ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 08, 2021, 05:57:47 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 08, 2021, 12:49:06 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 07, 2021, 08:19:35 PM

You mean like the authority of my own eyesight and own observations, corroborated by science? Yep. Mammoth. You're trying hard to reinvent the wheel, aren't you, but you just can't get it to turn.

Your eyes see what you are conditioned to believe you see.

You simply follow that process.
You get told you're looking over a big ball and ships said down it. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind on that. That has to come from your own self and I think you're too far into the global storyline to dare to waver from it.

And fair enough. Many are like you.

I wouldn't expect devout churchgoers to renounce their god so I wouldn't expect you to renounce yours with your global mind.

No, you're asking me to denounce my own eyesight. You know I was an artist before my career change? Now art is a hobby. My eyes are only conditioned to observing what they can see. Sometimes they need sunglasses.

My eyes do not magically only see what I learned about the world, in school. You're not asking me to change my mind, you're asking me to change my eyes. Does globe earth denial work better if I strap a pair of kaleidoscopes to both eyes?

The sun is not moving across the sky. The sun is perfectly stationary but only appears to move from our perspective relative to here on earth.

It is only us on a fixed position on the earth which is rotating. Kind of like being in a car and driving past a building. Not the best analogy, but the car with you in it is moving, not the building.  Everything is relative.

Here, I'll prove it to you. Make yourself a sun dial in your backyard, or on your house roof, sceptimatic, and every hour, from sunrise to sunset, trace the shadow cast by your dial. Let me know what results you get.

Do I lay the dial flat?

Will it record 24 hours?
Tell me how it works on your globe, seeing as you have one on your roof.

Your refusal to do experiments is noticeable. The sun dial will record from sunrise to sunset, which is why it is called a "sun" dial.

Just jam a pencil through a piece of cardboard and stand it up. It doesn't have to be fancy. A little more doing and a little less fantasizing and speculating, would do you a world of good.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 07, 2021, 02:27:01 PM

Which shows your argument is pure garbage.

Ok, feel free to carry this on.

You are the one carrying on, continually twisting questions and situations to try to pretend your nonsense works.

How about you stop with that and start answering the simple questions and addressing the simple issues which show your model is wrong?

While you continue to ignore these issues and questions I will continue to dismiss your model as garbage.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 07, 2021, 02:31:37 PM

No, you are just ignoring the same issues again and again, without actually addressing them and repeatedly contradicting yourself.

There's no contradictions from my side but definitely inability to grasp from your side.

Ignoring the contradictions wont magically make them go away. I have clearly explained the contradictions. If you want to claim there isn't any you need to explain how it isn't, and you haven't done that. Instead you just continually contradict yourself.

Again, a nice simple question to show this contradiction:
Are you claiming that the object is pushed down entirely by the air, or are you claiming there is a force or something act in addition to the air to push the object down?

Your entire argument and claim and model and the like is based upon it all being the air, and the air alone. All so you can reject gravity.

But then when push comes to shove and you need to explain how some things fall and some things float, (especially with the pressure being greater below meaning the air will push up) you instead appeal to the object itself somehow overcoming the air, meaning it isn't just the air. Instead you are appealing to another force, separate from the air, acting on the mass of the object to move it down. That force is gravity.

So yes, there is a massive contradiction.
And again, this is shown by your repeated refusal to answer simple questions.
If there weren't any contradictions you would be happy to answer those questions and stick with the answers.

It certainly isn't an issue with my ability to grasp your nonsense.

Yes it is purely the air pushing it down for the mass to overcome the atmospheric resistance below

Again, if it is purely the air pushing down, the mass doesn't matter.
It is simply the air pushing down, overcoming the resistance below.
The problem is that that resistance below is greater than the push of the air above, and that different objects act differently.
Again, if it was just the air, the air would push all objects the same.

So ONLY using the air, explain why some objects are pushed down, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient, and some are pushed up.
Note this means you cannot appeal to pretty much anything about the object, other than what volume of air it displaces.
If you appeal to anything else, like the mass of the object, then you are not having it just be the air and thus are contradicting yourself.

It's all about putting your mind to work on it instead of going into reject mode because it doesn't suit.

There you go projecting again.
I have put my mind to work. It is why I reject your model, due to the contradictions.
You should try actually putting your mind to work, and analysing your model holistically instead of in tiny parts.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 08, 2021, 06:23:15 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 08, 2021, 05:57:47 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 08, 2021, 12:49:06 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 07, 2021, 08:19:35 PM

You mean like the authority of my own eyesight and own observations, corroborated by science? Yep. Mammoth. You're trying hard to reinvent the wheel, aren't you, but you just can't get it to turn.

Your eyes see what you are conditioned to believe you see.

You simply follow that process.
You get told you're looking over a big ball and ships said down it. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind on that. That has to come from your own self and I think you're too far into the global storyline to dare to waver from it.

And fair enough. Many are like you.

I wouldn't expect devout churchgoers to renounce their god so I wouldn't expect you to renounce yours with your global mind.

No, you're asking me to denounce my own eyesight. You know I was an artist before my career change? Now art is a hobby. My eyes are only conditioned to observing what they can see. Sometimes they need sunglasses.

My eyes do not magically only see what I learned about the world, in school. You're not asking me to change my mind, you're asking me to change my eyes. Does globe earth denial work better if I strap a pair of kaleidoscopes to both eyes?

The sun is not moving across the sky. The sun is perfectly stationary but only appears to move from our perspective relative to here on earth.

It is only us on a fixed position on the earth which is rotating. Kind of like being in a car and driving past a building. Not the best analogy, but the car with you in it is moving, not the building.  Everything is relative.

Here, I'll prove it to you. Make yourself a sun dial in your backyard, or on your house roof, sceptimatic, and every hour, from sunrise to sunset, trace the shadow cast by your dial. Let me know what results you get.

Do I lay the dial flat?

Will it record 24 hours?
Tell me how it works on your globe, seeing as you have one on your roof.

Your refusal to do experiments is noticeable. The sun dial will record from sunrise to sunset, which is why it is called a "sun" dial.

Just jam a pencil through a piece of cardboard and stand it up. It doesn't have to be fancy. A little more doing and a little less fantasizing and speculating, would do you a world of good.

I'm just ensuring you know what you're saying.


So the cardboard is stood up and a pencil shoved through which explained, what?

So ONLY using the air, explain why some objects are pushed down, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient, and some are pushed up.
Note this means you cannot appeal to pretty much anything about the object, other than what volume of air it displaces.

I already explained all this not too far back. A few posts up.
Go and read them again then get back to me.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 08, 2021, 02:27:26 PM

So ONLY using the air, explain why some objects are pushed down, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient, and some are pushed up.
Note this means you cannot appeal to pretty much anything about the object, other than what volume of air it displaces.

I already explained all this not too far back. A few posts up.
Go and read them again then get back to me.

I have read it, and you didn't explain it, instead you directly contradicted yourself.

Instead of having it just be the air, you instead claimed that the object itself is pushing down and overcoming the air below.

So again, which is it? Is it just the air, or is the object as well?

If it is just the air, explain how the air pushes the object down, without appealing to any property of the object except its volume/the surface in contact with air.

I know you wont do that, because you can't, because it is physically impossible to do so.
And I know you wont be honest and admit that it isn't the air, because that severely weakens your irrational attack on gravity.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 09, 2021, 02:26:12 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 08, 2021, 02:27:26 PM

So ONLY using the air, explain why some objects are pushed down, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient, and some are pushed up.
Note this means you cannot appeal to pretty much anything about the object, other than what volume of air it displaces.

I already explained all this not too far back. A few posts up.
Go and read them again then get back to me.

I have read it, and you didn't explain it, instead you directly contradicted yourself.

Instead of having it just be the air, you instead claimed that the object itself is pushing down and overcoming the air below.
So again, which is it? Is it just the air, or is the object as well?

It's both like I explained not too far back, which you obviously didn't bother to take any notice of...or you did but will never let on you did because then you wouldn't be able to go into a frenzy.

If it is just the air, explain how the air pushes the object down, without appealing to any property of the object except its volume/the surface in contact with air.

I can't use the volume of an object is not what displaces the atmosphere, because it's already part of it.
You've been told this dozens of times, so how come you're stuck back a this?

I know you wont do that, because you can't, because it is physically impossible to do so.
And I know you wont be honest and admit that it isn't the air, because that severely weakens your irrational attack on gravity.

I don't need to attack gravity. It doesn't exist to attack.

Scepti, gravity is the name of the downward force, we and everything else in this world, experiences. If buoyancy were the explanation, what would make things go down, and not up, or to the sides? If density were an explanation, different objects would move at different speeds. Instead, they all fall downward at the same constant speed. Buoyancy and density are not even forces. 

Gravity exists. Gravity is a force. Prove it doesn't exist.

Scepti, gravity is the name of the downward force, we and everything else in this world, experiences. If buoyancy were the explanation, what would make things go down, and not up, or to the sides? If density were an explanation, different objects would move at different speeds. Instead, they all fall downward at the same constant speed. Buoyancy and density are not even forces. 

Gravity exists. Gravity is a force. Prove it doesn't exist.

If you paid attention you would understand that objects do fall at different speeds.
If you paid attention you'd that the reason why this happens is due to atmospheric displacement by mass.
If you want to try and visualise the set up by looking at an analogy then think of an object sandwiched between a sponge mattress (atmosphere) that is more dense below than above.

I'm pretty sure you won't give it a thought...maybe you can't vision it....but you're more than happy to vision something which you absolutely do not know to be any force, at all and for any reason other than to follow a mass on mass attraction in the name of gravity.

If you paid attention you would understand that objects do fall at different speeds.

For most objects, when they start falling the difference in speed is negligible.
But this difference goes against your model, with denser objects accelerating slightly faster and with a greater terminal velocity.
If your nonsense was correct, the less dense objects, with lass mass to accelerate, should be accelerated faster by the air pushing them down.

If you want to try and visualise the set up by looking at an analogy then think of an object sandwiched between a sponge mattress (atmosphere) that is more dense below than above.

Do you mean more pressurised below?
If so, unless there is a force to counter that pressure (like gravity) it will push the object up, as repeatedly explained to you.
The fact that objects fall, in complete defiance of that pressure gradient, shows it isn't the air doing it.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 12, 2021, 06:54:50 PM

Scepti, gravity is the name of the downward force, we and everything else in this world, experiences. If buoyancy were the explanation, what would make things go down, and not up, or to the sides? If density were an explanation, different objects would move at different speeds. Instead, they all fall downward at the same constant speed. Buoyancy and density are not even forces. 

Gravity exists. Gravity is a force. Prove it doesn't exist.

If you paid attention you would understand that objects do fall at different speeds.
If you paid attention you'd that the reason why this happens is due to atmospheric displacement by mass.
If you want to try and visualise the set up by looking at an analogy then think of an object sandwiched between a sponge mattress (atmosphere) that is more dense below than above.

I'm pretty sure you won't give it a thought...maybe you can't vision it....but you're more than happy to vision something which you absolutely do not know to be any force, at all and for any reason other than to follow a mass on mass attraction in the name of gravity.

The reason objects may vary slightly in speed falling, can be attributed to aerodynamics and air friction. Haven't you ever heard of a vacuum chamber where there is no air above or below a falling object, and it still falls downward - two falling objects with different shape and masses at exactly the same speed.

You have an explanation, sceptimatic?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 12, 2021, 09:13:18 PM

If you paid attention you would understand that objects do fall at different speeds.

For most objects, when they start falling the difference in speed is negligible.
But this difference goes against your model, with denser objects accelerating slightly faster and with a greater terminal velocity.
If your nonsense was correct, the less dense objects, with lass mass to accelerate, should be accelerated faster by the air pushing them down.

Absolutely not the case and you know it.
I think you have the mindset on two dense objects dropped a small distance to the ground.
The reality is most objects do fall at different rates depending on their dense mass.

Why?
It's equal reaction to energetic action.
If you push something up the effort required depends on the dense mass of the objects displacement of that atmosphere from bottom to where the energy is released from pushing it, meaning it now still compresses the atmosphere all around it.
It sits in the varying stacks from bottom to top of the object. This pushes the stack aside and up. It warps it and that stacking system has more stacks above that which has been compressed.

This reacts by pushing back onto the object against the below resistance of stacked atmosphere which creates a snap back into form as the object is pushed down and displaces atmosphere below which does the same by reacting and snapping back into shape with more force, propelling the object down into more compact atmospheric resistance  and so on and so on until the object becomes equal with the force above against the denser resistance below. What people term as, terminal velocity.

That terminal velocity and where it becomes that is determined by the amount of force it took to get the dense mass of any object to a certain height and how much energy was applied, which determines the push/squeeze back down to overcome below resistance in those stacks.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 12, 2021, 09:13:18 PM

If you want to try and visualise the set up by looking at an analogy then think of an object sandwiched between a sponge mattress (atmosphere) that is more dense below than above.

Do you mean more pressurised below?

The atmosphere below is much more densely packed. More molecules per area that the stack above and the stack above that and so on and so on and so on.
Of course it's more pressurised. It also creates more resistance and also requires more effort to overcome.

This has all been explained to you but you've decided it didn't happen, right?

If so, unless there is a force to counter that pressure (like gravity) it will push the object up, as repeatedly explained to you.
The fact that objects fall, in complete defiance of that pressure gradient, shows it isn't the air doing it.

There doesn't have to be any force to counter the pressure.
The stacking system sees to that.
It's a force all on it's own which can be manipulated by energy, frequency of vibration/friction.

The reason objects may vary slightly in speed falling, can be attributed to aerodynamics and air friction. Haven't you ever heard of a vacuum chamber where there is no air above or below a falling object, and it still falls downward - two falling objects with different shape and masses at exactly the same speed.

You have an explanation, sceptimatic?

Yes.
The chamber is never evacuated. It still has pressure.
It still produces exactly the same reaction to energetic action against what is put into it.
Anything pushed up will be pushed back down.

The only difference is, it's against less resistance so naturally the push down will encounter much less friction below.
As simple as that.
The vacuum is nonsense.
To evacuate all atmosphere would be to cease to exist.
Have a good think on that.

Absolutely not the case and you know it.

You mean it absolutely is the case, and we both know it.

I think you have the mindset on two dense objects dropped a small distance to the ground.

Yes, when the effect of air is negligible.

It is only when you drop it for a long period of time, such that have enough velocity to start experiencing significant air resistance that it starts to deviate significantly, based upon the mass and shape of the object.

Why?
Because there is the force of gravity on their mass, trying to accelerate them at a constant rate, with a greater force for a more massive object, but the air does not give a damn about their mass and instead interacts based upon the shape of the object.
The reality is most objects do fall at different rates depending on their dense mass.

So with 2 objects, of the shape but different masses, the heavier object has a greater terminal velocity and will fall faster over a long period than the lighter object.

This makes perfect sense in the conventional model, but no sense at all in your model.

Again, before you even bother trying to explain anything at all which is even slightly complex like that, you need to first explain how the air manages to push an object down in the first place, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient in the atmosphere.

The atmosphere below is much more densely packed. More molecules per area that the stack above and the stack above that and so on and so on and so on.
Of course it's more pressurised. It also creates more resistance and also requires more effort to overcome.

This has all been explained to you but you've decided it didn't happen, right?

You haven't actually explained why it is dense, but again the point is that additional pressure below will push the object up.
You need a force to cause that pressure, and you have none.

There doesn't have to be any force to counter the pressure.
The stacking system sees to that.
It's a force all on it's own which can be manipulated by energy, frequency of vibration/friction.

The stacking system relies upon a force, a force you cannot explain.

Again, what makes the air at the bottom of the stack more compressed?

If all there is is the air above, then the pressure is constant. You can easily see this by turning the system on the side and compressing the air against a wall. The pressure doesn't increase as you get closer to the wall as there is no force acting on each bit of air to push it to the wall, except the air around it, until you get to the section you are pushing on.

Again, what makes the air at the bottom of the stack more compressed?

The above stacks and the resistance of it against the foundation below it, like I explained many many times.

If all there is is the air above, then the pressure is constant.
You can easily see this by turning the system on the side and compressing the air against a wall. The pressure doesn't increase as you get closer to the wall as there is no force acting on each bit of air to push it to the wall, except the air around it, until you get to the section you are pushing on.

Turning what system on its side? The atmosphere?

Quote from: JackBlack on April 13, 2021, 01:45:22 AM

Again, what makes the air at the bottom of the stack more compressed?

The above stacks and the resistance of it against the foundation below it, like I explained many many times.

Quote from: JackBlack

If all there is is the air above, then the pressure is constant.
You can easily see this by turning the system on the side and compressing the air against a wall. The pressure doesn't increase as you get closer to the wall as there is no force acting on each bit of air to push it to the wall, except the air around it, until you get to the section you are pushing on.

Turning what system on its side? The atmosphere?

So youre saying the static and dynamic pressure of air that we know is the cause of "predictable downward accelleration"?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 13, 2021, 05:20:16 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 13, 2021, 01:45:22 AM

Again, what makes the air at the bottom of the stack more compressed?

The above stacks and the resistance of it against the foundation below it, like I explained many many times.

Quote from: JackBlack

If all there is is the air above, then the pressure is constant.
You can easily see this by turning the system on the side and compressing the air against a wall. The pressure doesn't increase as you get closer to the wall as there is no force acting on each bit of air to push it to the wall, except the air around it, until you get to the section you are pushing on.

Turning what system on its side? The atmosphere?

So youre saying the static and dynamic pressure of air that we know is the cause of "predictable downward accelleration"?

Atmosphere is never static.

What type of pressure pushes us down?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 13, 2021, 12:41:33 AM

The reason objects may vary slightly in speed falling, can be attributed to aerodynamics and air friction. Haven't you ever heard of a vacuum chamber where there is no air above or below a falling object, and it still falls downward - two falling objects with different shape and masses at exactly the same speed.

You have an explanation, sceptimatic?

Yes.
The chamber is never evacuated. It still has pressure.
It still produces exactly the same reaction to energetic action against what is put into it.
Anything pushed up will be pushed back down.

The only difference is, it's against less resistance so naturally the push down will encounter much less friction below.
As simple as that.
The vacuum is nonsense.
To evacuate all atmosphere would be to cease to exist.
Have a good think on that.

I've had a good think on that. I'm thinking there is more empty space between air molecules as your altitude increases. This is why aeroplanes have to be pressurised at 13km high. If they weren't, everybody on board, aside from freezing at -50 degrees celsius, would die from lack of oxygen.

So, the question becomes, what is the empty space between air molecules? You say it is nothing. It can't be nothing, because it is something between the air molecules.

You say a vacuum chamber is nonsense? At the risk of being too crude for school, have you never heard of a "penis pump"? How do you think that particular invention works, if a vacuum is nonsense? 

What type of pressure pushes us down?

Atmospheric pressure.
You see, back to square one again.

I've had a good think on that. I'm thinking there is more empty space between air molecules as your altitude increases.

There is no empty space. Everything is filled. No gaps, no scattered particles just flitting about in a nothingness.
Everything is attached, always. No exceptions.

This is why aeroplanes have to be pressurised at 13km high.
If they weren't, everybody on board, aside from freezing at -50 degrees celsius, would die from lack of oxygen.

Planes have to be pressurised because we live in a higher pressurised stacking system.
A plane must try and equal that as it flies at speed through the higher less dense atmosphere.


 

So, the question becomes, what is the empty space between air molecules? You say it is nothing. It can't be nothing, because it is something between the air molecules.

There is no empty space.
Molecules (in my opinion) are like layers, hence why I used the halved gobstopper to high-llght it.

You say a vacuum chamber is nonsense? At the risk of being too crude for school, have you never heard of a "penis pump"? How do you think that particular invention works, if a vacuum is nonsense? 

A penis pump evacuates air and creates a lower pressure.
The penis, as with any bodily tissue that is subjected to it, expands. It expands because it has to fill the lower pressure.
It's also pushed at the base by air trying to get back in to equalise that pressure.

It's the same reason why a boiled egg can be pushed through a bottle neck.
Have a think on it.

What is the filling of empty space between molecules? Tell me the name of that filling. What do you call it? If two molecules are separated, they are separated by something. What is that something?

It has different names. What name do you call it?

With the plane, we are talking about the cabin. We aren't talking about the materials that comprise the construction of the plane, sceptimatic. Pressurizing of a plane is the air in the cabin, only. The materials comprising the plane, does not change.

That pump, creates lower pressure via the removal of air, as it moves closer towards being a vacuum chamber.

Stop dilly dallying around, and name what the absence of air is.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 13, 2021, 01:45:22 AM

Again, what makes the air at the bottom of the stack more compressed?

The above stacks and the resistance of it against the foundation below it, like I explained many many times.

No, that makes it compressed, but not more compressed.
As explained many times, you need an extra force acting on the layer other than the air around it.
If it is just the air around it, the pressure is constant.

Turning what system on its side? The atmosphere?

Yes, the atmosphere, or an analogy of it.
You can either just measure that there is no pressure gradient against a wall horizontally, as there isn't that extra force, or you can use a piston arrangement to compress air in a container against a wall and again measure no horizontal pressure gradient, or you can use an analogy with springs, where again there is no horizontal pressure gradient.

This is because you don't have gravity, or whatever magical replacement you want to use, forcing the air sideways.

This shows you need an extra force forcing the air down.
This has to be in addition to the air above.

Without this extra force, there is no pressure gradient.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 13, 2021, 06:59:47 AM

What type of pressure pushes us down?

Atmospheric pressure.
You see, back to square one again.

You mean you haven't left square 1.

Atmospheric pressure pushes us from all around, which effectively tries to crush us. Note that that isn't pushing down.
Yes, there is air above pushing us down, but there is also air below pushing us up.
The force pushing us up is greater due to the greater pressure below. So the atmosphere pushes us up, not down.

See, YOU still haven't left square 1, because you still can't explain how the atmosphere pushes us down in defiance of the pressure gradient.

There is no empty space. Everything is filled. No gaps, no scattered particles just flitting about in a nothingness.
Everything is attached, always. No exceptions.

That is your baseless claim that you are yet to substantiate in any way.
This baseless claim is contradicted by plenty of evidence, such as electron microscopes, which do not work at atmospheric pressure, because the air stops the electrons, and need a quite good vacuum to get a decent image.
Then there is the behaviour of fluids/solids, where there is a clear transition from liquid to gas. This makes perfect sense in the context of a molecule of fluid breaking away from the bulk and then flying around with negligible interactions between the rest. If instead it was always in contact, you would just expect the liquid to expand and it be a blur between gas and liquid as the liquid becomes less and less viscous and more gas like as it slowly expands.

What is the filling of empty space between molecules? Tell me the name of that filling. What do you call it? If two molecules are separated, they are separated by something. What is that something?

It has different names. What name do you call it?

With the plane, we are talking about the cabin. We aren't talking about the materials that comprise the construction of the plane, sceptimatic. Pressurizing of a plane is the air in the cabin, only. The materials comprising the plane, does not change.

That pump, creates lower pressure via the removal of air, as it moves closer towards being a vacuum chamber.

Stop dilly dallying around, and name what the absence of air is.

Call it atmospheric molecular cover layers if you want something to grasp.

I'm sure you saw my gobstopper analogy.
All you have to think of with that picture is where in that super dense molecular set of cover layers, is air.

As for a pump creating the removal of air, the pump is merely the external air pusher that allows decompression of the container by the expansion of the air itself against each other to fill the lower pressure created by that pump by its strength in forcing the external atmosphere back from pushing into the container.


The pump is indirect to the container.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 13, 2021, 05:20:16 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 13, 2021, 01:45:22 AM

Again, what makes the air at the bottom of the stack more compressed?

The above stacks and the resistance of it against the foundation below it, like I explained many many times.

No, that makes it compressed, but not more compressed.
As explained many times, you need an extra force acting on the layer other than the air around it.
If it is just the air around it, the pressure is constant.

You know atmosphere is more densely packed at sea level than mountain high.
You know it has to be stacked for it to be that way.
You know that the pressure fluctuates when energy is applied or when dense mass is applied to any area.

There is absolutely no need for fictional gravity to be involved.
Your gravity is said to be a pull from the centre of your Earth.
If this was the case then all your atmosphere would be as dense at the top because it would be all pulled down to the centre of mass, according to your set up.

We won't get into your moon pulling the water up from Earth despite Earth supposedly being 4 times as big with 6 times more of your magical gravity.

The whole set up is nonsensical gobbledygook and yet people swallow it with gusto. It shocks me, to be honest.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 13, 2021, 02:56:33 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 13, 2021, 05:20:16 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 13, 2021, 01:45:22 AM

Again, what makes the air at the bottom of the stack more compressed?

The above stacks and the resistance of it against the foundation below it, like I explained many many times.

No, that makes it compressed, but not more compressed.
As explained many times, you need an extra force acting on the layer other than the air around it.
If it is just the air around it, the pressure is constant.

You know atmosphere s more densely packed at sea level than mountain high.
You know it has to be stacked for it to be that way.
You know that the pressure fluctuates when energy is applied or when dense mass is applied to any area.

There is absolutely no need for fictional gravity to be involved.
Your gravity is said to be a pull from the centre of your Earth.
If this was the case then all your atmosphere would be as dense at the top because it would be all pulled down to the centre of mass, according to your set up.

We won't get into your moon pulling the water up from Earth despite Earth supposedly being 4 times as big with 6 times more of your magical gravity.

The whole set up is nonsensical gobbledygook and yet people swallow it with gusto. It shocks me, to be honest.

Sceptimatic, Sceptimatic, Sceptimatic. Did your flat earth teacher give you that gobstopper to stop your gob from asking questions? You have skirted around naming what the fabric is, which separates molecules and atoms. Your gobstopper analogy, leaves me gobsmacked.

You mention the tides, and how fictional gravity of the moon could not possibly be the explanation. So, what is YOUR explanation for tides? Is it your magical gobstopper again?

It's a funny situation, isn't it, the way everything falls down towards earth, and air is strangely densest at earth's surface? These are indisputable facts that even you agree upon.

So, what force is stopping all that dense air moving upward, and every living creature on earth dying from lack of oxygen? By your own reasoning, storms and especially tornadoes, should suck and stir up all that dense air, to the point the air is evenly distributed inside the snow globe. By your own reckoning, gravity does not exist. So, why does it all happen?

Tell me what the space between atoms is, and then tell me the force that does everything the "fictional" gravity of earth achieves.

Your gobstopper explanation might work in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, but not here.

Sceptimatic, Sceptimatic, Sceptimatic. Did your flat earth teacher give you that gobstopper to stop your gob from asking questions? You have skirted around naming what the fabric is, which separates molecules and atoms.

Molecules will suffice, just to keep it normal for you people.

Your gobstopper analogy, leaves me gobsmacked.

It will do if you look at it as a simple sweet and don't have the brains to think what the analogy is.

You mention the tides, and how fictional gravity of the moon could not possibly be the explanation. So, what is YOUR explanation for tides? Is it your magical gobstopper again?

Pressure. Fluctuating pressure as the reflected energy moves over and around Earth's dome.

It's a funny situation, isn't it, the way everything falls down towards earth, and air is strangely densest at earth's surface? These are indisputable facts that even you agree upon.

It makes perfect sense to me.
It certainly would not on a globe.

For anything to stack it has to be under more pressure at the bottom than the top.
You being unable to grasp that is your issue.

So, what force is stopping all that dense air moving upward, and every living creature on earth dying from lack of oxygen?

Atmospheric stacking.

By your own reasoning, storms and especially tornadoes, should suck and stir up all that dense air, to the point the air is evenly distributed inside the snow globe.

First of all there is no sucking up.
Secondly tornado's come from above to the ground.
Thirdly the atmosphere at those point is what's largely impacted and the rest of it is marginal to minor to unnoticeable.
It's just having the ability to understand what's been said, which you can't.

By your own reckoning, gravity does not exist. So, why does it all happen?

Simple atmospheric stacking and any object that displaces that stacking at whatever point.

Tell me what the space between atoms is, and then tell me the force that does everything the "fictional" gravity of earth achieves.

There is no space. There cannot be space. Everything has to be filled.
Gravity is just a fictional name given to create space and have a working energy within that space.
It should be seen as nonsensical by those who spend a small time looking at it all....but, narratives and adherence to official lines, is strong with many people....sooooo....

Your gobstopper explanation might work in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, but not here.

When you think like granpa Joe, this would naturally be your conclusion.

It's like talking to people on a spectrum or simply just very dense.

Sceptimatic, your flat earth model invention, for the real world, doesn't work. You must know this already.

There is no air pressure from above keeping you or I on the earth. There is no stacking. There is layering in it's crude form, better described as a gradient. Molecules do not separate molecules. Molecules move freely around, which means there is a fabric different to molecules, between molecules.

Now you say there is a fluctuating pressure that moves magically around the ceiling of the dome to move the world's oceans? You just make this up as you go, don't you?

Did I miss your post where this is all just testing for an alternate reality virtual reality game you are creating, aka Alice in Wonderland style? If it is, bravo! Great invention, I'm sure you will make a lot of money from your idea where people have the ultimate escape from reality.

If you haven't slapped a copyright on it all, I might do it myself!

You just make this up as you go

Literally every scientific hypothesis so what's the problem?

You know atmosphere is more densely packed at sea level than mountain high.

Yes, the question is why. That is what you continually fail to provide.
Gravity explains it as a force acting on all matter trying to make it go down.
That provides the necessary force to make the air a greater pressure as you go further down.

Your model of it just being the air magically pushing down doesn't.

This is the issue you continually fail to address.

There is absolutely no need for fictional gravity to be involved.

If you don't want to involve very real gravity, you need to have something else to take its place, and the air simply doesn't cut it.

Your gravity is said to be a pull from the centre of your Earth.
If this was the case then all your atmosphere would be as dense at the top because it would be all pulled down to the centre of mass, according to your set up.

Pure BS, as repeatedly explained.
Including by the simple graphic you seem to hate as it so clearly shows the problem with your model:


The air right at the top of the stack is just being pulled down by gravity, without anything above it.
However, when it falls down, it hits the air below. This means not only is the air below being pulled down by gravity, it is also being pushed down by the air above.
This layer in turn pushes down on the layer below with an even greater force.
For the simple case of the diagram, all the air above is pushing down with a force of F.
The middle layer transfers this force to the bottom, but also pushes down with its own weight of W. This means it pushes down on the bottom with a total force of F+W, the force due to the weight of air above pushing it down and the force due to gravity pulling it down.
All of this pushes down on the air below making the pressure greater below.

You can also understand it from the force balance.
The air is at a greater pressure below. This tries to push the air above up, due to the pressure gradient, but this is balanced out by the weight of that air above being pulled down by gravity.

This also matches the pressure gradient in a fluid.
For example, if you go ~ 10 m below the surface in water, you will have increased the pressure by roughly ~1 bar

That is because the density of water is roughly 1 000 kg/m^3.
So if you consider a 1 m^2 column of water, that is 10 m high, that has a total mass of ~10 000 kg. With g being ~ 10 m/s^2, this gives a weight/force of ~100 000 kg m/s^2 or ~100 000 N.
Thus the pressure due to this weight is ~ 100 kPa = 1 bar.

So gravity explained perfectly well why there is this pressure gradient.

Conversely your pure nonsense with no gravity and just magical air, can't explain it at all.
Again, turning the system sideways shows this.
If your nonsense was true, there would be sideways pressure gradients as well.


You need a force acting on each layer of air, separate from the air above and below, or you can't have a pressure gradient in a non-accelerating system.

And as I have told you before, you can even simulate gravity by an equivalent acceleration, and see the effects of this now horizontal pressure gradient, such as the buoyant force making a helium filled balloon move forwards in a vehicle which accelerates forwards, instead of more dense objects, which appear to accelerate backwards to an observer in the vehicle.

We won't get into your moon pulling the water up from Earth despite Earth supposedly being 4 times as big with 6 times more of your magical gravity.

Good, because you clearly don't understand that either.

The whole set up is nonsensical gobbledygook

Only for people like you, who want it to be fake so you can pretend your fantasy is correct.
For any honest, rational person, who honestly and rationally analyses, they find it makes perfect sense, and unlike your garbage, it actually explains what is observed in reality.

Sceptimatic, your flat earth model invention, for the real world, doesn't work. You must know this already.

  wouldn't expect people like you to say any other. Why would you?
Your indoctrinated mindset is, globe. My mindset is not.

There is no air pressure from above keeping you or I on the earth.

Absolutely there is.
You just refuse to accept it because gravity has to be a massive part, even though you have absolutely no clue as to what it is.

There is no stacking.

Everything stacks, including atmosphere.

There is layering in it's crude form, better described as a gradient.

Layering in its crude form?
Maybe you can explain this layering in crude form and explain why.

Molecules do not separate molecules. Molecules move freely around, which means there is a fabric different to molecules, between molecules.

Molecules/matter can never move freely around.
Everything requires a medium to move in, which means everything is against resistance to motion, always. No free movement, at all.

Now you say there is a fluctuating pressure that moves magically around the ceiling of the dome to move the world's oceans? You just make this up as you go, don't you?

That depends.
What is anything if its not made up?
It's my theory, made up because I see how the potential works from simple experiments and doing my own jigsaw.
Fluctuating pressure is due to applied energy to any area.
Read what I said and absorb it. It seems you missed this.

Did I miss your post where this is all just testing for an alternate reality virtual reality game you are creating, aka Alice in Wonderland style?

No. I think you're getting mixed up with the fantasy stories told to you about living on a spinning global Earth.

If it is, bravo! Great invention, I'm sure you will make a lot of money from your idea where people have the ultimate escape from reality.

I'd say I'm escaping from being drawn into a lifelong global indoctrination. I'd honestly say that you are in a belief you are living in a reality that has on going storylines, like a soap and like many soap fans, will talk about it as a reality.
I genuinely believe that and I could've been doing it still if I'd never allowed myself to actually question all this stuff.

 

If you haven't slapped a copyright on it all, I might do it myself!

You feel free to do whatever you wish.