Disproof of gravity

  • 1389 Replies
  • 104011 Views
?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #330 on: July 07, 2015, 09:17:17 AM »
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
OK, then why does thsi happen, in a vacuum chamber that is 120ft tall? In a near perfect vacuum?  Why doesn't the air pressure cause the less dense object to fall slower?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Air resistance caused the feather's to fall slower, right?
What more proof do you need?
Yes, outside the vacuum chamber, air resistance causes the feather to fall slower, just as predicted.
Quote
 
The next experiment  in a supposed vacuum was bullshit and is clear to see.
Why?  Because it goes against everything you spout out and destroys denpressure?  Where is your evidence that the experiment is bullshit?  Burden of proof is on you.  Incredulity is not a valid argument.

I am also going to play your game of semantics, the video never claimed it was a perfect vacuum, they said it was a near perfect vacuum.  So don't pull out your bull shit of "There is no such thing as a vacuum"
How many square inches would you say the inside of that supposed vacuum chamber is?
A rough guess, you don't have to be accurate.
Are you asking for the floor size?  Or for the total surface area?  Just wanting to make sure I know what you are asking.  I believe that I know where this is going, but once again, I know the games you play and want to make sure I know exactly what you are going on about. 
The total surface area is about 7.6 million square inches, if my math is right.

I feel you are going to go on about how air pressure is 14.7 psi, so there is a total of 14.7 times 7.6 million pounds acting on it.  But here is the thing, that weight is spread over an area of 7.6 million square inches.  So the pressure pushing on it is only 14.7 psi. 
The walls in the vacuum chamber are two feet thick, reinforced concrete.  This concrete stuff, if you haven't noticed is very good at withstanding crushing forces. 

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #331 on: July 07, 2015, 09:19:09 AM »

1.   The Brian Cox video was a drop in vacuum from  >  60'  of a bowling ball, and feathers, and showed they fell at the same rate.    Since you dispute the result, where is your evidence that they fall at different rates?
My evidence is the feather's used in the supposed vacuum and also the usage of slow motion. The feather's were changed, You know this and so does anyone with a brain. The slow motion was to hide the truth.
You have evidence that the feathers are changed? Because the orientation of the feathers are different? Also, how does slow motion create the illusion that the feather falls at the same speed as the bowling ball?
Once again, incredulity and assertion are not valid arguments.
Are you serious?  ;D
Do you know how films are made?

Let's make a film about a bowling ball and feather's. You're the film maker and you goal is to make the feather's fall the same as the bowling ball. Who do you call?

Your modelling department to make you the feather's so they fall with the bowling ball. Metal quills or whatever it takes to achieve it.
Not hard to do, is it?
Do you have anything more than incredulity and assertion?  No?  Then get on with your evidence.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #332 on: July 07, 2015, 09:21:34 AM »
1. Where is your evidence that objects of different mass fall at different accelerations in a vacuum?   if you don't have any evidence you can't claim that as a fact.
Nor can you.
2. If you contend that weight is related somehow to mass, what it the relationship,  Or put it another way how do scales work?

Scales work by measuring the resistance of any matter/object that is resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it. It reads that resistance because the scale plate is designed to move under the dense object's leverage/resistance against that scale plate.
3. What is the relationship of force to acceleration and mass.   More mass requires more force doesn't it.  More force on the same mass gives more acceleration,  Do you agree?
Agreed.

4. Cavendish measured the gravitational constant,  which proves gravitational attraction,   if you disagree you need to do more than just call it bollocks. 

Just to warn you about mass and weight,  you are walking into a trap.   Think carefully before you answer Q2.
Cavendish can go and suck eggs. I can't be arsed arguing that silly experiment.

Oh and there's no trap for me. I'm serious about what I say. If I make an error at any time I'll be the first to admit. I'm fine at the moment.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #333 on: July 07, 2015, 09:25:55 AM »
An experiment involving a vacuum and dropping both a bowling ball and a feather has already been done. Guess the results? Both fell at the same rate and reached the ground at the same time.
Read back to what I said about this scam. Stop being so naive.
Your answer on why it takes more force in order to change the momentum in a massive object is not valid because it also works in a vacuum, where there is no atmospheric pressure and air resistance. 
Again, stop being so naive. You're told about this vacuum and you have no clue about the reality of it.
Mass is a property of matter given by the Higgs Field. And how exactly would you measure that mass grouped in whatever shape? Based on what force? Weight as we know it is measured acording to the gravitational attraction it suffers from the earth.
Weight is simply a measurement of mass that man numbered to give meaning on a scale. Take away the scale and weight does not exist.

Weight would have no meaning if gravity didn't exist.
Weight would have no meaning if man made scales weren't invented. Simple as that. Nothing to do with fictional gravity.

I, here, officialy declare that I am done argueing with you in this thread.

Any evidence that we present is claimed false by you, without any ceremony. All is part of the great conspiracy, apparently, even the mathematics and physics.

You make up arguments on the spot, hoping for them to fit in your non-sensical theory that fails to explain simple phenomenons.

Nothing, even clear evidence can convince you because you find yourself so stuck in this blind and desperate fanaticism for a flawed "truth".

No matter how many experiments are done, no matter how much wrong your theories are, you will always claim that our evidence is a setup, CGI or rigged, and will promptly modify your theory in anyway possible.

An example was just made clear by you: we showed evidence that a feather and a bowling ball fall at the same rate in a vacuum, and not only you claimed that it was false, but you denyed the very existence of vacuum.

Your main argumentation to FET is not showing how it explains the phenomenons we see everyday, but accusing us all for being blind to a greater "truth", apparently exclusive to you.

Perhaps solipsism is a more fitting ideology for you to follow. Check it out.
There's plenty of other topic to be getting on with. Leave this one to those that can handle it. Don't fret though. Many like you have tried and most tend to fail quite quickly. Only the die hard's last a a little longer.

Go and scrub up on your global physics and start a topic on how clever you are for copying stuff.  ;)

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #334 on: July 07, 2015, 09:28:14 AM »

1.   The Brian Cox video was a drop in vacuum from  >  60'  of a bowling ball, and feathers, and showed they fell at the same rate.    Since you dispute the result, where is your evidence that they fall at different rates?
My evidence is the feather's used in the supposed vacuum and also the usage of slow motion. The feather's were changed, You know this and so does anyone with a brain. The slow motion was to hide the truth.
You have evidence that the feathers are changed? Because the orientation of the feathers are different? Also, how does slow motion create the illusion that the feather falls at the same speed as the bowling ball?
Once again, incredulity and assertion are not valid arguments.
Are you serious?  ;D
Do you know how films are made?

Let's make a film about a bowling ball and feather's. You're the film maker and you goal is to make the feather's fall the same as the bowling ball. Who do you call?

Your modelling department to make you the feather's so they fall with the bowling ball. Metal quills or whatever it takes to achieve it.
Not hard to do, is it?

But you saw the feathers before the vacuum-test, and there they fell at a slower rate than the bowling ball.
Have you ever watched a film where a person jumps from a building and then they show you it again and you realise they changed the person for a dummy. Well look at the feather's in both clips and don't be a one.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #335 on: July 07, 2015, 09:33:37 AM »
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
OK, then why does thsi happen, in a vacuum chamber that is 120ft tall? In a near perfect vacuum?  Why doesn't the air pressure cause the less dense object to fall slower?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Air resistance caused the feather's to fall slower, right?
What more proof do you need?
Yes, outside the vacuum chamber, air resistance causes the feather to fall slower, just as predicted.
Quote
 
The next experiment  in a supposed vacuum was bullshit and is clear to see.
Why?  Because it goes against everything you spout out and destroys denpressure?  Where is your evidence that the experiment is bullshit?  Burden of proof is on you.  Incredulity is not a valid argument.

I am also going to play your game of semantics, the video never claimed it was a perfect vacuum, they said it was a near perfect vacuum.  So don't pull out your bull shit of "There is no such thing as a vacuum"
How many square inches would you say the inside of that supposed vacuum chamber is?
A rough guess, you don't have to be accurate.
Are you asking for the floor size?  Or for the total surface area?  Just wanting to make sure I know what you are asking.  I believe that I know where this is going, but once again, I know the games you play and want to make sure I know exactly what you are going on about. 
The total surface area is about 7.6 million square inches, if my math is right.

I feel you are going to go on about how air pressure is 14.7 psi, so there is a total of 14.7 times 7.6 million pounds acting on it.  But here is the thing, that weight is spread over an area of 7.6 million square inches.  So the pressure pushing on it is only 14.7 psi. 
The walls in the vacuum chamber are two feet thick, reinforced concrete.  This concrete stuff, if you haven't noticed is very good at withstanding crushing forces.
I'm not trying to trick you at all.  ;D Stop panicking man.  ;D

Anyway, the reason I asked is because you do realise that for every psi of pressure you evacuate from that chamber, it is transferred to the external of that chamber and is acting upon that chamber.

So how many psi of pressure did they evacuate from that chamber?

*

JerkFace

  • 10045
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #336 on: July 07, 2015, 09:35:51 AM »
1. Where is your evidence that objects of different mass fall at different accelerations in a vacuum?   if you don't have any evidence you can't claim that as a fact.
Nor can you.
Yes I can, I showed you one experiment,  I can also recall throwing rocks off a cliff into water, the bigger ones hit the water the same time as the smaller ones,  Galileo climbed up the leaning tower of Pisa and proved it as well,  you can prove the same with inclined planes.  You could go outside right now and drop large and small rocks or ball bearings they all fall at the same rate, the only limiting factor is air resistance.   By contrast,  you have nothing, zip, zero zilch, no evidence at all, why,  because it simply doesn't happen.  Not in this world,  the only place it might be true is in your imagination.   
Your time has expired on this one. You lose.

2. If you contend that weight is related somehow to mass, what it the relationship,  Or put it another way how do scales work?

Scales work by measuring the resistance of any matter/object that is resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it. It reads that resistance because the scale plate is designed to move under the dense object's leverage/resistance against that scale plate.
So if I  put a liter of water the scales will read 1kg  after allowing for the container.   What is the mass, and what is the weight?

3. What is the relationship of force to acceleration and mass.   More mass requires more force doesn't it.  More force on the same mass gives more acceleration,  Do you agree?
Agreed.

So what force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec. 

4. Cavendish measured the gravitational constant,  which proves gravitational attraction,   if you disagree you need to do more than just call it bollocks. 
Cavendish can go and suck eggs. I can't be arsed arguing that silly experiment.
You lose this one as well,  since you can't be arsed refuting the experiment. 

Oh and there's no trap for me. I'm serious about what I say. If I make an error at any time I'll be the first to admit. I'm fine at the moment.
Good.   We are almost done.




« Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 09:38:23 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #337 on: July 07, 2015, 09:36:27 AM »

1.   The Brian Cox video was a drop in vacuum from  >  60'  of a bowling ball, and feathers, and showed they fell at the same rate.    Since you dispute the result, where is your evidence that they fall at different rates?
My evidence is the feather's used in the supposed vacuum and also the usage of slow motion. The feather's were changed, You know this and so does anyone with a brain. The slow motion was to hide the truth.
You have evidence that the feathers are changed? Because the orientation of the feathers are different? Also, how does slow motion create the illusion that the feather falls at the same speed as the bowling ball?
Once again, incredulity and assertion are not valid arguments.
Are you serious?  ;D
Do you know how films are made?

Let's make a film about a bowling ball and feather's. You're the film maker and you goal is to make the feather's fall the same as the bowling ball. Who do you call?

Your modelling department to make you the feather's so they fall with the bowling ball. Metal quills or whatever it takes to achieve it.
Not hard to do, is it?

But you saw the feathers before the vacuum-test, and there they fell at a slower rate than the bowling ball.
Have you ever watched a film where a person jumps from a building and then they show you it again and you realise they changed the person for a dummy. Well look at the feather's in both clips and don't be a one.

Hmmm, weird. They look oddly similar. It is as if they were the exact same feathers for both tests...

Ahhhh!, cause they are.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #338 on: July 07, 2015, 09:46:05 AM »
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
OK, then why does thsi happen, in a vacuum chamber that is 120ft tall? In a near perfect vacuum?  Why doesn't the air pressure cause the less dense object to fall slower?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Air resistance caused the feather's to fall slower, right?
What more proof do you need?
Yes, outside the vacuum chamber, air resistance causes the feather to fall slower, just as predicted.
Quote
 
The next experiment  in a supposed vacuum was bullshit and is clear to see.
Why?  Because it goes against everything you spout out and destroys denpressure?  Where is your evidence that the experiment is bullshit?  Burden of proof is on you.  Incredulity is not a valid argument.

I am also going to play your game of semantics, the video never claimed it was a perfect vacuum, they said it was a near perfect vacuum.  So don't pull out your bull shit of "There is no such thing as a vacuum"
How many square inches would you say the inside of that supposed vacuum chamber is?
A rough guess, you don't have to be accurate.
Are you asking for the floor size?  Or for the total surface area?  Just wanting to make sure I know what you are asking.  I believe that I know where this is going, but once again, I know the games you play and want to make sure I know exactly what you are going on about. 
The total surface area is about 7.6 million square inches, if my math is right.

I feel you are going to go on about how air pressure is 14.7 psi, so there is a total of 14.7 times 7.6 million pounds acting on it.  But here is the thing, that weight is spread over an area of 7.6 million square inches.  So the pressure pushing on it is only 14.7 psi. 
The walls in the vacuum chamber are two feet thick, reinforced concrete.  This concrete stuff, if you haven't noticed is very good at withstanding crushing forces.
I'm not trying to trick you at all.  ;D Stop panicking man.  ;D

Anyway, the reason I asked is because you do realise that for every psi of pressure you evacuate from that chamber, it is transferred to the external of that chamber and is acting upon that chamber.

So how many psi of pressure did they evacuate from that chamber?
They evacuated almost 14.7 psi from the chamber.  And as you can see from my previous post, I knew this was where you were going.  I already answered this.  They have 2 foot thick reinforced concrete walls, and concrete is really good at being compressed. 

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #339 on: July 07, 2015, 10:18:59 AM »
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
OK, then why does thsi happen, in a vacuum chamber that is 120ft tall? In a near perfect vacuum?  Why doesn't the air pressure cause the less dense object to fall slower?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Air resistance caused the feather's to fall slower, right?
What more proof do you need?
Yes, outside the vacuum chamber, air resistance causes the feather to fall slower, just as predicted.
Quote
 
The next experiment  in a supposed vacuum was bullshit and is clear to see.
Why?  Because it goes against everything you spout out and destroys denpressure?  Where is your evidence that the experiment is bullshit?  Burden of proof is on you.  Incredulity is not a valid argument.

I am also going to play your game of semantics, the video never claimed it was a perfect vacuum, they said it was a near perfect vacuum.  So don't pull out your bull shit of "There is no such thing as a vacuum"
How many square inches would you say the inside of that supposed vacuum chamber is?
A rough guess, you don't have to be accurate.
Are you asking for the floor size?  Or for the total surface area?  Just wanting to make sure I know what you are asking.  I believe that I know where this is going, but once again, I know the games you play and want to make sure I know exactly what you are going on about. 
The total surface area is about 7.6 million square inches, if my math is right.

I feel you are going to go on about how air pressure is 14.7 psi, so there is a total of 14.7 times 7.6 million pounds acting on it.  But here is the thing, that weight is spread over an area of 7.6 million square inches.  So the pressure pushing on it is only 14.7 psi. 
The walls in the vacuum chamber are two feet thick, reinforced concrete.  This concrete stuff, if you haven't noticed is very good at withstanding crushing forces.
I'm not trying to trick you at all.  ;D Stop panicking man.  ;D

Anyway, the reason I asked is because you do realise that for every psi of pressure you evacuate from that chamber, it is transferred to the external of that chamber and is acting upon that chamber.

So how many psi of pressure did they evacuate from that chamber?
They evacuated almost 14.7 psi from the chamber.  And as you can see from my previous post, I knew this was where you were going.  I already answered this.  They have 2 foot thick reinforced concrete walls, and concrete is really good at being compressed.
Ok, so you're saying that there's almost 14.7 psi on the external of that chamber but it's 2 feet thick concrete walls are excellent at being compressed and manage to hold this  14.7 psi of pressure taken from inside, despite the inside having nothing to resist it ?


 That massive chamber has had 14.7 pounds of pressure PER square INCH taken from it. You see, when that chamber is full of air or at sea level atmospheric pressure, it's balanced with he external pressure, so the concrete walls of it are simply clamped from inside and outside by 14.7 pounds per square inch of pressure on each side.
In the middle of hat is the two feet thick concrete. Like a concrete sandwich with the atmosphere being the bread and a big hand clamping each slice of that bread onto that concrete.

Imagine taking away that huge 14.7 psi from inside. You create a minus environment. You force the internal concrete to lose it's integrity. You force it to expand to try and fill the void. It has to expand but to expand would mean it would explode into the chamber.

Obviously that is, unless the chamber was only partially evacuated of SOME atmosphere. But I clearly heard Brian Cox mention 30 tons of air evacuated, leaving 2 gram's.

30 tons?
What would 30 ton's of air be in pounds per square inch evacuation?


?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #340 on: July 07, 2015, 10:24:03 AM »
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
OK, then why does thsi happen, in a vacuum chamber that is 120ft tall? In a near perfect vacuum?  Why doesn't the air pressure cause the less dense object to fall slower?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Air resistance caused the feather's to fall slower, right?
What more proof do you need?
Yes, outside the vacuum chamber, air resistance causes the feather to fall slower, just as predicted.
Quote
 
The next experiment  in a supposed vacuum was bullshit and is clear to see.
Why?  Because it goes against everything you spout out and destroys denpressure?  Where is your evidence that the experiment is bullshit?  Burden of proof is on you.  Incredulity is not a valid argument.

I am also going to play your game of semantics, the video never claimed it was a perfect vacuum, they said it was a near perfect vacuum.  So don't pull out your bull shit of "There is no such thing as a vacuum"
How many square inches would you say the inside of that supposed vacuum chamber is?
A rough guess, you don't have to be accurate.
Are you asking for the floor size?  Or for the total surface area?  Just wanting to make sure I know what you are asking.  I believe that I know where this is going, but once again, I know the games you play and want to make sure I know exactly what you are going on about. 
The total surface area is about 7.6 million square inches, if my math is right.

I feel you are going to go on about how air pressure is 14.7 psi, so there is a total of 14.7 times 7.6 million pounds acting on it.  But here is the thing, that weight is spread over an area of 7.6 million square inches.  So the pressure pushing on it is only 14.7 psi. 
The walls in the vacuum chamber are two feet thick, reinforced concrete.  This concrete stuff, if you haven't noticed is very good at withstanding crushing forces.
I'm not trying to trick you at all.  ;D Stop panicking man.  ;D

Anyway, the reason I asked is because you do realise that for every psi of pressure you evacuate from that chamber, it is transferred to the external of that chamber and is acting upon that chamber.

So how many psi of pressure did they evacuate from that chamber?
They evacuated almost 14.7 psi from the chamber.  And as you can see from my previous post, I knew this was where you were going.  I already answered this.  They have 2 foot thick reinforced concrete walls, and concrete is really good at being compressed.
Ok, so you're saying that there's almost 14.7 psi on the external of that chamber but it's 2 feet thick concrete walls are excellent at being compressed and manage to hold this  14.7 psi of pressure taken from inside, despite the inside having nothing to resist it ?


 That massive chamber has had 14.7 pounds of pressure PER square INCH taken from it. You see, when that chamber is full of air or at sea level atmospheric pressure, it's balanced with he external pressure, so the concrete walls of it are simply clamped from inside and outside by 14.7 pounds per square inch of pressure on each side.
In the middle of hat is the two feet thick concrete. Like a concrete sandwich with the atmosphere being the bread and a big hand clamping each slice of that bread onto that concrete.

Imagine taking away that huge 14.7 psi from inside. You create a minus environment. You force the internal concrete to lose it's integrity. You force it to expand to try and fill the void. It has to expand but to expand would mean it would explode into the chamber.

Obviously that is, unless the chamber was only partially evacuated of SOME atmosphere. But I clearly heard Brian Cox mention 30 tons of air evacuated, leaving 2 gram's.

30 tons?
What would 30 ton's of air be in pounds per square inch evacuation?

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #341 on: July 07, 2015, 10:28:28 AM »

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
It works exactly how I think. It doesn't work how you've been told. I don't know if atoms expand. I don't know what an atom is.
What's a molecule? what is matter?

We have to call this stuff something even though we can't really see it. It expands, so get used to that. Matter expands. Until you get a grip on it, you will always be in the dark.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #342 on: July 07, 2015, 10:33:35 AM »

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
It works exactly how I think. It doesn't work how you've been told. I don't know if atoms expand. I don't know what an atom is.
What's a molecule? what is matter?

We have to call this stuff something even though we can't really see it. It expands, so get used to that. Matter expands. Until you get a grip on it, you will always be in the dark.

Objects are built out of atoms. Atoms are matter. Scientists have seen atoms using electron microscopes, so we know that atoms exist. You have to bring proof that atoms do not exist, and that matter is one great thing that expands and retracts.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #343 on: July 07, 2015, 10:43:26 AM »

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
It works exactly how I think. It doesn't work how you've been told. I don't know if atoms expand. I don't know what an atom is.
What's a molecule? what is matter?

We have to call this stuff something even though we can't really see it. It expands, so get used to that. Matter expands. Until you get a grip on it, you will always be in the dark.

Also, how would nuclear reactors work otherwise? Nuclear reactors are built upon the principle that objects are built up from atoms. Without atoms, no nuclear fission.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #344 on: July 07, 2015, 11:01:29 AM »

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
It works exactly how I think. It doesn't work how you've been told. I don't know if atoms expand. I don't know what an atom is.
What's a molecule? what is matter?

We have to call this stuff something even though we can't really see it. It expands, so get used to that. Matter expands. Until you get a grip on it, you will always be in the dark.

Objects are built out of atoms. Atoms are matter. Scientists have seen atoms using electron microscopes, so we know that atoms exist. You have to bring proof that atoms do not exist, and that matter is one great thing that expands and retracts.
Your problem is thinking plastic balls and sticks assembled on a desk are reality. They're not.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #345 on: July 07, 2015, 11:03:13 AM »

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
It works exactly how I think. It doesn't work how you've been told. I don't know if atoms expand. I don't know what an atom is.
What's a molecule? what is matter?

We have to call this stuff something even though we can't really see it. It expands, so get used to that. Matter expands. Until you get a grip on it, you will always be in the dark.

Also, how would nuclear reactors work otherwise? Nuclear reactors are built upon the principle that objects are built up from atoms. Without atoms, no nuclear fission.
There's no such thing as nuclear reactors or power or bombs. That's discussed in another topic so we won't go into that here.

You, like the rest of us, have been conned. We've all been duped and it's time we started to look at reality instead of the fantasy we've been given.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #346 on: July 07, 2015, 11:06:28 AM »

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
It works exactly how I think. It doesn't work how you've been told. I don't know if atoms expand. I don't know what an atom is.
What's a molecule? what is matter?

We have to call this stuff something even though we can't really see it. It expands, so get used to that. Matter expands. Until you get a grip on it, you will always be in the dark.

Also, how would nuclear reactors work otherwise? Nuclear reactors are built upon the principle that objects are built up from atoms. Without atoms, no nuclear fission.
There's no such thing as nuclear reactors or power or bombs. That's discussed in another topic so we won't go into that here.

You, like the rest of us, have been conned. We've all been duped and it's time we started to look at reality instead of the fantasy we've been given.

I will not reply to you any more. Either you are just a complete troll or a completely lost cause. Good day.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #347 on: July 07, 2015, 11:24:50 AM »

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
It works exactly how I think. It doesn't work how you've been told. I don't know if atoms expand. I don't know what an atom is.
What's a molecule? what is matter?

We have to call this stuff something even though we can't really see it. It expands, so get used to that. Matter expands. Until you get a grip on it, you will always be in the dark.

Also, how would nuclear reactors work otherwise? Nuclear reactors are built upon the principle that objects are built up from atoms. Without atoms, no nuclear fission.
There's no such thing as nuclear reactors or power or bombs. That's discussed in another topic so we won't go into that here.

You, like the rest of us, have been conned. We've all been duped and it's time we started to look at reality instead of the fantasy we've been given.

Hey everybody look!  He's doing it again!

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #348 on: July 07, 2015, 11:30:58 AM »

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
It works exactly how I think. It doesn't work how you've been told. I don't know if atoms expand. I don't know what an atom is.
What's a molecule? what is matter?

We have to call this stuff something even though we can't really see it. It expands, so get used to that. Matter expands. Until you get a grip on it, you will always be in the dark.

Also, how would nuclear reactors work otherwise? Nuclear reactors are built upon the principle that objects are built up from atoms. Without atoms, no nuclear fission.
There's no such thing as nuclear reactors or power or bombs. That's discussed in another topic so we won't go into that here.

You, like the rest of us, have been conned. We've all been duped and it's time we started to look at reality instead of the fantasy we've been given.

I will not reply to you any more. Either you are just a complete troll or a completely lost cause. Good day.
Ok that's great. There's lots of topics to be getting on with.

If you go into your profile and look down to the bottom  of the MODIFY PROFILE bar. You will see BUDDIES/IGNORE LIST.

Click on that and to the right of the MODIFY PROFILE bar, you will see EDIT BUDDIES or EDIT IGNORE LIST.
click on the EDIT IGNORE list and under it it will say ADD to ignore list. Just type my name into it and add it. This will ensure you do not see my posts. You will see people's quotes of my posts but not me directly. All you will see is my name and it will give you the option of un-ignoring it for that post or you can bypass it.

If you and your little mates do this, you solve a lot of  your headaches. Please take the advice. No need to thank me. You're welcome.  ;D

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #349 on: July 07, 2015, 12:01:11 PM »
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
OK, then why does thsi happen, in a vacuum chamber that is 120ft tall? In a near perfect vacuum?  Why doesn't the air pressure cause the less dense object to fall slower?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Air resistance caused the feather's to fall slower, right?
What more proof do you need?
Yes, outside the vacuum chamber, air resistance causes the feather to fall slower, just as predicted.
Quote
 
The next experiment  in a supposed vacuum was bullshit and is clear to see.
Why?  Because it goes against everything you spout out and destroys denpressure?  Where is your evidence that the experiment is bullshit?  Burden of proof is on you.  Incredulity is not a valid argument.

I am also going to play your game of semantics, the video never claimed it was a perfect vacuum, they said it was a near perfect vacuum.  So don't pull out your bull shit of "There is no such thing as a vacuum"
How many square inches would you say the inside of that supposed vacuum chamber is?
A rough guess, you don't have to be accurate.
Are you asking for the floor size?  Or for the total surface area?  Just wanting to make sure I know what you are asking.  I believe that I know where this is going, but once again, I know the games you play and want to make sure I know exactly what you are going on about. 
The total surface area is about 7.6 million square inches, if my math is right.

I feel you are going to go on about how air pressure is 14.7 psi, so there is a total of 14.7 times 7.6 million pounds acting on it.  But here is the thing, that weight is spread over an area of 7.6 million square inches.  So the pressure pushing on it is only 14.7 psi. 
The walls in the vacuum chamber are two feet thick, reinforced concrete.  This concrete stuff, if you haven't noticed is very good at withstanding crushing forces.
I'm not trying to trick you at all.  ;D Stop panicking man.  ;D

Anyway, the reason I asked is because you do realise that for every psi of pressure you evacuate from that chamber, it is transferred to the external of that chamber and is acting upon that chamber.

So how many psi of pressure did they evacuate from that chamber?
They evacuated almost 14.7 psi from the chamber.  And as you can see from my previous post, I knew this was where you were going.  I already answered this.  They have 2 foot thick reinforced concrete walls, and concrete is really good at being compressed.
Ok, so you're saying that there's almost 14.7 psi on the external of that chamber but it's 2 feet thick concrete walls are excellent at being compressed and manage to hold this  14.7 psi of pressure taken from inside, despite the inside having nothing to resist it ?


 That massive chamber has had 14.7 pounds of pressure PER square INCH taken from it. You see, when that chamber is full of air or at sea level atmospheric pressure, it's balanced with he external pressure, so the concrete walls of it are simply clamped from inside and outside by 14.7 pounds per square inch of pressure on each side.
In the middle of hat is the two feet thick concrete. Like a concrete sandwich with the atmosphere being the bread and a big hand clamping each slice of that bread onto that concrete.

Imagine taking away that huge 14.7 psi from inside. You create a minus environment. You force the internal concrete to lose it's integrity. You force it to expand to try and fill the void. It has to expand but to expand would mean it would explode into the chamber.

Obviously that is, unless the chamber was only partially evacuated of SOME atmosphere. But I clearly heard Brian Cox mention 30 tons of air evacuated, leaving 2 gram's.

30 tons?
What would 30 ton's of air be in pounds per square inch evacuation?
Well, 30 tons of air in a chamber that large, would be, let me see, 14.7 psi.  I fail to see where your incredulity is coming from.

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #350 on: July 07, 2015, 12:24:45 PM »
I wonder, did the sceptimatic model dome design require the application of maths, perhaps to work out the surface area of a hemisphere,  or calculate the weight required to be supported using denspressure.   Either would be reasons for failure to complete.    Or just procrastination.

He was planning on pulling a vacuum between the inner and outer 12-foot-diameter domes made of plexiglass and fiberglass, respectively, thought it was necessary, and didn't foresee any problems. I suspect he hasn't done any math (or engineering), but maybe that's just me. It should be simple, right? What could possibly go wrong?

He's never said he failed or abandoned the project, but I haven't heard of any progress since nine months ago, either. Maybe it was a matter of "Oh... they were right. Light from the center doesn't reflect off the inner surface of a hemispherical concave mirror the way I was sure it would. This just doesn't work. Oops." Unless he tells us what happened or publishes a paper about it, we'll just be guessing. I'm guessing we'll be guessing.


<Long, rambling rant that seems to be sceptimatic saying he doesn't do math and that only he is able to understand anything at all. Or something.>

I went into a little mild rant there. It's just how I feel.

Feel better now?

Quote
It's like I'm dealing with frigging robots most of the time.

People who aren't complete stark raving flakes might seem like robots to someone who's totally off his rocker. They can accomplish so much using tools like math, patient analysis, and clear and organized thought instead of just flailing wildly and ignoring everything they see that they don't want to have to explain. I can see why a methodical approach might seem somewhat robotic in comparison with utter chaos.

Now that all that outburst is out of the way, did you have any update on the dome project? If I missed it in the pages of ranting since this was brought up yesterday, I apologize.

This suggestion is from last fall, but I'll repeat it as a favor: if you're having trouble getting and holding a vacuum between the inner and outer domes, just defer that part. It will be difficult to do and won't affect the results in any meaningful way. You can thank me later.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #351 on: July 07, 2015, 01:07:38 PM »
I wonder, did the sceptimatic model dome design require the application of maths, perhaps to work out the surface area of a hemisphere,  or calculate the weight required to be supported using denspressure.   Either would be reasons for failure to complete.    Or just procrastination.

He was planning on pulling a vacuum between the inner and outer 12-foot-diameter domes made of plexiglass and fiberglass, respectively, thought it was necessary, and didn't foresee any problems. I suspect he hasn't done any math (or engineering), but maybe that's just me. It should be simple, right? What could possibly go wrong?

He's never said he failed or abandoned the project, but I haven't heard of any progress since nine months ago, either. Maybe it was a matter of "Oh... they were right. Light from the center doesn't reflect off the inner surface of a hemispherical concave mirror the way I was sure it would. This just doesn't work. Oops." Unless he tells us what happened or publishes a paper about it, we'll just be guessing. I'm guessing we'll be guessing.


<Long, rambling rant that seems to be sceptimatic saying he doesn't do math and that only he is able to understand anything at all. Or something.>

I went into a little mild rant there. It's just how I feel.

Feel better now?

Quote
It's like I'm dealing with frigging robots most of the time.

People who aren't complete stark raving flakes might seem like robots to someone who's totally off his rocker. They can accomplish so much using tools like math, patient analysis, and clear and organized thought instead of just flailing wildly and ignoring everything they see that they don't want to have to explain. I can see why a methodical approach might seem somewhat robotic in comparison with utter chaos.

Now that all that outburst is out of the way, did you have any update on the dome project? If I missed it in the pages of ranting since this was brought up yesterday, I apologize.

This suggestion is from last fall, but I'll repeat it as a favor: if you're having trouble getting and holding a vacuum between the inner and outer domes, just defer that part. It will be difficult to do and won't affect the results in any meaningful way. You can thank me later.
I managed the dome and gap for evacuation of pressure. It consists of 62 - 12 inch pillars between both domes.
Outer dome is sprayed matt black with a black felt covering that is laquered externally to protect it from the weather wear of our weather system.

A few more months and it will be ready for testing out. It's looking rather good.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #352 on: July 07, 2015, 01:29:45 PM »
I wonder, did the sceptimatic model dome design require the application of maths, perhaps to work out the surface area of a hemisphere,  or calculate the weight required to be supported using denspressure.   Either would be reasons for failure to complete.    Or just procrastination.

He was planning on pulling a vacuum between the inner and outer 12-foot-diameter domes made of plexiglass and fiberglass, respectively, thought it was necessary, and didn't foresee any problems. I suspect he hasn't done any math (or engineering), but maybe that's just me. It should be simple, right? What could possibly go wrong?

He's never said he failed or abandoned the project, but I haven't heard of any progress since nine months ago, either. Maybe it was a matter of "Oh... they were right. Light from the center doesn't reflect off the inner surface of a hemispherical concave mirror the way I was sure it would. This just doesn't work. Oops." Unless he tells us what happened or publishes a paper about it, we'll just be guessing. I'm guessing we'll be guessing.


<Long, rambling rant that seems to be sceptimatic saying he doesn't do math and that only he is able to understand anything at all. Or something.>

I went into a little mild rant there. It's just how I feel.

Feel better now?

Quote
It's like I'm dealing with frigging robots most of the time.

People who aren't complete stark raving flakes might seem like robots to someone who's totally off his rocker. They can accomplish so much using tools like math, patient analysis, and clear and organized thought instead of just flailing wildly and ignoring everything they see that they don't want to have to explain. I can see why a methodical approach might seem somewhat robotic in comparison with utter chaos.

Now that all that outburst is out of the way, did you have any update on the dome project? If I missed it in the pages of ranting since this was brought up yesterday, I apologize.

This suggestion is from last fall, but I'll repeat it as a favor: if you're having trouble getting and holding a vacuum between the inner and outer domes, just defer that part. It will be difficult to do and won't affect the results in any meaningful way. You can thank me later.
I managed the dome and gap for evacuation of pressure. It consists of 62 - 12 inch pillars between both domes.
Outer dome is sprayed matt black with a black felt covering that is laquered externally to protect it from the weather wear of our weather system.

A few more months and it will be ready for testing out. It's looking rather good.
You got pics of the build?  I would find them interesting.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #353 on: July 07, 2015, 02:05:46 PM »
I wonder, did the sceptimatic model dome design require the application of maths, perhaps to work out the surface area of a hemisphere,  or calculate the weight required to be supported using denspressure.   Either would be reasons for failure to complete.    Or just procrastination.

He was planning on pulling a vacuum between the inner and outer 12-foot-diameter domes made of plexiglass and fiberglass, respectively, thought it was necessary, and didn't foresee any problems. I suspect he hasn't done any math (or engineering), but maybe that's just me. It should be simple, right? What could possibly go wrong?

He's never said he failed or abandoned the project, but I haven't heard of any progress since nine months ago, either. Maybe it was a matter of "Oh... they were right. Light from the center doesn't reflect off the inner surface of a hemispherical concave mirror the way I was sure it would. This just doesn't work. Oops." Unless he tells us what happened or publishes a paper about it, we'll just be guessing. I'm guessing we'll be guessing.


<Long, rambling rant that seems to be sceptimatic saying he doesn't do math and that only he is able to understand anything at all. Or something.>

I went into a little mild rant there. It's just how I feel.

Feel better now?

Quote
It's like I'm dealing with frigging robots most of the time.

People who aren't complete stark raving flakes might seem like robots to someone who's totally off his rocker. They can accomplish so much using tools like math, patient analysis, and clear and organized thought instead of just flailing wildly and ignoring everything they see that they don't want to have to explain. I can see why a methodical approach might seem somewhat robotic in comparison with utter chaos.

Now that all that outburst is out of the way, did you have any update on the dome project? If I missed it in the pages of ranting since this was brought up yesterday, I apologize.

This suggestion is from last fall, but I'll repeat it as a favor: if you're having trouble getting and holding a vacuum between the inner and outer domes, just defer that part. It will be difficult to do and won't affect the results in any meaningful way. You can thank me later.
I managed the dome and gap for evacuation of pressure. It consists of 62 - 12 inch pillars between both domes.
Outer dome is sprayed matt black with a black felt covering that is laquered externally to protect it from the weather wear of our weather system.

A few more months and it will be ready for testing out. It's looking rather good.
You got pics of the build?  I would find them interesting.
I'll have the full  lot in a few months time, plus a working model that can be seen from all angles inside, complete with waterfalls and real growth. The only thing it will lack is small humans and elephants, etc. Greenery and energy source is all in hand.


Pictures and video will all follow in good time.

*

sokarul

  • 16055
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #354 on: July 07, 2015, 02:21:59 PM »
Sure they are. 
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #355 on: July 07, 2015, 03:18:31 PM »
did you have any update on the dome project? If I missed it in the pages of ranting since this was brought up yesterday, I apologize.

This suggestion is from last fall, but I'll repeat it as a favor: if you're having trouble getting and holding a vacuum between the inner and outer domes, just defer that part. It will be difficult to do and won't affect the results in any meaningful way. You can thank me later.
I managed the dome and gap for evacuation of pressure. It consists of 62 - 12 inch pillars between both domes.
Outer dome is sprayed matt black with a black felt covering that is laquered externally to protect it from the weather wear of our weather system.

A few more months and it will be ready for testing out. It's looking rather good.

Cool!

You got pics of the build?  I would find them interesting.
I'll have the full  lot in a few months time, plus a working model that can be seen from all angles inside, complete with waterfalls and real growth. The only thing it will lack is small humans and elephants, etc. Greenery and energy source is all in hand.


Pictures and video will all follow in good time.

Aw, shoot! It's another "a few months time" and never "now". Maybe this one will be different. I'll ask again in a few months.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • Literally a dog
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #356 on: July 07, 2015, 05:49:37 PM »
Scepti why can't your "model" make predictions?

And as I said before, why don't you want to make millions of dollars? You don't want a Nobel prize either?

*

JerkFace

  • 10045
  • Looking for Occam
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #357 on: July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM »
Ok where were we,   Clean bowled for a duck by Galileo with a feather and a bowling ball,   Hit wicket when facing a slow ball from Cavendish.     
The score at stumps on day 1 is England 0  Australia 2    Aside...  When did the Welsh start playing cricket?  Cardiff... FFS.

Scales work by measuring the resistance of any matter/object that is resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it. It reads that resistance because the scale plate is designed to move under the dense object's leverage/resistance against that scale plate.

3. What is the relationship of force to acceleration and mass.   More mass requires more force doesn't it.  More force on the same mass gives more acceleration,  Do you agree?
Agreed.

So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?

2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #358 on: July 07, 2015, 10:11:19 PM »
Your problem is thinking plastic balls and sticks assembled on a desk are reality. They're not.

There's no such thing as nuclear reactors or power or bombs. That's discussed in another topic so we won't go into that here.

You, like the rest of us, have been conned. We've all been duped and it's time we started to look at reality instead of the fantasy we've been given.

I suppose you think that the sky being blue is faked by the omnipotent government too.

If nuclear reactors are fake then I have to ask the obvious question here: how do nuclear reactors provide power to so many people?

For technology to exist people must understand the universe, and the simple fact that so much technology is being developed proves that we understand the universe quite well.  Even your computer uses billions of transistors which exploit the properties of impure silicon crystals to make a switch with no moving parts, and it relies on properties that are predicted to exist using the standard model.  You might as well claim that airplanes don't exist while you are riding an airplane.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22498
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #359 on: July 08, 2015, 12:13:38 AM »
did you have any update on the dome project? If I missed it in the pages of ranting since this was brought up yesterday, I apologize.

This suggestion is from last fall, but I'll repeat it as a favor: if you're having trouble getting and holding a vacuum between the inner and outer domes, just defer that part. It will be difficult to do and won't affect the results in any meaningful way. You can thank me later.
I managed the dome and gap for evacuation of pressure. It consists of 62 - 12 inch pillars between both domes.
Outer dome is sprayed matt black with a black felt covering that is laquered externally to protect it from the weather wear of our weather system.

A few more months and it will be ready for testing out. It's looking rather good.

Cool!

You got pics of the build?  I would find them interesting.
I'll have the full  lot in a few months time, plus a working model that can be seen from all angles inside, complete with waterfalls and real growth. The only thing it will lack is small humans and elephants, etc. Greenery and energy source is all in hand.


Pictures and video will all follow in good time.

Aw, shoot! It's another "a few months time" and never "now". Maybe this one will be different. I'll ask again in a few months.
You've spent the majority of your time calling me an idiot and every other name. You will wait for as long as I decide because ultimately my experiments are not for people like you. You started off decent and turned into a shit house because you got backed up by shit houses.
I have a good enough memory to weed out shit like you.