ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 25, 2021, 03:22:23 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on April 24, 2021, 06:33:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 24, 2021, 12:02:13 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 23, 2021, 04:21:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 22, 2021, 09:05:17 PM

Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.

No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.

No, it hasn't.
<snip>

Why?  Because you say so?  It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted.  Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.

Mike

Name one.

I could provide you a dozen if you'd like.  I start with just a few. 

This first one is titled "Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theory".  It provides a description of each experiment, the analytical solution, and citations to the peer reviewed, published source.  All the equipment, methodologies, test procedures, results, and conclusions are there for your review and verification.

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2018-rev-gravity-tests.pdf

Any chance you can explain this nice and simple for me, so it gives me no argument against your knowing on it as fact?

Or at least tell me how a few peers managed to accept it as fact that said to you, 'yep, it's fact.'

Here are a few more.  All peer reviewed.  When you're done with they I have more for you.  Or, you can learn to do your own research because data like this is easily available.

Infrasound and gravity waves over the Andes observed by a pressure sensor on board a stratospheric balloon
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1605726

Can you explain this nice and simple for a dummy like me. Tell me how you know it to be a truth and why it shows, to you....and the peers who reviewed it.

Black Holes and Other Clues to the Quantum Structure of Gravity
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4434/9/1/16

Same again, can you provide proof for dummies or is this just for you people to know and us to accept without argument?

General approach to the Lagrangian ambiguity in f(R, T) gravity
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08920-4.pdf

As above. Nice and simple explanation.

Topics in soft collinear effective theory for gravity
https://journals.aps.org/prd/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.066019

Same once again. A nice and simple explanation of the reality.

Probing gravity and growth of structure with gravitational waves and galaxies’ peculiar velocity
https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2020/pub/fermilab-pub-20-185-ae.pdf

Once again, can you do as above?

Convectively Forced Diurnal Gravity Waves in the Maritime Continent
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/77/3/jas-d-19-0236.1.xml

And finally, same as above. If you can dumb it all down so it shows the facts you claim or the facts the peers claim it to be for which you accept, I'll appreciate that.

Any more you want to put out, feel free but expect the same as above.

Fair enough?
I'm being serious.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2021, 01:01:37 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 30, 2021, 03:33:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 29, 2021, 11:19:37 PM

I am claiming a truth when telling you a spinning globe is nonsense.
Like I said before, if I claim fact then I have to back them up.

Yet you refuse to provide anything to back up that blatant lie of yours.

I did but you decided water wasn't level and could curve around a ball.
I can't help you with that if that's what you want to believe.

Level doesn’t mean flat.

Good, then we can account for small water ripples.

So we are back to water being essentially, level.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 30, 2021, 03:33:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 29, 2021, 11:19:37 PM

I am claiming a truth when telling you a spinning globe is nonsense.
Like I said before, if I claim fact then I have to back them up.

Yet you refuse to provide anything to back up that blatant lie of yours.

I did but you decided water wasn't level and could curve around a ball.

No, all you have provided is your blatant lie, even that is yet another blatant lie of yours.
Water is level, which means it curves around Earth.
You have nothing to justify your blatant lie that level water magically means Earth can't be a globe, while you have been provided evidence of level water clearly showing Earth is round.

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?

Again, all of these wild claims of your defy simple logic and experimental evidence of how air works.

So different mass falls at different rates?
Of course.

I just tried a simple experiment to try this out.  I have a set of weights like they used to use in shops to weigh things out.  One of them is labelled 250g and the other 500g.  They are both made of the same material and so both have the same density.

I took a weight in each hand and held them out at the same height and let them go. Both fell to the ground as I predicted. Now one weight is twice the mass of the other so one should should have hit the ground before the other one did if Sceptis statement above is true. But that is not what happened. Both hit the ground at the same time.  How come?

My hypothesis is this.  From physics S=ut + (at^2)/2 where S is the distance travelled u is initial velocity. t is the time to fall and a is the acceleration. In this case since both weights are initially at rest, u=o and since they are falling under the influence of what I will call gravity, I can say a = g = 9.8m/s^2. So that gives us S = (gt^2)/2 since 0xt = 0. 

There is no term for mass in this equation so the time of fall from a given height is independent of mass providing the rate of acceleration doesn't change. Anyone can easily test this with everyday objects.  Which is exactly what I did.

You see, predictable fall is specific to similar masses of similar shapes, only.

Mass is independent of rate of fall as the above equation shows so the 'shape' of the mass is also completely irrelevant.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 30, 2021, 05:47:46 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 30, 2021, 12:39:27 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 27, 2021, 10:34:26 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 27, 2021, 09:12:37 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 27, 2021, 10:37:48 AM

the environment being here on earth.
as a thing that falls at a predictable rate.

You say, predictable. I assume you o mean your accepted 9.8 metres per second which you claim is in a vacuum.

Am I right on thinking this is what you are going on?


If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.
And if you are using any and all atmosphere from a drop near sea level to mountain high, etc, then there's no predictable rate of fall on all objects.


Unless you can clarify.

Per second per second.

Theres two of them.

Yes

Very real and predictable and measruable.

Denying its existence is insanity as you can literally do this.

Not sure why you think this very real and measurable rhing doesnt exist

It has nothing to do with gravity.

If you drop something, it can be very predictable when it will hit the ground.

Maybe you can clarify what your standloint is because this is new in terms of denp - that things now dont fall in a predictable manner?


Amazing!!!

This the, date april27, was three days ago when 9.81 was brought up.
No one is struggling but you and your gall to talk down to me while missing this is what im pointing out.

Youve yet to drawn a simple circle and triangle.
Lets go.

It's easy to draw a circle or a triangle. I don't see what it's going to prove to you other than seeing a circle and a triangle.

Good.
Draw it.
Ita going to prove your theory.
Its going to orive us wrong that our model, as is, dot not match observed reality but instead leoce your thoughts and hypothesis.
Lets go
Draw it.

Quote from: MicroBeta on April 30, 2021, 08:59:28 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 25, 2021, 03:22:23 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on April 24, 2021, 06:33:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 24, 2021, 12:02:13 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 23, 2021, 04:21:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 22, 2021, 09:05:17 PM

Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.

No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.

No, it hasn't.
<snip>

Why?  Because you say so?  It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted.  Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.

Mike

Name one.

I could provide you a dozen if you'd like.  I start with just a few. 

This first one is titled "Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theory".  It provides a description of each experiment, the analytical solution, and citations to the peer reviewed, published source.  All the equipment, methodologies, test procedures, results, and conclusions are there for your review and verification.

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2018-rev-gravity-tests.pdf

Any chance you can explain this nice and simple for me, so it gives me no argument against your knowing on it as fact?

Or at least tell me how a few peers managed to accept it as fact that said to you, 'yep, it's fact.'

No I won't.  You asked for peer reviewed published data and I gave it to you.  It is up to you to refute it.

This is data produce using the scientific method.  The results were reviewed, published, and verified over and over again.

These papers have not only passed peer review; they've also been accepted by the peers in the applicable disciplines. 

It doesn't get any more authoritative than this.  To then say I need to have interviewed and gotten concurrence from the authors/reviewers is disingenuous. You are moving the goal posts...literally an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy. 

You asked for the data and I provided it.  The ball is in your court to debunk it.

Mike

But that is not what happened. Both hit the ground at the same time.  How come?

He is appealing to the tiny variations due to air drag in this case.
They are far to small to notice for significant masses and the only way to really see it over a short distance is to use a very low density object, like a feather or balloon.

In other words he is selectively taking into account only those situations or conditions which can make it appear that he is right. 500g mass v feather.  500g mass hits the ground first because it is less affected by air resistance.  If you take polystyrene ball which is the same mass as a feather it will hit the ground at the same time as the 500g mass when dropped from the same height. 

Nothing to do with mass (classic myth) but the ball will experience less air resistance than will the feather. If it was to do with mass it different fall rates would apply to any different masses regardless of shape or structure.

In other words he is selectively taking into account only those situations or conditions which can make it appear that he is right. 500g mass v feather.  500g mass hits the ground first because it is less affected by air resistance.  If you take polystyrene ball which is the same mass as a feather it will hit the ground at the same time as the 500g mass when dropped from the same height. 

Nothing to do with mass (classic myth) but the ball will experience less air resistance than will the feather. If it was to do with mass it different fall rates would apply to any different masses regardless of shape or structure.

He doesn't understand how shape can affect things apparently.

Try it with this 500kg object.

Water is level, which means it curves around Earth.......................

You're not really going to get anywhere with that mindset, other than just following the pied pipers of the story telling world of fairy tales.

Quote

So different mass falls at different rates?
Of course.

I just tried a simple experiment to try this out.  I have a set of weights like they used to use in shops to weigh things out.  One of them is labelled 250g and the other 500g.  They are both made of the same material and so both have the same density.

I took a weight in each hand and held them out at the same height and let them go. Both fell to the ground as I predicted. Now one weight is twice the mass of the other so one should should have hit the ground before the other one did if Sceptis statement above is true. But that is not what happened. Both hit the ground at the same time.  How come?

My hypothesis is this.  From physics S=ut + (at^2)/2 where S is the distance travelled u is initial velocity. t is the time to fall and a is the acceleration. In this case since both weights are initially at rest, u=o and since they are falling under the influence of what I will call gravity, I can say a = g = 9.8m/s^2. So that gives us S = (gt^2)/2 since 0xt = 0. 

There is no term for mass in this equation so the time of fall from a given height is independent of mass providing the rate of acceleration doesn't change. Anyone can easily test this with everyday objects.  Which is exactly what I did.

Quote

You see, predictable fall is specific to similar masses of similar shapes, only.

Mass is independent of rate of fall as the above equation shows so the 'shape' of the mass is also completely irrelevant.

Why did you bother with those?
Why not just use a kitchen sink and a tennis ball and drop them from head height.
Or drop a brick and a tennis ball.
Or drop a football and a tennis ball, all from head height.

You'll see the same thing. They will both appear to hit the ground at the same time...by eye.

Go to the top of a very high building and drop a tennis ball and a stone from it, the size of the tennis ball.
Do you think both will hit the ground at the same time?

Probably you will think that.


Get this into your head.
Atmospheric resistance is going to slow mass by different rates for different masses.

You all know this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2021, 01:14:22 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on April 30, 2021, 08:59:28 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 25, 2021, 03:22:23 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on April 24, 2021, 06:33:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 24, 2021, 12:02:13 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 23, 2021, 04:21:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 22, 2021, 09:05:17 PM

Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.

No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.

No, it hasn't.
<snip>

Why?  Because you say so?  It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted.  Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.

Mike

Name one.

I could provide you a dozen if you'd like.  I start with just a few. 

This first one is titled "Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theory".  It provides a description of each experiment, the analytical solution, and citations to the peer reviewed, published source.  All the equipment, methodologies, test procedures, results, and conclusions are there for your review and verification.

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2018-rev-gravity-tests.pdf

Any chance you can explain this nice and simple for me, so it gives me no argument against your knowing on it as fact?

Or at least tell me how a few peers managed to accept it as fact that said to you, 'yep, it's fact.'

No I won't.  You asked for peer reviewed published data and I gave it to you.  It is up to you to refute it.

This is data produce using the scientific method.  The results were reviewed, published, and verified over and over again.

These papers have not only passed peer review; they've also been accepted by the peers in the applicable disciplines. 

It doesn't get any more authoritative than this.  To then say I need to have interviewed and gotten concurrence from the authors/reviewers is disingenuous. You are moving the goal posts...literally an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy. 

You asked for the data and I provided it.  The ball is in your court to debunk it.

Mike

I don't need to refute it. You cannot prove it. You are simply reliant on what it says, as your truth but you know fine well you cannot stand there and hand it out as truth from your own workings because you've never tested any of it out to prove anything.


You can't debunk fantasy you can just claim it to be fantasy.
You can argue for it being real but your real and fantasy are indistinguishable if you can't back it up yourself.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2021, 01:58:17 AM

Water is level, which means it curves around Earth.......................

You're not really going to get anywhere with that mindset

Other than accepting reality.
If you want to show that level water is magically flat water, go ahead and substantiate that claim.
Because so far, it is just your baseless assertion, contradicted by plentiful evidence.

Or, why don't you stop with that and deal with the questions actually related to this thread which also show your claims are pure BS?
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?

Get this into your head.
Atmospheric resistance is going to slow mass by different rates for different masses.

Get this into your head:
This shows your claims about the air magically pushing things down is pure BS.

How can you account for the air apparently accelerating all objects of any significant mass basically the same initially, but then magically slowing them down at different rates, depending on their area?
The simple reality is YOU CAN'T.

This is because in situations like that there are 2 forces involved. There is gravity pulling the object down, and the air pushing the object up.
Again, mainstream science can explain it just fine.
Your nonsense can't.

Quote from: MicroBeta on May 01, 2021, 10:04:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2021, 01:14:22 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on April 30, 2021, 08:59:28 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 25, 2021, 03:22:23 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on April 24, 2021, 06:33:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 24, 2021, 12:02:13 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 23, 2021, 04:21:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 22, 2021, 09:05:17 PM

Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.

No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.

No, it hasn't.
<snip>

Why?  Because you say so?  It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted.  Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.

Mike

Name one.

I could provide you a dozen if you'd like.  I start with just a few. 

This first one is titled "Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theory".  It provides a description of each experiment, the analytical solution, and citations to the peer reviewed, published source.  All the equipment, methodologies, test procedures, results, and conclusions are there for your review and verification.

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2018-rev-gravity-tests.pdf

Any chance you can explain this nice and simple for me, so it gives me no argument against your knowing on it as fact?

Or at least tell me how a few peers managed to accept it as fact that said to you, 'yep, it's fact.'

No I won't.  You asked for peer reviewed published data and I gave it to you.  It is up to you to refute it.

This is data produce using the scientific method.  The results were reviewed, published, and verified over and over again.

These papers have not only passed peer review; they've also been accepted by the peers in the applicable disciplines. 

It doesn't get any more authoritative than this.  To then say I need to have interviewed and gotten concurrence from the authors/reviewers is disingenuous. You are moving the goal posts...literally an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy. 

You asked for the data and I provided it.  The ball is in your court to debunk it.

Mike

I don't need to refute it.

Yes, you do.
You claimed there was no evidence, but there is, there is plenty.
Or you can just admit your prior claim was just another blatant lie of yours.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2021, 01:58:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2021, 01:58:17 AM

Water is level, which means it curves around Earth.......................

You're not really going to get anywhere with that mindset

Other than accepting reality.

You may think you're accepting reality. I think you're accepting a lot of fantasy as your reality.
That's not entirely your fault, of course.
We were all massively indoctrinated into this fantasy world and it takes a hell of a lot to change that perception.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2021, 02:04:25 AM

Get this into your head.
Atmospheric resistance is going to slow mass by different rates for different masses.

Get this into your head:
This shows your claims about the air magically pushing things down is pure BS.

Air doesn't magically push things down. It has to have something to push against to push things down, as has been explained many times, to you.

How can you account for the air apparently accelerating all objects of any significant mass basically the same initially, but then magically slowing them down at different rates, depending on their area?
The simple reality is YOU CAN'T.

It doesn't accelerate all masses at the same rate.
It depends on the masses displacement of the atmosphere which determines how much reactive pressure is pushed against that mass and the resistance of it by what is below it.

You simply never took the time to bother to look at it because your mindset was frenzied and all you were after doing was to go on the attack.

You may think you're accepting reality. I think you're accepting a lot of fantasy as your reality.
That's not entirely your fault, of course.

That's right, it's your fault, for your complete inability to defend any of your claims or answer trivial questions.

Air doesn't magically push things down.

That's right, it pushes up.
The problem is that you claim it magically pushes things down, and you have never been able to explain it. Instead you just claim you have.

The only time you have been able to present anything even remotely plausible is when you have an object pressed against the ground with no air under it.

Quote from: JackBlack

How can you account for the air apparently accelerating all objects of any significant mass basically the same initially, but then magically slowing them down at different rates, depending on their area?
The simple reality is YOU CAN'T.

It doesn't accelerate all masses at the same rate.
It depends on the masses displacement of the atmosphere which determines how much reactive pressure is pushed against that mass and the resistance of it by what is below it.

You simply never took the time to bother to look at it because your mindset was frenzied and all you were after doing was to go on the attack.

And yet again you ignore the actual issue and just resort to pathetic insults.
I'm not the one in a frenzy here, if anyone is, it would be you with your frenzied rejection of reality.
I did take the time to look at it, and found flaws at almost every point you have made.
Again, the issue you ignore here is how the air acts so vastly different between objects such that it appears that there is a force trying to move everything down with a force proportional to mass, and then the air also applies a force that is proportional to volume, and then to shape and size.

If it was just the air, you wouldn't expect such vastly different results.


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?

Why did you bother with those?
Why not just use a kitchen sink and a tennis ball and drop them from head height.
Or drop a brick and a tennis ball.
Or drop a football and a tennis ball, all from head height.

You'll see the same thing. They will both appear to hit the ground at the same time...by eye.

Go to the top of a very high building and drop a tennis ball and a stone from it, the size of the tennis ball.
Do you think both will hit the ground at the same time?

Probably you will think that.


Get this into your head.
Atmospheric resistance is going to slow mass by different rates for different masses.

You all know this.

By eye!!!

The greatest measuring device known to man!!!


And from HEAD HEIGHT!!!
When its been measure 9.81m/s/s is the accelleration down!

What person is 9.8m head height?
What persons eye can discern a fraction of a second?


Anothee great sceppy exoperiemnt
Amazing idsas from the master of logic.
Lets now al believe him on his other theories.


Top of a building?
Grwat.
Drag resistence can be accounted for as already acknowledged and discussed - its the VELOCITY SHAPE and AIR DENSITY that factora against resistence as per conventional physics.
All predictablyle testable provable.
Not mass.
Whats YOUR point?

Quote from: MicroBeta on May 01, 2021, 10:04:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 01, 2021, 01:14:22 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on April 30, 2021, 08:59:28 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 25, 2021, 03:22:23 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on April 24, 2021, 06:33:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 24, 2021, 12:02:13 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 23, 2021, 04:21:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 22, 2021, 09:05:17 PM

Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.

No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.

No, it hasn't.
<snip>

Why?  Because you say so?  It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted.  Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.

Mike

Name one.

I could provide you a dozen if you'd like.  I start with just a few. 

This first one is titled "Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theory".  It provides a description of each experiment, the analytical solution, and citations to the peer reviewed, published source.  All the equipment, methodologies, test procedures, results, and conclusions are there for your review and verification.

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2018-rev-gravity-tests.pdf

Any chance you can explain this nice and simple for me, so it gives me no argument against your knowing on it as fact?

Or at least tell me how a few peers managed to accept it as fact that said to you, 'yep, it's fact.'

No I won't.  You asked for peer reviewed published data and I gave it to you.  It is up to you to refute it.

This is data produce using the scientific method.  The results were reviewed, published, and verified over and over again.

These papers have not only passed peer review; they've also been accepted by the peers in the applicable disciplines. 

It doesn't get any more authoritative than this.  To then say I need to have interviewed and gotten concurrence from the authors/reviewers is disingenuous. You are moving the goal posts...literally an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy. 

You asked for the data and I provided it.  The ball is in your court to debunk it.

Mike

I don't need to refute it. You cannot prove it. You are simply reliant on what it says, as your truth but you know fine well you cannot stand there and hand it out as truth from your own workings because you've never tested any of it out to prove anything.


You can't debunk fantasy you can just claim it to be fantasy.
You can argue for it being real but your real and fantasy are indistinguishable if you can't back it up yourself.

Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?

You asked for peer reviewed, published data.  Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it.  What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided.  That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.

Mike

Go to the top of a very high building and drop a tennis ball and a stone from it, the size of the tennis ball.
Do you think both will hit the ground at the same time?

No I don't think they will hit the ground at the same time. I know they will because I have watched exactly that experiment done.  Have you?

I understand where your logic lies and you are falling into exactly the same trap that many other people do.  But there's no telling you that is there because you will continue to believe whatever your mindset tells you is the truth.

How high is 'very high' anyway? The rate of acceleration is the same (i.e. 'g') and mass doesn't come into it so the height is irrelevant.  You could drop your tennis ball and stone (how big a stone?) from the top of your house or the top of the Burj Kalifa and they would still hit the ground at the same time. 

Quote

Go to the top of a very high building and drop a tennis ball and a stone from it, the size of the tennis ball.
Do you think both will hit the ground at the same time?

No I don't think they will hit the ground at the same time. I know they will because I have watched exactly that experiment done.  Have you?

I understand where your logic lies and you are falling into exactly the same trap that many other people do.  But there's no telling you that is there because you will continue to believe whatever your mindset tells you is the truth.

How high is 'very high' anyway? The rate of acceleration is the same (i.e. 'g') and mass doesn't come into it so the height is irrelevant.  You could drop your tennis ball and stone (how big a stone?) from the top of your house or the top of the Burj Kalifa and they would still hit the ground at the same time.

You are just further falling into his trap and playing his game.
According to some sites, the terminal velocity of a tennis ball is 100 km/hr, which is roughly 28 m/s.
If you drop it from the top of Kalifa tower, ignoring air resistance, it would hit the ground at roughly 11 seconds, travelling roughly 127 m/s.
In reality, it would accelerate and reach its terminal and then fall at a rate of roughly 28 m/s, taking significantly longer.

The stone would have a larger terminal velocity due to its larger mass and same volume.

So if you were to drop them both from a very significant height, like the top of Kalifa tower, then they would not hit the ground at the same time.

The question you should be asking him is why this is the case?
Why does the air produce different terminal velocities for different objects?
Why does the air produce a terminal velocity in the first place?

He claims it is the air pushing the object down. So why does it then resist that and try to push it back up?
How come the push down is based upon the mass of the object, while the push up is not?

That's right, it's your fault, for your complete inability to defend any of your claims or answer trivial questions.

Defended very well and all answered.
Of course it doesn't suit you but then again that's really your issue, not mine.

And from HEAD HEIGHT!!!
When its been measure 9.81m/s/s is the accelleration down!

What person is 9.8m head height?
What persons eye can discern a fraction of a second?

Then don't argue from this point of view.
SHow me your argument with something much higher.

I've seen the silly attempt of a bowling ball and feather in a so called massive vacuum chamber with all the open mouths of so called scientists/operators and rattling pipes....etc.
An absolute joke.

I've seen the coin and the feather drop in a tube supposedly measuring?

I've seen the ball from waist height and drop.


Where's your proof?
Do you have any proof?

Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?

You asked for peer reviewed, published data.  Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it.  What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided.  That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.

Mike

I certainly don't accept it and I cannot refute what's not physically in my face that supposedly shows fact.

It comes down to you proving what is set out so you can show me you are right and I am not.
Can you do this instead of nah nah nee nah nah-ing?

Quote

Go to the top of a very high building and drop a tennis ball and a stone from it, the size of the tennis ball.
Do you think both will hit the ground at the same time?

No I don't think they will hit the ground at the same time. I know they will because I have watched exactly that experiment done.  Have you?

I'm sure you can explain it and show me what it is...right?

I understand where your logic lies and you are falling into exactly the same trap that many other people do.  But there's no telling you that is there because you will continue to believe whatever your mindset tells you is the truth.

My logic lies where it should. By knowing atmospheric pressure has a  different resistance to all unequal masses.

How high is 'very high' anyway? The rate of acceleration is the same (i.e. 'g') and mass doesn't come into it so the height is irrelevant.

Mass certainly does come into it...massively and height is massively relevant for clearer observation.

 You could drop your tennis ball and stone (how big a stone?) from the top of your house or the top of the Burj Kalifa and they would still hit the ground at the same time.

No, you couldn't.

Atmospheric resistance stops that and you know this but for some reason deny it.

Quote from: MicroBeta on May 02, 2021, 05:55:15 AM

Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?

You asked for peer reviewed, published data.  Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it.  What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided.  That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.

Mike

I certainly don't accept it and I cannot refute what's not physically in my face that supposedly shows fact.

It comes down to you proving what is set out so you can show me you are right and I am not.
Can you do this instead of nah nah nee nah nah-ing?

Ohhh the hypocracy

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 02, 2021, 05:40:26 AM

And from HEAD HEIGHT!!!
When its been measure 9.81m/s/s is the accelleration down!

What person is 9.8m head height?
What persons eye can discern a fraction of a second?

Then don't argue from this point of view.
SHow me your argument with something much higher.

I've seen the silly attempt of a bowling ball and feather in a so called massive vacuum chamber with all the open mouths of so called scientists/operators and rattling pipes....etc.
An absolute joke.

I've seen the coin and the feather drop in a tube supposedly measuring?

I've seen the ball from waist height and drop.


Where's your proof?
Do you have any proof?

Wheres the proof?
The proof was the well documented well repeatable experiments listed above that you nahnahnnee'd away wihtout anything more that "it dotn make sense to me".

The feather doesnt flutter.
Its been said many times and shows "predictable rate of fall" is a thing.
Yoy thinkings you can refute measurbale motion, youve yet to show anything.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 03, 2021, 12:45:24 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 02, 2021, 05:40:26 AM

And from HEAD HEIGHT!!!
When its been measure 9.81m/s/s is the accelleration down!

What person is 9.8m head height?
What persons eye can discern a fraction of a second?

Then don't argue from this point of view.
SHow me your argument with something much higher.

I've seen the silly attempt of a bowling ball and feather in a so called massive vacuum chamber with all the open mouths of so called scientists/operators and rattling pipes....etc.
An absolute joke.

I've seen the coin and the feather drop in a tube supposedly measuring?

I've seen the ball from waist height and drop.


Where's your proof?
Do you have any proof?

Wheres the proof?
The proof was the well documented well repeatable experiments listed above that you nahnahnnee'd away wihtout anything more that "it dotn make sense to me".

The feather doesnt flutter.
Its been said many times and shows "predictable rate of fall" is a thing.
Yoy thinkings you can refute measurbale motion, youve yet to show anything.

Neither have you.

Oh look
Another
"Nahnahnnee"

The proof was provided.
Youve seen a feather-coin-tube before?
With your own eyes?
Provide a reason for its existence - other than "trickery".

Quote from: MicroBeta on May 02, 2021, 05:55:15 AM

Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?

You asked for peer reviewed, published data.  Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it.  What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided.  That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.

Mike

I certainly don't accept it and I cannot refute what's not physically in my face that supposedly shows fact.

It comes down to you proving what is set out so you can show me you are right and I am not.
Can you do this instead of nah nah nee nah nah-ing?

Let me get this straight.  You want me to breakdown and explain the peer reviewed, published data because you too bleepin' lazy to read them yourself and do your own research?  Really?

Sorry but you don't get to ask me to give you something and then require me to explain it all to you.  You asked for it and it's up to you to evaluate it; not me to do it for you.

Mike

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 03, 2021, 12:47:26 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on May 02, 2021, 05:55:15 AM

Shifting of the Burden of Proof much?

You asked for peer reviewed, published data.  Now, the burden is on you accept it or refute it.  What you can't do is imply an appeal to authority and demand I reiterated what I've already provided.  That is an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.

Mike

I certainly don't accept it and I cannot refute what's not physically in my face that supposedly shows fact.

It comes down to you proving what is set out so you can show me you are right and I am not.
Can you do this instead of nah nah nee nah nah-ing?

Let me get this straight.  You want me to breakdown and explain the peer reviewed, published data because you too bleepin' lazy to read them yourself and do your own research?  Really?

Sorry but you don't get to ask me to give you something and then require me to explain it all to you.  You asked for it and it's up to you to evaluate it; not me to do it for you.

Mike

Calm down. You can obviously do as you please...but, if you expect me to believe something then provide the proof for me to do that.
If you're not interested in proving anything then don't give me the time of day.