Air weighs more than nothing

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
And yet, when the air is removed from a vacuum on a scale, the scale shows a decrease in weight.
You mean a vacuum chamber.
The air under the vacuum chamber creates more pressure under it.
Thus, a lifting force.
You do know when air pressure is taken out of a container it's the outside pressure that causes it to be crushed, right?
1 minute video
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You mean a vacuum chamber.

I mean a vacuum chamber on a scale.

The air under the vacuum chamber creates more pressure under it.
Thus, a lifting force.

Um, so what about the air ABOVE the chamber? There's more of it. Thus, the downward pressure should be greater, right?

Why does the air below the container exert a greater force than the greater amount of air above the container?

Your claim (because that's all it is) makes no sense.

You do know when air pressure is taken out of a container it's the outside pressure that causes it to be crushed, right?
1 minute video

Yup. And the reason being is that there is a greater pressure surrounding (not just below) the container than there is being exerted on the inside of the container. Notice how the train car doesn't start floating up, but still goes down?

Can you please explain why things go DOWN, and not up, even when they lose mass?
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Um, so what about the air ABOVE the chamber? There's more of it. Thus, the downward pressure should be greater, right?
No, the air molecules under will have more elastic collisions, plus in that so called experiment the air is being sucked up and out. So inside the container there will be more pressure lifting against the top.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
No, the air molecules under will have more elastic collisions,

There are more molecules having the same elastic collisions above than there are below.

plus in that so called experiment the air is being sucked up and out. So inside the container there will be more pressure lifting against the top.

You seem to have forgotten that a gas exerts pressure evenly against all surfaces of the container it is within. Pulling out the gas means there is less pressure on ALL surfaces, not just in whatever direction the hole is. That's why, whenever you open a bottle of soda, the entire bottle seems to contract, and not just the bottom.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Simple, ya can't have air pressure without containment.

Oh really?

So if you boil some water in a kettle, and it starts boiling, and you put a piece of paper or paper towel or tissue over the spout, what happens to it? Does it start to be pushed up? You know, because of the pressure?

Pressure that isn't in a container.... Huh, almost like you CAN have pressure without a container.

Wind and temperature are influencing factors in the cause of pressure gradients.

Wind is the result of temperature and pressure differences in the atmosphere....

Temperature affects how fast atoms move, causing greater or lesser pressure.

There are no significant pressure gradients within a sealed container.

There is NO pressure being exerted on the inside surfaces of a vacuum chamber. That lack of pressure is what causes the train car to implode. It's made for keeping pressure under containment, not withstanding the pressure from external forces.

Every time my furnace kicks on it creates wind, in my outside tank, causing pressure gradients.

But that's not a container, now is it?

I thought you said pressure requires containment. Are you now backtracking?

Again, a gas exerts pressure evenly across all surfaces of the container it is within. You haven't addressed this.
 

Right Divider

Body part
  1. Pressure has nothing to do with the experiment.
  2. The container weighs less when the air is removed.
  3. Air has weight due to gravity.
  4. On earth, there is air pressure due to the weight of air.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Define mass and teach the physicists that say there is none why they're wrong.
I have more citations than just the one.

I noticed you dodged the question.

Here it is again:

Can you please explain why things go DOWN, and not up, even when they lose mass?
 

inthebeginning

New member
Buoyancy is a function of gravity.

Without gravity, there would be no net "upward" force, because there also wouldn't be any net "downward" force.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



No, it didn't. It showed that air had weight to it.

Removing the air took the weight off of the scale, resulting in a net negative downward force on the scale.



No one wants to watch a video that's 2 hours long.

Please give a summary.



Gravity compresses the fluids. Fluids can't bear any shear stress, but that doesn't mean they don't experience shear forces.

Such forces are negligible (especially on a small scale), especially compared to the force exerted by a gas that causes it to expand.

Gravity causes the fluid pressure to be greater the further downward you go. Same with solids, for that matter (for example, here on earth, pressures at a depth of about 5 miles below the surface of the earth cause rock to deform like highly compressed, extremely stiff putty; in other words, a granite cliff on earth could never be higher than 5 miles high, because the rock near the bottom of the cliff would begin to become crushed, and pushed out from underneath the rock above).



Supra.



Right. There's nothing (heavier) to be pulled underneath it. More accurately, there is nothing underneath it to support it with upwards force.

Gravity is what is pulling it at 9.8m/s2 downwards. (The "s2" indicates acceleration, not linear speed.)

If gravity did not exist, then there would not be any downward force pulling the balloons to the bottom of the chamber.



Not quite.

They expand because there's nothing pushing back on the gas inside the balloon. It's a balancing act. When you blow up a balloon using your lungs, you are pushing air into the balloon with greater force than the atmosphere outside the balloon is exerting AND that the balloon itself is exerting.

The more air you put into the balloon, the more it expands, because the pressure inside the balloon is greater than the pressure of BOTH the balloon itself trying to shrink back to its normal size, AND the atmosphere pushing back against the outward pressure of the gas inside the balloon.

While you're holding the balloon, you are counteracting the force of gravity pulling downward on the balloon, and when you let go (assuming you've tied the opening), the balloon, since the pressures of the gas inside the balloon, the elasticity of the balloon, and the atmosphere, have equalized, removing your "upward" force of your hand holding the balloon causes the balloon to drop, since the downward pull of gravity is now greater than any net "upward" force.



If it's in a vacuum container, yes, it does, albeit briefly. It settles slightly denser closer to the bottom of the chamber, and less dense nearer the top of the chamber, because gravity is a compressive force on fluids, and because the further an object is from a gravity well, the less influence gravity has on it, and that includes atoms and molecules.

The "air" in the tub in the following video is a gas that is HEAVIER than air, and thus sinks in normal atmosphere. Watch how the demonstrator takes a cup of the "heavy air" and pours it into the foil "boat."

The boat is floating because, despite it being literally metal, the force exerted upon it by gravity is not enough to overcome the buoyancy provided by the heavy gas in the tub. This is because there is enough surface area for the gas to apply enough pressure to to keep it afloat, in the exact same way that normal boats float on water. If you were to ball up the foil boat, and drop it into the tub of the heavy gas, it would literally drop like a stone through air. That is because the balled up foil is a higher density than the air.




In a vacuum, a tank of air is heavier than a tank with nothing in it (vacuum).

The balloons sink because there is no buoyancy.
The balloons expand because there is more pressure in them because the helium is now trying to get to the less pressurized area.
When the balloons pop the helium does not puddle on the floor of the container.
Then, the balloon filled with Helium will sink after the air is taken out from the container because the weight of the material of the ballon which finds no resistance.
 

inthebeginning

New member
I'm glad Right Divider finds funny what I have said, but think about it.

I do perform experiments.

In the video the dude shows an empty bottle over a weight scale inside a container. He then pulls out the air from the container, and the weigh scale shows that the bottle is now heavier.

It might be so. But the experimenter should have showed first the container, the weight scale inside and the pulling out of air from the container. Doing so, will show that the weight scale is not affected by the pulling of air.

After that step has been performed then is when he added the empty bottle and proceed with his experiment. You see, before you assume a result from any experiment is a must to check the proper functionality of the instruments and devices. And it is a must to show such steps to the viewers as well, so viewers will learn how to make experiments.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I'm glad Right Divider finds funny what I have said, but think about it.
Only because it is funny.
I do perform experiments.
Vague
In the video the dude shows an empty bottle over a weight scale inside a container. He then pulls out the air from the container, and the weigh scale shows that the bottle is now heavier.
There is no bottle. It is an empty vacuum chamber.
It might be so. But the experimenter should have showed first the container, the weight scale inside and the pulling out of air from the container. Doing so, will show that the weight scale is not affected by the pulling of air.
You are extremely confused. There is a vacuum chamber on a scale, it's just that simple.
After that step has been performed then is when he added the empty bottle and proceed with his experiment. You see, before you assume a result from any experiment is a must to check the proper functionality of the instruments and devices. And it is a must to show such steps to the viewers as well, so viewers will learn how to make experiments.
Again, you are very confused. The experiment is super simple. He weighs a vacuum chamber with and without air inside and compares the weights. It weighs about 25 grams LESS after the air is removed.
 

inthebeginning

New member
Only because it is funny.

Vague

There is no bottle. It is an empty vacuum chamber.

You are extremely confused. There is a vacuum chamber on a scale, it's just that simple.

Again, you are very confused. The experiment is super simple. He weighs a vacuum chamber with and without air inside and compares the weights. It weighs about 25 grams LESS after the air is removed.
My guess is I was watching another video. The experimenter put an empty bottle over a weight scale inside a chamber. The bottle gave a certain weight. The experimenter removed the air from the chamber, and the weight of the bottle shows that was increasing.

This is the experiment I was referring to.

Somehow, I answered to you in base of the experiment mentioned right above.

My bad.
 

inthebeginning

New member
The point of the video in the OP is that air weighs more than nothing... plain and simple, air has weight.
Particles of "air" have detectable weight, but surely is something inside the chamber when you take them out "mechanically".

You don't realize that the experiment is made with lights on illuminating the chamber. What is that telling you?

Simple.

That your "nothing" never happens. There is no "nothing" in the universe. Only the ignorant think that nothing is what fills space.

Radiation is present inside the chamber, isn't?

Radiation is "something".

My advice is to throw away f=good for nothing theories of science and better start again based on facts.

Don't you agree?
 
Top