ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

Quote from: JackBlack on March 27, 2021, 11:53:03 PM

Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets instead of what simple logical reasoning indicates it should?

Can you explain how magnets work?

Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on March 27, 2021, 03:21:59 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 27, 2021, 02:33:06 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on March 26, 2021, 06:20:44 AM

1. A falling man feels no gravity. In free fall, gravity vanishes and you become weightless.

Sceptimatic, we'll talk about weight before we discuss mass. Do something for me. Stand on your bathroom scales and weigh yourself.

Then I'll take you through a thought experiment.

Ok I did that and I am eating lettuce and celery as we speak.   


On a serious note, get to your point.

Ok, good.

You were likely standing on your scales in the bathroom or another room of your house when you did that.

Now imagine you are instead standing on those same scales in an elevator at the top of a very tall building. This elevator shaft is special, in that it is a vacuum chamber.

Now imagine the elevator cables all fail at once and the elevator you're in, plummets. Your weight as read on the scales you are standing on, would suddenly read zero even though you may still be standing on them. This is because you are falling at exactly the same speed as the scales and the elevator. You would be experiencing weightlessness.

The light in the elevator goes out. You are in pitch blackness. This is what floating in outer space (if you believed in outer space ofcourse) would feel like. It would be indistinguishable.

In your mind you believe this.

You see, in your scenario you would fall at the exact same time as the scales. But also in your scenario you already have a weight measurement reading on the scale, so surely in your elevator and vacuum story, the scales would read the same as you are both falling at the same rate.


However, you are dismissing your gravity with an elevator and person and scale all falling because of your gravity, so you can hardly be weightless if you have a reading on that scale.

If you want to change it to the lift falling against pressure and its mass overcoming the air resistance below quicker than you can overcome the air resistance in the elevator along with the scales....you may feel weightless If there is no scale reading under your feet.

It's a tricky one.

Obviously you believe in space vacuums, so you follow that train of thought and believe what you said would happen. I think differently....obviously...as you can see.

Everything is in free-fall, so, the scales should then read zero, contrary to your belief they will continue to read your original weight.

Ok, I removed the air from the elevator shaft, as the air would offer a slight resistance to the falling elevator.

In fact, if the shaft below the elevator were perfectly the same shape as the elevator's verticals, and airtight, the compression of the air under the falling elevator, might actually slow the falling elevator to a complete stop.

You are standing on the scales in the elevator, before it falls. It reads your weight. It doesn't matter if they are digital scales or with a needle.

Same scenario, but this time the light stays on and there is a heavy metal safe next to you in the same elevator. It is on a set of scales also, which reads it's weight as half a tonne - five hundred kilograms.

The elevator falls. Your weight on the scales suddenly reads 000. The weight of the metal safe also suddenly reads 0000.

Can you now lift the safe with your little finger and move it around as if it is lighter than a feather, inside the elevator?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 28, 2021, 12:26:45 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 27, 2021, 11:53:03 PM

Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets instead of what simple logical reasoning indicates it should?

Can you explain how magnets work?

Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets?

Air?

Everything is in free-fall, so, the scales should then read zero, contrary to your belief they will continue to read your original weight.
Ok, I removed the air from the elevator shaft, as the air would offer a slight resistance to the falling elevator.

By your set up you set your elevator into your shaft as  your vacuum.
In doing so you also set your person on the scales with a weight reading.

So judging by your stance, in your mind, you think the person should free fall along with the elevator and also the scale.
But you also  argue that a vacuum offers no resistance.
If that is the case then it offers no resistance to the levator or you or the scale, no matter how much dense mass each have.
This is what you people go by.

Sooooo, how can a scale reading change?
You should be stood on it, on that elevator floor as your resistance as the elevator plummets in no resistance.

Your scale measurement should not change in your scenario. It should read your weight at the start.


It obviously doesn't work because the scenario couldn't be created in the first place, but it would work with air/atmospheric resistance.

In fact, if the shaft below the elevator were perfectly the same shape as the elevator's verticals, and airtight, the compression of the air under the falling elevator, might actually slow the falling elevator to a complete stop.

It certainly would as long as the walls were strong enough to cater for the massive compression of the elevators dense mass and anything within.

You are standing on the scales in the elevator, before it falls. It reads your weight. It doesn't matter if they are digital scales or with a needle.
Same scenario, but this time the light stays on and there is a heavy metal safe next to you in the same elevator. It is on a set of scales also, which reads it's weight as half a tonne - five hundred kilograms.

The elevator falls. Your weight on the scales suddenly reads 000. The weight of the metal safe also suddenly reads 0000.

Nope, not in your fictional vacuum.

f you're now talking about air pressure then, it depends on the air compression in the shaft and how it arrests the fall of the elevator which would arrest your own fall and also the scale. It could end up with the opposite of what you think.

Can you now lift the safe with your little finger and move it around as if it is lighter than a feather, inside the elevator?

It would depend on what scenario is present..

Quote from: JackBlack on March 27, 2021, 11:53:03 PM

Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets instead of what simple logical reasoning indicates it should?

Can you explain how magnets work?

Again, you are the one claiming they work with air.
Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets instead of what simple logical reasoning indicates it should?

Again, you are the one claiming they work with air.
Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets instead of what simple logical reasoning indicates it should?

Using atmospheric breakdown, not just air. But you know this.

Define atmosphere.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 28, 2021, 04:36:06 AM

Again, you are the one claiming they work with air.
Can you explain just how the air produces the observed polarity of magnets instead of what simple logical reasoning indicates it should?

Using atmospheric breakdown, not just air. But you know this.

Semantics.
Explain it. I don't really care if you want to use air or atmospheric breakdown or anything else like that. Explain how this flow/pressure difference causes the polarity of magnets, i.e. causes magnets to interact in the way they are repeatedly observed to interact.

By your set up you set your elevator into your shaft as  your vacuum.
In doing so you also set your person on the scales with a weight reading.

So judging by your stance, in your mind, you think the person should free fall along with the elevator and also the scale.
But you also  argue that a vacuum offers no resistance.
If that is the case then it offers no resistance to the levator or you or the scale, no matter how much dense mass each have.
This is what you people go by.

Sooooo, how can a scale reading change?
You should be stood on it, on that elevator floor as your resistance as the elevator plummets in no resistance.

Your scale measurement should not change in your scenario. It should read your weight at the start.


It obviously doesn't work because the scenario couldn't be created in the first place, but it would work with air/atmospheric resistance.

It certainly can, and have been created.  They are called drop towers.  Here’s one in Germany:

That drop tower is what we're talking about, but there's no need to go there or build one to test this.

Sceptimatic, I now know you have a set of scales. 

Experiment 1:
Maybe do this outside on your lawn. Find an object which weighs 5 to 10 kg and place on your cheap scales. (Or, so there is no room for doubt, glue the object to the top of the scales). Ask your wife to stand on a chair beside you so she can film directly down over the scales, showing the reading.

Take hold of two opposite ends of the scales. Lift the scales with the object on, up to chest height or higher. Then, release hold with each hand of the scales, simultaneously, so that the scales fall horizontal to the floor with the weight still on top.

Now, review the video footage taken by your wife, and see if the weight reading on the scales changes from being in a state of rest to free fall, and then when it hits the floor.

Experiment 2:
Glue a pair of your shoes to the top of an old set of cheap scales. When the glue is dry, get on to a ledge a few feet off the ground. Put your feet into the shoes, tie up the laces, and stand up on the ledge.

Film down. The scales should read your weight. Keep filming down, as you jump off the ledge to the ground. Review the footage and see if the weight changes between your resting position on the ledge, to falling, to landing on the ground.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make here?

You arrived late to the party! The "point" is that what Scepti is suggesting is not inherently in conflict with the "scientific placeholder" of the magnetic field.

Scepti has asked repeatedly for others internal definitions of magnetism (how it is created / what it is comprised of / how it functions), while they attempt to explain their own.  I suspect that this is a dialectic question intended to tease out / make explicit any conceptual conflicts that may exist and need to be discussed/addressed.

As you rightly point out, parroting why incessantly is sophistry and is to be avoided.  However, when it is a genuine question - it is merely inquisitive (and should be encouraged)

So why keep bringing this up?  If you dispute everything we know because there is more to learn, you are throwing away the entireity of human discovery. Not very useful.

I agree! Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

I've seen no proof you have a physics background or ever graduated with any superior knowledge or achievement, regarding magnetism. Lots and lots of words that mean next to nothing, impress nobody.

And if you HAD seen proof, THEN you would have earnestly considered/evaluated the "lots and lots of words" (or worse, accepted them as "probably right" without another thought?!), but thankfully can simply ignore them? Credential worship is a scourge, and no claim should be accepted from any source without thorough validation first.

Your argument is exactly that of sceptimatic's. Advocating to verify and validate every single claim thoroughly, before accepting them, regardless of source.

Correct, though it isn't an argument. It is a prerequisite to being a capable student and to independent thought/research.

I heard a claim that if I dont wear a seat belt and am involved in a high speed collision, I will likely die. Please tell me how you would like me to validate and verify that claim?

The devil's always in the details. At the end of the day, "thorough validation" is subjective.  For some, simply evaluating the findings of car companies and scores of independent validation on what those car companies claim (with crash test dummies etc.) suffices.  For others, they might have to destroy some cars or do some scale testing and extrapolate from there. Some people need to stick their hands in the wounds, and it will not be real before then. Many of those "doubting thomas" types become scientists, and skepticism/disbelief is an asset in science. P.S. In regards to your example, it certainly doesn't help that in some crashes, the people wearing seatbelts all die but the person who wasn't is thrown clear and survives. AND that the cheap seat-belts we have (as cheap as possible for the manufacturers who were FORCED to put them in at all) don't distribute the force load and CAUSE huge amounts of unnecessary damage to passengers as a result (in less than lethal crashes).  The devil is always in the details...

If you don't understand how something works, or see it for yourself firsthand, therefore it doesn't work ... The common theme seems to be, if you don't understand something, it isn't real.

I agree that this is a very real danger.  There are a few rules of thumb I have found useful to determining the subjective criteria for "thorough validation" of a claim/fact.

1. Experimental validation; this is the best we have to verify a claim (especially a "scientific" one) but is not applicable in many (if not most) cases.
2. QED; this is next best but can easily be misleading because it is not validated rigorously like the above.  In general, if it can be demonstrated (by you) then there is likely something to it.  If it cannot, it is likely fiction/imagination/non-real.
3. All claims require thorough validation, but some call for more rigor than others.  As a fan of sagan, I also council that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  That evidence should ideally fall in the first, then (failing that) second catagories.

Extra-ordinary meaning outside of the realm of your common experience (not education).

Jack, let's be really clear here.

I agree, we need to be as explicitly clear as we can.  Effective communication depends on it, and even with it - still poses significant difficulty!

You are expressing your opinions.  And if understand your point correctly, you are of the opinion that because we do not have a physical mechanism for electromagnetic fields, we do not know how magnets work.

It can be easily misinterpreted to be an opinion, yes.  As I said, the major difference between an opinion and a fact is what supports them (opinion on emotion, and fact on evidence) however there is more to "be really clear" about here.

Facts are arbitrary.  They are arbitrated by our "authorities"/teachers/books/etc.  They OUGHT to be supported by evidence, but often are not and even when they are they are often far from certainly true/correct.  It is a fact that there is no scientific explanation for magnetism in composition or mechanism (indeed, for all "fields").  The wonderful thing about this particular fact (not true of many/most of the others), is that refuting it is as simple as providing the composition and mechanism (that the fact purports NOT to exist).  I entreat you to do so!  Facts stand, right or wrong; correct or incorrect, until they are refuted (and sadly, often much longer than that).

This is your opinion.  You are more than welcome to it and I appreciate you sharing it here.

Demonstrate that it is my opinion (and wrong!) by demonstrating that science DOES have an explanation for the composition and mechanism.  Or accept the fact, or neither!

I think it is a silly opinion, and am treating it with some levity, so apologies if it comes across as some sort of game.  However, if I am being offensive to you in any way I do apologize.

I appreciate the candor/earnesty!  If we can't treat/temper this discussion with some levity, we would all be depressed/down all the time.  I am difficult to offend, and encourage all to speak our minds freely. Though I do take the subject seriously - there must always be room for levity.

I look at what happens if I apply your argument to other areas.  If we should conclude that we do not understand a phenomena if we can not have a physical description of any underlying fields used in our current understanding, then what do we find?

I'm not making a general argument, I am stating a specific fact (or opinion, from your perspective).  It is not a sophist posit/claim that "fields" are currently a place-marker for science that was expected to come in the future (we are still waiting, centuries after this blunder).

Well, our understanding of almost every molecular interaction utilizes electromagnetic fields.  Therefore we should say we don't know how any of these interactions work?  Chemistry is out the window?  Bummer, it was a good run while it lasted.

It would be sophistry if that were the purpose of raising this fact, which it is not.  You still seem to be struggling with the critical difference between using something / describing something, and understanding it.  Our conceptions (understanding, as you said above) are irrelevant to the manifest objective reality we hope to understand.  The history of science shows that facts (including scientific conceptions / theories etc.) are doomed to expiration.  They have a half life.

Does this mean that all science is useless? Of course not!  Incorrect conceptions can and have been VERY useful to humanity, and will continue to be so.  But useful is not correct!  In science, the only way to establish such consistency with manifest objective reality is by rigorous experiment.  Even then, it is provisional and (based on the history) doomed to be overturned / generally found laughable by subsequent generations.

To take this further, as Jack(black) has been trying (unsuccessfully, you keep selectively ignoring it for some reason) to get you to address, I also believe that your argument would rationally conclude that we don't know how anything works.  In our present understanding, everything is reducible to the effects of the 4 fundamental forces of nature. Their expression as fields is one of the great progressions in modern physics.  If we have to conclude that we dont know how something works if we do not fully understand the responsible underlying fields describing them, then as all phenomena do, we dont understand anything.

It is a misunderstanding.  I am making no such generalized argument from the fact.  It's just a fact.  We don't know what fields are.  We haven't for centuries.

I think this is a silly stance to take, but if you simply say we do not understand how magnetism works in the same way we do not understand how ANYTHING works, I will not disagree that this is at least a consistent opinion to have.

Fundamentally, I do have strong suspicions (informed from history) that our understanding of just about everything is flawed in some way.  This is not a radical, but rather a pragmatic, perspective.  It appears radical and perhaps "anti-science" when you misunderstand/misrepresent it as a sophist posit.

My opinion is that we know a tremendous amount about how magnets work.

Don't sell yourself short!  You are just as capable of recognizing, classifying, and defining/arbitrating fact as any other!  It is a FACT that we (humanity, and perhaps some in this discussion) know a tremendous amount about how magnets work.  This is evident in the sheer volume of knowledge that we have amassed on the subject.

We can build, design, and manipulate them amazingly.

True, however using is not the same as understanding AND understanding is most often not the same as understanding properly/correctly nor establishing veracity.

We do not know EVERYTHING, but we never will, and this certainly doesn't mean we dont know how they work except in the most pedantic and meaningless way.

Nor will we ever, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying!  Look at all the cool stuff we can do as a result of continuing to try anyway (MRIs being a good example), and continuously being wrong / making mistakes along the way!

What we don't know is how magnetic fields work, or what they are made of.  We know how to generate them, measure them, and manipulate them - and we can do LOTS of cool things with them.  We don't understand the magnetic field in composition or mechanism. 

Don't be so enamored with what we can do that you ignore the limits (and gaps) of our knowledge. Mind the gap!

The whole reason for bringing up the fact, which I did and scepti didn't (they simply asked a question that leads to it if one is being earnest and honest), was only to say that because currently there is no "mainstream" description of composition or mechanism for a magnetic field (again, you are most welcome to disagree and provide those descriptions and/or reasoning) - scepti's conception is not in inherent conflict with anything that we DO know about magnets/magnetism.

A lot of pleading here.
Lets see a definition of atmoshpere and what he means by it.

Quote from: JJA on March 22, 2021, 01:31:29 PM

What exactly is the point you are trying to make here?

You arrived late to the party! The "point" is that what Scepti is suggesting is not inherently in conflict with the "scientific placeholder" of the magnetic field.

Then you seem to have fundamentally missed the point, as the point I have repeatedly made, and what he has done whatever he can to avoid, is that what he is suggesting has fundamental conflicts with what is observed in reality, and he is doing whatever he can to dodge this point, and you are pretending his wild speculation, contradicted by reality, is somehow better than what modern science has, just because modern science doesn't know everything.

It is a fact that there is no scientific explanation for magnetism in composition or mechanism (indeed, for all "fields").

There you go with the same dishonest misrepresentation.
It is a fact that ultimately there is no scientific explanation for anything as you eventually get to the point where we simply don't know.
The wonderful about this particular fact is that refuting it is as simple as providing a complete mechanism for literally anything. Which you have continually refused to do, so you can continue to dishonestly pretend like magnetism and other "fields" are special in this regard.

Again, the point you seem to completely miss is that they were not claiming science knows everything. Basically no one does.
Instead they pointed out you were trying to set an impossible standard.
The point is that it is silly to bring up such things as not knowing exactly how a fundamental force works to pretend that wild speculation based upon pretending it is cause by the air is just as good or better.
It is silly because no matter how far you go, there will always be the next question.

It even applies to matter itself, which is a quite good example of it.
What is this desk composed of? Primarily wood.
But what is that composed of? Primarily organic molecules.
But what is that composed of? Primarily carbon and other atoms.
But what is that composed of? A carbon atom is composed of a nucleus and electrons?
But what are they composed of? Well, we have no idea what an electron is composed of, or if it is actually composed of anything rather than simply being an electron.
But for the nucleus, that is composed of protons and neutrons.
But then what are they composed of? Quarks.
But what are they composed of? Again, we don't know. Some people believe they may be composed of subquarks. Others think they are point particles and simply are.

So even something like composition, we don't what ANYTHING is composed of.
So again, fields are not special in this regards.
Why can't fields simply be fields?

It is also a fact that we understand magnetism quite well.

It is a misunderstanding.  I am making no such generalized argument from the fact.

It isn't a misunderstanding at all.
It is that you are dishonestly applying this just to magnetism and other fields to pretend they are special in us having no idea how it works at all, when in reality, we have a very good idea of how magnetism works, and that lack of complete knowledge applies to everything.

scepti's conception is not in inherent conflict with anything that we DO know about magnets/magnetism.

As explained repeatedly, it is in conflict with plenty.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 28, 2021, 02:20:35 AM

By your set up you set your elevator into your shaft as  your vacuum.
In doing so you also set your person on the scales with a weight reading.

So judging by your stance, in your mind, you think the person should free fall along with the elevator and also the scale.
But you also  argue that a vacuum offers no resistance.
If that is the case then it offers no resistance to the levator or you or the scale, no matter how much dense mass each have.
This is what you people go by.

Sooooo, how can a scale reading change?
You should be stood on it, on that elevator floor as your resistance as the elevator plummets in no resistance.

Your scale measurement should not change in your scenario. It should read your weight at the start.


It obviously doesn't work because the scenario couldn't be created in the first place, but it would work with air/atmospheric resistance.

It certainly can, and have been created.  They are called drop towers.  Here’s one in Germany:

There seems to be a lot of talk on it and no showing. However, it's still not a vacuum no matter how close to one they make out/.

That drop tower is what we're talking about, but there's no need to go there or build one to test this.

Sceptimatic, I now know you have a set of scales. 

Experiment 1:
Maybe do this outside on your lawn. Find an object which weighs 5 to 10 kg and place on your cheap scales. (Or, so there is no room for doubt, glue the object to the top of the scales). Ask your wife to stand on a chair beside you so she can film directly down over the scales, showing the reading.

Take hold of two opposite ends of the scales. Lift the scales with the object on, up to chest height or higher. Then, release hold with each hand of the scales, simultaneously, so that the scales fall horizontal ? to the floor with the weight still on top.

Now, review the video footage taken by your wife, and see if the weight reading on the scales changes from being in a state of rest to free fall, and then when it hits the floor.

Of course it will change. The scales are not part of a solid foundation as they fall, so naturally the reading will change.

Experiment 2:
Glue a pair of your shoes to the top of an old set of cheap scales. When the glue is dry, get on to a ledge a few feet off the ground. Put your feet into the shoes, tie up the laces, and stand up on the ledge.

Film down. The scales should read your weight. Keep filming down, as you jump off the ledge to the ground. Review the footage and see if the weight changes between your resting position on the ledge, to falling, to landing on the ground.

Same thing.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. You seem to be confusing yourself.

define "atmosphere" and what's different about it from "air".
because the conventional definition, "atmosphere" is comprised of "air".

The scales are not part of a solid foundation as they fall, so naturally the reading will change.

There you go contradicting yourself.
You first claim it wont change now you claim it does.

It just shows you either have no idea what you are talking about or you are knowingly spouting garbage.

Just like I explained to you before, you don't feel gravity, what you feel is your body transferring a force to you keep stationary by balancing the force due to gravity.
The same applies in this instance with the scales.
They don't just magically record your weight. Instead, they record the force they are applying to you.
When you are standing "stationary" on Earth they record the force applied to you to counter the force of gravity.
But if you are in free fall, then there is no force to counter gravity, instead you fall due to gravity. That means they don't measure any force being applied to you. In fact it would typically have a negative reading as now it doesn't even measure the force to hold the scale plate stationary.


Now again, care to explain how your model of magnetism produces the observed polarity of magnets rather than what logic indicates it should which is fundamentally different to what is observed?

side derail

just saw a video on lightbulbs.
if vacuums or near vacuums don't exist, explain how old timey lightbulbs work?
they had to evacuate the air due to overheating.
so do we add lightbulbs to the list of things taht, according to sceppy, don't exist?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2021, 01:40:44 AM

The scales are not part of a solid foundation as they fall, so naturally the reading will change.

There you go contradicting yourself.
You first claim it wont change now you claim it does.

It just shows you either have no idea what you are talking about or you are knowingly spouting garbage.

Mr twister: try and understand what's been said.
If vacuums are being used and then air pressure is being used...etc, then my answers will certainly differ.

Mixing stuff up and then claiming one thing of my claim, is pointless. It gets you nowhere, except in your own mind, which you are welcome to.

side derail

just saw a video on lightbulbs.
if vacuums or near vacuums don't exist, explain how old timey lightbulbs work?
they had to evacuate the air due to overheating.
so do we add lightbulbs to the list of things taht, according to sceppy, don't exist?

They are not anywhere near fully evacuated. It's a low pressure and generally with another gas.

Do you think a glass thermos is a vacuum?

Mr twister: try and understand what's been said.

I'm not the one twisting anything. That is you, repeatedly, to pretend there is a problem.

If vacuums are being used and then air pressure is being used...etc, then my answers will certainly differ.

See, this is an example of you twisting things, yet again.
You were claiming a problem for gravity, by completely misrepresenting it.


And yet again, you dodge the simple issue of your magnets simply not working.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2021, 02:28:30 AM

Mr twister: try and understand what's been said.

I'm not the one twisting anything. That is you, repeatedly, to pretend there is a problem.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2021, 02:28:30 AM

If vacuums are being used and then air pressure is being used...etc, then my answers will certainly differ.

See, this is an example of you twisting things, yet again.
You were claiming a problem for gravity, by completely misrepresenting it.


And yet again, you dodge the simple issue of your magnets simply not working.

How?

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 29, 2021, 02:04:12 AM

side derail

just saw a video on lightbulbs.
if vacuums or near vacuums don't exist, explain how old timey lightbulbs work?
they had to evacuate the air due to overheating.
so do we add lightbulbs to the list of things taht, according to sceppy, don't exist?

They are not anywhere near fully evacuated. It's a low pressure and generally with another gas.

Do you think a glass thermos is a vacuum?

You seem very confident and sure about this.
Perhaps you could define your version of atomsphere for us.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2021, 02:29:55 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 29, 2021, 02:04:12 AM

side derail

just saw a video on lightbulbs.
if vacuums or near vacuums don't exist, explain how old timey lightbulbs work?
they had to evacuate the air due to overheating.
so do we add lightbulbs to the list of things taht, according to sceppy, don't exist?

They are not anywhere near fully evacuated. It's a low pressure and generally with another gas.

Do you think a glass thermos is a vacuum?

You seem very confident and sure about this.
Perhaps you could define your version of atomsphere for us.

Take a look at what light bulbs were filled with.
They weren't vacuums or even extreme low pressure.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 29, 2021, 06:16:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2021, 02:29:55 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 29, 2021, 02:04:12 AM

side derail

just saw a video on lightbulbs.
if vacuums or near vacuums don't exist, explain how old timey lightbulbs work?
they had to evacuate the air due to overheating.
so do we add lightbulbs to the list of things taht, according to sceppy, don't exist?

They are not anywhere near fully evacuated. It's a low pressure and generally with another gas.

Do you think a glass thermos is a vacuum?

You seem very confident and sure about this.
Perhaps you could define your version of atomsphere for us.

Take a look at what light bulbs were filled with.
They weren't vacuums or even extreme low pressure.

Originally they were extreme low pressure, high vacuum. Then to increase longevity and easier production, they switched over to an inert gas. Why you say they weren't is historically incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb

You can read Edison's patent here where a vacuum is referenced:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US223898A/en

(Though many others had made similar devices before Edison, his was seemingly the most robust and commercially viable)

So how do you define the atmosphere?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 28, 2021, 02:31:08 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 28, 2021, 02:20:35 AM

By your set up you set your elevator into your shaft as  your vacuum.
In doing so you also set your person on the scales with a weight reading.

So judging by your stance, in your mind, you think the person should free fall along with the elevator and also the scale.
But you also  argue that a vacuum offers no resistance.
If that is the case then it offers no resistance to the levator or you or the scale, no matter how much dense mass each have.
This is what you people go by.

Sooooo, how can a scale reading change?
You should be stood on it, on that elevator floor as your resistance as the elevator plummets in no resistance.

Your scale measurement should not change in your scenario. It should read your weight at the start.


It obviously doesn't work because the scenario couldn't be created in the first place, but it would work with air/atmospheric resistance.

It certainly can, and have been created.  They are called drop towers.  Here’s one in Germany:

There seems to be a lot of talk on it and no showing. However, it's still not a vacuum no matter how close to one they make out/.

It’s a metal can falling down a big tube, there’s not much to show.  I doubt there’s any benefit installing lighting and cameras, and adding anything that doesn’t need to be there has the potential to compromise the vacuum. 

The vacuum doesn’t need to be absolute though, it only needs to reduce air resistance so that it’s insignificant to the experiments.

I don’t expect you believe anything about these towers, just pointing out that they are almost exactly  scenario described above.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 29, 2021, 04:11:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2021, 02:28:30 AM

Mr twister: try and understand what's been said.

I'm not the one twisting anything. That is you, repeatedly, to pretend there is a problem.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2021, 02:28:30 AM

If vacuums are being used and then air pressure is being used...etc, then my answers will certainly differ.

See, this is an example of you twisting things, yet again.
You were claiming a problem for gravity, by completely misrepresenting it.


And yet again, you dodge the simple issue of your magnets simply not working.

How?

Again, stop playing dumb. You know how. I explained how you misrepresented gravity and free fall, and how as the scale reads a force being applied across it, it would not show your weight in free fall.

As for the dodging the issue, that is so painfully obvious it isn't funny.
I raised a simple issue of your "model" of how magnets work not matching simple observations of 2 or more magnets interacting.
Simple observations show like poles repel and opposite poles attract.
Your model indicates poles with an outwards flow should repel each other and poles with an inwards flow should attract each other.
These 2 are fundamentally incompatible.
Your model is fundamentally incompatible with reality.

This was raised quite some time ago and you have done whatever you can to ignore this issue rather than either admitting your model doesn't match reality, or even attempting to explain how your model produces these observations.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on March 28, 2021, 03:34:19 PM

That drop tower is what we're talking about, but there's no need to go there or build one to test this.

Sceptimatic, I now know you have a set of scales. 

Experiment 1:
Maybe do this outside on your lawn. Find an object which weighs 5 to 10 kg and place on your cheap scales. (Or, so there is no room for doubt, glue the object to the top of the scales). Ask your wife to stand on a chair beside you so she can film directly down over the scales, showing the reading.

Take hold of two opposite ends of the scales. Lift the scales with the object on, up to chest height or higher. Then, release hold with each hand of the scales, simultaneously, so that the scales fall horizontal ? to the floor with the weight still on top.

Now, review the video footage taken by your wife, and see if the weight reading on the scales changes from being in a state of rest to free fall, and then when it hits the floor.

Of course it will change. The scales are not part of a solid foundation as they fall, so naturally the reading will change.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

Experiment 2:
Glue a pair of your shoes to the top of an old set of cheap scales. When the glue is dry, get on to a ledge a few feet off the ground. Put your feet into the shoes, tie up the laces, and stand up on the ledge.

Film down. The scales should read your weight. Keep filming down, as you jump off the ledge to the ground. Review the footage and see if the weight changes between your resting position on the ledge, to falling, to landing on the ground.

Same thing.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. You seem to be confusing yourself.

Both practical experiments illustrate exactly what will occur in the falling elevator scenario, sceptimatic. You know, the scenario where you said your weight on the scales would not change when the elevator falls?

I think you should do the experiment/s. If you want it more like the elevator, glue a square sheet of ply wood to the underside of the scales and then drop it  and then yourself.

I used the word horizontal, for the falling setups, but for you, perhaps the word "level" would have been better, or even the word, "flat"?