ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

Acceptance or non-acceptance is not the point here.  In this simple experiment I have observed that there is only a magnetic attraction (force) between two objects (the magnet and one of the nails) which are made of iron.  There is no apparent attraction from the wooden table or the brass nail.

The air pressure in the room does not change and can be taken as constant throughout the experiment.  That leads me to conclude that the magnetic force of attraction that exists between the magnet and the iron nail must be created by the fact that they are made of iron.  Magnetism is therefore a physical property of iron and no other materials in the room.  I would come to the same conclusion regardless of what I have or haven't read or what I have or haven't been told about magentism.

The experiment itself does not provide any evidence of a relationship between magnetism and air.

Does the air pressure change in a room when you put a window clamp onto a window pane?
One second the window clamp would not be pushed against the window and the next it does.
All you need to do is work it out from my side, not your side.

Wtf are you talking about?
Time to make a point.
Define atmospherix prwssure

All you need to do is work it out from my side, not your side.

Now why would anyone need to do that? Considering how obviously and spectacularly wrong you are.

How can we wqork anything out when you dont say anything

OK Sceptimatic. Explain to me exactly how the following happens.  You put a bar magnet (strip of iron with a N and S pole) on the table in front of you. Table is make of wood.  No apparent magnetic force between magnet and table.

Next you take a coin made of brass and place it on the magnet. No apparent magnetic effects. You hold the coin near the magnet and move it around the magnet.  Still no apparent magnetic effects. 

Next you take an iron nail and place it on the magnet.  As soon as the nail comes within a certain distance of the magnet (a few cm away) you immediately feel the magnet pulling the nail towards one end of it.  You let go of the nail it sticks to the magnet.  If you prise it away and hold it towards the other end of the magnet you notice that this time it tries to push the nail away. This is the effect of magnetic repulsion and attraction. How you would explain this when you have previously insisted to us that there is no such thing as a pulling force only a pushing force I have no idea.

Now explain exactly how you believe air pressure creates the sensation of magnetism when you hold the nail near the magnet but when you hold the brass coin near the magnet at the same time, no magnetic sensation is felt?  Based purely on what you observe and feel.

Like I said before. Pay  attention.

Follow your own advice.

Tell me about this polarity and tell me how it works that you know of?

I already did, clearly showing how your nonsense simply doesn't work.
Back here remember:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2307990#msg2307990
You decided it was too long and just ignored it, because you can't refute it.

Quote from: JackBlack

Again, have you figured out how 2 attractive flows can repel each other, or conversely how 2 repulsive flows can attract each other?
If not, your wild claims about the air causing magnetism is DOA.

I believe I know...yes.

Yet you refuse to provide any explanation.
That really seems to be a massive issue for you. You make all sorts of wild claims, yet can't back any of them up, and don't seem to be able to explain anything.

So how about you stop deflecting and either explain how the polarity of magnets work with air, or you admit you can't and that there is no reason to think magnets need air?

I've never said magnets don't work n low pressure. I said a vacuum that you people call it.

And what we call a vacuum refers to a region of very low pressure.
It does not need to be a perfect vacuum.
Even space is not a perfect vacuum.

So when you say magnets work in this so called environment, I disagree.

You didn't simply disagree.
You asserted as fact that magnets cannot work in a vacuum.
Now where is your justification for that?

Oh...and I knew you'd back out of explaining. It seems to be a massive issue for you.

There you go projecting again.
There are still so many things you haven't explained it isn't funny.

A key one for your magnet delusion is how the polarity of magnets work with air, requiring 2 attractive flows to magically repel or 2 outward flows to magically attract.

No atmosphere, no life, no movement.

Life is not the only source of movement. Try again.

Can a sieve  allow more air through than another if the sieve structure is more closely structured.

Do you mean a finer mesh?
Typically no, the finer the mesh the harder it is to let air through.
Some things require quite significant force to push the air through.

If you tried to push a plug under the sink against the flowing water would it appear like that plug was being repelled?
Just a few things to think about.

Yes, and to extend it how it relates to 2 magnets interacting, which you keep on avoiding as it kills your claims.

If you tried to push an upwards flow of water up against the flowing water, would it appear like that was being repelled?
Yes.
If you tried to do the opposite and have 2 outlets with the water flowing out of both would it appear that it was being attracted?
Yes.
This is the opposite of what is observed with magnets, where like poles repel.

Oh...and I knew you'd back out of explaining. It seems to be a massive issue for you.

I didn't back out of anything. Let me explain why I haven't provided you with a personal explanation of how magnetism works. The link I provided you with has done it for me.

Have you ever heard of that phrase 'Why keep a dog and then learn to bark yourself'.  That link is just one of many, many others which will tell you exactly the same thing about magnetism so why would I waste my time explaining something to you that has already explained many many times? If you have got your mind set on re-writing every physics textbook which has ever been written to satisfy your own mindset then that is something you can do yourself with your own explanations.

I don't have a massive issue.  That lies with you preferring to deny and ignore all the conventional explanations already given.

Wtf are you talking about?
Time to make a point.
Define atmospherix prwssure

Calm down and take your time. When you start getting nasty, you make little sense.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 16, 2021, 10:12:30 AM

All you need to do is work it out from my side, not your side.

Now why would anyone need to do that? Considering how obviously and spectacularly wrong you are.

Then don't do it. Save yourself from replying.

OK Sceptimatic. Explain to me exactly how the following happens.  You put a bar magnet (strip of iron with a N and S pole) on the table in front of you. Table is make of wood.  No apparent magnetic force between magnet and table.

Next you take a coin made of brass and place it on the magnet. No apparent magnetic effects. You hold the coin near the magnet and move it around the magnet.  Still no apparent magnetic effects. 

Next you take an iron nail and place it on the magnet.  As soon as the nail comes within a certain distance of the magnet (a few cm away) you immediately feel the magnet pulling the nail towards one end of it.  You let go of the nail it sticks to the magnet.  If you prise it away and hold it towards the other end of the magnet you notice that this time it tries to push the nail away. This is the effect of magnetic repulsion and attraction. How you would explain this when you have previously insisted to us that there is no such thing as a pulling force only a pushing force I have no idea.

Now explain exactly how you believe air pressure creates the sensation of magnetism when you hold the nail near the magnet but when you hold the brass coin near the magnet at the same time, no magnetic sensation is felt?  Based purely on what you observe and feel.

Get back to me when you acknowledge porosity with materials and then understand what I explained a few posts back.
From there I'll explain more but I'm not going to go through it when you don't seem to be getting any of it. It's pointless with you..

can't and that there is no reason to think magnets need air?

Everything that moves requires atmosphere. It's as simple as that.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 16, 2021, 01:32:50 PM

can't and that there is no reason to think magnets need air?

Everything that moves requires atmosphere. It's as simple as that.

Yes, that lie is simple, but there is no justification for it at all.

Again, the polarity of magnets, a massive issue you are still avoiding, shows quite clearly that air is not involved.
And that is just one of many things that show air is not involved or needed.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 16, 2021, 11:06:09 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 16, 2021, 01:32:50 PM

can't and that there is no reason to think magnets need air?

Everything that moves requires atmosphere. It's as simple as that.

Yes, that lie is simple, but there is no justification for it at all.

Again, the polarity of magnets, a massive issue you are still avoiding, shows quite clearly that air is not involved.
And that is just one of many things that show air is not involved or needed.

Tell me about this polarity.
You mention that I avoid it so explain it.

Tell me about this polarity.
You mention that I avoid it so explain it.

I already did, and have referred back to that several times.
When I provided it you dismissed as too long.

Here is the post:

Simple logic shows that magnets, if they worked like you claim, would function fundamentally differently to how they are observed.
This should be enough to show your "explanation" for how magnets work cannot be correct as it predicts fundamentally different results.
At the very least, it shows there is a fundamental problem with your model of how magnets work.

I am doing my best to understand how magnets work using air, but I find what you say impossible to reconcile with the observed behaviour of magnets.
Simple logic tells me that with a flow of air you have one section flowing outwards, pushing anything there away, and another section flowing inwards, pushing anything towards the magnet.

Even ignoring the the different magnetic properties of materials, this is irreconcilable with the observed interactions of 2 magnets.
The above should result in 2 of these outward flows repelling each other as they push each other away and 2 of the inwards flows attracting each other as the air pushes them towards each other so they "attract" one another.
The more complex way would be if you have an outwards flow and an inward flow. For this I think it would depend upon which flow is stronger, with a weaker overall interaction than the above arrangement.
If the outwards flow is stronger, it should push the other magnet away. If the inwards flow is stronger it should "attract" the other magnet.

This means if you have 2 magnets, with one stronger than the other, when you have them set up to have the 2 inwards flows pointing towards each other, they "attract".
If you turn both magnets around 180 degrees, then the 2 outwards flows are pointing towards each other, they repel.

From either of those set ups, if you turn the weaker magnet, then it would be the same as if you didn't, but with a weaker interaction.
Note that this means if you have it set up with them attracting, and turn both magnets around, it will still repel.

So overall, if you turn both magnets around, you switch between repulsion and attraction.
If you turn a single magnet around, it depends on if you turn around the strong or weak magnet.
Turning around the weak magnet will either weaken or intensify the interaction, turning around the strong magnet switches it like turning around both.

Doing my best to understand, using what you have said and simple logic, that is what your model indicates should happen.
And you are yet to point out any part of that understanding which is wrong.
If you think part of this understanding is wrong, please point out what part you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, explaining simply how it should work.

The problem comes when you compare this prediction with reality.
In reality, there does not appear to be an attractive and repulsive pole. Instead there appears to be 2 poles, where opposite poles attract and like poles repel.
If you take 2 magnets and put different poles towards each other, they attract. If you turn both around 180 degrees, they still attract. If you turn either magnet around (but not both), then they repel. From this repelling arrangement, if you turn both around, they still repel.

Now going to try addressing the massive flaw in your model?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 17, 2021, 01:05:14 AM

Tell me about this polarity.
You mention that I avoid it so explain it.

I already did, and have referred back to that several times.
When I provided it you dismissed as too long.

Here is the post:

Quote from: JackBlack on March 08, 2021, 01:39:31 PM

Simple logic shows that magnets, if they worked like you claim, would function fundamentally differently to how they are observed.
This should be enough to show your "explanation" for how magnets work cannot be correct as it predicts fundamentally different results.
At the very least, it shows there is a fundamental problem with your model of how magnets work.

I am doing my best to understand how magnets work using air, but I find what you say impossible to reconcile with the observed behaviour of magnets.
Simple logic tells me that with a flow of air you have one section flowing outwards, pushing anything there away, and another section flowing inwards, pushing anything towards the magnet.

Even ignoring the the different magnetic properties of materials, this is irreconcilable with the observed interactions of 2 magnets.
The above should result in 2 of these outward flows repelling each other as they push each other away and 2 of the inwards flows attracting each other as the air pushes them towards each other so they "attract" one another.
The more complex way would be if you have an outwards flow and an inward flow. For this I think it would depend upon which flow is stronger, with a weaker overall interaction than the above arrangement.
If the outwards flow is stronger, it should push the other magnet away. If the inwards flow is stronger it should "attract" the other magnet.

This means if you have 2 magnets, with one stronger than the other, when you have them set up to have the 2 inwards flows pointing towards each other, they "attract".
If you turn both magnets around 180 degrees, then the 2 outwards flows are pointing towards each other, they repel.

From either of those set ups, if you turn the weaker magnet, then it would be the same as if you didn't, but with a weaker interaction.
Note that this means if you have it set up with them attracting, and turn both magnets around, it will still repel.

So overall, if you turn both magnets around, you switch between repulsion and attraction.
If you turn a single magnet around, it depends on if you turn around the strong or weak magnet.
Turning around the weak magnet will either weaken or intensify the interaction, turning around the strong magnet switches it like turning around both.

Doing my best to understand, using what you have said and simple logic, that is what your model indicates should happen.
And you are yet to point out any part of that understanding which is wrong.
If you think part of this understanding is wrong, please point out what part you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, explaining simply how it should work.

The problem comes when you compare this prediction with reality.
In reality, there does not appear to be an attractive and repulsive pole. Instead there appears to be 2 poles, where opposite poles attract and like poles repel.
If you take 2 magnets and put different poles towards each other, they attract. If you turn both around 180 degrees, they still attract. If you turn either magnet around (but not both), then they repel. From this repelling arrangement, if you turn both around, they still repel.

Now going to try addressing the massive flaw in your model?

In a few words explain what polarity is in terms of how your magnet works.

Give me a simple analogy.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 17, 2021, 01:19:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 17, 2021, 01:05:14 AM

Tell me about this polarity.
You mention that I avoid it so explain it.

I already did, and have referred back to that several times.
When I provided it you dismissed as too long.

Here is the post:

Quote from: JackBlack on March 08, 2021, 01:39:31 PM

Simple logic shows that magnets, if they worked like you claim, would function fundamentally differently to how they are observed.
This should be enough to show your "explanation" for how magnets work cannot be correct as it predicts fundamentally different results.
At the very least, it shows there is a fundamental problem with your model of how magnets work.

I am doing my best to understand how magnets work using air, but I find what you say impossible to reconcile with the observed behaviour of magnets.
Simple logic tells me that with a flow of air you have one section flowing outwards, pushing anything there away, and another section flowing inwards, pushing anything towards the magnet.

Even ignoring the the different magnetic properties of materials, this is irreconcilable with the observed interactions of 2 magnets.
The above should result in 2 of these outward flows repelling each other as they push each other away and 2 of the inwards flows attracting each other as the air pushes them towards each other so they "attract" one another.
The more complex way would be if you have an outwards flow and an inward flow. For this I think it would depend upon which flow is stronger, with a weaker overall interaction than the above arrangement.
If the outwards flow is stronger, it should push the other magnet away. If the inwards flow is stronger it should "attract" the other magnet.

This means if you have 2 magnets, with one stronger than the other, when you have them set up to have the 2 inwards flows pointing towards each other, they "attract".
If you turn both magnets around 180 degrees, then the 2 outwards flows are pointing towards each other, they repel.

From either of those set ups, if you turn the weaker magnet, then it would be the same as if you didn't, but with a weaker interaction.
Note that this means if you have it set up with them attracting, and turn both magnets around, it will still repel.

So overall, if you turn both magnets around, you switch between repulsion and attraction.
If you turn a single magnet around, it depends on if you turn around the strong or weak magnet.
Turning around the weak magnet will either weaken or intensify the interaction, turning around the strong magnet switches it like turning around both.

Doing my best to understand, using what you have said and simple logic, that is what your model indicates should happen.
And you are yet to point out any part of that understanding which is wrong.
If you think part of this understanding is wrong, please point out what part you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, explaining simply how it should work.

The problem comes when you compare this prediction with reality.
In reality, there does not appear to be an attractive and repulsive pole. Instead there appears to be 2 poles, where opposite poles attract and like poles repel.
If you take 2 magnets and put different poles towards each other, they attract. If you turn both around 180 degrees, they still attract. If you turn either magnet around (but not both), then they repel. From this repelling arrangement, if you turn both around, they still repel.

Now going to try addressing the massive flaw in your model?

In a few words explain what polarity is in terms of how your magnet works.

Give me a simple analogy.

I have already explained it repeatedly. In both simple and complex ways.
I don't need to bother with analogies when a simple observations of magnets are all that is needed.

Like poles repel, opposite poles attract.
That cannot be explained by your air.

Now, can you deal with the issue, or just continually deflect?

I have already explained it repeatedly. In both simple and complex ways.
I don't need to bother with analogies when a simple observations of magnets are all that is needed.

Like poles repel, opposite poles attract.
That cannot be explained by your air.

Now, can you deal with the issue, or just continually deflect?

You're not explaining anything and you know it.

Tell me why like poles repel and opposite poles attract.

And then tell me what poles actually are.

Nice simple analogies would be ideal but I feel you're incapable of doing them. Prove me wrong.

Prove me wrong.

Why are you so obsessed about this proves this or that proves that all the time? Why is proof of everything always necessary for you?

Tell me why like poles repel and opposite poles attract.

No, that is entirely irrelevant to if your model and explanation matches reality.
Like I told you before, I don't need to know all the details of how magnets work to know that your explanation is wrong.

You tell me why like poles repel and opposite poles attract, which is impossible with your model based upon air.

If you feel the need to appeal to analogies because you can't actually explain, go ahead, just make sure you deal with both poles, not just one.

Prove me wrong

I already did, and have done so repeatedly.
That post you keep ignoring is one such example:

Simple logic shows that magnets, if they worked like you claim, would function fundamentally differently to how they are observed.
This should be enough to show your "explanation" for how magnets work cannot be correct as it predicts fundamentally different results.
At the very least, it shows there is a fundamental problem with your model of how magnets work.

I am doing my best to understand how magnets work using air, but I find what you say impossible to reconcile with the observed behaviour of magnets.
Simple logic tells me that with a flow of air you have one section flowing outwards, pushing anything there away, and another section flowing inwards, pushing anything towards the magnet.

Even ignoring the the different magnetic properties of materials, this is irreconcilable with the observed interactions of 2 magnets.
The above should result in 2 of these outward flows repelling each other as they push each other away and 2 of the inwards flows attracting each other as the air pushes them towards each other so they "attract" one another.
The more complex way would be if you have an outwards flow and an inward flow. For this I think it would depend upon which flow is stronger, with a weaker overall interaction than the above arrangement.
If the outwards flow is stronger, it should push the other magnet away. If the inwards flow is stronger it should "attract" the other magnet.

This means if you have 2 magnets, with one stronger than the other, when you have them set up to have the 2 inwards flows pointing towards each other, they "attract".
If you turn both magnets around 180 degrees, then the 2 outwards flows are pointing towards each other, they repel.

From either of those set ups, if you turn the weaker magnet, then it would be the same as if you didn't, but with a weaker interaction.
Note that this means if you have it set up with them attracting, and turn both magnets around, it will still repel.

So overall, if you turn both magnets around, you switch between repulsion and attraction.
If you turn a single magnet around, it depends on if you turn around the strong or weak magnet.
Turning around the weak magnet will either weaken or intensify the interaction, turning around the strong magnet switches it like turning around both.

Doing my best to understand, using what you have said and simple logic, that is what your model indicates should happen.
And you are yet to point out any part of that understanding which is wrong.
If you think part of this understanding is wrong, please point out what part you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, explaining simply how it should work.

The problem comes when you compare this prediction with reality.
In reality, there does not appear to be an attractive and repulsive pole. Instead there appears to be 2 poles, where opposite poles attract and like poles repel.
If you take 2 magnets and put different poles towards each other, they attract. If you turn both around 180 degrees, they still attract. If you turn either magnet around (but not both), then they repel. From this repelling arrangement, if you turn both around, they still repel.

That post proves you are wrong as it proves your idea of air creating magnetism cannot account for the observed polarity of magnets.
If you wish to disagree, tell me where it is wrong.

Quote

Prove me wrong.

Why are you so obsessed about this proves this or that proves that all the time? Why is proof of everything always necessary for you?

Because I'm dealing with people like you who come to a flat Earth forum to peddle your global indoctrinated belief's, so I'm just counter arguing and using my ways to do it, whether you like that or not.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 17, 2021, 02:18:06 AM

Tell me why like poles repel and opposite poles attract.

No, that is entirely irrelevant to if your model and explanation matches reality.
Like I told you before, I don't need to know all the details of how magnets work to know that your explanation is wrong.

It might help you if you go through what you typed, above and let it sink in as to what you're saying.

You can't explain poles and magnets but you think you can tell me I'm wrong or just throw away any answers I give because they don't suit you.

I'm absolutely fine with it...don;t get me wrong.....but, it shows you are arguing without any genuine back up.

Because I'm dealing with people like you who come to a flat Earth forum to peddle your global indoctrinated belief's, so I'm just counter arguing and using my ways to do it, whether you like that or not.

OK so if you are so confident you are right with your counter arguments then why don't you go peddling your flat Earth beliefs on other mainstream physics forums and preach your view of reality to them?  Instead of confining yourself to flat Earth websites where you know you will find sympathetic and like minded people? Needless to say so long as you limit yourself to chatting with people who agree with you then that will help to reinforce your own confidence and belief that you are right won't it. 

Those who believe in conspiracy theories seem to just flock together like sheep.  Safety in numbers I suppose.

Or better question Why cant you prove your ideas with a diagram?
Is this the thread where you claimed circles and triangles dont exist?
Show us how a "horizon" is made and how we percieve it at "eye level" regardless of altitude.

Let's be fair... I seem to recall one diagram that Scepti managed to come up with.  Not exactly convincing but a diagram nonetheless.

He provided a diagram that did not disprove but proved the ball earth horizon model.

It might help you if you go through what you typed, above and let it sink in as to what you're saying.

I already have.
It might help you if you stop with the pathetic deflection and actually address the issue for once.

You can't explain poles and magnets but you think you can tell me I'm wrong or just throw away any answers I give because they don't suit you.

No, I can explain them, but see no point in doing so as that would be just another deflection from your inability to explain them.
But as repeatedly shown, I don't need to be able to explain how they work to know that what you are claiming about how they work would produce which are fundamentally different from what is observed in reality.

I'm not telling you that you are wrong just because it doesn't suit me; I am telling you that you are wrong for the reasons already provided in the post you continue to ignore. If magnetism was caused by a flow of air, it would produce results fundamentally different to what is observed in reality.
Air would produce magnets with an attractive pole and a repulsive pole.
2 attractive poles should attract each other.
2 repulsive poles should repel each other.
The attractive pole should attract other materials.
The repulsive pole should repel other materials.

But in reality, while magnets have 2 poles, neither is attractive or repulsive in that sense.
Instead 2 like poles repel and 2 opposite poles attract.

This has all been repeatedly explained to you and you have provided nothing to refute it.
This shows you are wrong.
If you weren't wrong, you would be able to refute it.

but, it shows you are arguing without any genuine back up.

Quite the opposite.
It shows you are arguing without any genuine back up.
I have reality and logic backing me up.
All you seem to be able to do is deflect.

You have no evidence to justify any of your claims, nor do you have any logic at all to defend from their refutations.

You can't explain poles and magnets but you think you can tell me I'm wrong or just throw away any answers I give because they don't suit you

None of us will ever know everything about everything will we. We learn as we proceed through life. So how do we learn? What information do we trust and what don't we trust. Well for me if what I read about something, hear about something or am told about something and that is consistent with my life experience why should I have any doubt that what I have read, heard or am told is wrong? As soon as discrepancies start to appear between what I am told or what I read and my life experience then I will have reason to question it.  Otherwise I can't see why I would have a reason to question it.

You are telling us or appear to be telling us that a magnetic field is caused by air pressure or atmospheric pressure. However my experience of experimenting with magnets and different materials tells me during the course of my life tells me that magnetic fields are caused by properties of the materials concerned and have nothing to do with the air pressure around them.

If you think different then obviously your experience with magnets is different to mine so explain how and why.

What is magnetism?
Who knows.

What variables affect magnetism?
Electrical current.
Windings.
Metals.
Definitely not air.

So, please let us know what the relationship is- because so far all experiments, easily reproducable and testable and well documented ones, show otherwise.

Quote

Because I'm dealing with people like you who come to a flat Earth forum to peddle your global indoctrinated belief's, so I'm just counter arguing and using my ways to do it, whether you like that or not.

OK so if you are so confident you are right with your counter arguments then why don't you go peddling your flat Earth beliefs on other mainstream physics forums and preach your view of reality to them?  Instead of confining yourself to flat Earth websites where you know you will find sympathetic and like minded people? Needless to say so long as you limit yourself to chatting with people who agree with you then that will help to reinforce your own confidence and belief that you are right won't it. 

Those who believe in conspiracy theories seem to just flock together like sheep.  Safety in numbers I suppose.

What are you doing here?