beecee

The atmospheric pressure to to molecular collisions act in all directions. The weight of the molecules in those collisions act downwards via gravity, towards the Earth's surface and centre.

Weight is the force of gravity acting on objects/molecules etc. The Earth is pulling on all the atmosphere while at the same time, the molecules of the gases in the atmosphere are creating pressure while jiggling. Both play a part, and both are relevant.

yes, I did post this earlier...."Air weight as well is confirmable. When I wore a younger man's clothes and was part of the work force, I always needed to get a "closed vessel clearance" when entering a pit or LTV well...reason being was some gases are heavier then others...CO2 being the most obvious, and on many occasions refrigerated containers, containing "dry ice" [CO2] would be loaded/transferred by the LTV's [load transfer vehicles]...The ice would often drop into the pits/wells underneath the scissor transfer mechanism, so creating a very real hazard". This was when I worked for QANTAS and obviously as the dry ice sublimed, the lighter air was displaced by the CO2, creating the hazard mentioned. On one occasion a foolish workmate, who had done the maintenance on these LTV's so often, became complacent and failed to test before entering. It was then changed to a rescue exercise when he collapsed at the bottom of the pit.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-spacetimea-creation-well-known-actors.html Spacetime—a creation of well-known actors? November 9, 2018, The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences: Most physicists believe that the structure of spacetime is formed in an unknown way at the Planck scale, i.e., at a scale close to one trillionth of a trillionth of a metre. However, careful considerations undermine this prediction. There are quite a few arguments in favour of the emergence of spacetime as a result of processes taking place at the level of quarks and their conglomerates.What is spacetime? The absolute, unchanging arena of events? Or perhaps it is a dynamic creation, emerging in some way on a certain scale of distance, time or energy. References to the absolute are not welcome in today's physics. It is widely believed that spacetime is emergent. It is not clear, however, where the process of its emergence takes place. The majority of physicists tend to suppose that spacetime is created on the Planck scale, at distances close to one trillionth of a trillionth of a metre (~10-35 m). In his article in Foundations of Science, Professor Piotr Zenczykowski from the Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IFJ PAN) in Cracow systematizes the observations of many authors on the formation of spacetime, and argues that the hypothesis about its formation at the scale of quarks and hadrons (or quark aggregates) is quite sensible for a number of reasons.Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-spacetimea-creation-well-known-actors.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10699-018-9562-2 Quarks, Hadrons, and Emergent Spacetime: Abstract: It is argued that important information on the emergence of space is hidden at the quark/hadron level. The arguments follow from the acceptance of the conception that space is an attribute of matter. They involve in particular the discussion of possibly relevant mass and distance scales, the generalization of the concept of mass as suggested by the phase-space-based explanation of the rishon model, and the phenomenological conclusions on the structure of excited baryons that are implied by baryon spectroscopy. A counterpart of the Eddington–Weinberg relation concerning Regge towers of hadronic resonances is noted.

Bingo! which as Strange has said means that one can now orbit closer to this magical BH that was the mass of the Sun, squeezed into a radius of around 3 kms. In fact speaking theoretically, one could orbit as close as 1.5 Schwarzchild radius from the centre, if one could obtain the speed of "c".

Why not ask yourself why some gases appear heavier then others? CO2, Cl are two examples of which I personally have been involved with hundreds of times, and as per my previous post in this thread....Isn't this positive proof that since some gases are heavier then others, that one can presume the atmosphere also has weight?

From your link.......[Q] Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics? Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer. Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested. Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The above is a great example of science...It is indeed about asking questions, as exampled in your link. It is also about recognising the evidence at any one time that validates a particular reasoning and solution...Virtual particles are just that. The best by far solution to quantum theory and convincingly evidenced in many forms, some of which have already been listed. If you doubt the accepted solution, then you need to provide a better one that invalidates the incumbent model or makes predictions over and above that of the incumbent. As I said previously, reading is great and a good start...Listening is then required particularly in a subject in which you [like me] are not essentially fully qualified in. As I said previously, I myself, am learning some of the finer points in this rather advanced subject, and I chose to listen as well as asking questions.

Again excuses instead of confronting the possibility that you are wrong...Have you read any of the links given? Or are you above that? The majority of the people do agree, and there agreement aligns with the quantum knowledge we have at this time. It is you going against the grain and making up unscientific noise as well as definitions. Reading is great and a good start...Listening is another great art form which you appear to totally lack.

Whatever you meant by that silly phrase, belies the fact that if you see the need to discuss/debate science, then the use of properly recognised scientific terminology and definitions is paramount. A Quark is fundamental, much as is an Electron, according to our knowledge and observational data at this time. Hi swansont....I was going to answer that with the proviso, only inside a hypothetical Quark star. While I have heard about the issue re the binding energy of quarks getting stronger the further we pull them apart, how would this apply to the hypothetical existence of a quark star? While "roughly" understanding why Quarks are never seen in isolation, again, how does this fit in with the possible existence of a Quark star? And of course if we approach the time just after the BB, when our first fundamentals were created from the false vacuum and phase transitions, Quarks did presumably exist in isolation for at least a very short time...is that reasonable? At this time, my aging befuddled mind is starting to boggle! Any help appreciated!

Or just swell up and become a red giant, enveloping Mercury, Venus and possibly Earth too...and then poof! blow off its outer layers and leave a White Dwarf behind.

Reading your continued obtuseness, and denials and silly accusations, its rather obvious you are not here to learn. Everyone of your questions have been answered, and you will find all your answers also here.......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

This is what he meant....It is certainly evidence...evidence of an afterlife or in the supernatural and anyone that didn't think so, was not being reasonable. That's what he said, and that is what he meant.You would have to be naive to deny what he meant to my question. Yes, lets! Agreed, so what exactly! No arguments from me. But it also reveals an agenda with regards to the subject matter. Again, I agree. But again also, it points to some baggage with relation to the thread topic.

Air weight as well is confirmable. When I wore a younger man's clothes and was part of the work force, I always needed to get a "closed vessel clearance" when entering a pit or LTV well...reason being was some gases are heavier then others...CO2 being the most obvious, and on many occasions refrigerated containers, containing "dry ice" [CO2] would be loaded/transferred by the LTV's [load transfer vehicles]...The ice would often drop into the pits/wells underneath the scissor transfer mechanism, so creating a very real hazard.

You said....."You still haven't addressed the question of how this allows random particle pairs to have been discovered in the first place by being able to be detected by some fashion." Which was answered in the next two posts..... and even more precisely here in the next post..... They are as much part and parcel of quantum theory, as spacetime is part of GR. See my above reply..... I cannot really comment on that and I doubt you can either with any certainty or expertise. Such hypothesising is totally unsupported.

Cosmological redshift is attributable to the expansion of the universe, which is the expansion of spacetime itself, and Its interpretation as a distance depends on the general mainstream cosmological model in use. https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4433 Redshift and distances in a ΛCDM cosmology with non-linear inhomogeneities Motivated by the dawn of precision cosmology and the wealth of forthcoming high precision and volume galaxy surveys, in this paper we study the effects of inhomogeneities on light propagation in a flat ΛCDM background. To this end we use exact solutions of Einstein's equations (Meures & Bruni 2011) where, starting from small fluctuations, inhomogeneities arise from a standard growing mode and become non-linear. While the matter distribution in these models is necessarily idealised, there is still enough freedom to assume an arbitrary initial density profile along the line of sight. We can therefore model over-densities and voids of various sizes and distributions, e.g. single harmonic sinusoidal modes, coupled modes, and more general distributions in a ΛCDM background. Our models allow for an exact treatment of the light propagation problem, so that the results are unaffected by approximations and unambiguous. Along lines of sight with density inhomogeneities which average out on scales less than the Hubble radius, we find the distance redshift relation to diverge negligibly from the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) result. On the contrary, if we observe along lines of sight which do not have the same average density as the background, we find large deviations from the FLRW distance redshift relation. Hence, a possibly large systematic might be introduced into the analysis of cosmological observations, e.g. supernovae, if we observe along lines of sight which are typically more or less dense than the average density of the Universe. In turn, this could lead to wrong parameter estimation: even if the Cosmological Principle is valid, the identification of the true FLRW background in an inhomogeneous universe maybe more difficult than usually assumed.

Again, Let's try and make this as simple as possible.... [1] Virtual particles were not discovered....as analogous to the discovery of gravitational waves for example. They are a prediction and tool of the quantum theory as first proposed by Richard Feynman. The experiments conducted so far, including the Casimir Effect, support their application. Hawking Radiation is also an effect that requires virtual particle pairs, as do other areas of quantum theory. If you have any evidence why any of that or the links I have given are wrong, then its about time you presented it.

Pretentious bravado? The facts re the quantum theory and discovery are history and correct...I suggest it is you in the corner. https://www.quora.com/How-were-virtual-particles-discovered-Who-discovered-them-What-is-proof-that-they-exist-Is-the-proof-theory-or-can-the-effects-of-virtual-particles-be-observed-or-tested-on-Earth Q: How were virtual particles discovered? Who discovered them? What is proof that they exist? Is the proof theory, or can the effects of virtual particles be observed or tested on Earth? A; Eli Pasternak, MsEE BsEE, 28 patents, EM fields, comm theory, quantum mechanics, relativity "Virtual particles have been introduced with the development of quantum field theories, especially Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) in the 50's which Richard Feynman was a main contributor. While several physicists worked on this theory it was Feynman who introduced the famous diagrams that show virtual particles in various modes of interaction. Those Feynman diagrams assign virtual particles (in QED these were electrons, positrons and photons) to what would otherwise be just abstract expressions of the first few terms from an infinite series that describe the interaction. By being virtual these particles cannot be observed directly and one can argue that they don't even exist, yet Feynman diagrams are a convenient way to predict the behavior of a quantum system accurately and their effects can be verified experimentally. The first effect to be confirmed was the Lamb shift that predicted minute change in the electron's orbital energy in the hydrogen atom by interaction with virtual particles in the vacuum. The electron magneton, i.e. its magnetic moment, could not be calculated precisely using older theories but these virtual particles predict this value very accurately. There is no high energy particle experiment today that can be explained without the standard model which involves virtual particles of all known elementary particles. Do virtual particles exist? This a matter of interpretation. One can argue that these are just illustrations of a mathematical formalism, or one can take the other extreme, arguing that there are no real particles - each "real" particle is a quantum foam consisting of a sea of virtual particles whose average effect is what we physically call "an observable particle". :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Obviously once again, no matter who or what anyone will say to you, or link to, your ego will prevent you accepting any answer contrary to what you imagine. Let's try and make this as simple as possible.... [1] Virtual particles were not discovered....as analogous to the discovery of gravitational waves for example. They are a prediction and tool of the quantum theory as first proposed by Richard Feynman. The experiments conducted so far, including the Casimir Effect, support their application. Hawking Radiation is also an effect that requires virtual particle pairs, as do other areas of quantum theory. Now are you going to accept that, or continue playing victim? If you disagree [and at this stage, I'm not really sure what you agree or disagree with, and are just being contrary to add some semblance of logic to the position you are in and the corner you have been backed into] then please add some authoritive link from a expert in the field of quantum theory, to support whatever it is you are trying to claim.

You are being obtuse and pissing into the wind conjurer. How do you explain the general acceptance of mainstream quantum theory as against your own unsupported scenarios? The "discovery" as you put it was first theorised by Richard Feynman if I am not mistaken....and done to account for many other observations. There discovery has though been verified since then...the Casimir Effect being one. So apparently its about time you sit down and consider your own misinformation, and that of the many repuatble links I and others have given.

My apologies Janus if I have somehow screwed up with the quote function.

Are you really serious? It appears that you simply are not going to accept any reasoning or answer that may conflict with your agenda.

Science does not know everything, and of course the other side of the coin, is that certain individuals are not interested in certain answers, that may deflate their prior agenda. [1]Virtual particles are not real...for the many reasons already stated. [2] Still we do have evidence for their fleeting appearances, the Casimir Effect for one. [3] What makes a quantum fluctuation possibly grow in volume and bring forth the universe we are familiar with is as yet unknown. Other then the universe being possibly infinite with no beginning, they really are the only two answers available to us.

That's OK, but I'm not a professional. The point I would like to make is that if I had a dollar for every person and ideas that individuals put on forums such as this, open to the public, claiming to invalidate incumbent models, I would be very rich.

It is you who needs to understand that it is common knowledge that the expansion of the universe is only observed over large scales. Over smaller denser scales, gravity overcomes the expansion. The CMBR is everywhere, and none of your figures or attempts do anything at all to even question expansion and/or the BB. if you had anything at all, anything of startling new discoveries etc, you would not be here. You would be writing up a paper for professional peer review.

You have been given many answers so far, along with reputable opinions, and in return have offered only, "could" "perhaps", "maybe" "but ifs" etc etc. I suggest you approach the answers already given and the explanations and links more even handed, and apply them to your errors in thinking.

Since you are simply and erroneously rejecting all answers you have been given, perhaps you may also like to reject this answer...Knowledge! So you are not interested in the fact that all the life you see today, all evolved from some microbe? You are not interested in learning how that original microbe evolved from non living matter via Abiogenesis? So why are you here, on a science forum? And you don't see that useful and beneficial? Again you reject knowledge as useful? You reject the practical application of a theory, say like GR and the gravitational waves it predicted, as possibly a new path to new knowledge?...or how the application of how Darwin's tree can be useful to biology? So again, why are you here?