You wrote f = ma = mv = 1/2mv^2 = KE, which is wrong on multiple levels.
Force is not inertia and force is not energy.
Click to expand...


As I mentioned, I made a mistake in ever considering science or math. My woodworking project will allow me to ask another country for both sanctuary and surgery.
My being a disabled Veteran does not mean I deserve a life in the U.S. Kind of why I need to go elsewhere. What is it Christians told me? They'll decide who can breed.
My service connected disabilities disqualified me in their eyes.
And for what you said, it doesn't matter so I'll agree with you.
 
RiffRaff said:
As I mentioned, I made a mistake in ever considering science or math. My woodworking project will allow me to ask another country for both sanctuary and surgery.
My being a disabled Veteran does not mean I deserve a life in the U.S. Kind of why I need to go elsewhere. What is it Christians told me? They'll decide who can breed.
My service connected disabilities disqualified me in their eyes.
And for what you said, it doesn't matter so I'll agree with you.
Click to expand...
I hope everything works out for you health wise.
Thanks for your service.
 
I've asked the mod to delete my account. I'll enjoy moving out of the U.S. while saying serving in the Navy ruined my life,. Worst mistake I ever made.
origin said:
I hope everything works out for you health wise.
Thanks for your service.
Click to expand...


Serving in the Navy kept me from having a family and a life and has led to extreme medical abuse. Why I'll need to leave the U.S.
I have asked the moderator to delete my account. As for any science or math, Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana who served in the U.S.C.G.
will receive 100% credit for teaching me. This includes my woodworking project. I just need sanctuary in another country.

And the picture you see is of Alan Bauldree, the one who knows more math and science than I do.
 
RiffRaff said:
This means when using Venus as the basis for showing a relationship with Earth and Mars and with Mercury it's theoretical then when (1 + 0.02395)^0 = 1 is the same as 8^0 = 1. But I'm not multiplying a number. What is being factored is surface area. An example is 8^0 = 1 is a surface area of 1 x 1. Then 8^1 = 8 is a surface area of 8 squares.
Click to expand...
Are you ok sir?
 
Pinball1970 said:
Are you ok sir?
Click to expand...


I faced these types of attitudes at work, at church and from the family I was born into. Considering I have to leave the U.S. to have surgery and a life, what does that
say about what kind of country America is? I'm not going to compete with immigrants for approval to have a life here. Punching numbers into a calculator or pasting
an equation in the address bar and hitting enter is easy to do.
If they saw where they entered the numbers and did easy checks then they'd see they get the same results as I get. 93 (Venus press.)/ 1 = 93. Easy.
Why (1 + .02395)? For each function of the exponent (101%, 102%, 103%...etc.) it shows how change is being compounded. 1^x (1 to any power) is still 1. The .02395 with 1 +
is the amount of increase with each function of the exponent, ie. (1 + .02395) = 1.02395 then 1.02395 x 1.02395, etc. And after ^1 which is 1.02395 then every increase in the exponent is how many times that number will be multiplied by itself.With a number like 191 for the Earth, the original number will be multiplied 190 times by itself. And then 93 is divided by that number.

With my medical situation, people will find out that the healthcare industry is corrupt.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#GDP per capita and health consumption spending per capita, 2021 (U.S. dollars, PPP adjusted)

With math, enter 8^0 = x in a calculator or cut and paste into your address bar and hit enter. The answer will be 1. 8 is not being multiplied of which 8^0 = 8 x 0 = x. 8 x 0 ≠ 1.
That is why I say surface area is being factored and the exponent is the exponential rate of change in surface area. If 8^2 = 8 x 8 = 64 then 8^0 = 8 x 0 = 0 yet your calculator or
a search engine will say 8^0 = 1. Anyone can copy and paste
8^0 =
8 x 0 =
8^2 =
8 x 8 =

Did you get 2 different answers for the first 2 problems but not the 2nd two problems? If so, why? Both sets of numbers use the same math function.
Here's an example of using a search engine to have it find the answer; https://www.google.com/search?q=8^0 =&client=firefox-b-1-lm&sca_esv=a48f8f82c7d81448&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=AM9HkKlhHEN_iYIiHc_bIKBGPhO_VsIlBg:1703360087245&ei=VzaHZevEDp6YwbkPlbiXqA0&ved=0ahUKEwirzLLnpqaDAxUeTDABHRXcBdUQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=8^0 =&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiBTheMCA9MgUQABiABDICECYyAhAmMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgQQABgeSK4eUJIMWMwQcAF4AJABAJgBZKABvwGqAQMxLjG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgkQABgHGB4YsAPiAwQYASBBiAYBkAYK&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

This is Alan Bauldree's dream and not mine. It's my nightmare. Why I'll leave the U.S. To live here I'll have to say that I am living his dream for him. It's never been what I wanted in my life but is what he wants. After all, it can't let me have a life in America so it doesn't matter to me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top