Strange

You seemed to be suggesting that if I hit a snooker ball with the cue ball at any position, it will go straight ahead instead of at an angle The same applies to molecules. When they collide they bounce off at "random" directions. Therefore the gravitational force does not just operate vertically. It is distributed evenly in all directions. This is why a gas is a fluid. (I'm sure studiot can provide the maths if you need it)

More ignorant drivel.

As noted in another thread, you are simply demonstrating your ignorance.

As in, driven by fashion, etc. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/12/health/colorscope-pink-boy-girl-gender/index.html Why would you when we already have an explanation. I think you need to look up what a straw man argument is. That wasn't one. Close, but not quite. You deny there is evidence and therefore you are anti-science. You claim scientists make things up, therefore you are anti-science. Basically, you are substituting ignorance and personal beliefs for understanding. I'm not sure your god would be very happy with that. And, by denying something that your church accepts, are you in danger of straying into heresy?

If there were any truth to that, then games such as snooker or billiards would be impossible.

Actually, no. This is cultural and, I think, goes back to the victorians. As you are so anti-science, why are you spending time on a science forum? Are you hoping that people will read your ignorant twaddle and think, "OMG, he's right, I must rush to my nearest church straightaway"?

That is not a reference. I have never seen a pop-physics explanation that says that. So ... Please provide a reference which says that virtual particles create a photon and violate energy conservation. Sigh. This has been explained multiple times. 1. They were predicted by theory: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/ https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/ 2. This was confirmed by experiment and observation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Manifestations https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ If you are not prepared to read the explanations or say why they are unsatisfactory, then this is rather pointless. Citation needed. Once the mass of the Higss was known, the decay products were predicted: "Calculations from well-established theory predicts thatHiggs bosonsdecay into pairs of the following particles in the following percentages: bottom quarks (58 percent), W bosons (21 percent), Z bosons (6 percent), tau leptons (2.6 percent) and photons (0.2 percent)." https://www.livescience.com/63455-higgs-decays-to-bottom-quarks.html 1. Those are theories of gravity. The Higgs is not a theory of gravity. 2. The Higgs mechanism is and was the only accepted model for explaining the mass of (most) elementary particles 3. None of that has anything to do with pseudo-science What is wrong with you? The caption for the picture you posted says: "Figure 4: Charmed baryon and neutrino-proton collision in bubble chamber [32]" So there are no photons being emitted. And that is yet another technique. Which, again, does not involve the emission of photons. Please provide a reference to support this claim. Yes, but that is not the same thing. The energy of the two photons (not "a photon") produced equals the mass of the original particles. That is not the case with virtual particles. Citation needed.

I suspect you are mixing up two different idioms : "singing from the same hymn sheet /book" and "to be on the same page" OK. Now back to the topic!

That's possible. But I think it is still undecided if the black holes spurred the formation of galaxies or the formed because of the matter in the galaxy. Or maybe some combination of both.

Don't be silly. The mass of the black hole is about 4 million solar masses (1) while the mass of the galaxy is about 1012 solar masses (2). In other words, the black hole contributes about one millionth of the mass. We are not orbiting the black hole, we are orbiting the mass of the galaxy. If the black hole disappeared it would make no difference at all. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A* (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

There is a simplification in the descriptions so far, that the forces only act vertically. As the collisions are random and the molecules can be treated as (crudely) spherical. This means that when the molecules collide, they will bounce of in random directions. This distributes the momentum (and therefore force) in all directions. This is what makes gases and liquids a fluid.

Ukraine AND Russia?

And the other definition of pressure is momentum flux, which makes this even clearer.

Excellent visualisation. Now all @AEBanner needs to understand is that for most molecules, the upper and lower surface will be other molecules. So the momentum/force from all the molecules above is transferred down (and accumulated at each downward bounce) until it reaches the Earth.

So is that the problem, you are not bothering to read any explanations, just posting the same replies without even thinking?

How about answering people's questions instead of wasting time like this.

Who said they transfer mass? You do know weight and mass are different things, don't you? Good, you seem to be getting there. Now, why does pressure depend on altitude? And why does it depend on the density of the gas? Do you think it could be the weight of the gas above? Remember, weight is a force. And pressure is force per unit area. And force as you correctly say is transferred by collisions (both between molecules and to the surface).

Your entire argument has been that the standard explanation is weight, and that you think this is wrong. This started with the first sentence of your first post. Well, it is wrong. And it is not the standard physics explanation. However, it is not "just collisions" either. Then find some better sources. As you have ignored all the explanations in this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if you have come across more accurate explanations but decided to ignore them. Maybe read the explanations in this thread before asking again "but how can this work".

It is exerted by collisions. And the random collisions cause it to act like a fluid so the force can be exerted in all directions.

Maybe because you made it up? You are the one claiming that the "standard physics explanation" is that pressure is just caused by weight. If you can't provide a reference to it, maybe it doesn't exist. You know how you said that pressure is due to the collisions of the molecules? They also collide with each other and so are not independent. And these collisions are how they are in contact with the surface. It's really not that hard. How about: weight transferred by molecular collisions?

I think you are right. But can you give us the exact wording of the question, maybe it is asking something subtly different.

Ice would decrease the pressure. you need to heat it.

Good questions. And, if not, why not?

You seem to have misunderstood what swansont was responding to (I think you did the same with my earlier answer). He was answering your question: "Sorry, but what is this non-existent theory" The "non-existent theory" is that "pressure is due solely to weight". So you are making a straw man argument. Why are you ignoring two pages of explanations of this mechanism? Why are you ignoring two pages of explanations of this mechanism?

Please provide some evidence or a reference to show that this happens When were photons seen from Higgs bosons before the Higgs boson was discovered? Please provide a reference to support your claim. Pleaser provide some evidence that the Higgs boson has ever been considered to be pseudo science. (It has been part of the standard model for more than 40 years) They are completely different. But feel free to provide a reference that says they are the same thing. I have provided multiple source that explain this. It would be a better use of your time to actually read them instead of making stuff up. That confirms what we have been telling you. It doesn't support anything you say, such a photons appearing from nowhere and violating energy conservation. Please provide some evidence to support this claim. This is just a discussion forum. We have no power over the work people do.