ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

You are more than welcome. 

And perhaps when you start to provide full explanations behind many aspects of your model then others might doing the same from our side.  But as you say, what you believe is only your own personal theory. And a theory in its very early stages at that. So perhaps it is not unreasonable that you cannot provide full explanations about anything yet.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2021, 07:56:18 AM

Quote from: Bored on May 12, 2021, 07:51:06 AM

So is your house moving with respect to the ground it is on?

Yep.

Quote from: Bored

 How fast does it go?

How fast is expansion and contraction?

I don't know. How fast is expansion and contraction? How many times per second/minute/hour/day?

I'd say it was slow. How much does it expand and contract?

To our naked eye, not much.

Can you actually see it happening?

You could if you set up a timelapse at the right places.

How do you know it's happening?

You can see the result.

By all means argue against this but you'll find your friends won't agree with you.

So when you are prepared to stop immediately dropping into the nuh uhh, claiming people don't know what they are talking about, and claiming things are copy pasted then we can have an actual discussion. 
Also I am still waiting on an explanation of pressure gradients in the atmosphere and what mechanism in your "model" causes what we see in reality.

Ok it's vibrating.
That isn't actually moving.

It is. Ask your friends.

If you measure from your back fence to your house, does that measurement ever change?

Yep.

By how much? Can it actually be measured, assuming you can read a tape measure to with 1/2 an inch?

Yep and it'll be very minor but that's not an issue.
You're struggling.

So when you are prepared to stop immediately dropping into the nuh uhh, claiming people don't know what they are talking about, and claiming things are copy pasted then we can have an actual discussion. 
Also I am still waiting on an explanation of pressure gradients in the atmosphere and what mechanism in your "model" causes what we see in reality.

You spent far too much time imagining me dancing for you so don't be coming that old bit of nonsense.

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 12, 2021, 08:53:16 AM

So when you are prepared to stop immediately dropping into the nuh uhh, claiming people don't know what they are talking about, and claiming things are copy pasted then we can have an actual discussion. 
Also I am still waiting on an explanation of pressure gradients in the atmosphere and what mechanism in your "model" causes what we see in reality.

You spent far too much time imagining me dancing for you so don't be coming that old bit of nonsense.

I'm not imagining it at all, you dance, I enjoy, end of story.  But hey you keep telling yourself that you have the free will to dance on your own, I'm ok with that as long as you keep dancing for me. 

I'm not imagining it at all, you dance, I enjoy, end of story.  But hey you keep telling yourself that you have the free will to dance on your own, I'm ok with that as long as you keep dancing for me.

No problem.

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 12, 2021, 09:30:06 AM

I'm not imagining it at all, you dance, I enjoy, end of story.  But hey you keep telling yourself that you have the free will to dance on your own, I'm ok with that as long as you keep dancing for me.

No problem.

Great you again accept your role, this makes me happy.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2021, 09:30:59 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 12, 2021, 09:30:06 AM

I'm not imagining it at all, you dance, I enjoy, end of story.  But hey you keep telling yourself that you have the free will to dance on your own, I'm ok with that as long as you keep dancing for me.

No problem.

Great you again accept your role, this makes me happy.

Great stuff.

It isn't, and my friends have nothing to do with it or do you mean the other forum members?

In bold. Or ask your friends who are in the know.

yes, I'm struggling to believe that your house bounces back and forth by 1/2 inch!
How quickly is this happening, again?

I never mentioned half an inch.... you did.

Quote from: MicroBeta on May 12, 2021, 06:13:39 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2021, 03:07:59 AM

Quote from: Bored on May 12, 2021, 12:00:30 AM

Explain this, what law of physics does this break?

It depends on what you deem as, a law of physics.
If you think a group of people decide the law then that law can be made to cater for anything and everything, whether it's a truth of a fiction/fantasy.

We don't get to decide what the laws of physics are.  They are immutable.  IOW, you can't just redefine something to suit you narrative.

Mike

Correct.
Now you need to understand that and apply it to something that cannot be done, which is constant velocity,
It does not exist so isn't obviously any law of physics.

Are you really saying there's no law applying to a constant velocity?

To quote Newton directly:

• The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to persevere in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line."

IOW, he said, in part, an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity, in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.

Mike

Why xant you use a hypothetical to understand real physcis?

I mena yourwhole basis of denp is built on hypotehtical analogies!

Using a basic hypotheitcal allows you to remove variables, and add them back in slowly until you have a model that closesly matche rela rssults

Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2021, 02:48:39 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 11, 2021, 05:23:09 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2021, 03:20:24 AM

The reason I keep saying you haven't answered, is because you haven't.

The reason I say I have, is because I have.

The reason you say you have, rather than actually providing these answers, is because you have no answers, you cannot answer the simple questions which show your claims are BS.

All answered.

Again, if it was you would provide them.
Stop stalling and either provide the answers or admit you don't have them:
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?

Ok so inertia is simply a resistance to motion.

And there you go failing basic comprehension yet again.
It is not resistance to motion. It is resistance to CHANGE in motion.
Do you understand the difference?

Two reasons.
2. An object cannot stay in any motion unless it is acted upon by an external force

This shows your complete lack of understanding of how motion actually works.

If an object was in motion and had no force acting on it, it would remain in motion.
This is trivial to see by the fact that if you take your foot of the accelerator in a car you don't instantly come to a stop.
Instead if you want to stop quickly you need to use the beaks.

And the fact that it takes significantly more force to accelerate a car, than it does to overcome the relatively small force of air resistance trying to stop the car moving relative to it.

The more force applied the more movement of the mass.
I have no issue with this.

And again you get it completely wrong.
The more force, the faster it accelerates, not the more movement.

When you fail so hard at such simple mechanics, how can you hope to grasp anything more complex?

And a key part of actually understanding reality is hypotheticals. You seem to just use them as a cop out against defending any of your outright lies.

Quote from: Bored on May 12, 2021, 09:46:05 AM

 By how much? Can it actually be measured, assuming you can read a tape measure to within 1/2 an inch?

So not 1/2 an inch. How far?
How quickly?

It doesn't matter how far or how quickly. You're trying to skirt around the fact that constant velocity cannot happen.
The fact there is movement and resistance shows that.

Unless you can give me a scenario where there is no resistance to motion and show me how constant velocity can be achieved....you have nothing.

Are you really saying there's no law applying to a constant velocity?

Yes, there's no natural law, that's what I'm saying.

To quote Newton directly:

• The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting, by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to persevere in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving uniformly forward in a right line."

IOW, he said, in part, an object in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity, in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.

Mike

And I'll say it again.
An object in motion will never remain in motion at any constant velocity if no force is acted upon it.
Without force you have no motion.
With force you cannot have constant velocity. It cannot happen in any scenario.

Why xant you use a hypothetical to understand real physcis?

I mena yourwhole basis of denp is built on hypotehtical analogies!

Using a basic hypotheitcal allows you to remove variables, and add them back in slowly until you have a model that closesly matche rela rssults

Experiments prove a few things.
Simple evacuation chamber tests prove a few things.
One thing they do prove is there isn't a globe or spin.

So any experiments supposedly done to show a globe, are story book fiction.

Again, if it was you would provide them.

Already done.

I'm not trying to skirt around anything.
You made a claim that you have no proof for. If you had proof you be able to say how far and how fast it moves, but you can't, because it's not true.

My claim is you can't have constant velocity.
My claim is not to know how fast expansion moves, just that there is always expansion and contraction and always vibration, which means there is always a force and resistance, which means constant velocity and the supposed law of physics for it, is not only wrong, it simply does not exist and cannot exist.

By all means sit and argue over how far an expansion goes f that floats your boat but you're skirting around the real issue you have.

I don't have an issue, you are the one living in a fantasy.

If you can't measure how far or how fast, that is because it is not happening.

You are practically reduced to tears wanting me to accept what you say without wanting proof to back it up.

So you think builders put expansion gaps in brickwork and floor work just for the hell of it?
You've never had a sticking door due to weather changes?
You've never had a fence open up and close depending on the dry or wet weather?

And so on.

Everything vibrates/moves....is under pressure and resistance, whether it's extremely minor to extremely major.

If you want to deny this then feel free.

Your friends won't come in to this because they would need to tell you you are wrong and that would play into my hands...and they would not want that.

Yes, Thing expand and contract, but it happens slowly, and can be ignored for short term measurements. Yes, it is happening continuously but again on a short time frame the amount of 'movement' is so it can be ignored for short term measurements.
 I know you don't understand scale, but it's a real thing, I don't use a micrometre to measure the length of my back fence.

You're just not getting it, are you?

This is what you people go by.

An object in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity, in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.

Here's the key so absorb it and remember it.

unless acted upon by an external force

There is never a time when any object is not acted upon by an external force. Never.

This means the actual saying and supposed law, is nonsense. It does not exist as anything because the attempted meaning is nothing other than fantasy.

It's basically saying if you set something in motion it will just carry on in that motion until some force slows it down or alters its course.


First of all to set something in motion requires a force. It requires the resistance of that force to the resistance of the mass the force pushes to gain a momentum.
The mass that gains momentum will never not be acted upon. It will always be acted upon by a force/resistance to its mass.


It doesn't matter whether  it takes 50 years for something to move 10 feet, or whether it takes 1 second for it to move 10 feet, the mass will always be under force and resistance.


Constant velocity could only be possible in story books of fantasy.

No resistance to force means no force, at all.
You cannot apply a force and then have that force offer zero reaction. It has to be equal.
Action and equal and opposite, reaction.


You are under no obligation to accept this.
If you believe in magic then go with it. I'm just showing you how nonsensical it is.

Maybe one of your forum friends will help you out in what I'm saying because you clearly don't get it.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 12, 2021, 03:21:23 PM

Why xant you use a hypothetical to understand real physcis?

I mena yourwhole basis of denp is built on hypotehtical analogies!

Using a basic hypotheitcal allows you to remove variables, and add them back in slowly until you have a model that closesly matche rela rssults

Experiments prove a few things.
Simple evacuation chamber tests prove a few things.
One thing they do prove is there isn't a globe or spin.

So any experiments supposedly done to show a globe, are story book fiction.

Constant velocity - physics

A heavy pendulum will start to wobble because of the big balls spin - physics

Star patterns rotations in the hemisphere are because of the big ball spin - geometry

Ships mountainz towers dissapearing bottom up - goemtry

Using a 3ft hardwarestore water level - shows that 3ft is level but not flat because the world is 40,000,000m around and 1m is not a big deal - geomtry

Stacking gobstopper sponges - analogy

Rises to eye level - it doesnt and it doesnt - pure bullshit

Light on dark refraction through compressed atmosphere - a salad

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2021, 09:19:45 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 12, 2021, 03:21:23 PM

Why xant you use a hypothetical to understand real physcis?

I mena yourwhole basis of denp is built on hypotehtical analogies!

Using a basic hypotheitcal allows you to remove variables, and add them back in slowly until you have a model that closesly matche rela rssults

Experiments prove a few things.
Simple evacuation chamber tests prove a few things.
One thing they do prove is there isn't a globe or spin.

So any experiments supposedly done to show a globe, are story book fiction.

Constant velocity - physics

A heavy pendulum will start to wobble because of the big balls spin - physics

Star patterns rotations in the hemisphere are because of the big ball spin - geometry

Ships mountainz towers dissapearing bottom up - goemtry

Using a 3ft hardwarestore water level - shows that 3ft is level but not flat because the world is 40,000,000m around and 1m is not a big deal - geomtry

Stacking gobstopper sponges - analogy

Rises to eye level - it doesnt and it doesnt - pure bullshit

Light on dark refraction through compressed atmosphere - a salad

You're not really saying anything, are you.

Unless you can give me a scenario where there is no resistance to motion and show me how constant velocity can be achieved....you have nothing.

We could, but you would dismiss it as fake.

So how about you stick to the simple claims about your model instead, and then try to understand some basic mechanics after that?

And I'll say it again.

And you will be just as wrong each time you say it.

You do not need a force to keep something in motion.
Again, inertia is a resistance to change in motion, not to motion.

If inertia was simply resistance to motion, we would not need seat belts or breaks.
If you wanted to stop a car you would simply take your foot off the accelerator and the car, and all its occupants would immediately come to an abrupt stop.
The fact it does not shows that a force is not needed to continue motion.
The fact that in order to slow a car down at a decent rate you need to use brakes to apply a force, shows that a force is needed to bring something to a stop when it is in motion.
The fact that when you do so, the occupants and objects (excluding those lower in density than the air in the vehicle) appear to move forwards relative to the vehicle, unless something (like a seatbelt) restrains them and applies a force to slow them down, again shows that you need a force to stop motion.

There is no magical resistance to motion. Instead you have resistance to changes in motion.
The closest you get to resistance to motion is in things like air resistance, which resist relative motion.

One thing they do prove is there isn't a globe or spin.

You sure do love to spout the same pathetic lies again and again.
Care to explain just why you repeat this lie?
Can you justify your claim at all?
Or can you only just continually claim things refute the globe and the fact that it spins?

And while you are at it, answer the simple questions which destroy the garbage you continually preach:
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
By what magic does the air push things down and then resist that downwards motion so differently?

You're not really saying anything, are you.

There you go projecting your own inadequacies again.

To dismiss gravity as silly nonsense is no small claim since it is seen as force that has sculpted the whole universe into the form that it is today.  So for one person to come forward and claim they have a better alternative theory is a pretty bold move. That person had also better make sure they have answers to the barrage of questions that are sure to come their way from the whole of the physics community when it comes to making the landmark announcement. Sceptis claims about 'atmospheric pressure' and his 'simple experiments' are not going to convince anyone up to now.

Up to now though all the descriptions of gravity that we have seem to meet with our everyday experience quite well though so I don't see a need for any alternative theory myself. Some obscure person who feels a personal need to feed their otherwise obviously bored ego is not a reason to change physics.

Here's the key so absorb it and remember it.

unless acted upon by an external force

There is never a time when any object is not acted upon by an external force. Never.

This means the actual saying and supposed law, is nonsense. It does not exist as anything because the attempted meaning is nothing other than fantasy.

*sigh* Never underestimate how useful fantasy can be as a tool for helping one to better understand the nuances of the real world.

Perhaps you are the one who should absorb the notion that these laws are so that we can treat motion as a math problem.

Yes, we all know that there are countless forces acting on everything in the real world.  But we also understand that it helps to simplify the situation as much as possible in order to better understand what's going on.  For example, it's very useful to start with an understand how an object behaves in a friction free environment so that we can better understand how different types of friction affect the behavior of that object.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2021, 09:12:49 PM

Unless you can give me a scenario where there is no resistance to motion and show me how constant velocity can be achieved....you have nothing.

We could, but you would dismiss it as fake.

I don't think you could.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2021, 10:39:57 PM

Here's the key so absorb it and remember it.

unless acted upon by an external force

There is never a time when any object is not acted upon by an external force. Never.

This means the actual saying and supposed law, is nonsense. It does not exist as anything because the attempted meaning is nothing other than fantasy.

*sigh* Never underestimate how useful fantasy can be as a tool for helping one to better understand the nuances of the real world.

There's nothing wrong with fantasy as long as it's not pushed out as factual.

Perhaps you are the one who should absorb the notion that these laws are so that we can treat motion as a math problem.

Treating motion as a math problem is all well and good. I have no issue with motion under/against force.

Yes, we all know that there are countless forces acting on everything in the real world.  But we also understand that it helps to simplify the situation as much as possible in order to better understand what's going on.

No it doesn't simplify it.
It adds nothing to it.
All it's doing is giving people the notion that objects can basically travel at constant velocity without any force applied or any resistance against.
It's fantasy and help nobody in terms of realism.
If it's told as fantasy then there's no issue.



 

  For example, it's very useful to start with an understand how an object behaves in a friction free environment so that we can better understand how different types of friction affect the behavior of that object.

No.
If you want to better understand how different types of friction affect the behaviour of an object then you do what is normal and that's to actually test against varying friction forces....not a zero friction/force which is impossible.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 13, 2021, 05:23:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2021, 09:12:49 PM

Unless you can give me a scenario where there is no resistance to motion and show me how constant velocity can be achieved....you have nothing.

We could, but you would dismiss it as fake.

I don't think you could.

You wouldn’t know but air tables and air rails are used in physics labs to lower force from friction. It helps in experiments.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 13, 2021, 09:10:16 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 13, 2021, 05:23:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2021, 09:12:49 PM

Unless you can give me a scenario where there is no resistance to motion and show me how constant velocity can be achieved....you have nothing.

We could, but you would dismiss it as fake.

I don't think you could.

You wouldn’t know but air tables and air rails are used in physics labs to lower force from friction. It helps in experiments.

I'm not arguing about lower force.
I'm arguing against the notion of no force/friction.