# Atmospheric Pressures and Gravity

RiffRaff:
If the distance from the vertex were used then it'd be 1.414 x 1.414 = 1.414^2 = 2.0736.
This is puzzling. I'd like to investigate what's going wrong in your calculations.

The number 1.414 is supposed to be the square root of 2, right?

Now if we square a square root (i.e. multiply the square root number by itself) we ought to get the original number back again, shouldn't we? So, multiplying $\sqrt{2}\times \sqrt{2}$ ought to give us 2. Right?

Now, one problem might be that you rounded off the square root of 2. The square root of 2 is actually:
$\sqrt{2}=1.414213562373...$,
where the decimal places just keep going forever. But the first few digits are indeed $1.414$.

Since the true value of $\sqrt{2}$ is a little larger than 1.414, we'd expect that $1.414\times 1.414$ would give us a result slightly smaller than 2 (because we left a bit out when we rounded off the square root). But your calculation gives a number bigger than 2, namely 2.0736. I'm wondering why that is.

When I plug into a calculator $1.414\times 1.414$, I get $1.999396$, which is a little less than 2. In fact, it's only "off" by $0.000604$.

What went wrong when you did the calculation? Did you plug in the wrong numbers when you multiplied? How did you get $2.0736$?

Can you try it again for me and see whether your calculator gives you same answer again? If it does, you probably need a new calculator, because your one isn't working correctly.

RiffRaff:

This is puzzling. I'd like to investigate what's going wrong in your calculations.

The number 1.414 is supposed to be the square root of 2, right?

Now if we square a square root (i.e. multiply the square root number by itself) we ought to get the original number back again, shouldn't we? So, multiplying $\sqrt{2}\times \sqrt{2}$ ought to give us 2. Right?

Now, one problem might be that you rounded off the square root of 2. The square root of 2 is actually:
$\sqrt{2}=1.414213562373...$,
where the decimal places just keep going forever. But the first few digits are indeed $1.414$.

Since the true value of $\sqrt{2}$ is a little larger than 1.414, we'd expect that $1.414\times 1.414$ would give us a result slightly smaller than 2 (because we left a bit out when we rounded off the square root). But your calculation gives a number bigger than 2, namely 2.0736. I'm wondering why that is.

When I plug into a calculator $1.414\times 1.414$, I get $1.999396$, which is a little less than 2. In fact, it's only "off" by $0.000604$.

What went wrong when you did the calculation? Did you plug in the wrong numbers when you multiplied? How did you get $2.0736$?

Can you try it again for me and see whether your calculator gives you same answer again? If it does, you probably need a new calculator, because your one isn't working correctly.

When I entered it into my calculator I did not press down on the 1 hard enough for it to enter. Not an issue. You ignored what is an issue.

You ignored what is an issue.
You have made a large number of claims here. What exactly is the issue you are referring to?

You have made a large number of claims here. What exactly is the issue you are referring to?

Can I see your work? What? You don't have any? That's an issue.

You guys are right and I am wrong. It's like this American https://www.ksla.com/story/37863650/an-arklatex-man-endures-a-series-of-unfortunate-events/
told me, won't let me use being a disabled Veteran as a crutch to have a life in the U.S. because he'll teach me what it means to be an American like you guys.
He, like the Jude does not want me pursuing improved seawater desalination for Sustainable Farming.
I'll be moving out of the U.S. because the attitudes like in this forum are typical of "real" Americans because they won't serve in the military, that's what losers
do. With my atmospheric chemistry experiment, the University of Kentucky wanted me to give it to this man https://chem.as.uky.edu/users/migu222
so they could promote the idea that "Mexicans" (Dr. Guzman is from South America) are better. And "real" Americans routinely tell me that Mexicans are
better.
And since I don't have the right to have a family or a life in America, why should I pursue projects that could help to lower food prices for people who don't
like me? I am told that "Mexicans" are better because they are "nice" and as a result I am expected to be "nice" to people who won't let me have a life in the
U.S.
With how exponents should be used, if you learned log functions then you'd understand that it's basically the same thing. Here's a video about log functions;
With me, I'll be glad when I can leave the U.S., why I'm working on 2 projects in woodworking even though I'm not a woodworker, just anything so I can
ask for sanctuary in another country.

My work for what?

You attack me and the moderator supports you. You have done work, right? Why the moderator supports you guys attacking me when you don't know anything.
And somehow I'm the problem. I'll be glad to leave the U.S. and the posts in this thread and the moderator removing one thread telling me I can't discuss a science
experiment on my website because it's the same as this thread when it's not. Warm and cool periods and regional climate variance are not atmospheric pressures
yet the forum moderator supported you guys when you said it's the same as this. So much for free speech because the moderator made it known that he'll support
you guys with what you say. Why there's nothing for me to discuss in here unless you guys have work to show and you don't. So the moderator wants me to be
attacked by you guys because I made the mistake in posting in here just as I made the mistake of being born in the U.S.

Do you guys know how to spot Americans on YouTube? They’re the ones who are attacking people who post content on YouTube.
And orgin, if you would’ve found the square root of 2.07 then you woodn’t hav Ben so puzzled but insted said it proves how stoopid I ois. Yep, you made an issue out of 1 digit not being entered because you are that dumb.
And the moderator supports peple like you.
And when I leave the U.S. people will know this is typical behavior in the U.S. and this includes religin two.

RiffRaff:
When I entered it into my calculator I did not press down on the 1 hard enough for it to enter. Not an issue. You ignored what is an issue.
Thanks for letting me know you worked out what caused that simple arithmetic error.

Now, can we sort out this issue of $8=\sqrt{8}$, please? Do you recognise that as a mistake yet?

And then, can we sort out your confusion about $8^0=1$? You have had almost a week to digest something I posted to you in post #42, above. But so far, there has been no reply from you.

I'd really like to start discussing your climate change claims and the like, but I don't want to start on the next topic until we have resolved the maths one, which seems like it should be much more straightforward.

Do you want to have a conversation, or not? Why do you keep ignoring my posts?

Aren't you going to thank me for helping you in post #60?

With how exponents should be used, if you learned log functions then you'd understand that it's basically the same thing.
Great! Very useful. So, you understand all about log function, RiffRaff. That's good to know. Let's see what we can do with those, then.

You agree that $\log_8 64 = 2$, I asssume. And $\log_8 8 =1$?

You will be aware that if we take the number 8 and raise it to the power of both sides of the equations I just gave, we see that those equations are equivalent to $64=8^2$ and $8=8^1$. Correct?

Now, using the log rules that you have studied, you will also be aware that:

$\log_8 64 - \log_8 8 = \log_8\frac{64}{8}=\log_8 8 = 1$. Correct?

Now, consider $\log_8 8 - \log_8 8=0$. You will agree that we can also write

$\log_8 8 -\log_8 8=\log_8\frac{8}{8}=\log_8 1$.

So, we now see that $\log_8 1 = 0$. Do you agree?

But, again, we can take the number 8 and raise it to the power of each side of this last equation, to find:

$8^{\log_8 1}=8^0$

And then, since the "8 to the power of" and the "log to base 8" functions cancel one another out, we immediately conclude that

$1=8^0$.

So, again, we have shown that $8^0=1$, contrary to your previous assertion that $8^0=0$, but this time using a different method of proof.

Surely I deserve your thanks for pointing out your error in two different ways? If you're great at logarithms but not so hot on exponents, at least you can see that we can get to the correct answer using either method.

Are you happy with this now? If you just acknowledge that your claim that $8^0=0$ was a mistake, we can move on and talk about other matters.

You guys are right and I am wrong.

Do you accept that your maths was wrong, for starters?

We haven't really started to consider your claims about the ozone layer etc., so I'm not sure why you have suddenly decided you might be wrong about those, too. Maybe you have discussed them with people on other discussion boards, who told you that you are wrong?

Perhaps it would be better if you were to assume, for starters, that we here at sciforums are willing to engage with you in good faith, rather than assuming we're all out to make fun of you or something. If you respond honestly and openly, we can have a cordial discussion about the matters that interest you. On the other hand, if you constantly ignore what people say in reply to your claims, then you can't be surprised if people here come to suspect that you're not posting in good faith, can you?
....because he'll teach me what it means to be an American like you guys.
Why do you assume that everyone here is American? I'm not, for instance.
He, like the Jude does not want me pursuing improved seawater desalination for Sustainable Farming.
Who or what is the Jude?
I'll be moving out of the U.S. because the attitudes like in this forum are typical of "real" Americans because they won't serve in the military...
You're going to move out of the US because of interactions you've had on an internet forum? That's a little strange, RiffRaff. You know that the internet is accessible from many places in the world, right?

If the internet bothers you, why not just stay away from it, instead?
With my atmospheric chemistry experiment, the University of Kentucky wanted me to give it to this man ...
That sounds like an issue between you and the University of Kentucky. It's not something we here at sciforums can help you with, probably.
...so they could promote the idea that "Mexicans" (Dr. Guzman is from South America) are better.
Better at atmospheric chemistry than you are, you mean? Maybe they are.
And "real" Americans routinely tell me that Mexicans are better.
Good on them, I say! It's great to promote international cooperation and mutual respect.
And since I don't have the right to have a family or a life in America, why should I pursue projects that could help to lower food prices for people who don't like me?
Can your projects only benefit Americans? Why? Maybe you could try extending or altering your projects so that they will benefit non-Americans, too, or instead. Just an idea.
I am told that "Mexicans" are better because they are "nice" and as a result I am expected to be "nice" to people who won't let me have a life in the U.S.
You've lost me, I'm afraid. Are you expected to be nice to the nice Mexicans, or to the Americans who think Mexicans are nice? You haven't been very clear. Also, is it the Mexicans who won't let you have a life in the US, or the Americans? If it's the Americans, I don't see why the Mexicans are relevant. Can you explain?
With me, I'll be glad when I can leave the U.S., why I'm working on 2 projects in woodworking even though I'm not a woodworker, just anything so I can ask for sanctuary in another country.
I thought you said that you're not allowed to have a life in the US. Aren't they kicking you out, then? It sounds like you're able to stay. You're sending somewhat mixed messages, here.
Why the moderator supports you guys attacking me when you don't know anything.
That's not a very nice thing to say, RiffRaff.

You have barely talked with any of us about anything of substance, so far. How could you possibly come to the conclusion that we don't know anything, so quickly?

I think you might be better off dropping those preconceptions you have and trying to engage with people at face value. You'll probably make more friends that way, rather than acting paranoid and assuming that everybody is out to get you.
I'll be glad to leave the U.S. and the posts in this thread and the moderator removing one thread telling me I can't discuss a science experiment on my website because it's the same as this thread when it's not.
None of your posts have been removed. You are free to discuss your science experiments, for now.
Warm and cool periods and regional climate variance are not atmospheric pressures yet the forum moderator supported you guys when you said it's the same as this.
Which forum moderator? Are you talking about me? I don't recall ever discussing climate variance with you.

I was interested in your formula for predicting planetary atmospheric pressures, but you don't seem to want to discuss that with us, for some reason. I don't know why you brought it up.
So much for free speech because the moderator made it known that he'll support you guys with what you say.
Which moderator? Where?
Why there's nothing for me to discuss in here unless you guys have work to show and you don't.
I did some work, showing some errors in your maths. So far, you have mostly ignored that work. Why?

Do you want to have a discussion, or not?
So the moderator wants me to be attacked by you guys because I made the mistake in posting in here just as I made the mistake of being born in the U.S.
You were born in the US? Doesn't that make you an American citizen, then? Why aren't you allowed to stay in America?
Do you guys know how to spot Americans on YouTube?
They're usually the ones with the American accents, I find.
They’re the ones who are attacking people who post content on YouTube.
That's hardly restricted to Americans.

Have you posted content on youtube, RiffRaff?
And orgin, if you would’ve found the square root of 2.07 then you woodn’t hav Ben so puzzled but insted said it proves how stoopid I ois. Yep, you made an issue out of 1 digit not being entered because you are that dumb.
That wasn't origin. That was me. I was just curious. But you found your mistake, so it's all good now. Right?
And when I leave the U.S. people will know this is typical behavior in the U.S. and this includes religin two.
You could put it out on the interwebs as to how all Americans are evil. You don't need to leave the US to tell people what you think about Americans, you know. But aren't you an American yourself?

Do you guys know how to spot Americans on YouTube?
Do you know how to spot people who are generally unaware of science, technology, math and engineering? They are the ones linking to Youtube videos for "proof" of their conjectures.

There is a direct link to the degree of woo someone believes and the amount of TV they use to support their theories.
And when I leave the U.S. people will know this is typical behavior in the U.S. and this includes religin two.
That sounds like an outcome that will make most people happy!

I'm British not American and I provided a scan of exponents and how to manipulate them. You did not respond to it.
James and others have provided more detailed versions and also rules of logs.

It is good form to at least thank people for providing information. We could just ignore you but we are taking time instead.

I'm British not American and I provided a scan of exponents and how to manipulate them. You did not respond to it.
James and others have provided more detailed versions and also rules of logs.

It is good form to at least thank people for providing information. We could just ignore you but we are taking time instead.

You guys have been posting what I know. How is that correcting and teaching me? When orgin said he doesn't understand the √2.107 because the square root of 2 is 1.414.
I wasn't discussing the square root of 2 but he made it about that so he could correct and teach me. I find you guys to be hostile. When I realized
f(x) = 93/(1+ 9.65)^x = y, that shows what? That I don't understand how exponents are taught? There's been no discussion of why the atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth
and Mars are all relative to one another and the Sun's gravity when the inverse square law is considered. Why x is an exponent. But you guys keep changing the subject to
exponents when I know what is taught. And you guys require me to give a textbook answer. The textbook answer did not allow me to find a mathematical relationship
between the atmospheric pressures of 3 planets. And when I show my work in here, you guys should be thanking me but instead as you just said, I should be thanking you
guys instead. Why it's a waste of time for me to post in here.

You guys have been posting what I know. How is that correcting and teaching me? When orgin said he doesn't understand the √2.107 because the square root of 2 is 1.414.
I wasn't discussing the square root of 2 but he made it about that so he could correct and teach me. I find you guys to be hostile. When I realized
f(x) = 93/(1+ 9.65)^x = y, that shows what? That I don't understand how exponents are taught? There's been no discussion of why the atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth
and Mars are all relative to one another and the Sun's gravity when the inverse square law is considered. Why x is an exponent. But you guys keep changing the subject to
exponents when I know what is taught. And you guys require me to give a textbook answer. The textbook answer did not allow me to find a mathematical relationship
between the atmospheric pressures of 3 planets. And when I show my work in here, you guys should be thanking me but instead as you just said, I should be thanking you
guys instead. Why it's a waste of time for me to post in here.
You made mathematical statements that were not correct.
This was pointed out.
If you want to discuss the inverse square law we can discuss that also, or any law.
Do you not think members and admin have been patient sir?

You made mathematical statements that were not correct.
This was pointed out.
If you want to discuss the inverse square law we can discuss that also, or any law.
Do you not think members and admin have been patient sir?

Hostile is more like it. I did not make statements that were incorrect. Oops, Newton and his friends said that about Leibniz plagiarized Newton.
I'm getting the same vibe here. What you guys are saying is that I am only allowed to discuss what you guys want to discuss so that you can say
that you are teaching me. I find that a joke that isn't funny. I'll just stay out of forums. You guys have shown that you're not capable of discussing
anything. Mt scientific calculator works just fine. What you guys have failed to show me is that you can apply the inverse square law to science.
I think people in non-English speaking countries will find it funny when I tried discussing how the inverse square law can be used to show a
mathematical relationship between the atmospheric pressures of 3 planets. Then you guys said you want to teach me how exponents work
because the implication is that I'm stupid for posting in here. Why it'll be in my best interest to stay out of forums. They're all the same when it
comes to English language forums.
To make sure you see it because you guys say my TI-84 Plus scientific calculator doesn't work right and it needs to be corrected. I think Texas
Instruments will find what you guys have been saying is absurd because whatever you guys say, if I wanted to discuss it, why? My calculator
works just fine. https://photos.app.goo.gl/eZoNtN4kzEEJVWou8

Last edited:
Hostile is more like it. I did not make statements that were incorrect. Oops, Newton and his friends said that about Leibniz plagiarized Newton.
I'm getting the same vibe here

No you made some mathematically incorrect statements that were pointed out to you.
If you do that, ignore our corrections and continue on to other parts regardless, then posters will point it out to you.

You would make the same objections surely?

This is not hostility, you can see this I hope?

Hostile is more like it. I did not make statements that were incorrect.
Each of the following statements were made by you and they are all wrong. This is not my opinion it is simply a fact that they are wrong.
1. f = ma = mv = 1/2mv^2 = KE
2. If 8^2 = 8 x 8 = 64 then 8^0 = 8 x 0 = 0
3. 8^1 = 8 = √8
4. √8 = 2.828^2
Now it maybe that you were just being sloppy with your texting, but as written these equations are wrong.

Hostile is more like it. I did not make statements that were incorrect.
Most of what you said was incorrect.
I'm getting the same vibe here. What you guys are saying is that I am only allowed to discuss what you guys want to discuss so that you can say
that you are teaching me.
You can post whatever you like here. As proof, consider you HAVE been posting whatever you like.

If it's wrong, someone is going to post that it's wrong. That's why it's a science forum and not a woo forum.
Nope. It's not a calculator error, it's operator error.

Most of what you said was incorrect.

You can post whatever you like here. As proof, consider you HAVE been posting whatever you like.

If it's wrong, someone is going to post that it's wrong. That's why it's a science forum and not a woo forum.

Nope. It's not a calculator error, it's operator error.

What you guys are saying is that I am required to give the textbook answer. That means there is simply nothing to discuss.
A basic example is this;
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 CH2O and showed
that a 40% yield of this branch is sufficient to resolve the
discrepancy between model and measurement. Weller et al.
[2000] measured CH2O concentrations around 580 pptv over
the subtropical Atlantic Ocean, nearly a factor of 2 higher than
predicted by their model calculation. They also conclude that the
observed discrepancy is caused by a lack of understanding of
the methyl peroxy radical chemistry. Both Ayers et al. [1997]
and Weller et al. [2000] do not consider CH2O production by
oxidation of nonmethane volatile organic carbons (NMVOCs),
such as isoprene, ethene, propene, etc., due to absence of
observational data. Therefore they cannot rule out that the root
of the model underprediction lies in the contribution of NMVOC
oxidation to the CH2O budget [Ayers et al., 1997; Weller et al.,
2000; Cox, 1999].
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001JD000722

Care to discuss it? As you said, "You can post whatever you like here.". Okay, I did.
What do you guys know about these models and a second reaction channel that would support this research?
I'm wrong and you guys are right. Would you guys like to discuss science or why you right? It's an easy decision
to make.
Are you guys aware that scientists are trying to figure out why PSCs (polar stratospheric clouds) which help to
create the hole in the ozone layer only occur when it's cold enough? This gets into atmospheric pressures and
gravity. And to understand this, it helps to understand what 8^0 = 1 means. What I've heard from you guys is
"This is what we were told". And if you want to figure out compound interest then what I used to find a relationship
between atmospheric pressures is something a banker could've done.
A guy named Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana is my teacher. I have to prove to him that I deserve a life in the U.S.
I'll be asking for sanctuary. So much for serving in the Navy, aka, serving America.