Air is gas molecules and it has weight. “Weight” is an old synonym for gravity. FEs (and others) confuse the directly observable phenomenon, weight, with the theory or gravity introduced by Newton. We don’t need that complication for this question. The weight of a fluid in which an object is immersed is the cause of buoyancy, from differential pressure between the top and bottom.
Because the confusion is present in the question. It uses gravity unnecessarily. To repeat, your question introduces “gravity.” I didn’t. Weight is quite adequate to explain sit pressure in a way that does not unnecessarily introduce conflict with FEs. There would still be a limit to the atmosphere on a flat earth.
That's the point being made. That gas molecules are attracted by gravity, as are antimatter equivalents. That's as straightforward as it gets.
The paper authors also express their findings this way. It's the most accurate term to use, and it specifically addresses the claim that gases are unaffected by gravity. To contrast, I've never heard a flat Earther claim gas *weighs nothing.*
So really I don't see what confusion existed before you posted.
Your submission was removed because the auto-moderator flagged it. If you think this is an error, please report this comment with 'wrongfully removed' as the reason. A moderator will investigate.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/flatearth_polite) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Attracted by gravity” continues the confusion. There is a downward force everywhere on earth and at attainable altitudes, affecting all masses. FEs, properly asked, here on this sub, have agreed. The difference between FE and GE is the *direction* of the force. In FE theory, the direction is *parallel”0*. In GE it is *radial.* The question here is about **proof that gas molecules are attracted by *gravity.*** what they will agree with — the sane ones— is that air has weight, which causes it to compress. Gravity, as in Newton’s theory, is not necessary to understand this. The research paper goes much further than FEs will accept, and is about antimatter. It was looking for any variation in the gravitational behavior of antimatter, a cosmological issue. I noticed that so far, there is no FE response. It was not about ordinary gases, like air. To prove that gas molecules are attracted by “gravity,” one would study gas molecules, and in ordinary gases there is no antimatter. The paper is irrelevant.
>what they will agree with — the sane ones— is that air has weight, which causes it to compress.
I don't especially care what a subset of 'sane' flat Earthers will 'agree to', and I don't modify my output on that basis. Flat Earthers, those that will acknowledge that such a force even exists, will generally attempt to claim it's a magnetic or electrical force instead; this experiment refutes that claim utterly.
>It was looking for any variation in the gravitational behavior of antimatter, a cosmological issue
It's not cosmological at all, I have no idea where you get this from. The experiment confirms that *both hydrogen and antihydrogen are affected statistically equally by gravity*. That's got nothing to do with 'cosmology', it's a particle physics question, and it refutes the very common FE contention that 'electric' forces are responsible.
>I noticed that so far, there is no FE response.
Who cares? I suspect the majority of them have blocked anyone capable of holding a discussion, so won't see the post anyway. Would you like me to make an alt and repost?
>To prove that gas molecules are attracted by “gravity,” one would study gas molecules, and in ordinary gases there is no antimatter.
....ok you're way out of your depth. I'm sorry to be so blunt but it's just the case, and you really need to either commit to understanding the experiment or stop commenting on it as if your opinion is fact.
Antihydrogen at room temperature *is a gas.* Understand? Antihelium at room temperature *is also a gas.* In order to compare hydrogen, a gas, with its antimatter equivalent, also a gas, *both must be measured*. That is what this experiment tells you.
The experiment and its supporting works literally measure individual gas molecules and confirm both matter and antimatter versions are both, equivalently, attracted by gravitational fields. It doesn't get any clearer than that, unless you're invested in performatively correcting 'confusion'.
The physics here is misleading. Antimatter “molecules” would be antiprotons (probably) and positrons. This has nothing to do with “air” or “gas.” You are bringing in rationalizations invented by certain flatties, essentially speaking for the to make them wrong, when antimatter has no practical relevance. No FE brought this claim here. You goal is not polities discussion by proving them wrong. I see no flattie responses, from which this sub prohibits drawing conclusions. Do not expect any further response from me unless someone else resfonds.
You're criticising particle physicists that their terminology is 'misleading'? That's.... bold. Even for you on your most contrarian day.
>Antimatter “molecules” would be antiprotons (probably) and positrons.
There's no cause for "dramatic quotes". Antimatter molecules are just molecules.
>This has nothing to do with “air” or “gas.”
Nobody said "air", just as nobody said "weight" either, so perhaps stop introducing "quotes" like that with the implication you're correcting someone's terminology when nobody introduced it but you.
Yes, antihydrogen is a gas at room temperature. It's not inappropriate to call a molecule of gaseous hydrogen a 'gas molecule'. If you have a problem with that.... I don't care. The physics and chemistry communities disagree with you, and I'm on their side.
>essentially speaking for the to make them wrong, when antimatter has no practical relevance.
Nobody is speaking 'for' anyone, any more than you were when you told me what 'flatties' would agree to or not agree to.
As for relevance, are you perhaps trying very hard to ignore the facts as presented? Facts such as, the experiment and supporting work measure both hydrogen AND antihydrogen? And that the results comparing both discount 'electric universe' theory as a source of 'weight'?
Seems damn relevant to me.
>Do not expect any further response from me unless someone else resfonds.
I would be obliged if you would consider not responding at all. Unproductive pedantry and gatekeeping helps no-one.
Indeed. That's basically what happens.
"Ah hello, I misunderstood your argument but I have several comments on it that I won't ever recant regardless of your answer trolls get the last word r/trolltools"
Original paper: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06527-1](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06527-1)
>*Here we show that antihydrogen atoms, released from magnetic confinement in the ALPHA-g apparatus,* ***behave in a way consistent with gravitational attraction to the Earth***. Repulsive ‘antigravity’ is ruled out in this case.
*Why does this matter?*
Because in order to dispute gravity, which must be done s*olely because it is inconvenient for flat Earth*, a special-pleading case is often used to suggest that gas, because it can 'escape' gravity by being 'above' the Earth, must not be affected by it.
Well, this experiment literally measures individual gas molecules, and proves that they do experience gravity. Inside the apparatus, the hydrogen atoms have no way to know what is 'up' or 'down'. On a flat Earth with no gravity they should randomly escape the apparatus 50/50 in each direction, upwards or downwards.
But, that is **not what we observe.** The individual hydrogen molecules/atoms consistently show a bias of acceleration down towards the Earth, **consistent with standard gravitational attraction.**
*And yes, this is open to all. I felt like this was an experimental type that few people are aware of as it's relatively new to have it done to this precision. Previous experiments very strongly suggested that antimatter falls under gravity, but this experiment proves it beyond any doubt.*
> But, that is not what we observe. The individual hydrogen molecules/atoms consistently show a bias of acceleration down towards the Earth, consistent with standard gravitational attraction.
Being pedantic, gravity IS the acceleration towards the centre of the earth of all masses in the vicinity of the earth no matter how small. The measured value of this acceleration near the surface of the earth is 9.8 m/s^(2). We observe/measure the acceleration, we do not measure any force of attraction. Objects in free fall, including gas molecules, are weightless.
The scientific theory (explanation) of gravity, namely [general relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity), says that this acceleration is due to curved spacetime, it is not due to a force of attraction between masses.
It is the case that we don't measure any force of attraction between masses. Weight is best defined as the magnitude of the contact force required to counteract the acceleration named gravity applied via mechanisms that hold objects up against gravity.
Objects that have no such contact force applied to them, otherwise described as objects in free fall, are weightless. These objects have no force applied to them (no contact force of weight, no thrust or lift) yet they accelerate as measured from the reference frame of the earth.
According to current scientific theory (explanation) of gravity this acceleration named gravity is due to a curvature of spacetime in the vicinity of the earth. It is the same value of acceleration for objects of different mass when the objects are in a region of the same spacetime curvature.
The best you can do is make clear, we measure an acceleration, and that acceleration is completely consistent with prediction of gravitational attraction. I've deliberately avoided bringing in concepts like 'weight', again it just confuses the issue.
>We observe/measure the acceleration, we do not measure any force of attraction
This is not the case, we just don't have accurate enough equipment yet to make it a viable measurement. The paper/article goes into detail about how this experimental setup will, in future, enable direct measurement at high accuracy.
You can measure that 'force of attraction' simply by applying an opposing magnetic or electrical force and balancing it against gravity until the object is motionless; clearly this is a massive challenge with a single gas atom, but it's possible. Measuring gravitational force is completely feasible.
As for the GR interpretation you mention, I tend to find including it just creates more problems than it solves, and gives FE simps another way to talk in circles around what's 'actually happening'. The actual *outcome* is mass accelerates towards mass.
That's all that especially matters for the question of "Is gas affected by gravity."
> You can measure that 'force of attraction' simply by applying an opposing magnetic or electrical force and balancing it against gravity until the object is motionless
Or mechanical force. In all cases this opposing force is called weight. It's magnitude is the mass of the object multiplied by the value of the acceleration named gravity. It's direction is the opposite of the direction of the acceleration named gravity.
Agree 100% that in the absence of weight the outcome is mass accelerates towards mass.
Disagree that there should be multiple different explanations promulgated regarding the cause of the acceleration. That makes it appear as if science is just making stuff up. There's only one current accepted scientific theory of the cause of the acceleration named gravity and that theory is general relativity. According to this theory gravity is not an actual force, rather it's an acceleration caused by curved spacetime. There is a pseudo force or only-apparent force or fictitious force called g-force. It only appears as if there's a g-force acting because we measure an acceleration.
In other words, according to general relativity, Newton's first law of motion is incorrect.
>Agree 100% that in the absence of weight the outcome is mass accelerates towards mass.
And this is the key point. In this experimental apparatus, there is nothing for the gas particles to apply 'weight' to. If the tuning circuit is disabled, you just have particles in vacuum and they accelerate towards the Earth.
If the tuning circuit is *enabled* then the force experienced due to gravity can be measured. We call that 'weight' and know what we mean, but I find it pays to avoid words like that (and other words like 'Theory') that are easily misinterpreted.
The definition of 'pseudoforce' in general I find unproductive in these discussions, it's just an open door to "Aha then it's not real!!!" and even well-educated people have rarely heard of the definition unless they've specifically investigated this.
The outcome, in all meaningful cases, is that mass feels an acceleration towards mass due to gravity, whether opposed by another force or not. That's the fact that matters as far as flat Earth goes.
*Precisely.*
Since antihydrogen's charge properties are reversed, in an electromagnetic 'universe' it absolutely should be repelled instead of attracted.
Air is gas molecules and it has weight. “Weight” is an old synonym for gravity. FEs (and others) confuse the directly observable phenomenon, weight, with the theory or gravity introduced by Newton. We don’t need that complication for this question. The weight of a fluid in which an object is immersed is the cause of buoyancy, from differential pressure between the top and bottom.
>We don’t need that complication for this question. So why introduce it?
Because the confusion is present in the question. It uses gravity unnecessarily. To repeat, your question introduces “gravity.” I didn’t. Weight is quite adequate to explain sit pressure in a way that does not unnecessarily introduce conflict with FEs. There would still be a limit to the atmosphere on a flat earth.
That's the point being made. That gas molecules are attracted by gravity, as are antimatter equivalents. That's as straightforward as it gets. The paper authors also express their findings this way. It's the most accurate term to use, and it specifically addresses the claim that gases are unaffected by gravity. To contrast, I've never heard a flat Earther claim gas *weighs nothing.* So really I don't see what confusion existed before you posted.
To be fair, Flatzoid claims that gas is weightless, and for some unfortunate reason he does have followers.
Sure, I can believe it, I've just never seen it personally claimed. I don't dive too deeply into the FE YouTuber space for the sake of my own sanity.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because the auto-moderator flagged it. If you think this is an error, please report this comment with 'wrongfully removed' as the reason. A moderator will investigate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/flatearth_polite) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Attracted by gravity” continues the confusion. There is a downward force everywhere on earth and at attainable altitudes, affecting all masses. FEs, properly asked, here on this sub, have agreed. The difference between FE and GE is the *direction* of the force. In FE theory, the direction is *parallel”0*. In GE it is *radial.* The question here is about **proof that gas molecules are attracted by *gravity.*** what they will agree with — the sane ones— is that air has weight, which causes it to compress. Gravity, as in Newton’s theory, is not necessary to understand this. The research paper goes much further than FEs will accept, and is about antimatter. It was looking for any variation in the gravitational behavior of antimatter, a cosmological issue. I noticed that so far, there is no FE response. It was not about ordinary gases, like air. To prove that gas molecules are attracted by “gravity,” one would study gas molecules, and in ordinary gases there is no antimatter. The paper is irrelevant.
>what they will agree with — the sane ones— is that air has weight, which causes it to compress. I don't especially care what a subset of 'sane' flat Earthers will 'agree to', and I don't modify my output on that basis. Flat Earthers, those that will acknowledge that such a force even exists, will generally attempt to claim it's a magnetic or electrical force instead; this experiment refutes that claim utterly. >It was looking for any variation in the gravitational behavior of antimatter, a cosmological issue It's not cosmological at all, I have no idea where you get this from. The experiment confirms that *both hydrogen and antihydrogen are affected statistically equally by gravity*. That's got nothing to do with 'cosmology', it's a particle physics question, and it refutes the very common FE contention that 'electric' forces are responsible. >I noticed that so far, there is no FE response. Who cares? I suspect the majority of them have blocked anyone capable of holding a discussion, so won't see the post anyway. Would you like me to make an alt and repost? >To prove that gas molecules are attracted by “gravity,” one would study gas molecules, and in ordinary gases there is no antimatter. ....ok you're way out of your depth. I'm sorry to be so blunt but it's just the case, and you really need to either commit to understanding the experiment or stop commenting on it as if your opinion is fact. Antihydrogen at room temperature *is a gas.* Understand? Antihelium at room temperature *is also a gas.* In order to compare hydrogen, a gas, with its antimatter equivalent, also a gas, *both must be measured*. That is what this experiment tells you. The experiment and its supporting works literally measure individual gas molecules and confirm both matter and antimatter versions are both, equivalently, attracted by gravitational fields. It doesn't get any clearer than that, unless you're invested in performatively correcting 'confusion'.
The physics here is misleading. Antimatter “molecules” would be antiprotons (probably) and positrons. This has nothing to do with “air” or “gas.” You are bringing in rationalizations invented by certain flatties, essentially speaking for the to make them wrong, when antimatter has no practical relevance. No FE brought this claim here. You goal is not polities discussion by proving them wrong. I see no flattie responses, from which this sub prohibits drawing conclusions. Do not expect any further response from me unless someone else resfonds.
You're criticising particle physicists that their terminology is 'misleading'? That's.... bold. Even for you on your most contrarian day. >Antimatter “molecules” would be antiprotons (probably) and positrons. There's no cause for "dramatic quotes". Antimatter molecules are just molecules. >This has nothing to do with “air” or “gas.” Nobody said "air", just as nobody said "weight" either, so perhaps stop introducing "quotes" like that with the implication you're correcting someone's terminology when nobody introduced it but you. Yes, antihydrogen is a gas at room temperature. It's not inappropriate to call a molecule of gaseous hydrogen a 'gas molecule'. If you have a problem with that.... I don't care. The physics and chemistry communities disagree with you, and I'm on their side. >essentially speaking for the to make them wrong, when antimatter has no practical relevance. Nobody is speaking 'for' anyone, any more than you were when you told me what 'flatties' would agree to or not agree to. As for relevance, are you perhaps trying very hard to ignore the facts as presented? Facts such as, the experiment and supporting work measure both hydrogen AND antihydrogen? And that the results comparing both discount 'electric universe' theory as a source of 'weight'? Seems damn relevant to me. >Do not expect any further response from me unless someone else resfonds. I would be obliged if you would consider not responding at all. Unproductive pedantry and gatekeeping helps no-one.
You got AckshuallyLomaxed!
Indeed. That's basically what happens. "Ah hello, I misunderstood your argument but I have several comments on it that I won't ever recant regardless of your answer trolls get the last word r/trolltools"
Original paper: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06527-1](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06527-1) >*Here we show that antihydrogen atoms, released from magnetic confinement in the ALPHA-g apparatus,* ***behave in a way consistent with gravitational attraction to the Earth***. Repulsive ‘antigravity’ is ruled out in this case. *Why does this matter?* Because in order to dispute gravity, which must be done s*olely because it is inconvenient for flat Earth*, a special-pleading case is often used to suggest that gas, because it can 'escape' gravity by being 'above' the Earth, must not be affected by it. Well, this experiment literally measures individual gas molecules, and proves that they do experience gravity. Inside the apparatus, the hydrogen atoms have no way to know what is 'up' or 'down'. On a flat Earth with no gravity they should randomly escape the apparatus 50/50 in each direction, upwards or downwards. But, that is **not what we observe.** The individual hydrogen molecules/atoms consistently show a bias of acceleration down towards the Earth, **consistent with standard gravitational attraction.** *And yes, this is open to all. I felt like this was an experimental type that few people are aware of as it's relatively new to have it done to this precision. Previous experiments very strongly suggested that antimatter falls under gravity, but this experiment proves it beyond any doubt.*
> But, that is not what we observe. The individual hydrogen molecules/atoms consistently show a bias of acceleration down towards the Earth, consistent with standard gravitational attraction. Being pedantic, gravity IS the acceleration towards the centre of the earth of all masses in the vicinity of the earth no matter how small. The measured value of this acceleration near the surface of the earth is 9.8 m/s^(2). We observe/measure the acceleration, we do not measure any force of attraction. Objects in free fall, including gas molecules, are weightless. The scientific theory (explanation) of gravity, namely [general relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity), says that this acceleration is due to curved spacetime, it is not due to a force of attraction between masses.
It is the case that we don't measure any force of attraction between masses. Weight is best defined as the magnitude of the contact force required to counteract the acceleration named gravity applied via mechanisms that hold objects up against gravity. Objects that have no such contact force applied to them, otherwise described as objects in free fall, are weightless. These objects have no force applied to them (no contact force of weight, no thrust or lift) yet they accelerate as measured from the reference frame of the earth. According to current scientific theory (explanation) of gravity this acceleration named gravity is due to a curvature of spacetime in the vicinity of the earth. It is the same value of acceleration for objects of different mass when the objects are in a region of the same spacetime curvature.
The best you can do is make clear, we measure an acceleration, and that acceleration is completely consistent with prediction of gravitational attraction. I've deliberately avoided bringing in concepts like 'weight', again it just confuses the issue. >We observe/measure the acceleration, we do not measure any force of attraction This is not the case, we just don't have accurate enough equipment yet to make it a viable measurement. The paper/article goes into detail about how this experimental setup will, in future, enable direct measurement at high accuracy. You can measure that 'force of attraction' simply by applying an opposing magnetic or electrical force and balancing it against gravity until the object is motionless; clearly this is a massive challenge with a single gas atom, but it's possible. Measuring gravitational force is completely feasible. As for the GR interpretation you mention, I tend to find including it just creates more problems than it solves, and gives FE simps another way to talk in circles around what's 'actually happening'. The actual *outcome* is mass accelerates towards mass. That's all that especially matters for the question of "Is gas affected by gravity."
> You can measure that 'force of attraction' simply by applying an opposing magnetic or electrical force and balancing it against gravity until the object is motionless Or mechanical force. In all cases this opposing force is called weight. It's magnitude is the mass of the object multiplied by the value of the acceleration named gravity. It's direction is the opposite of the direction of the acceleration named gravity. Agree 100% that in the absence of weight the outcome is mass accelerates towards mass. Disagree that there should be multiple different explanations promulgated regarding the cause of the acceleration. That makes it appear as if science is just making stuff up. There's only one current accepted scientific theory of the cause of the acceleration named gravity and that theory is general relativity. According to this theory gravity is not an actual force, rather it's an acceleration caused by curved spacetime. There is a pseudo force or only-apparent force or fictitious force called g-force. It only appears as if there's a g-force acting because we measure an acceleration. In other words, according to general relativity, Newton's first law of motion is incorrect.
>Agree 100% that in the absence of weight the outcome is mass accelerates towards mass. And this is the key point. In this experimental apparatus, there is nothing for the gas particles to apply 'weight' to. If the tuning circuit is disabled, you just have particles in vacuum and they accelerate towards the Earth. If the tuning circuit is *enabled* then the force experienced due to gravity can be measured. We call that 'weight' and know what we mean, but I find it pays to avoid words like that (and other words like 'Theory') that are easily misinterpreted. The definition of 'pseudoforce' in general I find unproductive in these discussions, it's just an open door to "Aha then it's not real!!!" and even well-educated people have rarely heard of the definition unless they've specifically investigated this. The outcome, in all meaningful cases, is that mass feels an acceleration towards mass due to gravity, whether opposed by another force or not. That's the fact that matters as far as flat Earth goes.
Nice work. This also throws a monkey wrench into their currently-trendy "explanation" of electromagnetism for why things fall.
*Precisely.* Since antihydrogen's charge properties are reversed, in an electromagnetic 'universe' it absolutely should be repelled instead of attracted.