ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

I'm just asking you some questions about this dome you believe exists.  I've been quite clear about what I am asking so either you won't or you can't answer them in the public domain.  Which one is it?

Yep, it is a resistance to change in motion, meaning the object resists any energy that could make it alter its movement.
Simply, resistance.
If its not just resistance then feel free to tell me what inertia actually is.

Again, not simply resistance. A very specific kind of resistance. This is why it isn't simply called resistance but is called inertia. It is resistance to change in motion. That is only one of the multitude of different types of resistance.

Now, can you explain that?

Quote from: JJA on February 11, 2021, 05:51:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 09:19:42 PM

Quote from: JJA on February 10, 2021, 10:40:34 AM

And who handed you your knowledge? Oh right... "I just know it"

Who handed you, yours?
And also, what is knowledge?

I learned my by being taught and verifying what I can, and being able to look objectively at the world and judge sources and see the results of all the knowledge I have been told and taught. Cell phones and computers work pretty well, and if science was all wrong then how do we build such things?

You seem to just make things up.  You just know it.  I see evidence, some others collect, some I collect.

What have you verified?

Have you forgotten already?  I took pictures through a tube.   

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 10, 2021, 07:16:16 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2021, 03:01:56 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2021, 10:55:08 PM

Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry? 

Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?

How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.

Tell me how you use it and then tell me way it works.
I'm sure you can do this....right?

Yes, ofcourse I can. To cut a long story short, a gravimeter works by making a measurement of a mass pulling down on a spring, at a location. The measurement is compared against a reference location.

A friend of mine who works in the mines, uses a gravimeter to identify mineral deposits under the ground. Mineral deposits cause a change in local gravity.

You're not really saying anything, at all.
Just admit you have no clue.

Did you think mining companies hired people with divining rods to locate areas of earth to mine for mineral deposits?

A weight is suspended from a spring and the device measures the precise pull on the spring. I've employed the kiss principle in my explanation.

I don't think you could handle an explanation which includes a full nomenclature of how a gravimeter is constructed and functions. But if you think you can, I'll deliver.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2021, 03:56:23 AM

Yep, it is a resistance to change in motion, meaning the object resists any energy that could make it alter its movement.
Simply, resistance.
If its not just resistance then feel free to tell me what inertia actually is.

Again, not simply resistance. A very specific kind of resistance. This is why it isn't simply called resistance but is called inertia. It is resistance to change in motion. That is only one of the multitude of different types of resistance.

Now, can you explain that?

Resistance is resistance no matter which way you try to dress it up into something else.
Now; like I said; if inertia is resistance then I'll go along with inertia.
Seems fair enough...right?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 09:37:39 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 10, 2021, 07:16:16 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2021, 03:01:56 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2021, 10:55:08 PM

Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry? 

Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?

How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.

Tell me how you use it and then tell me way it works.
I'm sure you can do this....right?

Yes, ofcourse I can. To cut a long story short, a gravimeter works by making a measurement of a mass pulling down on a spring, at a location. The measurement is compared against a reference location.

A friend of mine who works in the mines, uses a gravimeter to identify mineral deposits under the ground. Mineral deposits cause a change in local gravity.

You're not really saying anything, at all.
Just admit you have no clue.

Did you think mining companies hired people with divining rods to locate areas of earth to mine for mineral deposits?

A weight is suspended from a spring and the device measures the precise pull on the spring. I've employed the kiss principle in my explanation.

I don't think you could handle an explanation which includes a full nomenclature of how a gravimeter is constructed and functions. But if you think you can, I'll deliver.

Explain as you deliver, just so I know that you understand what you're delivering and not just parroting.

@jackblack (part 1 of 2)

No, Scepti specifically rejects the matter of the object and instead pretends it is just the air around it.

I have not seen them say this. I think you are misunderstanding them.  What they are claiming REQUIRES the matter of the objects to differ, in order to create different pressure waves that cause the different recoils (claimed).

Most people accept that it is the matter of the object and the air is negligible unless it is a quite low density object.

They accept that because they must to matriculate (and because they are convinced by demonstrations on skateboards), but regardless of whether the air is negligible or fundamental (as scepti claims) doesn't change the importance, necessary (for the claim), and obvious impact of the differing weights of the objects causing differing pressure waves when thrown through the air.

That is pretty much Skepti's claim, that the object displaces air and that magically pushes back to push the object down. Except in the cases where it magically decides to push it up.

Again, I think this is based on your misunderstanding.  From what I have read, scepti is recognizing both of those effects (the weight of the air above an object being weighed along with the object, as well as the bouyant force - seperate and distinct though caused by the same thing - the weight of matter) 

I'm getting at the MOTION, so not in any instant.

Motion is irrelevant to archemedian "displacement".  It is static, and based merely on the volume of media displaced.  The blue whale does not displace more water when it swims faster (in the archemedian sense of the word "displace").

This means you displace more air by moving a hollow object

Technically/semantically, that is correct.  Though it isn't to do with being hollow (or in motion), just being different than the surrounding media.

When fully deflated, the beach ball displaces only the amount of air/media equal to the volume of the beach ball's material.  When inflated WITH THE SURROUNDING MEDIA (air) and then sealed, it is still only displacing the exact same volume when it was deflated.  It is a "trick" of sorts.  Fill the ball with anything other than the surrounding media and the trick doesn't work anymore.

This means the denser/heavier object is not displacing more air and thus has no reason to have a greater resistance according to Scepi.

It is true that the denser/heavier object is not displacing more air (we defined that explicitly, it is true by definition), however that does not negate its weight or preclude its obvious/demonstrable impact of that weight on "displacing" (non archemedian - i.e. forcably move the air molecules by collision and occupy their previous position) air when it is thrown.  Scepti is not denying inertia or weight - you seem to be misunderstanding them (or I am, or both!).

Yes, he is, to try to claim you need air to push against.

Actually the claim of the "rocket hoax / deniers" is a little more profound than that, though this is a common mistaken reduction (and is often described in similar terms/verbiage by proponents - which certainly doesn't help...)  Though many don't seem to realize it, they are actually making the claim that the air can never do the job on its own.  It needs walls.  They propose that if you could design a "test chamber" with no walls/floor and only gas in it, there is no thickness of gas (or water, or most any material) that will ever cause you to move when you push against it.  It is almost intuitive in a nonsensical way.  How could you swim on the top of the ocean if the layers beneath it weren't there (perhaps most especially, as the rocket deniers seem convinced, the ground which contains the water)?  Each stroke may lack the energy to travel all the way to the bottom of the ocean and back up again, however without the resistance/pressure/"reaction" that the floor provides (and in turn provides to every layer above it, until that resistance is utilized by the swimmer) there is reason to suspect that "swimming" won't work anymore.

This is so he can pretend that rockets couldn't possibly work in a vacuum (even though he claims that vacuums don't exist) to pretend that all of science is wrong and Earth is flat.

This is a discussion about science.  Although the definitions, concepts, and interpretations being employed are non standard, this is not the exercise of someone who feels/pretends all of science is wrong.  Scepti, like most all earnest flat earth researchers, is in no way a science denier from what I've seen (and from their statements).  You seem to be under the mistaken impression (lamentably common) that all of science must be wrong in order for humanity to be incorrect about the shape of the earth (or anything else, for that matter).  Science in no way prevents us from being completely and utterly wrong about fundamental things (that subsequent generations find obvious, and mock and deride their ancestors for believing in such primitive things under the guise of science)

That is pure nonsense with basically no connection to those laws, promoted by those who want to dismiss what they don't like from modern science.

From what I've seen, it isn't dismissal - it is reinterpretation. There is a critical difference it is important to recognize.  The position/argument is defensible despite your feelings, however - this in NO WAY indicates its accuracy or consistency with actual manifest reality.  Demonstration is required for that! QED.

@jackblack (part 2 of 2)

The fact that you can isolate it into a ball and observer shows that they are 2 systems/objects.

So make it even more ridiculous and define the singular observer/system as a sadist that viciously tears their own limbs off and throws them in a, likely, vain attempt to return to the space station.  The point is not about the amount of objects in the system, nor if they were intended/designed to be seperate or not.

They are indefensible, at least if you require defensible to be rational and honest and not just ignore the evidence available on a daily basis that shows it is wrong.

At least some of them are rational and honest, and are not ignoring the evidence - they are reinterpreting it.  You should fully recognize/appreciate the good fortune in regards to this claim, because unlike the endless onslaught of unvalidatable and unvalidated speculation you will find on sites like this - this one is convenient to test somewhat conclusively.  All we need is a demonstration of recoil occurring in as close to a vacuum as we can muster (without introducing any gas into / diminishing that vacuum during the demonstration).  That will effectively address the claim that the recoil is a purely gas based effect.

As I said, I thought this demonstration would take me no time to find - but I spent much longer than I had intended, unsuccessfully.  Perhaps you've had (or will have) better luck?

That is ignored by people like Skepti.

There are other people like scepti?  Seriously, whatever psuedo-archetype you've cobbled together or been convinced of for "deluded flat earthers" almost certainly doesn't apply to scepti.  They seem to be very much "doing their own thing", which is typical of independent researchers.

Even ignoring the fact that things weigh more in a vacuum due to the lack of buoyant force as if it doesn't refute the idea that air causes weight.

I don't think this is being ignored.  I agree that it is strong evidence, but it doesn't necessarily refute the idea that air causes weight.  It is not an irreconcilable paradox that cannot be rationalized (even when they are, we humans have no trouble rationalizing them), at least potentially.  For instance, if one were an aetherist - one might posit that the aether (itself an ultrafine fluid in behavior) is not being removed from the container, and it is this "air" that is most responsible for the pressure effect we know as weight.  In imagination, all things are possible - though those machinations have no impact on reality which continues on without regard for such things.

Again, care to provide any?

Not particularly (because I am not a proponent).  However, there are many video analyses showing that combustion rockets in vacuum chambers do not induce thrust until after the air pressure behind them has been sufficiently established.

Instead I just see repeated assertions which cannot be defended in any way.

They are reasonably easy to defend, in discussion anyhow.  Demonstration is called for in this case, more discussion is not.

Which is an entirely separate argument to recoil.

Yes, and that is yet another fundamental reason, potentially, why combustion rockets can't function in "space" (if such a place there be).

I provided one showing inertia in a vacuum.

True, but I don't think anyone doubts inertia or weight in a vacuum chamber.  This discussion is about recoil.  What we really need is a recoil demonstration under vacuum that doesn't involve introducing gas into that chamber at the same time (negating/lessening the "vacuum" that we are trying to test with).  I was very surprised that I couldn't find it, but obfuscation is a bitch.  Perhaps you've had / will have better luck?  I'll do it if I absolutely must, but we should be able to find this don't you think?

Then you should go look at the other threads, where he dismisses photographic evidence as fake merely because it shows he is wrong.
He then uses whatever excuse he can to either ignore or dismiss logical arguments which show he is wrong.

Perhaps, but it doesn't (and shouldn't be allowed to) have bearing on the claim being made.  The claim about newton's third law being a misinterpretation of air pressure effects is what is being discussed/evaluated, not the earnesty or veracity of scepty (even in this thread, but outside it as well).

No need to add in a "without" qualifier.

Lol.

Why/how are you so certain that you have not misinterpreted scepti, as I have observed and conveyed, and that everything they are claiming is "indefensible"?  Is it because you have some prejudices/biases in regards to this subject (like that anyone who researches it, or considers it seriously, is deluded / crazy / lost / manipulated etc.)?

I have to applaud jack44's logical mindset on this and the devil's advocate approach. It is a breath of fresh air.

Resistance is resistance

But the type of resistance matters.
Resistance to transfer of heat is different to resistance to transfer of electrical energy, which is different to resistance to realtive motion, which is different to resistance to compression, which is different to resistance to tension, which is different to resistance to acceleration aka change in motion.

There are a multitude of different types of resistance which are observed in reality.

Inertia is specifically resistance to change in motion, rather than any other type.

So can you explain that?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 11, 2021, 10:11:25 PM

Resistance is resistance

But the type of resistance matters.
Resistance to transfer of heat is different to resistance to transfer of electrical energy, which is different to resistance to realtive motion, which is different to resistance to compression, which is different to resistance to tension, which is different to resistance to acceleration aka change in motion.

There are a multitude of different types of resistance which are observed in reality.

Inertia is specifically resistance to change in motion, rather than any other type.

So can you explain that?

You've just explained it. It's a resistance to change in motion.
Dress it up as much as you want but there's only one resistance for everything.


Unless you want to give me an example of what you think is different about resistance to motion?

What they are claiming REQUIRES the matter of the objects to differ, in order to create different pressure waves that cause the different recoils (claimed).

No, what they are claiming, that the air causes the resistances, does not require the matter to change.
It makes the matter irrelevant, other than the matter directly in contact with the air.

They accept that because they must to matriculate

And there you go with more deragotory comments.
They couldn't possibly accept anything because that is what the evidence actually shows, it always has to be about brainwashing and forcing people to accept the lie of the globe.

regardless of whether the air is negligible or fundamental doesn't change the importance, necessary and obvious impact of the differing weights of the objects

Yes, it does.
If it is the air which is causing it the mass (and thus weight) is entirely irrelavent.
The obvious and important impact of the mass shows it isn't the air.

scepti is recognizing both of those effects (the weight of the air above an object being weighed along with the object

No, he is rejecting the weight of the object and claiming the resistance comes entirely from the air.

Motion is irrelevant to archemedian "displacement"

Who said anythign at all about archemedian displacement?
We are merely talking about needing to move (i.e. DISPALCE) the air when you try to move/accelerate the object.

It is a "trick" of sorts.

No, it isn't. It is merely a demonstration that it isn't the air magically causing the resistance.

however that does not negate its weight or preclude its obvious/demonstrable impact of that weight

Tell that to scepti who wants to dismiss that.

Scepti is not denying inertia or weight

Yes, he is. All so he can pretend that rockets can't work in a vacuum.

Actually the claim of the "rocket hoax / deniers" is a little more profound than that

Not really. They might try to dress it up to be more profound, but at its heart, it is that.
Appealing to a wall is just replacing the air with something else but it is the same principle.

without the resistance/pressure/"reaction" that the floor provides (and in turn provides to every layer above it, until that resistance is utilized by the swimmer) there is reason to suspect that "swimming" won't work anymore.

Not if you have a basic understanding of physics, including if you carry out the experiments to determine that yourself.

this is not the exercise of someone who feels/pretends all of science is wrong.

Yes it is, with how much he rejects and how much science he claims isn't actually science.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression (lamentably common) that all of science must be wrong in order for humanity to be incorrect about the shape of the earth (or anything else, for that matter).

No, I have just seen how much Scepti rejects, and I haven't seen him accept a single thing from science.

mock and deride their ancestors for believing in such primitive things under the guise of science

You mean under the guise of their religion.

The position/argument is defensible despite your feelings

Then defend it.
Also, my feelings have nothing to do with it. The evidence including from daily experience does.

this in NO WAY indicates its accuracy or consistency with actual manifest reality.

That is basically what defensible means in this context.
In order for it to be defendsible, you need to be able to justify it. Not merely show that it is capable of producing an internally consistent system, but actually justifying it.
So claims about how reality operates need evidence to support them, to show they are consistent with reality, in order to be defensible.

Quote

The fact that you can isolate it into a ball and observer shows that they are 2 systems/objects.

So make it even more ridiculous and define the singular observer/system as a sadist that viciously tears their own limbs off and throws them in a, likely, vain attempt to return to the space station.  The point is not about the amount of objects in the system, nor if they were intended/designed to be seperate or not.

The point is, THEY ARE separate objecst and thus can accelerate each other. Each one can provide an external force to the other.
It shows the grouping to form a system is a completely arbitrary choice and that the argument is nonsense.

All we need is a demonstration of recoil occurring in as close to a vacuum as we can muster

Firstly, no we don't. Logic alone is enough to show the arguments are nonsense.
Secondly, you have been provided with an example of inertia in a vacuum.

almost certainly doesn't apply to scepti.

It sure seems to.
Continually make bold, baseless claims and refuse to ever justify them.
Ignore or dismiss evidence and logical arguments that show you are wrong, unless you have an excuse you think you can use to dismiss it.
Use whatever dishonest tactics possible (such as trying to change the subject, or trying to get the other side to explain something, only to ignore that, and so on) to avoid having to explain things you cannot and to pretend you are correct.
If it is too difficult, flee from the thread you have been refuted in and then bring it up in another thread sometime later.

I agree that it is strong evidence, but it doesn't necessarily refute the idea that air causes weight.

It sure seems to.
If air causes weight, more air should cause more weight and less air should cause less weight.
Instead we have the opposite.

it is this "air" that is most responsible for the pressure effect we know as weight.

Which is just a fancy way of saying it isn't the air.
But instead of being honest about it you pretend that something that isn't the air actually is the air to pretend it is the air that causes weight.

Not particularly (because I am not a proponent)

Then stop promoting the idea, and stop claiming such things exist.
Because whenever you make such a claim you become a proponent of at least that claim.

They are reasonably easy to defend

Again, if you wish to claim that, DEFEND THEM.

True, but I don't think anyone doubts inertia or weight in a vacuum chamber.  This discussion is about recoil.

The discussion is directly about inertia. Without inertia recoil wouldn't exist and you cannot simply separate recoil from inertia.
Especially in the context of rockets and any decent understanding of how objects work.
Saying you can have the gas get accelerated, needing a force to do so, without producing that "recoil" makes about as much sense as claiming that a spring, compressed between 2 objecst, can magically apply a force to a single side, without applying a force to the other side.

Perhaps, but it doesn't (and shouldn't be allowed to) have bearing on the claim being made.

No, but it does make suggestions of us going out to try to find evidence to appease him entirely worthless.  The claim about newton's third law being a misinterpretation of air pressure effects is what is being discussed/evaluated, not the earnesty or veracity of scepty (even in this thread, but outside it as well).

Why/how are you so certain that you have not misinterpreted scepti

Due to the long period of interaction with him.

You've just explained it. It's a resistance to change in motion.

That is just stating what it is, not explaining it.
I want you to explain how the air causes it, in such a manner that the resistance is proportional to the mass of the object.

Is he describing inertia?
The thing he said isnt a thing?

At least some of them are rational and honest, and are not ignoring the evidence - they are reinterpreting it.  You should fully recognize/appreciate the good fortune in regards to this claim, because unlike the endless onslaught of unvalidatable and unvalidated speculation you will find on sites like this - this one is convenient to test somewhat conclusively.  All we need is a demonstration of recoil occurring in as close to a vacuum as we can muster (without introducing any gas into / diminishing that vacuum during the demonstration).  That will effectively address the claim that the recoil is a purely gas based effect.

As I said, I thought this demonstration would take me no time to find - but I spent much longer than I had intended, unsuccessfully.  Perhaps you've had (or will have) better luck?

Hi Jack, like Scepitmatic, I like the devils advocate approach here and appreciate the much more thought out responses.

On this point though, how is that you say so called "rocket deniers" DONT ignore evidence?  Isn't every documented space launch prima facie evidence that they HAVE to ignore in order to hold their positions?  Im not making any judgements on whether they should or not ignore this evidence - but it does seem to be a HUGE body of evidence that is completely ignored, does it not? 

And you are right, this should be trivially easy to demonstrate, I can personally think of many ways to conclusively test this.  What do you think about the argument that as conventional science has already concluded through this is correct (e.g. for example through space science), there is no need to make youtube videos demonstrating this to people who are willing to completely close to their eyes to such a wide body of already existing evidence? 

I would ask this the other way - if people are making claims about the nature of physics that:  1) massively contradict the existing framework we use to understand and engineer the world the around us,   AND 2) would be VERY easily demonstrable using simple equipment,  then WHY haven't they performed this demonstration?   Why bicker endlessly on the internet rather than just go and do the work? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 12, 2021, 02:09:06 AM

You've just explained it. It's a resistance to change in motion.

That is just stating what it is, not explaining it.

I've never seen you explain it, except for what you've just said...as a resistance to a change in motion.

I want you to explain how the air causes it, in such a manner that the resistance is proportional to the mass of the object.

First of all, your so called gravity is supposedly a pull towards the centre of your Earth, of any mass. The more mass the greater the pull, as I'm told. Feel free to correct me on this if I've taken it out of term.
Anyway, the lesser mass, such as a helium balloon seems to rise up.


This gravity makes no sense, at all.
And yet the moon is also told to us to be pulling against the Earth. Soooo, is the moon pulling the helium balloon up; negating the Earth's pull, down?

I see arguments that gravity is what pulls air down and keeps it on Earth. It's absolutely senseless, yet my way explains it all in a rational way that seems to be brushed aside in favour of something that has no reasoning.

You explain this gravity to me and I'll explain what you want to know from my side.....not that I haven't done it many times....but....well.

Ok, over to you.

Your low level of intelligence has no bearing on its ability to exist.
The model is as it is despite your misunderstanding or misrepresenting it.

Try proving your own theory before "just asking questions" against very well documented and repeatable experiements that anyone can look up and do themselvs.
Youve yet to take your own tu-tube photo.
Seriously.

Your low level of intelligence has no bearing on its ability to exist.
The model is as it is despite your misunderstanding or misrepresenting it.

Try proving your own theory before "just asking questions" against very well documented and repeatable experiements that anyone can look up and do themselvs.
Youve yet to take your own tu-tube photo.
Seriously.

Anything to add?

Buoyancy has been understood since at least 243 BC.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 12, 2021, 02:34:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 12, 2021, 02:09:06 AM

You've just explained it. It's a resistance to change in motion.

That is just stating what it is, not explaining it.

I've never seen you explain it, except for what you've just said...as a resistance to a change in motion.

I have also explained how it depends on the mass of the object and is innate to the object.
Whereas you claim it is a result of the air.

Quote from: JackBlack

I want you to explain how the air causes it, in such a manner that the resistance is proportional to the mass of the object.

First of all, your so called gravity

Gravity has nothing to do with inertia.

This thread is discussing inertia. Stop with the distractions.

is supposedly a pull towards the centre of your Earth, of any mass. The more mass the greater the pull, as I'm told. Feel free to correct me on this if I've taken it out of term.
Anyway, the lesser mass, such as a helium balloon seems to rise up.

Only when it is in a fluid.
Buoyancy has been explained to you many times and you just ignore it.
When you have a fluid like water or air, gravity will create a pressure gradient as the fluid at the bottom needs to support the fluid at the top.
This pressure gradient means that if you put something in this fluid the pressure at the bottom from the fluid is higher than the pressure at the top from the fluid. This means the fluid applies an upwards force on the object.

Assuming the density is roughly constant:
The upwards force is equal to F_b=ρ_f g v.
The downwards force due to gravity is equal to F_g=ρ_o g v
So the net force downwards is F_T=ρ_o g v - ρ_f g v = (ρ_o - ρ_f) g v.
For a very dense object like steel, the correction for buoyancy is quite small and it has a weight almost the same as if there was no air.
But put it in a vacuum (or otherwise lower the pressure) and the apparent weight increases due to the density of fluid decreasing its effect. Put it in a denser fluid, like water or mercury, and its apparent weight decreases. In mercury it even floats.

Conversely for a helium filled balloon, its density is less than that of air and thus the buoyant force wins and the object floats up.
The helium filled balloon rises as the denser air around it falls down.

This all makes perfect sense and you have been unable to find any fault with it any of the times it has been explained to you.

I see arguments that gravity is what pulls air down and keeps it on Earth. It's absolutely senseless

Yet all you can do is repeat that it is senseless. You cannot provide any explanation as to why.

Meanwhile in your system you can't even explain why the air stacks to create a pressure gradient, nor can you explain why this air pushes anything down when the pressure is greater a the bottom, nor can you explain why the force down depends on mass rather than area or volume (and no, pretending that magically the volume of the object matches the mass with no justification at all doesn't count), nor can you explain how it causes a pressure/force gradient in stacks of objects or fluids when it can only apply the downwards force by pushing from the top, nor can you explain how it then magically changes and pushes some objects upwards, nor can you explain the directionality.

yet my way explains it all in a rational way that seems to be brushed aside in favour of something that has no reasoning.

There you go projecting.
Mainstream science explains it all in a rational away, which you brush aside in favour of pure nonsense that has no reasoning to back it up at all.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 12, 2021, 07:01:23 AM

Your low level of intelligence has no bearing on its ability to exist.
The model is as it is despite your misunderstanding or misrepresenting it.

Try proving your own theory before "just asking questions" against very well documented and repeatable experiements that anyone can look up and do themselvs.
Youve yet to take your own tu-tube photo.
Seriously.

Anything to add?

Youve been asked plenty of times to add.
You refuse and give non answers or deflect.
Ill say it to your face.
Youre dont even stand up for your own ideas and continue to pathetically dodge its so obvious
Dont deflect.
Youre the one whos insisting things are not what they seem to be.
Feel free to enlighten us beyond your word salad with a photo or sensical diagram of your ideas.

Conversely for a helium filled balloon, its density is less than that of air and thus the buoyant force wins and the object floats up.
The helium filled balloon rises as the denser air around it falls down.

Correct. The helium balloon will continue to rise until it reaches an altitude where the density of the air surrounding the balloon matches the density inside the balloon. It is natures way to try to reach an equilibrium state.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 12, 2021, 06:43:03 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 12, 2021, 02:34:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 12, 2021, 02:09:06 AM

You've just explained it. It's a resistance to change in motion.

That is just stating what it is, not explaining it.

I've never seen you explain it, except for what you've just said...as a resistance to a change in motion.

I have also explained how it depends on the mass of the object and is innate to the object.
Whereas you claim it is a result of the air.

What do you mean it depends on the mass of the object and is innate to the object?

Can you explain it because this explains nothing.


Also, I've already told you it's mass against atmosphere, for mine.
But let's deal with this gravity. I want to see how much you know, by explaining.

Youve been asked plenty of times to add.
You refuse and give non answers or deflect.
Ill say it to your face.
Youre dont even stand up for your own ideas and continue to pathetically dodge its so obvious
Dont deflect.
Youre the one whos insisting things are not what they seem to be.
Feel free to enlighten us beyond your word salad with a photo or sensical diagram of your ideas.

Anything to add?

Quote

Conversely for a helium filled balloon, its density is less than that of air and thus the buoyant force wins and the object floats up.
The helium filled balloon rises as the denser air around it falls down.

Correct. The helium balloon will continue to rise until it reaches an altitude where the density of the air surrounding the balloon matches the density inside the balloon. It is natures way to try to reach an equilibrium state.

Explain it with gravity.

Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?

Quote

Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?

The whole premise of your Earth working as you seem to go along with, is this gravity. So, explain it.
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.

Quote from: Solarwind on February 13, 2021, 02:44:15 AM

Quote

Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?

Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.

1.  Gravity produces a pressure gradient in a fluid.

2.  This pressure gradient results in a net upwards surface force on an immersed object.

3.  Gravity exerts a downward body force between any object and the earths center of mass.

4.  There are therefore two forces on a body submerged in a fluid under gravity.

5.  The object goes up or down depending on which of these forces is dominant.

6.  For a helium balloon in the atmosphere, the net upward surface force is greater than the downward body force, so the balloon rises.

This isn’t that advanced.  The fact that you can’t even come close to understanding it is not at this point surprising, but is still a little sad. 

Quote from: Solarwind on February 13, 2021, 02:44:15 AM

Quote

Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?

The whole premise of your Earth working as you seem to go along with, is this gravity. So, explain it.
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.

You sound like my grade 2 school teacher. Explain it. Explain how. Gravity has been explained to you a dozen times, in ways a child could comprehend. Each time you turn your upturned nose up and say, "that doesn't explain anything", when it always does.

"Your earth" is actually our Earth. We all live on it, sceptic. Oh, that's right, my homework you set for me, was to explain to you how a gravimeter works, wasn't it?  My last explanation wasn't good enough for you, was it?

Its always the same with Scepti.  Explain this, explain that etc...  Then whenever we do try to explain how things actually work he immediately comes back with whatever BS he can think of to dismiss our explanations as complete nonsense.

Then whenever we ask him to explain anything he comes back at us with whatever excuse he can think of to avoid having to explain anything of his own nonsense.  Normally it is something along the lines of 'It's already been explained'.  Yeah?  Where exactly? 

So Scepti - what does the term 'resultant force' mean to you?  Then think about how strong the downward pulling force on the helium balloon is compared to the upward buoyancy force and then decide which way the balloon is going to move.  Up or down?

This gravity makes no sense, at all.

Doesn't it?  Why not? Seems pretty straight forward to me and that isn't just based on what I am 'told'.  Which bit don't you understand? We all experience this thing that everyone else apart from you calls gravity in our everyday life. I stood on my bathroom scales this morning and they told me I weigh... well too much! 15st 10lb.  Converted to kg that comes to 99.

So I know my mass (from the scales) and from that I can work out my weight. So I could use that information to work out the Earths acceleration due to gravity could I not?  For example if I take my mass (as measured by me using my scales) as 99kg and I am 'told' that g is 9.81m/s2.  So I exert a force (f) on the scales of f=99x9.81 = 971.2N. The universal gravitational constant is 6.67e-11 and the Earths mass is given as 6e24kg. 

So if we plug those numbers into the well known and accepted equation we are all told we get that the radius of the Earth squared is (6.67e-11*6e24*99)/971.2.  That gives us 4.07e13 and if we sqr root that we get the radius of the Earth in metres since we are using SI units.  That comes to 6,387,071.86m or 6,387km.  The quoted figure is 6,371km.  That is a % error of less that 1% which I don't think is bad do you?  Obviously since the mass and radius of the Earth are involved in the calculation if I changed either or both of those based on whatever you think they should be then that would also affect my mass and weight which I have personally measured. No book can tell me my weight so I have to measure that myself.  Just what figures do you accept for the mass and radius of your Earth? That's just basic information.

But you say that gravity doesn't exist, so in that case what exactly are my bathroom scales telling me? What is causing my bathroom scales to read 99kg?  Perhaps you could explain it to me and give me your figures to show me how you reach the same result. Without any reference to gravity of course.