The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 09:13:53 AM

Title: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 09:13:53 AM
As I become more indoctrinated in the FET, I don't believe in gravity either. Here is a excerpt from a paper written by Aaron Guerami, Titled 'Disproof of Gravity'. He doesn't believe in gravity either. He has written a whole paper, with many examples as to why he doesn't believe in gravity. I've just attached just one of his examples. I'd like to know everyone response to this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Experimentally
One simple experiment shows there is no gravity. The Helium Balloon. It rises. How is this
possible? Classical Mechanics shows that Force equals the Constant of Gravity multiplied by the
Mass of Object 1 multiplied by the Mass of Object 2 divided by the Distance between the two
masses raised to the second power.
F=GM1M2/r^2
With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but
to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1.
F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force
that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the
helium is rising to meet its level of density.

Thanks...Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Mikey T. on June 23, 2015, 09:18:37 AM
Seriously Yendor?
Helium is less dense than air, therefore it will float on the air.  Much like stuff that is less dense than water will float on the top.  Tell ya what, try the helium balloon in a vacuum chamber, it wont float up then.
Well we would need something stronger than a rubber balloon since it would just expand from the ratio of pressure inside vs outside of it.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 09:42:24 AM
Seriously Yendor?
Helium is less dense than air, therefore it will float on the air.  Much like stuff that is less dense than water will float on the top.  Tell ya what, try the helium balloon in a vacuum chamber, it wont float up then.
Well we would need something stronger than a rubber balloon since it would just expand from the ratio of pressure inside vs outside of it.

Mikey T.
Yes I know, right. I'm just going by what Aaron says, " based on the formula F=GM1M2/r^2, It wouldn't leave the Earth's surface. Read again what he says.

Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on June 23, 2015, 09:43:28 AM
Don't get your hopes up, you can talk for pages and they'll just constantly evade or repeat things covered in your first post. Round earthers are incapable of defending their view from more than a handful of cliche questions.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Itchy_Arris on June 23, 2015, 09:52:41 AM
Who is Aaron Guaremi? What are his credentials? He sounds like a retard.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 09:58:40 AM
Don't get your hopes up, you can talk for pages and they'll just constantly evade or repeat things covered in your first post. Round earthers are incapable of defending their view from more than a handful of cliche questions.

JRoweSkeptic,

I hope you are wrong. I Know it is hard for people to go against the grain of what they were taught in school. I keep hoping at least one REer will open their mind and see what I see. All I can do is keep trying. I'm glad there are people like you on this forum that see eye to eye.

Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 23, 2015, 10:01:26 AM
Who is Aaron Guaremi? What are his credentials? He sounds like a retard.
Itchy get used to it there is no phenomena like gravity
people stay in ground because they are heavy than air.
why we are heavy because heaviness is a constant in nature it's something that has its own validity.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 10:07:32 AM
Who is Aaron Guaremi? What are his credentials? He sounds like a retard.

Itchy,

Why should any of that matter. Are you saying if you don't have college degrees or fancy credentials you are irrelevant. Have you not heard of Bill Gates or the founder of HP, to name a few. Just read what he wrote and simply prove him wrong.

Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on June 23, 2015, 10:18:40 AM
Do you understand why you are wrong in the OP?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 10:23:05 AM
Do you understand why you are wrong in the OP?

sokarul,
I understand I may not be right, but please explain why I'm wrong.

Thanks,
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on June 23, 2015, 10:24:02 AM
Seriously Yendor?
Helium is less dense than air, therefore it will float on the air.  Much like stuff that is less dense than water will float on the top.  Tell ya what, try the helium balloon in a vacuum chamber, it wont float up then.
Well we would need something stronger than a rubber balloon since it would just expand from the ratio of pressure inside vs outside of it.
This is why.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 23, 2015, 10:26:04 AM
Do you understand why you are wrong in the OP?

sokarul,
I understand I may not be right, but please explain why I'm wrong.

Thanks,
Yendor
Yendor you are very good example of honest man who wants to know the truth. round earther here market us some "truths" they are paid or career depends on it.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 10:31:40 AM
Seriously Yendor?
Helium is less dense than air, therefore it will float on the air.  Much like stuff that is less dense than water will float on the top.  Tell ya what, try the helium balloon in a vacuum chamber, it wont float up then.
Well we would need something stronger than a rubber balloon since it would just expand from the ratio of pressure inside vs outside of it.
This is why.

sokarul,
I believe Mr. Guerami was talking about the Earth's atmosphere. As we all know we don't live in a vacuum. Unless you guys believe we do now.

Yendor

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Mikey T. on June 23, 2015, 10:37:55 AM
Yes, the force of gravity lessens very slightly as you move away from the surface.  It is not linear.  But gravity is not what is in question with a helium balloon floating.  The rubber of the balloon and the mass of the helium is in fact attracted to the Earth, yet the pressure or density of the atmosphere is higher than the balloon filled with helium therefore it will float up through the atmosphere until it pops from low pressure, then the volume of the balloon is reduced but the mass of the rubber making up the balloon is the same.  It is no longer less dense than the surrounding atmosphere so it has nothing to float on and it will fall due to gravity. 
The atmosphere acts like a fluid, and it obeys fluid dynamics.  The less dense something is will rise to the top, until it reaches a layer that is less dense than it.  So it will not continue to float up and escape Earths gravity unless the atmosphere extended out forever at a density higher than the balloon, which it doesn't. 
Another thing is, that air pressure is a result of gravity also, the closer you get to the surface of the Earth the higher the pressure or density of the air is.  The same with water.  The further down below the surface of the water you go the higher the pressure.  The water above is pressing down on the water below, the same as the atmosphere.
I know JRowe thinks I am evading, but he is quite ignorant of many things so anything he doesn't understand is evasion in his mind.  He is completely irrelevant so pay him no mind please.  Also I do not work for the government modestman, I am not paid to give you information.  I speak to what is true, what I have learned, seen with my own eyes, and/or verified myself through math or experience. 
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 10:45:09 AM

Yendor you are very good example of honest man who wants to know the truth. round earther here market us some "truths" they are paid or career depends on it.
[/quote]

Modestman,

Thank you very much for saying that. I appreciate it. I didn't come here to fight and call people names if they don't agree with me. I know alot of that goes on here and I don't want to be part of it. I've always worked in other areas and never cared what the Earth was doing. Since I retired and found this site and started researching for some unknown reason I want to know everything about it and yes I'd like to find the truth even if it is little pieces at a time. Again thank You.

Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on June 23, 2015, 11:13:08 AM
1) Experimentally
One simple experiment shows there is no gravity. The Helium Balloon. It rises. How is this
possible? Classical Mechanics shows that Force equals the Constant of Gravity multiplied by the
Mass of Object 1 multiplied by the Mass of Object 2 divided by the Distance between the two
masses raised to the second power.
F=GM1M2/r^2
With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but
to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1.
F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force
that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the
helium is rising to meet its level of density.
Wow, yeah.  That's gravity debunked.

Oh, wait...hang on...what's this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy)
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 11:13:33 AM
Yes, the force of gravity lessens very slightly as you move away from the surface.  It is not linear.  But gravity is not what is in question with a helium balloon floating.  The rubber of the balloon and the mass of the helium is in fact attracted to the Earth, yet the pressure or density of the atmosphere is higher than the balloon filled with helium therefore it will float up through the atmosphere until it pops from low pressure, then the volume of the balloon is reduced but the mass of the rubber making up the balloon is the same.  It is no longer less dense than the surrounding atmosphere so it has nothing to float on and it will fall due to gravity. 
The atmosphere acts like a fluid, and it obeys fluid dynamics.  The less dense something is will rise to the top, until it reaches a layer that is less dense than it.  So it will not continue to float up and escape Earths gravity unless the atmosphere extended out forever at a density higher than the balloon, which it doesn't. 
Another thing is, that air pressure is a result of gravity also, the closer you get to the surface of the Earth the higher the pressure or density of the air is.  The same with water.  The further down below the surface of the water you go the higher the pressure.  The water above is pressing down on the water below, the same as the atmosphere.
I know JRowe thinks I am evading, but he is quite ignorant of many things so anything he doesn't understand is evasion in his mind.  He is completely irrelevant so pay him no mind please.  Also I do not work for the government modestman, I am not paid to give you information.  I speak to what is true, what I have learned, seen with my own eyes, and/or verified myself through math or experience. 

Mickey T.
So, you are saying that gravity, based on force equals the constant of gravity multiplied by the mass of the earth multiplied by the mass of the balloon divided by the distance between them raised to the second power would not be powerful enough to keep the balloon on the ground. Gravity keeps us on the ground why wouldn't it keep a little balloon filled with helium on the ground? We can even say instead of a balloon, let's say a little wooden box filled with helium.
Thanks,
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Mikey T. on June 23, 2015, 11:25:46 AM
Because the density of the balloon when filled with helium is lower than the atmosphere surrounding it by a good bit.  The same could be said for a balloon filled with carbon dioxide underwater (you know if you could blow a balloon up under water and release it.  It would float to the top rather quickly and then float on top of the water.  Or release an ice cube from your freezer underwater, it will float to the top since it contains air pockets, its density is less than the surrounding water and it will float up. 
So yes, gravity on such a small mass when the density is much lower would not overcome the tendancy to float to the lower density area.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 11:34:26 AM
1) Experimentally
One simple experiment shows there is no gravity. The Helium Balloon. It rises. How is this
possible? Classical Mechanics shows that Force equals the Constant of Gravity multiplied by the
Mass of Object 1 multiplied by the Mass of Object 2 divided by the Distance between the two
masses raised to the second power.
F=GM1M2/r^2
With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but
to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1.
F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force
that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the
helium is rising to meet its level of density.
Wow, yeah.  That's gravity debunked.

Oh, wait...hang on...what's this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy)

Jimmy,
I read wikipedia on Buoyancy and I believe understand how to works. Heck, I lived on a ship for five years and I have a swimming pool and I can float in it all day. For the life of me, I can't see what this has to do with gravity. I think it has to do weight an density of an object. I think they just threw in, "This can occur only in a reference frame which either has a gravitational field or is accelerating due to a force other than gravity", to make REers feel good. Keep trying, you're bound to get it right.

Thanks,
Yendor

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 11:51:13 AM
Because the density of the balloon when filled with helium is lower than the atmosphere surrounding it by a good bit.  The same could be said for a balloon filled with carbon dioxide underwater (you know if you could blow a balloon up under water and release it.  It would float to the top rather quickly and then float on top of the water.  Or release an ice cube from your freezer underwater, it will float to the top since it contains air pockets, its density is less than the surrounding water and it will float up. 
So yes, gravity on such a small mass when the density is much lower would not overcome the tendancy to float to the lower density area.

Mikey T.

I understand what you are telling me. I've seen balloons float away and ice cubes rise to the surface. But could you kindly work out the formula for me and show me the results of the earth's gravity pulling on a helium filled balloon that is 10" diameter. I haven't done much math for a long time. If you don't want to that's fine.

Thanks,
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 23, 2015, 12:06:01 PM
Yendor,

Here is something to think about,  go outside and  throw a rock as hard as you can and observe it's flight,   you will find the rock travels in a curved path,  that curve is called a parabola,  with slight corrections for wind resistance.   So why does the rock follow a parabolic path?

The answer is that all trajectories in a gravitational field are conic sections  ( you can look that up ) so the shape of the trajectory the rock follows is proof that the force acting on it are following the inverse square law.   That force is gravity.


Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 23, 2015, 12:21:13 PM
Yendor,

Here is something to think about,  go outside and  throw a rock as hard as you can and observe it's flight,   you will find the rock travels in a curved path,  that curve is called a parabola,  with slight corrections for wind resistance.   So why does the rock follow a parabolic path?

The answer is that all trajectories in a gravitational field are conic sections  ( you can look that up ) so the shape of the trajectory the rock follows is proof that the force acting on it are following the inverse square law.   That force is gravity.
deception.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 23, 2015, 12:22:44 PM
You see the phenomena than assemble according to the agenda the theory so common to the general deception.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 12:28:59 PM
Yendor,

Here is something to think about,  go outside and  throw a rock as hard as you can and observe it's flight,   you will find the rock travels in a curved path,  that curve is called a parabola,  with slight corrections for wind resistance.   So why does the rock follow a parabolic path?

The answer is that all trajectories in a gravitational field are conic sections  ( you can look that up ) so the shape of the trajectory the rock follows is proof that the force acting on it are following the inverse square law.   That force is gravity.




Rayzor,
I know you believe that, but really it is the atmospheric pressure of 15 psi pushing the rock down towards the ground. If the atmospheric pressure was to suddenly decrease in half, the rock would probably go twice as far. Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object. That's what i think.

Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: The Ellimist on June 23, 2015, 12:38:25 PM
As I become more indoctrinated in the FET,

You're not even trying man
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 12:38:53 PM
You see the phenomena than assemble according to the agenda the theory so common to the general deception.

Modestman,
Have you noticed the Big 'G' on the masonic symbol? Some people say it stands for gravity. You also must remember nine of the first twelve astronauts were masons. They displayed the mason apron when they landed on the moon, I mean sound stage. This says a lot to me.
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 23, 2015, 12:40:03 PM
Yendor,

Here is something to think about,  go outside and  throw a rock as hard as you can and observe it's flight,   you will find the rock travels in a curved path,  that curve is called a parabola,  with slight corrections for wind resistance.   So why does the rock follow a parabolic path?

The answer is that all trajectories in a gravitational field are conic sections  ( you can look that up ) so the shape of the trajectory the rock follows is proof that the force acting on it are following the inverse square law.   That force is gravity.




Rayzor,
I know you believe that, but really it is the atmospheric pressure of 15 psi pushing the rock down towards the ground. If the atmospheric pressure was to suddenly decrease in half, the rock would probably go twice as far. Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object. That's what i think.

Yendor

Prove it.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 12:41:58 PM
As I become more indoctrinated in the FET,

You're not even trying man

The Ellimist,
Give me a break man, I'm pedaling as fast as I can. Thanks for noticing though.
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on June 23, 2015, 12:48:24 PM
Have you noticed the Big 'G' on the masonic symbol? Some people say it stands for gravity. You also must remember nine of the first twelve astronauts were masons. They displayed the mason apron when they landed on the moon, I mean sound stage.
Now I think you are taking the piss.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 01:08:23 PM
Yendor,

Here is something to think about,  go outside and  throw a rock as hard as you can and observe it's flight,   you will find the rock travels in a curved path,  that curve is called a parabola,  with slight corrections for wind resistance.   So why does the rock follow a parabolic path?

The answer is that all trajectories in a gravitational field are conic sections  ( you can look that up ) so the shape of the trajectory the rock follows is proof that the force acting on it are following the inverse square law.   That force is gravity.




Rayzor,
I know you believe that, but really it is the atmospheric pressure of 15 psi pushing the rock down towards the ground. If the atmospheric pressure was to suddenly decrease in half, the rock would probably go twice as far. Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object. That's what i think.

Yendor

Prove it.


Rayzor,
Prove it. What, you don't believe in atmospheric pressure or it is not 14.7psi. Take a rock that weighs 15 pounds and throw it as far as you can. measure the distance. this rock will be 15 lbs. + the weight of the atmosphere. Now take another rock that weighs 30 lbs.  and through it as far as you can. measure that distance. The rock will be 30 lbs. + the weight of the atmosphere. I bet the 15 lb. rock will go further then the 30 lb rock. This is because you removed 15 lbs. from the rock that went further. The atmospheric pressure stayed the same. The only thing changed is the mass of the rocks. Again,  Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object.

Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: MikDaTv on June 23, 2015, 01:13:30 PM
You know what I like about you Yendor?  Your posts are formatted like little letters with a too line at the top and a from line at the bottom.  That really sets you apart from the other flat earth trolls.  It's like your brand.

Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 01:17:56 PM
Have you noticed the Big 'G' on the masonic symbol? Some people say it stands for gravity. You also must remember nine of the first twelve astronauts were masons. They displayed the mason apron when they landed on the moon, I mean sound stage.
Now I think you are taking the piss.

Jimmy,

Was that nice? You aren't a mason are you? If so, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. You should read some things about the masons. They are a strange group. Why do you think there were so many masons in the Apollo program? It is because this bunch will go to their grave keeping a secret. What bigger secret is there then not going to the moon. Trust me, these guys know a lot more then they let on. Have a good day!

Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 23, 2015, 01:20:23 PM
I think all the astronots are freemasons.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 01:28:56 PM
You know what I like about you Yendor?  Your posts are formatted like little letters with a too line at the top and a from line at the bottom.  That really sets you apart from the other flat earth trolls.  It's like your brand.

Keep up the good work.

MikDaTv,

How are you this very hot day? I can't go out side and work today because it is soooo hot. I was taught to kinda write this way. I hope you are being honest because I would not want to offend anyone. If I get many complaints I will stop it. For now this is how I roll. Also, I don't mind you calling me a troll. I think some are cute. Especially the ones with different color hair.
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 23, 2015, 01:39:59 PM

Rayzor,
Prove it. What, you don't believe in atmospheric pressure or it is not 14.7psi. Take a rock that weighs 15 pounds and throw it as far as you can. measure the distance. this rock will be 15 lbs. + the weight of the atmosphere. Now take another rock that weighs 30 lbs.  and through it as far as you can. measure that distance. The rock will be 30 lbs. + the weight of the atmosphere. I bet the 15 lb. rock will go further then the 30 lb rock. This is because you removed 15 lbs. from the rock that went further. The atmospheric pressure stayed the same. The only thing changed is the mass of the rocks. Again,  Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object.

Yendor

That doesn't explain the parabolic trajectory.   Ballistics is an old established science based on gravity not air pressure.   You haven't convinced me that it's not gravity.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 01:40:39 PM
I think all the astronots are freemasons.

modestman,

I don't know about all. I do know a lot are. I'm sure everyone in the Apollo program that was privy to the real truth had to be a freemason. I chuckle when I here that it would be impossible to fake the moon landing because it would involve thousands and thousands of people. I know that's not true. If you watch 'Capricorn One' movie, they show you a good bit how they could do it. It breaks my heart to think my country would do such a thing as fake the moon landing.
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 23, 2015, 01:41:01 PM

Rayzor,
Prove it. What, you don't believe in atmospheric pressure or it is not 14.7psi. Take a rock that weighs 15 pounds and throw it as far as you can. measure the distance. this rock will be 15 lbs. + the weight of the atmosphere. Now take another rock that weighs 30 lbs.  and through it as far as you can. measure that distance. The rock will be 30 lbs. + the weight of the atmosphere. I bet the 15 lb. rock will go further then the 30 lb rock. This is because you removed 15 lbs. from the rock that went further. The atmospheric pressure stayed the same. The only thing changed is the mass of the rocks. Again,  Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object.

Yendor

That doesn't explain the parabolic trajectory.   Ballistics is an old established science based on gravity not air pressure.   You haven't convinced me that it's not gravity.
Science - The art of deception - sorcery.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 23, 2015, 01:44:57 PM
I think all the astronots are freemasons.

modestman,

I don't know about all. I do know a lot are. I'm sure everyone in the Apollo program that was privy to the real truth had to be a freemason. I chuckle when I here that it would be impossible to fake the moon landing because it would involve thousands and thousands of people. I know that's not true. If you watch 'Capricorn One' movie, they show you a good bit how they could do it. It breaks my heart to think my country would do such a thing as fake the moon landing.
Yendor

Funny thing is they didn't fake it, it was all real..   you have been deceived by the conspiracy nutters,  who lie and distort, cherry pick facts out of context. 
You should talk to people who know the truth.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 23, 2015, 01:50:42 PM
I think all the astronots are freemasons.

modestman,

I don't know about all. I do know a lot are. I'm sure everyone in the Apollo program that was privy to the real truth had to be a freemason. I chuckle when I here that it would be impossible to fake the moon landing because it would involve thousands and thousands of people. I know that's not true. If you watch 'Capricorn One' movie, they show you a good bit how they could do it. It breaks my heart to think my country would do such a thing as fake the moon landing.
Yendor

Funny thing is they didn't fake it, it was all real..   you have been deceived by the conspiracy nutters,  who lie and distort, cherry pick facts out of context. 
You should talk to people who know the truth.
you are interested person no one believe you because you are marketer.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 23, 2015, 01:52:42 PM
Science - The art of deception - sorcery.

Deception and sorcery is the realm of the conspiracy people.   Science is about what's true and can be proven.   Shame your mind is closed to the beauty of the world.

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 23, 2015, 01:54:45 PM
Science - The art of deception - sorcery.

Deception and sorcery is the realm of the conspiracy people.   Science is about what's true and can be proven.   Shame your mind is closed to the beauty of the world.
Shame my English Is so bad I could shut your mouth with the proper words.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 23, 2015, 01:55:25 PM
you are interested person no one believe you because you are marketer.

Are you one of the conspiracy and lies people.   Do you believe in flat earth now,  because last time I asked you didn't believe anything.

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 23, 2015, 01:56:49 PM
Shame my English Is so bad I could shut your mouth with the proper words.

You resort to threats because you can't handle the truth,  you stay in your dark little suspicious world.

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 23, 2015, 01:58:49 PM
you are interested person no one believe you because you are marketer.

Are you one of the conspiracy and lies people.   Do you believe in flat earth now,  because last time I asked you didn't believe anything.
I changed my mind twice , and asked my self that maybe the earth is round , but then come the intuition that something in the world that is wrong , that change my mind back, science which I hate so much maintain my hatred to round earth , and I will always hope for flat earth because it much more reflect the nature of beauty and endlessly and god ruling over the world and as the world.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 23, 2015, 02:03:33 PM
you are interested person no one believe you because you are marketer.

Are you one of the conspiracy and lies people.   Do you believe in flat earth now,  because last time I asked you didn't believe anything.
I changed my mind twice , and asked my self that maybe the earth is round , but then come the intuition that something in the world that is wrong , that change my mind back, science which I hate so much maintain my hatred to round earth , and I will always hope for flat earth because it much more reflect the nature of beauty and endlessly and god ruling over the world and as the world.
Why do you hate science?   Do you only believe flat earth because you hate science so much?

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on June 23, 2015, 02:05:36 PM
People go on about conspiracy theorists trying to deceive people about the moon landings not being real and rockets not working in space, etc.
This is pretty silly because I'd be willing to bet that many people who question this stuff due to it having many holes in it, would love it all to be real.

I'd have loved to be able to go "wow" at a real moon landing or seeing a REAL huge rocket lift off into space with astronauts on board.

I'd love it if a star ship enterprise lookalike entered our atmosphere and brought video of itself coming in so we could see our own Earth as a spinning ball like we were told.

I would love all this to happen and also be shown all the other stuff to be true that we question.
It won't ever happen because it's all bullshit and we are left to try and figure it all out ourselves and have to simply use our own logic and common sense to actually see the bullshit at it's best and worst; some of it so blatant that a kid can see it; yet some of it is very clever and needs plenty of delving into.

Let them show us all it's all true, tomorrow and we can stop questioning. I'd be happy not to.
Seriously; are we going to be shown the truth as being the truth all along or will we be left to feed on scraps while paid people ( not on here, I mean in general) divert us away from the reality?

It's pretty obvious isn't it?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 02:15:33 PM

Rayzor,
Prove it. What, you don't believe in atmospheric pressure or it is not 14.7psi. Take a rock that weighs 15 pounds and throw it as far as you can. measure the distance. this rock will be 15 lbs. + the weight of the atmosphere. Now take another rock that weighs 30 lbs.  and through it as far as you can. measure that distance. The rock will be 30 lbs. + the weight of the atmosphere. I bet the 15 lb. rock will go further then the 30 lb rock. This is because you removed 15 lbs. from the rock that went further. The atmospheric pressure stayed the same. The only thing changed is the mass of the rocks. Again,  Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object.

Yendor

That doesn't explain the parabolic trajectory.   Ballistics is an old established science based on gravity not air pressure.   You haven't convinced me that it's not gravity.


Rayzor,

I know it says it is based on gravity alone, But trust me it isn't. Atmospheric pressure is a very real force. No one pays any attention to it because we begin to adjust for it from the time we are born. We hardly notice at all. That is why they say only gravity effects it, they simply take for granted every one realizes atmospheric pressure is a constant. If all of a sudden this pressure uent away we would be stumbling all over the place. So again, Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object.

Your second part

Why Rayzor, you still believe in the moon landings? There should be enough videos and articles out there to convince you it was all faked. I'm very surprised. The program for the LEM was written by a junior person fresh out of college. And guess what. It was never tested with hardware on the ground before they sent it to the moon. Can you believe it actually worked with only a few minor glitches that was quickly overcome. I've known a lot of programmers and I have written alot of programs too. I have never seen a program work flawlessly the first time it is run. Besides, would NASA risk losing everything if that program did not work correctly and the LEM crashed on the moon? I think not. I can go on an on about this, But it would only bore you.
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 23, 2015, 02:18:43 PM
People go on about conspiracy theorists trying to deceive people about the moon landings not being real and rockets not working in space, etc.
This is pretty silly because I'd be willing to bet that many people who question this stuff due to it having many holes in it, would love it all to be real.

I'd have loved to be able to go "wow" at a real moon landing or seeing a REAL huge rocket lift off into space with astronauts on board.

I'd love it if a star ship enterprise lookalike entered our atmosphere and brought video of itself coming in so we could see our own Earth as a spinning ball like we were told.

I would love all this to happen and also be shown all the other stuff to be true that we question.
It won't ever happen because it's all bullshit and we are left to try and figure it all out ourselves and have to simply use our own logic and common sense to actually see the bullshit at it's best and worst; some of it so blatant that a kid can see it; yet some of it is very clever and needs plenty of delving into.

Let them show us all it's all true, tomorrow and we can stop questioning. I'd be happy not to.
Seriously; are we going to be shown the truth as being the truth all along or will we be left to feed on scraps while paid people ( not on here, I mean in general) divert us away from the reality?

It's pretty obvious isn't it?

What about if they could set up a live video feed from the ISS in orbit, and make it available on the internet for anyone to watch any time day or night?   
I've explained to you personally how geostationary tv satellites can't be anywhere else other than in orbit where they are supposed to be.
The GPS system would simply not work without satellites being where they are supposed to be.

The truth is right in front of you, and clear as day.  Your mind is just locked into conspiracy mode. 
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 02:25:05 PM
People go on about conspiracy theorists trying to deceive people about the moon landings not being real and rockets not working in space, etc.
This is pretty silly because I'd be willing to bet that many people who question this stuff due to it having many holes in it, would love it all to be real.

I'd have loved to be able to go "wow" at a real moon landing or seeing a REAL huge rocket lift off into space with astronauts on board.

I'd love it if a star ship enterprise lookalike entered our atmosphere and brought video of itself coming in so we could see our own Earth as a spinning ball like we were told.

I would love all this to happen and also be shown all the other stuff to be true that we question.
It won't ever happen because it's all bullshit and we are left to try and figure it all out ourselves and have to simply use our own logic and common sense to actually see the bullshit at it's best and worst; some of it so blatant that a kid can see it; yet some of it is very clever and needs plenty of delving into.

Let them show us all it's all true, tomorrow and we can stop questioning. I'd be happy not to.
Seriously; are we going to be shown the truth as being the truth all along or will we be left to feed on scraps while paid people ( not on here, I mean in general) divert us away from the reality?

It's pretty obvious isn't it?

Sceptimatic, right on man!
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 23, 2015, 02:28:44 PM

Rayzor,
Prove it. What, you don't believe in atmospheric pressure or it is not 14.7psi. Take a rock that weighs 15 pounds and throw it as far as you can. measure the distance. this rock will be 15 lbs. + the weight of the atmosphere. Now take another rock that weighs 30 lbs.  and through it as far as you can. measure that distance. The rock will be 30 lbs. + the weight of the atmosphere. I bet the 15 lb. rock will go further then the 30 lb rock. This is because you removed 15 lbs. from the rock that went further. The atmospheric pressure stayed the same. The only thing changed is the mass of the rocks. Again,  Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object.

Yendor

That doesn't explain the parabolic trajectory.   Ballistics is an old established science based on gravity not air pressure.   You haven't convinced me that it's not gravity.


Rayzor,

I know it says it is based on gravity alone, But trust me it isn't. Atmospheric pressure is a very real force. No one pays any attention to it because we begin to adjust for it from the time we are born. We hardly notice at all. That is why they say only gravity effects it, they simply take for granted every one realizes atmospheric pressure is a constant. If all of a sudden this pressure uent away we would be stumbling all over the place. So again, Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object.

Your second part

Why Rayzor, you still believe in the moon landings? There should be enough videos and articles out there to convince you it was all faked. I'm very surprised. The program for the LEM was written by a junior person fresh out of college. And guess what. It was never tested with hardware on the ground before they sent it to the moon. Can you believe it actually worked with only a few minor glitches that was quickly overcome. I've known a lot of programmers and I have written alot of programs too. I have never seen a program work flawlessly the first time it is run. Besides, would NASA risk losing everything if that program did not work correctly and the LEM crashed on the moon? I think not. I can go on an on about this, But it would only bore you.
Yendor

What if they took high resolution images of all the Apollo landing sites, and showed that they really were there.   There is no question in my mind at all that the Apollo program was one of mankind's greatest achievments.   It took a decades worth of the best technical and scientific resources of the USA when it really was a superpower.  But they did it.
You should read and learn more of the facts about the Apollo program, not just take the lies and deception of the moon hoax nutters.   
If you truly believe it was faked,  then do me the courtesy of reading http://www.clavius.org/ (http://www.clavius.org/)   and also http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm (http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm) 

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 23, 2015, 02:31:28 PM

Rayzor,
Prove it. What, you don't believe in atmospheric pressure or it is not 14.7psi. Take a rock that weighs 15 pounds and throw it as far as you can. measure the distance. this rock will be 15 lbs. + the weight of the atmosphere. Now take another rock that weighs 30 lbs.  and through it as far as you can. measure that distance. The rock will be 30 lbs. + the weight of the atmosphere. I bet the 15 lb. rock will go further then the 30 lb rock. This is because you removed 15 lbs. from the rock that went further. The atmospheric pressure stayed the same. The only thing changed is the mass of the rocks. Again,  Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object.

Yendor

That doesn't explain the parabolic trajectory.   Ballistics is an old established science based on gravity not air pressure.   You haven't convinced me that it's not gravity.


Rayzor,

I know it says it is based on gravity alone, But trust me it isn't. Atmospheric pressure is a very real force. No one pays any attention to it because we begin to adjust for it from the time we are born. We hardly notice at all. That is why they say only gravity effects it, they simply take for granted every one realizes atmospheric pressure is a constant. If all of a sudden this pressure uent away we would be stumbling all over the place. So again, Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object.

Your second part

Why Rayzor, you still believe in the moon landings? There should be enough videos and articles out there to convince you it was all faked. I'm very surprised. The program for the LEM was written by a junior person fresh out of college. And guess what. It was never tested with hardware on the ground before they sent it to the moon. Can you believe it actually worked with only a few minor glitches that was quickly overcome. I've known a lot of programmers and I have written alot of programs too. I have never seen a program work flawlessly the first time it is run. Besides, would NASA risk losing everything if that program did not work correctly and the LEM crashed on the moon? I think not. I can go on an on about this, But it would only bore you.
Yendor

What if they took high resolution images of all the Apollo landing sites, and showed that they really were there.   There is no question in my mind at all that the Apollo program was one of mankind's greatest achievments.   It took a decades worth of the best technical and scientific resources of the USA when it really was a superpower.  But they did it.
You should read and learn more of the facts about the Apollo program, not just take the lies and deception of the moon hoax nutters.   
If you truly believe it was faked,  then do me the courtesy of reading http://www.clavius.org/ (http://www.clavius.org/)   and also http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm (http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm)
Marketing marketing, who was hiring you ?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Mainframes on June 23, 2015, 02:36:31 PM
Tensor - atmospheric pressure pushes in all directions equally not just down.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 23, 2015, 03:29:47 PM
Gravity pulls all things down, including air.  A helium balloon is lighter then air and it rises because the air around it is denser then the balloon.  Gravity pulls on the comparatively heavy air stronger then the light balloon, so the air goes down while the balloon goes up.

I suggest you don't listen to people who don't know physics even this simple, this is something I was taught in elementary school.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 04:38:46 PM

Rayzor,
Prove it. What, you don't believe in atmospheric pressure or it is not 14.7psi. Take a rock that weighs 15 pounds and throw it as far as you can. measure the distance. this rock will be 15 lbs. + the weight of the atmosphere. Now take another rock that weighs 30 lbs.  and through it as far as you can. measure that distance. The rock will be 30 lbs. + the weight of the atmosphere. I bet the 15 lb. rock will go further then the 30 lb rock. This is because you removed 15 lbs. from the rock that went further. The atmospheric pressure stayed the same. The only thing changed is the mass of the rocks. Again,  Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object.

Yendor

That doesn't explain the parabolic trajectory.   Ballistics is an old established science based on gravity not air pressure.   You haven't convinced me that it's not gravity.


Rayzor,

I know it says it is based on gravity alone, But trust me it isn't. Atmospheric pressure is a very real force. No one pays any attention to it because we begin to adjust for it from the time we are born. We hardly notice at all. That is why they say only gravity effects it, they simply take for granted every one realizes atmospheric pressure is a constant. If all of a sudden this pressure uent away we would be stumbling all over the place. So again, Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object.

Your second part

Why Rayzor, you still believe in the moon landings? There should be enough videos and articles out there to convince you it was all faked. I'm very surprised. The program for the LEM was written by a junior person fresh out of college. And guess what. It was never tested with hardware on the ground before they sent it to the moon. Can you believe it actually worked with only a few minor glitches that was quickly overcome. I've known a lot of programmers and I have written alot of programs too. I have never seen a program work flawlessly the first time it is run. Besides, would NASA risk losing everything if that program did not work correctly and the LEM crashed on the moon? I think not. I can go on an on about this, But it would only bore you.
Yendor

What if they took high resolution images of all the Apollo landing sites, and showed that they really were there.   There is no question in my mind at all that the Apollo program was one of mankind's greatest achievments.   It took a decades worth of the best technical and scientific resources of the USA when it really was a superpower.  But they did it.
You should read and learn more of the facts about the Apollo program, not just take the lies and deception of the moon hoax nutters.   
If you truly believe it was faked,  then do me the courtesy of reading http://www.clavius.org/ (http://www.clavius.org/)   and also http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm (http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm) 



Rayzor,
I will read over these sites when I get a chance. I have seen plenty of pictures of the of the men on the moon. answer just a few questions for me. How can the air conditioner they carried around with them work. How come the lander pads showed no dust on them. Surely the dust would have blown up on them when they landed. How come there are pictures of the Rover with no tracks coming or going. The tracks seem to indicate the Rover was just set there with a crane. How come they never shot good images of the Earth while they were going there. Didn't they think we would like to see the Earth from there vantage point? After all they were the only ones that has ever seen the Earth from their vantage point. The pictures they did take has proven to be fake. How come the Earth is so small looking out from the moon. It should be much larger. I could go on an on, but you believe it happened as I did long ago. I was in the second grade when the first rockets were launched. I believe it because I was extremely proud of my country for this accomplishment. Now I feel ashamed.
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on June 23, 2015, 05:22:53 PM
As I become more indoctrinated in the FET
Thanks for admitting that you are just being indoctrinated.  And that you have given up on thinking for yourself and are just taking the FE story for what it is.  Congratulations.

And also this
! No longer available (http://#)
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on June 23, 2015, 06:41:59 PM
Yendor,

Here is something to think about,  go outside and  throw a rock as hard as you can and observe it's flight,   you will find the rock travels in a curved path,  that curve is called a parabola,  with slight corrections for wind resistance.   So why does the rock follow a parabolic path?

The answer is that all trajectories in a gravitational field are conic sections  ( you can look that up ) so the shape of the trajectory the rock follows is proof that the force acting on it are following the inverse square law.   That force is gravity.




Rayzor,
I know you believe that, but really it is the atmospheric pressure of 15 psi pushing the rock down towards the ground. If the atmospheric pressure was to suddenly decrease in half, the rock would probably go twice as far. Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object. That's what i think.

Yendor

Prove it.


Rayzor,
Prove it. What, you don't believe in atmospheric pressure or it is not 14.7psi. Take a rock that weighs 15 pounds and throw it as far as you can. measure the distance. this rock will be 15 lbs. + the weight of the atmosphere. Now take another rock that weighs 30 lbs.  and through it as far as you can. measure that distance. The rock will be 30 lbs. + the weight of the atmosphere. I bet the 15 lb. rock will go further then the 30 lb rock. This is because you removed 15 lbs. from the rock that went further. The atmospheric pressure stayed the same. The only thing changed is the mass of the rocks. Again,  Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object.

Yendor
No, I already showed gravity is not air pressure.
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)

I'll wait for a response.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Steve-O on June 23, 2015, 07:13:44 PM
Boom.  Science. 
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 23, 2015, 10:00:43 PM
I will read over these sites when I get a chance. I have seen plenty of pictures of the of the men on the moon. answer just a few questions for me.
This is not the place for a debate,  my only advice, is to stop running with the conspiracy nutters and make up your own mind.

Quote
How can the air conditioner they carried around with them work.
Nickel porous plate sublimators are common enough in space,  here is a pdf of the Hamilton Life Support unit.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM15_Portable_Life_Support_System_ppP1-5.pdf (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM15_Portable_Life_Support_System_ppP1-5.pdf)

Quote
How come the lander pads showed no dust on them. Surely the dust would have blown up on them when they landed.
No Atmosphere,  I think,   you could research this one further yourself.   
Although with your no gravity thinking, it should just float away,  shouldn't it  there's no 14.7 psi atmosphere to push it down ;D   (sorry cheap shot)

Quote
How come there are pictures of the Rover with no tracks coming or going. The tracks seem to indicate the Rover was just set there with a crane.
http://www.clavius.org/rover2.html (http://www.clavius.org/rover2.html)

Quote
How come they never shot good images of the Earth while they were going there. Didn't they think we would like to see the Earth from there vantage point? After all they were the only ones that has ever seen the Earth from their vantage point.  The pictures they did take has proven to be fake.
They did take plenty of pictures,   Why would you fake it.
Those pictures were famous beyond belief,  you should read this book.   http://www.amazon.com/Earthrise-How-Man-First-Earth/dp/0300164033 (http://www.amazon.com/Earthrise-How-Man-First-Earth/dp/0300164033) 

This one is probably the most famous,  earth rise,  taken from the command module in lunar orbit.
(http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/0A2C232A-1E73-497D-BBC990D98F9AD53B.jpg)
I've seen where conspiracy nuts claim this picture as proof of fakery,  since the Apollo 11 landings were in the Sea Of Tranquility which always faces earth, so the picture must be faked.
My thought is that the conspiracy nutters deliberately lied about where the picture was taken from,  Bart Sibrel and others  would have known it was taken from the command module, and instead chose to lie, and mislead.

Quote
How come the Earth is so small looking out from the moon. It should be much larger.
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html (http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html)

Quote
I could go on an on, but you believe it happened as I did long ago. I was in the second grade when the first rockets were launched. I believe it because I was extremely proud of my country for this accomplishment. Now I feel ashamed.

And you should still be proud, the people who should be ashamed are the nutters like Bart Sibrel,  Ralph Rene,  That Rocketdyne guy ( forgot his name)  they have been proven to have lied and lied over and over,  making false claims with zero evidence,  blatant manipulative techniques.   One I recall,  was a Saturn V launch,  intercut with a fat guy on a deck chair drinking beer, and some starving african famine victims.  So blatantly manipulative it immediately makes you suspicious of their motivation.

All of the answers to your questions,  I found in less than 10 minutes,  you could have done the same, instead you chose to believe the lies. 


PS... Bill Kaysing,   was the Rocketdyne guy, he worked at Rocketdyne as a technical writer,  left Rocketdyne in 1963 for personal reasons.   He is widely regarded as the "father" of moon landing conspiracies,  he encouraged Ralph Rene to write the "NASA Mooned America"  book. 
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Dog on June 23, 2015, 10:22:02 PM
The reason anything moves is because of NET force. Basically the result of a combo of forces.

Everything on the surface feels the force of gravity. It's 9.8m/s^2.

Things that are less dense than their surroundings (e.g. foam in water, helium in air, etc.) will experience a buoyant force. It makes things "rise" because it's in the opposite direction of gravity, and it's stronger than gravity.

If your not a complete moron, that's all the explanation you need.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Mikey T. on June 24, 2015, 05:49:52 AM
Because the density of the balloon when filled with helium is lower than the atmosphere surrounding it by a good bit.  The same could be said for a balloon filled with carbon dioxide underwater (you know if you could blow a balloon up under water and release it.  It would float to the top rather quickly and then float on top of the water.  Or release an ice cube from your freezer underwater, it will float to the top since it contains air pockets, its density is less than the surrounding water and it will float up. 
So yes, gravity on such a small mass when the density is much lower would not overcome the tendency to float to the lower density area.

Mikey T.

I understand what you are telling me. I've seen balloons float away and ice cubes rise to the surface. But could you kindly work out the formula for me and show me the results of the earth's gravity pulling on a helium filled balloon that is 10" diameter. I haven't done much math for a long time. If you don't want to that's fine.

Thanks,
Yendor
Since I am at work I will not be able to do the math for you right now but the mass of the balloon vs the buoyancy in the air is what you need.  It depends on those factors.  Just saying a 10" balloon filled with helium really isn't enough per say.  If you want a close approximation of the forces at work you would need to know the mass of the empty balloon and the mass of the helium inside once filled to an appropriate level.  This would give you enough, with the mass of the Earth numbers to calculate the force of gravity on the balloon.  You would then need the buoyancy calculations for that volume of helium for air at sea level.  It's a bit of calculations and some research to do, so good luck and if I get a chance I will do the same and we can compare numbers.

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: spaceman spiff on June 24, 2015, 06:55:20 AM
Because the density of the balloon when filled with helium is lower than the atmosphere surrounding it by a good bit.  The same could be said for a balloon filled with carbon dioxide underwater (you know if you could blow a balloon up under water and release it.  It would float to the top rather quickly and then float on top of the water.  Or release an ice cube from your freezer underwater, it will float to the top since it contains air pockets, its density is less than the surrounding water and it will float up. 
So yes, gravity on such a small mass when the density is much lower would not overcome the tendency to float to the lower density area.

Mikey T.

I understand what you are telling me. I've seen balloons float away and ice cubes rise to the surface. But could you kindly work out the formula for me and show me the results of the earth's gravity pulling on a helium filled balloon that is 10" diameter. I haven't done much math for a long time. If you don't want to that's fine.

Thanks,
Yendor
Since I am at work I will not be able to do the math for you right now but the mass of the balloon vs the buoyancy in the air is what you need.  It depends on those factors.  Just saying a 10" balloon filled with helium really isn't enough per say.  If you want a close approximation of the forces at work you would need to know the mass of the empty balloon and the mass of the helium inside once filled to an appropriate level.  This would give you enough, with the mass of the Earth numbers to calculate the force of gravity on the balloon.  You would then need the buoyancy calculations for that volume of helium for air at sea level.  It's a bit of calculations and some research to do, so good luck and if I get a chance I will do the same and we can compare numbers.


This is easy. You can actually calculate the buoyant force from scratch, but I'll skip that and say that Fb=d*V*g, where d is the density of the fluid the object is immersed in, V is the volume displaced by said object and g is the gravitational constant. In this case, the only forces at work are gravity and buoyancy, so for an object to remain stationary (neither sink nor rise), the two must be equal
mg=d*V*g -> m=V*d. Any object with a mass greater than the mass of air for a same volume will sink, otherwise it will float. Let's take the example of the balloon (I will work in the metric system now, without changing the numbers; the results won't change). He has a density of 0.164 Kg/m3, and let's consider the balloon a sphere of radius 10cm.
Volume of the sphere=4/3 Pi*r3=4188 cm3. To get the mass of the He, just multiply it by the density (carefulwith the units) and you will get 0.686g. Add that to the mass of the balloon itself (let's say 2g), and the total mass is 2.686g
Now for the mass of air: at sea level and normal temperature, air has a density of 1.2 kg/m3. Multiply that by the volume and you get 5.02g
Since 5.02>2.686, the buoyant force is greater than the gravitational force, and the balloon will rise. The density of air is not constant with altitude, however, so at some point the two will equalize (if the rubber resists) and the balloon will be stationary.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Mikey T. on June 24, 2015, 07:02:25 AM
Thanks.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: spaceman spiff on June 24, 2015, 07:08:36 AM
Thanks.
There's even more you can do: given the difference in densities of He and air, you can calculate the volume you need to lift a specific mass.
1 m3 of He has 0.164 kg of mass, and the same amount of air has 1.2 kg; therefore, each cubic meter of He in a balloon can lift 1.2-0.164=1.036kg
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 07:46:23 AM
As I become more indoctrinated in the FET
Thanks for admitting that you are just being indoctrinated.  And that you have given up on thinking for yourself and are just taking the FE story for what it is.  Congratulations.

And also this
! No longer available (http://#)

BJ1234,

When you began learning physics you were being indoctrinated too. As far as the the video goes, if they kept pulling the air out i'm sure the balloon would have been sucked up into the tube. When they allowed air to reenter the chamber the Helium balloon was lighter or less dense then air an it began to rise. Have I stated something different some where?
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Mikey T. on June 24, 2015, 08:27:24 AM
I wish I could find a different video of a helium balloon in a vacuum chamber so it doesn't give the impression that it may be getting sucked up into the large tube at the top.  The main problem is that to get the surrounding pressure down far enough for the balloon to equalize enough for gravity to overpower the buoyancy, then the balloon will most likely pop or expand enough to fill most of the chamber due to the difference in pressure between inside and outside.

Here is an interesting one dealing with heavier than air gases.  Somewhat of the same principles are at play.  The more dense gas, which is clear has a boat made of aluminum foil floating on what looks like nothing in a fishtank. 

(http://)
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Dog on June 24, 2015, 08:49:08 AM
When you began learning physics you were being indoctrinated too.

Okay so you've never taken a physics class. Anybody who has ever taken engineering physics knows that you start with the most basic of principles. The force of your feet on the ground you can feel. Geometry. Observable phenomena. And then it builds from there, using logical/mathematical derivations and lab experiments.

NOWHERE in there is indoctrination.

.......okay maybe some of the advanced Quantum mechanics, that shit is voodoo haha
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 09:12:04 AM
Because the density of the balloon when filled with helium is lower than the atmosphere surrounding it by a good bit.  The same could be said for a balloon filled with carbon dioxide underwater (you know if you could blow a balloon up under water and release it.  It would float to the top rather quickly and then float on top of the water.  Or release an ice cube from your freezer underwater, it will float to the top since it contains air pockets, its density is less than the surrounding water and it will float up. 
So yes, gravity on such a small mass when the density is much lower would not overcome the tendency to float to the lower density area.

Mikey T.

I understand what you are telling me. I've seen balloons float away and ice cubes rise to the surface. But could you kindly work out the formula for me and show me the results of the earth's gravity pulling on a helium filled balloon that is 10" diameter. I haven't done much math for a long time. If you don't want to that's fine.

Thanks,
Yendor
Since I am at work I will not be able to do the math for you right now but the mass of the balloon vs the buoyancy in the air is what you need.  It depends on those factors.  Just saying a 10" balloon filled with helium really isn't enough per say.  If you want a close approximation of the forces at work you would need to know the mass of the empty balloon and the mass of the helium inside once filled to an appropriate level.  This would give you enough, with the mass of the Earth numbers to calculate the force of gravity on the balloon.  You would then need the buoyancy calculations for that volume of helium for air at sea level.  It's a bit of calculations and some research to do, so good luck and if I get a chance I will do the same and we can compare numbers.


This is easy. You can actually calculate the buoyant force from scratch, but I'll skip that and say that Fb=d*V*g, where d is the density of the fluid the object is immersed in, V is the volume displaced by said object and g is the gravitational constant. In this case, the only forces at work are gravity and buoyancy, so for an object to remain stationary (neither sink nor rise), the two must be equal
mg=d*V*g -> m=V*d. Any object with a mass greater than the mass of air for a same volume will sink, otherwise it will float. Let's take the example of the balloon (I will work in the metric system now, without changing the numbers; the results won't change). He has a density of 0.164 Kg/m3, and let's consider the balloon a sphere of radius 10cm.
Volume of the sphere=4/3 Pi*r3=4188 cm3. To get the mass of the He, just multiply it by the density (carefulwith the units) and you will get 0.686g. Add that to the mass of the balloon itself (let's say 2g), and the total mass is 2.686g
Now for the mass of air: at sea level and normal temperature, air has a density of 1.2 kg/m3. Multiply that by the volume and you get 5.02g
Since 5.02>2.686, the buoyant force is greater than the gravitational force, and the balloon will rise. The density of air is not constant with altitude, however, so at some point the two will equalize (if the rubber resists) and the balloon will be stationary.

spaceman spiff,

The author is talking about the mass of the Earth and the balloon filled with Helium.

His quote,"With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but
to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1.
F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force
that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the
helium is rising to meet its level of density."
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 24, 2015, 09:19:46 AM
I'm going to gamble, that understanding these lectures isn't beyond you.    Lesson 1 covers Newtonian Gravity,  if you can understand that,  then you might later want to advance to Einstein's General Relativity.

(http://)
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 09:27:10 AM
I wish I could find a different video of a helium balloon in a vacuum chamber so it doesn't give the impression that it may be getting sucked up into the large tube at the top.  The main problem is that to get the surrounding pressure down far enough for the balloon to equalize enough for gravity to overpower the buoyancy, then the balloon will most likely pop or expand enough to fill most of the chamber due to the difference in pressure between inside and outside.

Here is an interesting one dealing with heavier than air gases.  Somewhat of the same principles are at play.  The more dense gas, which is clear has a boat made of aluminum foil floating on what looks like nothing in a fishtank. 

(http://)

Mikey T.

I know how vacuum works. I've had to evacuate a lot of air out of things during my life. I know that when you pull air out the balloon will get larger because the air outside will be less dense then the air inside. If you keep pulling a vacuum evently the balloon would burst. What I meant on my last post to you was, when the balloon burst it would be sucked up into the vacuum hose.
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on June 24, 2015, 09:38:52 AM
So do you see why air is not responsible for gravity yet?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 09:47:42 AM
I'm going to gamble, that understanding these lectures isn't beyond you.    Lesson 1 covers Newtonian Gravity,  if you can understand that,  then you might later want to advance to Einstein's General Relativity.

(http://)


Rayzor,

Good afternoon to you. Before I watch any youtube videos, read this.

NEWTON’S THOUGHTS ON GRAVITY
Newtonian gravity theory assumes that gravity propagates instantaneously across empty space, i.e. it is believed to be a form of action at a distance. However, in a private letter Newton himself dismissed this idea:
That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.1
Newton periodically toyed with the idea of an all-pervading ether filling his ‘absolute space’, and thought that the cause of gravity must be a spiritual agency, which he understood to mean ‘God’.


Here is Tesla's thoughts on relativity. I think Tesla was the smartest of them all.


quote from Tesla:
"According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible."

From Einstein:
Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.
Albert Einstein

I've read a lot and watched many videos to know there are some bugs in the ointment. Someone is not telling the whole truth.
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on June 24, 2015, 09:56:49 AM
What do you think Gravity is and why different masses fall at the same rate?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 10:38:22 AM
What do you think Gravity is and why different masses fall at the same rate?

sokarul,
Good afternoon. I thing what we call gravity is the combination of:
A. Density of objects
B. Atmospheric pressure
c. Some kind of magnetic force

Different masses don't fall at the same rate. Heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects given enough distance for the heavier object to have enough time to gain enough speed to pass the smaller object.
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 10:44:10 AM
So do you see why air is not responsible for gravity yet?

sokarul,

Good afternoon. I still believe the atmosphere, density and maybe some kind of magnetic force. Is what we call gravity.
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: spaceman spiff on June 24, 2015, 10:46:06 AM
Because the density of the balloon when filled with helium is lower than the atmosphere surrounding it by a good bit.  The same could be said for a balloon filled with carbon dioxide underwater (you know if you could blow a balloon up under water and release it.  It would float to the top rather quickly and then float on top of the water.  Or release an ice cube from your freezer underwater, it will float to the top since it contains air pockets, its density is less than the surrounding water and it will float up. 
So yes, gravity on such a small mass when the density is much lower would not overcome the tendency to float to the lower density area.

Mikey T.

I understand what you are telling me. I've seen balloons float away and ice cubes rise to the surface. But could you kindly work out the formula for me and show me the results of the earth's gravity pulling on a helium filled balloon that is 10" diameter. I haven't done much math for a long time. If you don't want to that's fine.

Thanks,
Yendor
Since I am at work I will not be able to do the math for you right now but the mass of the balloon vs the buoyancy in the air is what you need.  It depends on those factors.  Just saying a 10" balloon filled with helium really isn't enough per say.  If you want a close approximation of the forces at work you would need to know the mass of the empty balloon and the mass of the helium inside once filled to an appropriate level.  This would give you enough, with the mass of the Earth numbers to calculate the force of gravity on the balloon.  You would then need the buoyancy calculations for that volume of helium for air at sea level.  It's a bit of calculations and some research to do, so good luck and if I get a chance I will do the same and we can compare numbers.


This is easy. You can actually calculate the buoyant force from scratch, but I'll skip that and say that Fb=d*V*g, where d is the density of the fluid the object is immersed in, V is the volume displaced by said object and g is the gravitational constant. In this case, the only forces at work are gravity and buoyancy, so for an object to remain stationary (neither sink nor rise), the two must be equal
mg=d*V*g -> m=V*d. Any object with a mass greater than the mass of air for a same volume will sink, otherwise it will float. Let's take the example of the balloon (I will work in the metric system now, without changing the numbers; the results won't change). He has a density of 0.164 Kg/m3, and let's consider the balloon a sphere of radius 10cm.
Volume of the sphere=4/3 Pi*r3=4188 cm3. To get the mass of the He, just multiply it by the density (carefulwith the units) and you will get 0.686g. Add that to the mass of the balloon itself (let's say 2g), and the total mass is 2.686g
Now for the mass of air: at sea level and normal temperature, air has a density of 1.2 kg/m3. Multiply that by the volume and you get 5.02g
Since 5.02>2.686, the buoyant force is greater than the gravitational force, and the balloon will rise. The density of air is not constant with altitude, however, so at some point the two will equalize (if the rubber resists) and the balloon will be stationary.

spaceman spiff,

The author is talking about the mass of the Earth and the balloon filled with Helium.

His quote,"With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but
to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1.
F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force
that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the
helium is rising to meet its level of density."
Yendor
You're confusing which force acts on which body.  Since we are interested only in the motion of the balloon, the fact that it exerts a force on earth is irrelevant. There are only 2 forces acting on the balloon: gravity and buoyancy, and that's all you need to calculate its motion.
And yes, the force on the balloon due to the earth has the same magnitude as the force on earth due to the balloon; Newton's 3rd law. The author is saying that the balloon would not rise if the force on earth due to the balloon is the same as the force on the balloon due to earth. These two forces are acting on two different bodies; the author apparently forgot that, or I didn't understand the quote
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 24, 2015, 10:54:24 AM
What do you think Gravity is and why different masses fall at the same rate?

sokarul,
Good afternoon. I thing what we call gravity is the combination of:
A. Density of objects
B. Atmospheric pressure
c. Some kind of magnetic force

Different masses don't fall at the same rate. Heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects given enough distance for the heavier object to have enough time to gain enough speed to pass the smaller object.
Yendor

If magnetism was involved then magnets would be effected differently by gravity and magnetic metals like Iron would be effected differently then non-magnetic metals like copper.  That doesn't happen.

The reason feathers usually fall slower then hammers is because of the air resistance to mass ratio, but in a vacuum all objects fall at the same rate.  Zero G planes are proof of this, they fly in a parabolic trajectory where they accelerate down at 9.8m/s2 and everything in them appears weightless because it's all falling at the same rate.  Air resistance is not a probelem since the air in the plane is not moving relative to the objects.

Some objects like balloons fall up because the buoyant force which is there because the air is heavier then the balloon and so the air goes down and the balloon goes up, kind of like what happens when you have a light person and a heavy person on a teeter toter.  Gravity is still trying to pull the balloon down but the buoyant force is stronger.

In a vacuum, hammers and feathers fall at the same rate.  This experiment has been replicated many times.  A local round earther (I can't remember who) actually did an experiment wcich proved that objects get heavier on lower pressures because the buoyant force is weaker.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 11:01:34 AM
Spaceman spiff,

I didn't give you enough information, I guess. Here is just one of the authors experiment to disprove gravity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several ways to disprove gravity.
1) Experimentally
One simple experiment shows there is no gravity. The Helium Balloon. It rises. How is this
possible? Classical Mechanics shows that Force equals the Constant of Gravity multiplied by the
Mass of Object 1 multiplied by the Mass of Object 2 divided by the Distance between the two
masses raised to the second power.
F=GM1M2/r^2
With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but
to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1.
F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force
that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the
helium is rising to meet its level of density.

Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on June 24, 2015, 11:12:21 AM
Heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects given enough distance for the heavier object to have enough time to gain enough speed to pass the smaller object.
Yendor
This is quite a claim  -do you have evidence to support this assertion?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 24, 2015, 11:13:06 AM

Different masses don't fall at the same rate. Heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects given enough distance for the heavier object to have enough time to gain enough speed to pass the smaller object.


Yes they do,  different mass objects fall at exactly the same rate in a uniform gravitational field.    This is what Galileo proved back the 1600's
If you take away air resistance,  a feather will fall at exactly the same rate as hundred pound block of steel.   

Galileo is supposed to have dropped different  things off the leaning tower of Pisa to prove it.

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 24, 2015, 11:16:29 AM
Spaceman spiff,

I didn't give you enough information, I guess. Here is just one of the authors experiment to disprove gravity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several ways to disprove gravity.
1) Experimentally
One simple experiment shows there is no gravity. The Helium Balloon. It rises. How is this
possible? Classical Mechanics shows that Force equals the Constant of Gravity multiplied by the
Mass of Object 1 multiplied by the Mass of Object 2 divided by the Distance between the two
masses raised to the second power.
F=GM1M2/r^2
With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but
to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1.
F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force
that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the
helium is rising to meet its level of density.

Yendor

With a helium balloon gravity is not the only force involved, there is also the buoyant force.  Gravity is also trying to pull down the air, and because it's heavier then the balloon the air goes down and the balloon goes up like two people on a teeter totter.  The buoyant force is proportional to the density of the air times the volume of the object times the force of gravity.  Mass is not a factor in buoyancy and it's the only factor in gravity, so with a small mass and a large volume like a helium balloon will be buoyant enough and light enough that the bouyant force is stronger then gravity, so the object floats up.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on June 24, 2015, 11:27:48 AM
So do you see why air is not responsible for gravity yet?

sokarul,

Good afternoon. I still believe the atmosphere, density and maybe some kind of magnetic force. Is what we call gravity.
Yendor

Then why didnt the experiment I do show a change in weight?
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 11:43:39 AM
What do you think Gravity is and why different masses fall at the same rate?

sokarul,
Good afternoon. I thing what we call gravity is the combination of:
A. Density of objects
B. Atmospheric pressure
c. Some kind of magnetic force

Different masses don't fall at the same rate. Heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects given enough distance for the heavier object to have enough time to gain enough speed to pass the smaller object.
Yendor

If magnetism was involved then magnets would be effected differently by gravity and magnetic metals like Iron would be effected differently then non-magnetic metals like copper.  That doesn't happen.

The reason feathers usually fall slower then hammers is because of the air resistance to mass ratio, but in a vacuum all objects fall at the same rate.  Zero G planes are proof of this, they fly in a parabolic trajectory where they accelerate down at 9.8m/s2 and everything in them appears weightless because it's all falling at the same rate.  Air resistance is not a probelem since the air in the plane is not moving relative to the objects.

Some objects like balloons fall up because the buoyant force which is there because the air is heavier then the balloon and so the air goes down and the balloon goes up, kind of like what happens when you have a light person and a heavy person on a teeter toter.  Gravity is still trying to pull the balloon down but the buoyant force is stronger.

In a vacuum, hammers and feathers fall at the same rate.  This experiment has been replicated many times.  A local round earther (I can't remember who) actually did an experiment wcich proved that objects get heavier on lower pressures because the buoyant force is weaker.

Hello mikeman,

I'm not talking about magnetism in the sense of the word. This is what I mean: Temperature/vertical magnetism of the Earth. Why does heavy than air smoke rise up against the lighter air molecules? Temperate reduces the magnet attraction/repulsion.

I don't consider Zero G planes a good simulation of gravity. It simply pulls the bottom out from the people on board. They are floating because they can't catch up with the floor of the plane and they probably use large fans to blow them up so they look like they are floating. It looks cool, but I don't think gravity would look like that in the real world. It would look like someone falling off a building. You would be wise not to believe everything NASA tells you.

I don't know if I can trust someone when they say they can pull enough vacuum so a hammer and a feather falls at the same rate. I believe I'd have to take part in that experiment to believe it.
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 24, 2015, 11:45:14 AM
What do you think Gravity is and why different masses fall at the same rate?

sokarul,
Good afternoon. I thing what we call gravity is the combination of:
A. Density of objects
B. Atmospheric pressure
c. Some kind of magnetic force

Different masses don't fall at the same rate. Heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects given enough distance for the heavier object to have enough time to gain enough speed to pass the smaller object.
Yendor

That post has all the indications of a blatant troll,   deliberately false and looney proposals,  phrased politely but classic trolling nonetheless.   He did it before with the spinning earth frames of reference thread, and he's shaping up to do it again.   So have fun Yendor.   I think you just overreached.

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 24, 2015, 12:00:29 PM
I'm not talking about magnetism in the sense of the word. This is what I mean: Temperature/vertical magnetism of the Earth. Why does heavy than air smoke rise up against the lighter air molecules? Temperate reduces the magnet attraction/repulsion.

That happens because all the heat makes the air expand and become less dense, so it rises and creates an updraft which carries smoke particles up with it.  Again, gravity is not the only force involved.  Temperature effects how fast things fall because it makes things expand and that makes the buoyant force stronger.

If your theory is right then who does ice, which is colder then water, float?  Mainstream science says that it's because water has the unique property of expanding when it freezes which makes ice lighter then water so the buoyant force makes it float.

I don't consider Zero G planes a good simulation of gravity. It simply pulls the bottom out from the people on board. They are floating because they can't catch up with the floor of the plane and they probably use large fans to blow them up so they look like they are floating. It looks cool, but I don't think gravity would look like that in the real world. It would look like someone falling off a building. You would be wise not to believe everything NASA tells you.

There are no fans beneath a zero G plane, just look at videos from them.

Also, it isn't just NASA that says that things fall at the same rate.  That was well known since the time of Galileo.

I don't know if I can trust someone when they say they can pull enough vacuum so a hammer and a feather falls at the same rate. I believe I'd have to take part in that experiment to believe it.
Yendor

Fair enough.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on June 24, 2015, 12:56:50 PM
So do you see why air is not responsible for gravity yet?

sokarul,

Good afternoon. I still believe the atmosphere, density and maybe some kind of magnetic force. Is what we call gravity.
Yendor

Then why didnt the experiment I do show a change in weight?
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)

Still waiting for a response.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on June 24, 2015, 01:00:41 PM
What do you think Gravity is and why different masses fall at the same rate?

sokarul,
Good afternoon. I thing what we call gravity is the combination of:
A. Density of objects
B. Atmospheric pressure
c. Some kind of magnetic force

Different masses don't fall at the same rate. Heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects given enough distance for the heavier object to have enough time to gain enough speed to pass the smaller object.
Yendor

That post has all the indications of a blatant troll,   deliberately false and looney proposals,  phrased politely but classic trolling nonetheless.   He did it before with the spinning earth frames of reference thread, and he's shaping up to do it again.   So have fun Yendor.   I think you just overreached.
I think he overreached with all the Masonic shit before.  Especially the Masonic "G" standing for gravity.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 01:59:06 PM
I'm not talking about magnetism in the sense of the word. This is what I mean: Temperature/vertical magnetism of the Earth. Why does heavy than air smoke rise up against the lighter air molecules? Temperate reduces the magnet attraction/repulsion.

That happens because all the heat makes the air expand and become less dense, so it rises and creates an updraft which carries smoke particles up with it.  Again, gravity is not the only force involved.  Temperature effects how fast things fall because it makes things expand and that makes the buoyant force stronger.

If your theory is right then who does ice, which is colder then water, float?  Mainstream science says that it's because water has the unique property of expanding when it freezes which makes ice lighter then water so the buoyant force makes it float.

I don't consider Zero G planes a good simulation of gravity. It simply pulls the bottom out from the people on board. They are floating because they can't catch up with the floor of the plane and they probably use large fans to blow them up so they look like they are floating. It looks cool, but I don't think gravity would look like that in the real world. It would look like someone falling off a building. You would be wise not to believe everything NASA tells you.

There are no fans beneath a zero G plane, just look at videos from them.

Also, it isn't just NASA that says that things fall at the same rate.  That was well known since the time of Galileo.

I don't know if I can trust someone when they say they can pull enough vacuum so a hammer and a feather falls at the same rate. I believe I'd have to take part in that experiment to believe it.
Yendor

Fair enough.

Mikeman,

Aristotle was correct in claiming that heavier objects fall faster (in air or any other dense medium).

Do you really believe those guys are twirling around like that simply because the plane takes a dive. Do you think the same thing would happen if you were on an elevator and the cable broke and you went down like a bat out of h-ll. I bet the ceiling would come down to meet you.

Yendor 
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 24, 2015, 02:11:35 PM
Yendor, listen up, Aristotle is probably a Renaissance Scientist or philosopher who invented the era and the character of Aristotle, ancient Greece is a hoax.
Fomenko is not a truly devoted to seek the truth but I believe history is a hoax.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 02:27:58 PM
What do you think Gravity is and why different masses fall at the same rate?

sokarul,
Good afternoon. I thing what we call gravity is the combination of:
A. Density of objects
B. Atmospheric pressure
c. Some kind of magnetic force

Different masses don't fall at the same rate. Heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects given enough distance for the heavier object to have enough time to gain enough speed to pass the smaller object.
Yendor

That post has all the indications of a blatant troll,   deliberately false and looney proposals,  phrased politely but classic trolling nonetheless.   He did it before with the spinning earth frames of reference thread, and he's shaping up to do it again.   So have fun Yendor.   I think you just overreached.



Rayzor,

And I thought we were being cordial towards each other and then you had to go and call me a blatant troll no less,(the ones with different color hair are cute though).  I'm not really sure what is meant by being a troll on here. If I have been doing it I'm truly sorry. My post was an excerpt from the work someone else did. I was only trying to answer questions that everyone was throwing an me in between working on a job outside. I know you guys are smart as h_ll when it comes to this stuff, It's blatantly obvious. I'm just spouting off stuff I've read trying to keep my head above the water. It is hard when I'm being attacked by so many REers at once. When I made the statement I now believe FEers are right, I made no claims I was now an expert and I now everything about the flat Earth. I certainly don't. Now I don't care If people call me names or not, I can get over that. I'm not a kid, I'm all grown up. I'm not like that Astronaut who wanted to punch that guy in the face because he simply wanted for him to put his hand on the Bible and swear he went to the moon. I don't see any thing wrong with that. I would have done that without any hesitation. If he did go to the moon, whats the big deal.

Here is the bottom line, if you guys think I'm only trolling you and you think I'm just here trying to be dumb, Then please don't respond to anymore of my posts and I will simply go away.
Thanks,
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 02:37:06 PM
Yendor, listen up, Aristotle is probably a Renaissance Scientist or philosopher who invented the era and the character of Aristotle, ancient Greece is a hoax.
Fomenko is not a truly devoted to seek the truth but I believe history is a hoax.

modestman,

I guess I still have a friend in you. I had never heard anyone say that history is a hoax before. That's interesting. I've never heard of Fomenko before either. I need to study this kind of stuff more. Thanks,
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 24, 2015, 02:39:40 PM
Yendor, listen up, Aristotle is probably a Renaissance Scientist or philosopher who invented the era and the character of Aristotle, ancient Greece is a hoax.
Fomenko is not a truly devoted to seek the truth but I believe history is a hoax.

modestman,

I guess I still have a friend in you. I had never heard anyone say that history is a hoax before. That's interesting. I've never heard of Fomenko before either. I need to study this kind of stuff more. Thanks,
Yendor
Yes we are friends, if rayzor will become Flat earther he will be my friend as well.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 24, 2015, 03:00:37 PM
Mikeman,

Aristotle was correct in claiming that heavier objects fall faster (in air or any other dense medium).

Do you really believe those guys are twirling around like that simply because the plane takes a dive. Do you think the same thing would happen if you were on an elevator and the cable broke and you went down like a bat out of h-ll. I bet the ceiling would come down to meet you.

Yendor

You could actually do an experiment to test this for yourself.  Take two objects with the same shape, the same density, and different sizes.  This is important because it ensures that the buoyant force is not a factor.  Then you drop these objects from a balcony or some other high place and then watch to see which one hits first or if they hit at the same time.  I would recommend using rocks as they all have roughly the same density and it's easy to find some of different sizes.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on June 24, 2015, 03:41:17 PM
It is clear by the continued ignoring of my videos that Yendor is sceptic. No one else is really so dumb that they think gravity is air pressue. Reported.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 04:20:12 PM
It is clear by the continued ignoring of my videos that Yendor is sceptic. No one else is really so dumb that they think gravity is air pressue. Reported.

sokarul,

I'm sorry I did not watch your videos today. I've been so busy today I didn't get a chance. I will watch them now and in the morning. They aren't tool long are they? I'm truly not worthy of the honor you've bestowed upon me by calling me sceptic. He is definitely someone I have great respect for.
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 04:55:57 PM
Mikeman,

Aristotle was correct in claiming that heavier objects fall faster (in air or any other dense medium).

Do you really believe those guys are twirling around like that simply because the plane takes a dive. Do you think the same thing would happen if you were on an elevator and the cable broke and you went down like a bat out of h-ll. I bet the ceiling would come down to meet you.

Yendor

You could actually do an experiment to test this for yourself.  Take two objects with the same shape, the same density, and different sizes.  This is important because it ensures that the buoyant force is not a factor.  Then you drop these objects from a balcony or some other high place and then watch to see which one hits first or if they hit at the same time.  I would recommend using rocks as they all have roughly the same density and it's easy to find some of different sizes.

Mikeman,

What, you don't believe me when I said, "Aristotle was correct in claiming that heavier objects fall faster (in air or any other dense medium)." I don't actually have a high enough platform to do the test. I think if you drop the objects from an airplane the heavier object would hit the ground sooner. However, I don't have an air plane either. You don't think i'm a troll do you? that is such a nasty thing.
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 05:24:09 PM
It is clear by the continued ignoring of my videos that Yendor is sceptic. No one else is really so dumb that they think gravity is air pressue. Reported.

sokarul,

I just finished watching your videos and I'm not to sure what you are showing me. I could trad the gauges on the second video pretty well.

1. When the metal object was placed on the scale, just before you covered it I could read 99960.
2. After you quit pumping, just before you removed the hose I could read 99890
3. When you removed the cover the last number I could read was 99830

Are you saying an object gets lighter after you vacuum it? Also, did you ever think that the vacuum may have some effect on the load cells in your scale. You should try that and see. Get back with me tomorrow and we can discuss this further. I have to go now.
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 24, 2015, 06:16:14 PM
Mikeman,

What, you don't believe me when I said, "Aristotle was correct in claiming that heavier objects fall faster (in air or any other dense medium)." I don't actually have a high enough platform to do the test. I think if you drop the objects from an airplane the heavier object would hit the ground sooner. However, I don't have an air plane either. You don't think i'm a troll do you? that is such a nasty thing.
Yendor

Aristotle's claim was just that: a claim.  He did no experiments to back it up, he just thought it made sense.

I am assuming you believe that an object that's twice as heavy as a smaller object will fall twice as fast, in which case you don't even need to be that high.  You could just use a ladder or even just hold the rocks as high as you can.  It can take a rock nearly a second to fall when dropped from as high as you can hold it according to gravity, so if one of them fell at a different speed it should be fairly obvious.  The most useful way I know to see if both rocks hit at the same time is to listen, if you can hear only one thump as the rocks hit the ground they fell at the same rate and if you hear two thumps one of them fell faster.  The larger one will create a louder thump os you can easily tell which one hit first if they fall at different speeds.  To be  completely fair I will do this experiment too.

By the way, I don't think you are a troll.  I just don't believe in Aristotle's model.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 24, 2015, 06:27:06 PM
I just got back from doing the falling object experiment.  I took a big brick I could barely hold up with one hand and a tiny brick fragment no bigger then my phone, the brick was easily 100 times heavier then the tiny fragment.  I know that they were the same density because they were made of the same material.  I dropped them both at the same time from as high as I could hold them and they both hit the ground at the same time, and I repeated it 2 more times with the same result.

If you don't believe me, the experiment is easy to repeat as all good scientific experiments should be.  Feel free to do it yourself.

Here is something else you could do to prove that all objects fall at the same rate, and even if you were not trying to prove anything I would recommend this anyway because it's really fun.  Go on to a trampoline and bring an object with you, then jump and release the object.  While you are in the air, the object will appear to float in front of you weightlessly because you and that object are both falling at the same rate.  It's especially fin to do it with water and watch it form into little round blobs just like what happens in space.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Dog on June 24, 2015, 06:59:06 PM
Yendor, listen up, Aristotle is probably a Renaissance Scientist or philosopher who invented the era and the character of Aristotle, ancient Greece is a hoax.
Fomenko is not a truly devoted to seek the truth but I believe history is a hoax.

modestman,

I guess I still have a friend in you. I had never heard anyone say that history is a hoax before. That's interesting. I've never heard of Fomenko before either. I need to study this kind of stuff more. Thanks,
Yendor

Ah so you really are just a troll. Got it.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 25, 2015, 06:09:07 AM
Yendor, listen up, Aristotle is probably a Renaissance Scientist or philosopher who invented the era and the character of Aristotle, ancient Greece is a hoax.
Fomenko is not a truly devoted to seek the truth but I believe history is a hoax.

modestman,

I guess I still have a friend in you. I had never heard anyone say that history is a hoax before. That's interesting. I've never heard of Fomenko before either. I need to study this kind of stuff more. Thanks,
Yendor

Ah so you really are just a troll. Got it.

Dog,

Please tell me, what is a troll? Then I will tell you if I am one.
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 25, 2015, 06:26:30 AM
Mikeman,

What, you don't believe me when I said, "Aristotle was correct in claiming that heavier objects fall faster (in air or any other dense medium)." I don't actually have a high enough platform to do the test. I think if you drop the objects from an airplane the heavier object would hit the ground sooner. However, I don't have an air plane either. You don't think i'm a troll do you? that is such a nasty thing.
Yendor


I am assuming you believe that an object that's twice as heavy as a smaller object will fall twice as fast, in which case you don't even need to be that high.  You could just use a ladder or even just hold the rocks as high as you can.  It can take a rock nearly a second to fall when dropped from as high as you can hold it according to gravity, so if one of them fell at a different speed it should be fairly obvious.  The most useful way I know to see if both rocks hit at the same time is to listen, if you can hear only one thump as the rocks hit the ground they fell at the same rate and if you hear two thumps one of them fell faster.  The larger one will create a louder thump os you can easily tell which one hit first if they fall at different speeds.  To be  completely fair I will do this experiment too.

By the way, I don't think you are a troll.  I just don't believe in Aristotle's model.


Mikeman,

Thanks for not calling me a troll, I guess. I'm trying to get Dog to explain what a troll means on here. I don't think it is a good thing though.

I appreciate you doing the experiment, but I've read several places that if the objects are high enough the heavier one will overtake the lighter one.

Here is a portion of one article I'm referring to:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aristotle was correct in claiming that heavier objects fall faster (in air or any other dense medium anyway), but his claim that an object's rate of fall is proportional to its weight was incorrect. Furthermore he was right to suggest that the rate of fall was slower in more dense media, but his claim that the rate of fall was inversely proportional to the density of the medium was not correct.

 
Finally, if two objects have similar masses but different densities and sizes, it is possible that at the beginning the denser one will fall faster, but if it is small enough, its terminal velocity may be lower, allowing the less dense object to eventually overtake it.

Here is the link to the whole article:
http://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/Maple/view.aspx?path=MathApps%2FTheFallingBodiesExperiment (http://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/Maple/view.aspx?path=MathApps%2FTheFallingBodiesExperiment)

Yendor

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Mainframes on June 25, 2015, 07:57:00 AM
Once again Yendor we need to point out the gravity is only one of several forces that can act on a body.

The acceleration due to gravity is constant for any given mass at a given height; yes, gravity does decrease slightly with height but for most purposes this is negligible.

The other forces that will act on a falling body will be things like:

Buoyancy - this is a force that will push up or down dependent upon the average density of an object compared to the density of the medium it is surrounded by. For example a balloon full of air will drop in air but float in water.

Friction - an object will create drag in the opposite direction to travel dependent upon its shape, surface area to volume ratio, rotation etc. Eg a downy feather has a very high surface area to volume ratio and creates a huge amount of drag. This is why feathers drop very slowly compared to an object of identical mass but different shape such as a small ball bearing.

Lift - Certain objects will generate lift from a variety of different methods. Eg an aircraft wing generates lift when moving forward through air due to the Bernoulli principle.

The net effect of all these forces will determine direction of acceleration, terminal velocity (all forces match to zero) and tumble.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on June 25, 2015, 09:06:57 AM
It is clear by the continued ignoring of my videos that Yendor is sceptic. No one else is really so dumb that they think gravity is air pressue. Reported.

sokarul,

I just finished watching your videos and I'm not to sure what you are showing me. I could trad the gauges on the second video pretty well.

1. When the metal object was placed on the scale, just before you covered it I could read 99960.
2. After you quit pumping, just before you removed the hose I could read 99890
3. When you removed the cover the last number I could read was 99830

Are you saying an object gets lighter after you vacuum it? Also, did you ever think that the vacuum may have some effect on the load cells in your scale. You should try that and see. Get back with me tomorrow and we can discuss this further. I have to go now.
Yendor
The scale is a cheap $40 one. I do think the vacuum had an effect on it. It's the reading changes you listed. That is why they didn't change when sit was reintroduced. None the less, the vacuum pulled in the desiccator videos was around -16 psi indicated. (Wouldn't really be that low) even if I only pulled half of atmospheric pressure out there was no significant change.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Mikey T. on June 25, 2015, 09:23:49 AM
Interesting question about the different densities there though.
Using m for mass, D for density and V for volume, F for the force of gravity, G for the gravitational constant, d for the distance from the center between the objects.
I will use an image for the formula for the gravitational force of the two objects.
(http://images.tutorvista.com/cms/formulaimages/83/gravity-formula-image.PNG)
and this for involving the density.
m = DV
I think the surface gravity, which you replace the distance with the radius of the object (distance from the surface to the center) to get that, would be the thing that would have to do with density since it would reduce what you divide by when you increase density keeping the same mass because the volume would have to reduce.  This would make the radius smaller increasing the force.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSB4iRxFW5DWxatUOhSnM0Aa0riM2geWGKA8hM4FnMfZy18yRg0)
Thats a little confusing there so basically to increase the density of an object and keep the mass the same size, the volume must be reduced.  If the volume is reduced, then the distance to the center is reduced.  If that distance is reduced then the force will increase.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 25, 2015, 03:20:17 PM
Mikeman,

Please visit these couple of sites when you get a chance. They talk about things falling.

http://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/1816/was-aristotle-really-wrong-about-gravity (http://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/1816/was-aristotle-really-wrong-about-gravity)

http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/8/2/006/pdf/0143-0807_8_2_006.pdf (http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/8/2/006/pdf/0143-0807_8_2_006.pdf)

Just thought you may be interested.

Thanks,
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 25, 2015, 05:19:01 PM
This is not the place for a debate,  my only advice, is to stop running with the conspiracy nutters and make up your own mind.

???  This is the debate forum.  What else are we supposed to do here?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 25, 2015, 11:44:06 PM
Mikeman,

Please visit these couple of sites when you get a chance. They talk about things falling.

http://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/1816/was-aristotle-really-wrong-about-gravity (http://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/1816/was-aristotle-really-wrong-about-gravity)

http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/8/2/006/pdf/0143-0807_8_2_006.pdf (http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/8/2/006/pdf/0143-0807_8_2_006.pdf)

Just thought you may be interested.

Thanks,
Yendor

I couldn't access one if the articles for some reason and the other one stated that dropping objects caused the Earth to move up making the objects take less time to fall.  That is not incorrect, the Moon gravitationally attracting towards the Earth caused the Earth to wobble around a fair bit because the Earth is also falling towards the Moon.  The thing is: this effect is so incredibly unimaginably small that you can ignore it.  Imagine how many of the object you are dropping it would take to make up the entire Earth, and then divide the distance the object falls by that number.  That's how little the Earth moves.  Even if you were to take everyone on Earth, make them stand as close to get her as possible, and have them all jump at once the Earth would only go down and up about a hundredth the width of a hydrogen atom.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 26, 2015, 12:12:57 AM
This is not the place for a debate,  my only advice, is to stop running with the conspiracy nutters and make up your own mind.

???  This is the debate forum.  What else are we supposed to do here?

Drink beer, watch football?   

Debating the moon landings with Rodney (aka Yendor) would have been interesting, since I think he's as hardcore looney as sceptimatic  ( not that there's anything wrong with that!)  but even I would have considered it derailing.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 26, 2015, 12:18:39 AM
This is not the place for a debate,  my only advice, is to stop running with the conspiracy nutters and make up your own mind.

???  This is the debate forum.  What else are we supposed to do here?

Drink beer, watch football?   

Debating the moon landings with Rodney (aka Yendor) would have been interesting, since I think he's as hardcore looney as sceptimatic  ( not that there's anything wrong with that!)  but even I would have considered it derailing.


I am not sure what you are talking about, although I do not get to be on here as much as I would like.  However, I would have booted Yaakov long time ago, and his alt EJ, if I could have.  I am just waiting for one more rule violation. 
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Mikey T. on June 26, 2015, 06:20:23 AM
Wait are you saying Yaak and EJ are the same person?  I guess that makes some sense since they mainly argue with each other.  While I am not sure of EJ being Yaakov's alt or not, EJ is definitely intentionally misspelling things and stating things that would incite arguments like the racial thing.  The incorrect grammar, misspelled words, and general failed flow of what he says seems too forced to be real.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 26, 2015, 08:56:46 AM
Mikeman,

I think this is the article you could not open:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aristotle was right: heavier objects fall faster
J F Donoghue and B R Holstein
Show affiliations
J F Donoghue and B R Holstein 1987 Eur. J. Phys. 8 105. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/8/2/006

Abstract
According to the weak form of the equivalence principle all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. However, recent calculations in finite-temperature quantum field theory have revealed that at T>0 heavier and/or colder objects actually fall faster than their lighter and/or warmer counterparts. This unexpected result is demonstrated using elementary quantum mechanical arguments.

Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on June 26, 2015, 09:13:35 AM
That's simply the abstract. It says "quantum" and calculations". I don't think the actual article says what you think it says.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 26, 2015, 09:22:22 AM
Mikeman,

I think this is the article you could not open:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aristotle was right: heavier objects fall faster
J F Donoghue and B R Holstein
Show affiliations
J F Donoghue and B R Holstein 1987 Eur. J. Phys. 8 105. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/8/2/006

Abstract
According to the weak form of the equivalence principle all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. However, recent calculations in finite-temperature quantum field theory have revealed that at T>0 heavier and/or colder objects actually fall faster than their lighter and/or warmer counterparts. This unexpected result is demonstrated using elementary quantum mechanical arguments.

Yendor

You are no doubt aware that the area he publishes in ,  ie quantum gravity,  is solidly based  in General Relativity,  and thus Newtonian gravity.    F=ma,  or Galileo would have said F= -mg
Acceleration due to gravity is constant,  Force due to gravity is not,  it depends on the mass.  So different masses accelerate at the same rate in a uniform gravitational field.  Aristotle was wrong.

I should also add that efforts like his to combine General Relativity with the Standard Model,  are many and varied.  No clear winner has yet emerged,  he seems to like M-theory.

 
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 26, 2015, 10:18:14 AM
Mikeman,

I think this is the article you could not open:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aristotle was right: heavier objects fall faster
J F Donoghue and B R Holstein
Show affiliations
J F Donoghue and B R Holstein 1987 Eur. J. Phys. 8 105. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/8/2/006

Abstract
According to the weak form of the equivalence principle all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. However, recent calculations in finite-temperature quantum field theory have revealed that at T>0 heavier and/or colder objects actually fall faster than their lighter and/or warmer counterparts. This unexpected result is demonstrated using elementary quantum mechanical arguments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is another article I'd like you to read. It is the reason I told you that if you drop the two objects high enough, the heavier one will hit the ground first. That is when I said if you dropped them from a plane the heavier one would hit the ground first. The internet is full of these kind of examples.

------------------------------------------------
Do heavy things fall faster than lighter things?

By Ros Boz

If there is air resistance - yes. if there is no air resistance - no. All objects fall at the same rate on planet earth.
Gravity will act with equal force on all objects, but shape, size and weight will make the air they're falling through brake different objects in different amounts. Something small, dense and slick will push through the air easier than something big, fluffy and porous. With different amounts of air drag the speed at which they fall will be different too. For example: if you dropped a bowling ball at the same time you dropped a tennis ball, they would hit the ground at exactly the same time. this is because they are both the same shape and they are both on planet earth where all things fall as a result of gravity at the same rate, 9.8 meters per 1 second.

No, it's just that at low speeds (like the speed of something that's just dropped a meter or two) the braking force exerted by air drag is fairly small, so the difference in speed between the tennis ball and the bowling ball will be small too. But with accurate enough equipment, or a high enough fall the difference will begin to show. Besides, the tennis ball is hollow and the bowling ball is solid, so despite the shape being the same the bowling ball will be denser and fall faster.

Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 26, 2015, 10:27:07 AM
Acceleration due to gravity is constant,  Force due to gravity is not,  it depends on the mass.

I better explain this in case Yendor doesn't understand it.

If an object has twice as much mass, it needs twice as much force to accelerate it.  Gravity imparts twice as much force as an object twice as large, and that object takes twice as much force to accelerate, therefore it will accelerate at the same rate as any other object with any amount of mass.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 26, 2015, 10:27:49 AM
That's simply the abstract. It says "quantum" and calculations". I don't think the actual article says what you think it says.

sokarul,

I know, it was kinda joke between mikeman and me. He had mentioned before about quantum mechanics, Basically it was all screwed up.

Below is another article if you care to read it. I can find many examples of this on the internet. I had expressed to mikeman that if objects were dropped from an airplane, the heavier one would hit the ground first. This article says this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do heavy things fall faster than lighter things?

By Ros Boz

If there is air resistance - yes. if there is no air resistance - no. All objects fall at the same rate on planet earth.
Gravity will act with equal force on all objects, but shape, size and weight will make the air they're falling through brake different objects in different amounts. Something small, dense and slick will push through the air easier than something big, fluffy and porous. With different amounts of air drag the speed at which they fall will be different too. For example: if you dropped a bowling ball at the same time you dropped a tennis ball, they would hit the ground at exactly the same time. this is because they are both the same shape and they are both on planet earth where all things fall as a result of gravity at the same rate, 9.8 meters per 1 second.

No, it's just that at low speeds (like the speed of something that's just dropped a meter or two) the braking force exerted by air drag is fairly small, so the difference in speed between the tennis ball and the bowling ball will be small too. But with accurate enough equipment, or a high enough fall the difference will begin to show. Besides, the tennis ball is hollow and the bowling ball is solid, so despite the shape being the same the bowling ball will be denser and fall faster.


Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on June 26, 2015, 10:39:19 AM
"if there is air resistance - yes. if there is no air resistance - no. All objects fall at the same rate on planet earth."
Nobody claimed otherwise. We are talking about things falling in a vacuum.

Furthermore as my videos show, no change in weight when a vacuum is applied.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 26, 2015, 10:55:02 AM
Hey Yendor, I noticed you use horizontal rules a lot and you do them like this:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But did you know that the forum has an official horizontal rule tag?
Here it is:



The option to make them is right next to the list tags in the formatting section.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on June 26, 2015, 10:57:56 AM
What is pushed up by a force must also fall with equal reactive force. It's easier to carry a tennis ball up a skyscraper. It would be hard to carry a bowling ball up a skyscraper. Assuming walking up steps.
Once at the top, if you drop both balls, you will notice that the bowling ball falls much faster.
The reason for this is simple if people cared to look at it. The bowling ball is much more dense and can repel much more ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE upon it than the tennis ball which is filled with sea level atmospheric pressure to start with so most of it is already part of the atmosphere and all that is repelling the atmosphere, is the skin of the ball. The 5 mm thick rubber.

At the top of that skyscraper, the atmosphere still wants to push that ball back down to the ground because you are simply holding it up by your energy, still, which you have done up to that height. Therefore that bowling ball has to hit that ground with the same reactive energy to the active energy you gave it.
The tennis ball is the same but due to it being far easier to carry up, you'll see a remarkable difference in the speed of them hitting the ground as well as the force.

Doing this from shoulder height is bullshit. Also doing this in a so called vacuum is also bullshit because there's not a vacuum chamber big enough that can push a vacuum enough to test this out.
Of course we get told there's a huge one but that's about as true as all the rest of the bullshit. The large one can maybe evacuate a small amount of pressure.

100% gravity does not exist. It is a total fabrication.

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 26, 2015, 11:04:12 AM
What is pushed up by a force must also fall with equal reactive force. It's easier to carry a tennis ball up a skyscraper. It would be hard to carry a bowling ball up a skyscraper. Assuming walking up steps.
Once at the top, if you drop both balls, you will notice that the bowling ball falls much faster.
The reason for this is simple if people cared to look at it. The bowling ball is much more dense and can repel much more ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE upon it than the tennis ball which is filled with sea level atmospheric pressure to start with so most of it is already part of the atmosphere and all that is repelling the atmosphere, is the skin of the ball. The 5 mm thick rubber.

At the top of that skyscraper, the atmosphere still wants to push that ball back down to the ground because you are simply holding it up by your energy, still, which you have done up to that height. Therefore that bowling ball has to hit that ground with the same reactive energy to the active energy you gave it.
The tennis ball is the same but due to it being far easier to carry up, you'll see a remarkable difference in the speed of them hitting the ground as well as the force.

Doing this from shoulder height is bullshit. Also doing this in a so called vacuum is also bullshit because there's not a vacuum chamber big enough that can push a vacuum enough to test this out.
Of course we get told there's a huge one but that's about as true as all the rest of the bullshit. The large one can maybe evacuate a small amount of pressure.

100% gravity does not exist. It is a total fabrication.
Gravity is science - science is fake and trickery.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 26, 2015, 11:06:38 AM
What is pushed up by a force must also fall with equal reactive force. It's easier to carry a tennis ball up a skyscraper. It would be hard to carry a bowling ball up a skyscraper. Assuming walking up steps.
Once at the top, if you drop both balls, you will notice that the bowling ball falls much faster.
The reason for this is simple if people cared to look at it. The bowling ball is much more dense and can repel much more ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE upon it than the tennis ball which is filled with sea level atmospheric pressure to start with so most of it is already part of the atmosphere and all that is repelling the atmosphere, is the skin of the ball. The 5 mm thick rubber.

At the top of that skyscraper, the atmosphere still wants to push that ball back down to the ground because you are simply holding it up by your energy, still, which you have done up to that height. Therefore that bowling ball has to hit that ground with the same reactive energy to the active energy you gave it.
The tennis ball is the same but due to it being far easier to carry up, you'll see a remarkable difference in the speed of them hitting the ground as well as the force.

Doing this from shoulder height is bullshit. Also doing this in a so called vacuum is also bullshit because there's not a vacuum chamber big enough that can push a vacuum enough to test this out.
Of course we get told there's a huge one but that's about as true as all the rest of the bullshit. The large one can maybe evacuate a small amount of pressure.

100% gravity does not exist. It is a total fabrication.

I just realized that balloons floating up is proof that denpressure is not real.  How would density effect something if air pressure is the only force acting on it?  Another disproof of denpressure is things like beach balls sinking in air and floating in water.  Water is denser then air, and according to denpressure that should make the beach ball heavier in water
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 26, 2015, 11:08:14 AM
Gravity is science - science is fake and trickery.

Modern medicine came about because of science and it clearly works.  Computers were invented with science and they clearly work.  You cannot deny that science works because it's so obvious.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on June 26, 2015, 11:10:30 AM
What is pushed up by a force must also fall with equal reactive force. It's easier to carry a tennis ball up a skyscraper. It would be hard to carry a bowling ball up a skyscraper. Assuming walking up steps.
Once at the top, if you drop both balls, you will notice that the bowling ball falls much faster.
The reason for this is simple if people cared to look at it. The bowling ball is much more dense and can repel much more ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE upon it than the tennis ball which is filled with sea level atmospheric pressure to start with so most of it is already part of the atmosphere and all that is repelling the atmosphere, is the skin of the ball. The 5 mm thick rubber.

At the top of that skyscraper, the atmosphere still wants to push that ball back down to the ground because you are simply holding it up by your energy, still, which you have done up to that height. Therefore that bowling ball has to hit that ground with the same reactive energy to the active energy you gave it.
The tennis ball is the same but due to it being far easier to carry up, you'll see a remarkable difference in the speed of them hitting the ground as well as the force.

Doing this from shoulder height is bullshit. Also doing this in a so called vacuum is also bullshit because there's not a vacuum chamber big enough that can push a vacuum enough to test this out.
Of course we get told there's a huge one but that's about as true as all the rest of the bullshit. The large one can maybe evacuate a small amount of pressure.

100% gravity does not exist. It is a total fabrication.

I just realized that balloons floating up is proof that denpressure is not real.  How would density effect something if air pressure is the only force acting on it?  Another disproof of denpressure is things like beach balls sinking in air and floating in water.  Water is denser then air, and according to denpressure that should make the beach ball heavier in water
You would have been better paying attention to what I've been saying instead of jumping right in on your guard like a conscientious sentry.

Can you ever recall me saying that denpressure PUSHES and Squeezes any dense object/matter?
Have a ponder over that and you might grasp what I've been saying.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 26, 2015, 11:11:07 AM
Gravity is science - science is fake and trickery.

Modern medicine came about because of science and it clearly works.  Computers were invented with science and they clearly work.  You cannot deny that science works because it's so obvious.
Modern medicine=science=trickery computers=hand craftsmanship very very different from the essence of cheating and fraud in science.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 26, 2015, 11:13:21 AM
What is pushed up by a force must also fall with equal reactive force. It's easier to carry a tennis ball up a skyscraper. It would be hard to carry a bowling ball up a skyscraper. Assuming walking up steps.
Once at the top, if you drop both balls, you will notice that the bowling ball falls much faster.
The reason for this is simple if people cared to look at it. The bowling ball is much more dense and can repel much more ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE upon it than the tennis ball which is filled with sea level atmospheric pressure to start with so most of it is already part of the atmosphere and all that is repelling the atmosphere, is the skin of the ball. The 5 mm thick rubber.

At the top of that skyscraper, the atmosphere still wants to push that ball back down to the ground because you are simply holding it up by your energy, still, which you have done up to that height. Therefore that bowling ball has to hit that ground with the same reactive energy to the active energy you gave it.
The tennis ball is the same but due to it being far easier to carry up, you'll see a remarkable difference in the speed of them hitting the ground as well as the force.

Doing this from shoulder height is bullshit. Also doing this in a so called vacuum is also bullshit because there's not a vacuum chamber big enough that can push a vacuum enough to test this out.
Of course we get told there's a huge one but that's about as true as all the rest of the bullshit. The large one can maybe evacuate a small amount of pressure.

100% gravity does not exist. It is a total fabrication.

I just realized that balloons floating up is proof that denpressure is not real.  How would density effect something if air pressure is the only force acting on it?  Another disproof of denpressure is things like beach balls sinking in air and floating in water.  Water is denser then air, and according to denpressure that should make the beach ball heavier in water
Why things attract downwards it's two thing: weight+size it take relative to weight.
Beach balls are way heavier and small in size than the air could hold them floating, but water is much more stronger.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on June 26, 2015, 11:13:43 AM
Gravity is science - science is fake and trickery.

Modern medicine came about because of science and it clearly works.  Computers were invented with science and they clearly work.  You cannot deny that science works because it's so obvious.
Real science does work. The massive issue is about the so called science and how it works in reality instead of fantasy, plus the science where it's blatantly made up to hide the real science behind it.

Gravity is one such thing. It's a lie and the truth is, it's atmospheric pressure.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 26, 2015, 11:14:36 AM
100% gravity does not exist. It is a total fabrication.

At the risk of confusing the issue at hand, that statement might be closer to truth than you realise ( or intended )  what we interpret as gravity is distortion of space-time by mass,  so does gravity really exist.  I don't know that there is an easy answer to that,   some might say that on a galactic scale our understanding of gravity is flawed, in the sense it doesn't match observed galactic rotation profiles,  so dark matter is proposed as a kind of fudge factor.  Although it might still be proven to be exist. 

Back on less than galactic scales,  the force we call gravity behaves exactly according to Newton,  and it's predictions are accurate.    The denspressure theory neglects to explain why some things are heavier than others,  what causes the density to change from the bowling ball to the tennis ball?   The mass per unit volume is different,  we know what volume is, so what determines the force acting on the mass to cause the density to be different?    Gravity.

Why  does the bowling ball weigh more than the tennis ball in denspressure theory?

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 26, 2015, 11:16:05 AM
100% gravity does not exist. It is a total fabrication.

At the risk of confusing the issue at hand, that statement might be closer to truth than you realise ( or intended )  what we interpret as gravity is distortion of space-time by mass,  so does gravity really exist.  I don't know that there is an easy answer to that,   some might say that on a galactic scale our understanding of gravity is flawed, in the sense it doesn't match observed galactic rotation profiles,  so dark matter is proposed as a kind of fudge factor.  Although it might still be proven to be exist. 

Back on less than galactic scales,  the force we call gravity behaves exactly according to Newton,  and it's predictions are accurate.    The denspressure theory neglects to explain why some things are heavier than others,  what causes the density to change from the bowling ball to the tennis ball?   The mass per unit volume is different,  we know what volume is, so what determines the force acting on the mass to cause the density to be different?    Gravity.

Why  does the bowling ball weigh more than the tennis ball in denspressure theory?
Weight is another constant in nature that god created.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on June 26, 2015, 11:26:03 AM
100% gravity does not exist. It is a total fabrication.

At the risk of confusing the issue at hand, that statement might be closer to truth than you realise ( or intended )  what we interpret as gravity is distortion of space-time by mass,  so does gravity really exist.  I don't know that there is an easy answer to that,   some might say that on a galactic scale our understanding of gravity is flawed, in the sense it doesn't match observed galactic rotation profiles,  so dark matter is proposed as a kind of fudge factor.  Although it might still be proven to be exist. 

Back on less than galactic scales,  the force we call gravity behaves exactly according to Newton,  and it's predictions are accurate.    The denspressure theory neglects to explain why some things are heavier than others,  what causes the density to change from the bowling ball to the tennis ball?   The mass per unit volume is different,  we know what volume is, so what determines the force acting on the mass to cause the density to be different?    Gravity.

Why  does the bowling ball weigh more than the tennis ball in denspressure theory?
A bowling ball weighs more than a tennis ball because man made a measuring tool to measure density of matter that acts against the atmosphere pushing down onto the object with that object creating a  resistant force against it. This is measured on a scale plate, only now, the scale plate is the thing that is acting as the leverage against the atmosphere, instead of the ground or a persons hand or whatever holds it up against the atmosphere.

The tennis ball has less mass and is also filled with atmosphere that is already allowing the outer skin of that ball to resist the atmosphere. The reason why it's much lighter is because the air is already absorbed as part of the ball with it being trapped in it.

Fill that tennis ball with lead and it expels the atmosphere inside of it. With lead being so dense, atmosphere cannot absorb into it very well - in fact very minutely.
This means the tennis ball will now resist the atmosphere massively compared to the air filled one and that will reflect on a scale plate due to resistance against the atmosphere by using that scale plate as a leverage.

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 26, 2015, 11:43:19 AM
100% gravity does not exist. It is a total fabrication.

At the risk of confusing the issue at hand, that statement might be closer to truth than you realise ( or intended )  what we interpret as gravity is distortion of space-time by mass,  so does gravity really exist.  I don't know that there is an easy answer to that,   some might say that on a galactic scale our understanding of gravity is flawed, in the sense it doesn't match observed galactic rotation profiles,  so dark matter is proposed as a kind of fudge factor.  Although it might still be proven to be exist. 

Back on less than galactic scales,  the force we call gravity behaves exactly according to Newton,  and it's predictions are accurate.    The denspressure theory neglects to explain why some things are heavier than others,  what causes the density to change from the bowling ball to the tennis ball?   The mass per unit volume is different,  we know what volume is, so what determines the force acting on the mass to cause the density to be different?    Gravity.

Why  does the bowling ball weigh more than the tennis ball in denspressure theory?
A bowling ball weighs more than a tennis ball because man made a measuring tool to measure density of matter that acts against the atmosphere pushing down onto the object with that object creating a  resistant force against it. This is measured on a scale plate, only now, the scale plate is the thing that is acting as the leverage against the atmosphere, instead of the ground or a persons hand or whatever holds it up against the atmosphere.

The tennis ball has less mass and is also filled with atmosphere that is already allowing the outer skin of that ball to resist the atmosphere. The reason why it's much lighter is because the air is already absorbed as part of the ball with it being trapped in it.

Fill that tennis ball with lead and it expels the atmosphere inside of it. With lead being so dense, atmosphere cannot absorb into it very well - in fact very minutely.
This means the tennis ball will now resist the atmosphere massively compared to the air filled one and that will reflect on a scale plate due to resistance against the atmosphere by using that scale plate as a leverage.

As modestman said,  God gives things weight.    Where does the weight come from?     Take away the atmosphere by putting something in a vacuum chamber and it still has weight, so it doesn't come from atmospheric pressure,  there has to be something else at work to give things weight.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Mainframes on June 26, 2015, 11:45:25 AM
<==== Sceptimatics denpressure and weight ideas.

100% gravity does not exist. It is a total fabrication.

At the risk of confusing the issue at hand, that statement might be closer to truth than you realise ( or intended )  what we interpret as gravity is distortion of space-time by mass,  so does gravity really exist.  I don't know that there is an easy answer to that,   some might say that on a galactic scale our understanding of gravity is flawed, in the sense it doesn't match observed galactic rotation profiles,  so dark matter is proposed as a kind of fudge factor.  Although it might still be proven to be exist. 

Back on less than galactic scales,  the force we call gravity behaves exactly according to Newton,  and it's predictions are accurate.    The denspressure theory neglects to explain why some things are heavier than others,  what causes the density to change from the bowling ball to the tennis ball?   The mass per unit volume is different,  we know what volume is, so what determines the force acting on the mass to cause the density to be different?    Gravity.

Why  does the bowling ball weigh more than the tennis ball in denspressure theory?
A bowling ball weighs more than a tennis ball because man made a measuring tool to measure density of matter that acts against the atmosphere pushing down onto the object with that object creating a  resistant force against it. This is measured on a scale plate, only now, the scale plate is the thing that is acting as the leverage against the atmosphere, instead of the ground or a persons hand or whatever holds it up against the atmosphere.

The tennis ball has less mass and is also filled with atmosphere that is already allowing the outer skin of that ball to resist the atmosphere. The reason why it's much lighter is because the air is already absorbed as part of the ball with it being trapped in it.

Fill that tennis ball with lead and it expels the atmosphere inside of it. With lead being so dense, atmosphere cannot absorb into it very well - in fact very minutely.
This means the tennis ball will now resist the atmosphere massively compared to the air filled one and that will reflect on a scale plate due to resistance against the atmosphere by using that scale plate as a leverage.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on June 26, 2015, 11:48:10 AM
 Sceptic and modestman are simply uneducated.

(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 26, 2015, 11:51:07 AM
You two are simply uneducated.

(http://)
(http://)
(http://)

Aw, you ruined the surprise,  I was going to link those AFTER scepti denied things had weight in a vacuum...   ;D
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 26, 2015, 11:53:25 AM
Weight is another constant in nature that god created.

That's like saying that your car works because an engineer designed it.  That explains why it works, not how it works.  Just because an engineer designed your car doesn't mean that it won't do you good learning how it works.  God made things have weight by making gravity.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on June 26, 2015, 11:53:56 AM
100% gravity does not exist. It is a total fabrication.

At the risk of confusing the issue at hand, that statement might be closer to truth than you realise ( or intended )  what we interpret as gravity is distortion of space-time by mass,  so does gravity really exist.  I don't know that there is an easy answer to that,   some might say that on a galactic scale our understanding of gravity is flawed, in the sense it doesn't match observed galactic rotation profiles,  so dark matter is proposed as a kind of fudge factor.  Although it might still be proven to be exist. 

Back on less than galactic scales,  the force we call gravity behaves exactly according to Newton,  and it's predictions are accurate.    The denspressure theory neglects to explain why some things are heavier than others,  what causes the density to change from the bowling ball to the tennis ball?   The mass per unit volume is different,  we know what volume is, so what determines the force acting on the mass to cause the density to be different?    Gravity.

Why  does the bowling ball weigh more than the tennis ball in denspressure theory?
A bowling ball weighs more than a tennis ball because man made a measuring tool to measure density of matter that acts against the atmosphere pushing down onto the object with that object creating a  resistant force against it. This is measured on a scale plate, only now, the scale plate is the thing that is acting as the leverage against the atmosphere, instead of the ground or a persons hand or whatever holds it up against the atmosphere.

The tennis ball has less mass and is also filled with atmosphere that is already allowing the outer skin of that ball to resist the atmosphere. The reason why it's much lighter is because the air is already absorbed as part of the ball with it being trapped in it.

Fill that tennis ball with lead and it expels the atmosphere inside of it. With lead being so dense, atmosphere cannot absorb into it very well - in fact very minutely.
This means the tennis ball will now resist the atmosphere massively compared to the air filled one and that will reflect on a scale plate due to resistance against the atmosphere by using that scale plate as a leverage.

As modestman said,  God gives things weight.    Where does the weight come from?     Take away the atmosphere by putting something in a vacuum chamber and it still has weight, so it doesn't come from atmospheric pressure,  there has to be something else at work to give things weight.
How do you put something in a vacuum  chamber without applying energy in doing so?
How do you hang something high up in a vacuum chamber?
Here's a question for you. Can you walk into a vacuum chamber and place a bowling ball inside of it and watch it drop whilst you are still inside this chamber?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 26, 2015, 11:55:13 AM
WOW Sokarul actually admitted he is shill. look he came from the industry that why he is lying.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on June 26, 2015, 11:55:45 AM
You two are simply uneducated.

(http://)
(http://)
(http://)

Aw, you ruined the surprise,  I was going to link those AFTER scepti denied things had weight in a vacuum...   ;D
Am I talking to robots here?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on June 26, 2015, 11:57:53 AM
100% gravity does not exist. It is a total fabrication.

At the risk of confusing the issue at hand, that statement might be closer to truth than you realise ( or intended )  what we interpret as gravity is distortion of space-time by mass,  so does gravity really exist.  I don't know that there is an easy answer to that,   some might say that on a galactic scale our understanding of gravity is flawed, in the sense it doesn't match observed galactic rotation profiles,  so dark matter is proposed as a kind of fudge factor.  Although it might still be proven to be exist. 

Back on less than galactic scales,  the force we call gravity behaves exactly according to Newton,  and it's predictions are accurate.    The denspressure theory neglects to explain why some things are heavier than others,  what causes the density to change from the bowling ball to the tennis ball?   The mass per unit volume is different,  we know what volume is, so what determines the force acting on the mass to cause the density to be different?    Gravity.

Why  does the bowling ball weigh more than the tennis ball in denspressure theory?
A bowling ball weighs more than a tennis ball because man made a measuring tool to measure density of matter that acts against the atmosphere pushing down onto the object with that object creating a  resistant force against it. This is measured on a scale plate, only now, the scale plate is the thing that is acting as the leverage against the atmosphere, instead of the ground or a persons hand or whatever holds it up against the atmosphere.

The tennis ball has less mass and is also filled with atmosphere that is already allowing the outer skin of that ball to resist the atmosphere. The reason why it's much lighter is because the air is already absorbed as part of the ball with it being trapped in it.

Fill that tennis ball with lead and it expels the atmosphere inside of it. With lead being so dense, atmosphere cannot absorb into it very well - in fact very minutely.
This means the tennis ball will now resist the atmosphere massively compared to the air filled one and that will reflect on a scale plate due to resistance against the atmosphere by using that scale plate as a leverage.

As modestman said,  God gives things weight.    Where does the weight come from?     Take away the atmosphere by putting something in a vacuum chamber and it still has weight, so it doesn't come from atmospheric pressure,  there has to be something else at work to give things weight.
How do you put something in a vacuum  chamber without applying energy in doing so?
How do you hang something high up in a vacuum chamber?
Here's a question for you. Can you walk into a vacuum chamber and place a bowling ball inside of it and watch it drop whilst you are still inside this chamber?

Already linked to the videos of weighing in a vacuum chamber.  So go back a couple of posts.

Now Sokarol can take over,  I'll be back tomorrow for the next installment.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 26, 2015, 11:58:48 AM
Weight is another constant in nature that god created.

That's like saying that your car works because an engineer designed it.  That explains why it works, not how it works.  Just because an engineer designed your car doesn't mean that it won't do you good learning how it works.  God made things have weight by making gravity.
what an idiot god so lunatic why not making thing simple ?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 26, 2015, 12:08:33 PM
Hey Yendor, I noticed you use horizontal rules a lot and you do them like this:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But did you know that the forum has an official horizontal rule tag?
Here it is:



The option to make them is right next to the list tags in the formatting section.

Thanks mikeman,

I didn't know about that rule.
Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on June 26, 2015, 12:31:26 PM
100% gravity does not exist. It is a total fabrication.

At the risk of confusing the issue at hand, that statement might be closer to truth than you realise ( or intended )  what we interpret as gravity is distortion of space-time by mass,  so does gravity really exist.  I don't know that there is an easy answer to that,   some might say that on a galactic scale our understanding of gravity is flawed, in the sense it doesn't match observed galactic rotation profiles,  so dark matter is proposed as a kind of fudge factor.  Although it might still be proven to be exist. 

Back on less than galactic scales,  the force we call gravity behaves exactly according to Newton,  and it's predictions are accurate.    The denspressure theory neglects to explain why some things are heavier than others,  what causes the density to change from the bowling ball to the tennis ball?   The mass per unit volume is different,  we know what volume is, so what determines the force acting on the mass to cause the density to be different?    Gravity.

Why  does the bowling ball weigh more than the tennis ball in denspressure theory?
A bowling ball weighs more than a tennis ball because man made a measuring tool to measure density of matter that acts against the atmosphere pushing down onto the object with that object creating a  resistant force against it. This is measured on a scale plate, only now, the scale plate is the thing that is acting as the leverage against the atmosphere, instead of the ground or a persons hand or whatever holds it up against the atmosphere.

The tennis ball has less mass and is also filled with atmosphere that is already allowing the outer skin of that ball to resist the atmosphere. The reason why it's much lighter is because the air is already absorbed as part of the ball with it being trapped in it.

Fill that tennis ball with lead and it expels the atmosphere inside of it. With lead being so dense, atmosphere cannot absorb into it very well - in fact very minutely.
This means the tennis ball will now resist the atmosphere massively compared to the air filled one and that will reflect on a scale plate due to resistance against the atmosphere by using that scale plate as a leverage.

As modestman said,  God gives things weight.    Where does the weight come from?     Take away the atmosphere by putting something in a vacuum chamber and it still has weight, so it doesn't come from atmospheric pressure,  there has to be something else at work to give things weight.
How do you put something in a vacuum  chamber without applying energy in doing so?
How do you hang something high up in a vacuum chamber?
Here's a question for you. Can you walk into a vacuum chamber and place a bowling ball inside of it and watch it drop whilst you are still inside this chamber?
We know the difference between potential and kinetic energy.
With a hook.
No, a person cannot stand in a vacuum chamber.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on June 26, 2015, 12:38:35 PM
Mikeman,

When you read articles like this doesn't it make you, at least, wonder a little bit about what is real. Please be honest with me.
Please read this link and get back with me.

http://aetherforce.com/electrical-engineer-disproves-einsteins-relativity-theory-the-ruins-of-106-years-relativity/ (http://aetherforce.com/electrical-engineer-disproves-einsteins-relativity-theory-the-ruins-of-106-years-relativity/)

Yendor
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: josan on June 26, 2015, 01:05:14 PM
First one needs to comprehend dynamics in an inertial frame. Only when that is done and dusted can you consider deviations occurring in a non inertial frame.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 26, 2015, 01:15:40 PM
what an idiot god so lunatic why not making thing simple ?

Because then life would be simple, and that's not what God wanted.  Life is supposed to be challenging.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 26, 2015, 01:17:57 PM
what an idiot god so lunatic why not making thing simple ?

Because then life would be simple, and that's not what God wanted.  Life is supposed to be challenging.
elements of life should be elegant do you agree ?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 26, 2015, 01:21:36 PM
Mikeman,

When you read articles like this doesn't it make you, at least, wonder a little bit about what is real. Please be honest with me.
Please read this link and get back with me.

http://aetherforce.com/electrical-engineer-disproves-einsteins-relativity-theory-the-ruins-of-106-years-relativity/ (http://aetherforce.com/electrical-engineer-disproves-einsteins-relativity-theory-the-ruins-of-106-years-relativity/)

Yendor

No, not really.

There are many ways to prove relativity, some of which use only logic.  The website you linked to doesn't look like a very reputable one and as far as I can tell the only evidence they posted is that some electrical engineer thinks that relativity is false when in fact relativity is needed to understand electricity and electrical engineering it's self proves relativity.

Relativity is even how electromagnets work, and electromagnets are responsible for many electrical devices working like transformers, motors, and speakers.

! No longer available (http://#)

An electrical engineer doubting relativity is like an airline pilot doubting that airplanes work.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 26, 2015, 01:22:49 PM
what an idiot god so lunatic why not making thing simple ?

Because then life would be simple, and that's not what God wanted.  Life is supposed to be challenging.
elements of life should be elegant do you agree ?

What part of 4 fundamental forces governing all motion is not elegant?  If you think that physics is not elegant that you clearly haven't studied it much.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 26, 2015, 01:24:08 PM
what an idiot god so lunatic why not making thing simple ?

Because then life would be simple, and that's not what God wanted.  Life is supposed to be challenging.
elements of life should be elegant do you agree ?

What part of 4 fundamental forces governing all motion is not elegant?  If you think that physics is not elegant that you clearly haven't studied it much.
Tell me, creating a ball earth which people has to navigate with a curve and live with their head upside down and then creating a law which keep them on ground just to cover up the shape of the earth is sound like elegant to you ?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 26, 2015, 01:27:12 PM
To make the earth tilted , to make the earth rotating, to make the sun moving in 65000 mph in the universe just for life to be sustainable does it sound to you elegant ? I find it clumsy only as human weakness can guess.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 26, 2015, 01:31:43 PM
Tell me, creating a ball earth which people has to navigate with a curve and live with their head upside down and then creating a law which keep them on ground just to cover up the shape of the earth is sound like elegant to you ?

Yes, it does.  God created the laws of physics in such a way that when a bunch of matter is introduced via the big bang it forms into the incredible complexity we see all by it's self.  How is that not elegant?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: modestman on June 26, 2015, 01:34:59 PM
Tell me, creating a ball earth which people has to navigate with a curve and live with their head upside down and then creating a law which keep them on ground just to cover up the shape of the earth is sound like elegant to you ?

Yes, it does.  God created the laws of physics in such a way that when a bunch of matter is introduced via the big bang it forms into the incredible complexity we see all by it's self.  How is that not elegant?
It's sound bullshit and idiotic only in your sick mind someone can see it like that, god created life on earth just for things occur by chance ?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 26, 2015, 01:41:04 PM
It's sound bullshit and idiotic only in your sick mind someone can see it like that, god created life on earth just for things occur by chance ?

God created physics specifically to make Earth and life and do his work for him.  Wouldn't you do the same if you were God?  Humans create things all the time to help us do things, so why can't God?  It was not my chance, and I don't believe that the process was 100% unguided.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on June 27, 2015, 01:41:18 PM
To make the earth tilted , to make the earth rotating, to make the sun moving in 65000 mph in the universe just for life to be sustainable does it sound to you elegant ? I find it clumsy only as human weakness can guess.

These things are only not elegant if you start from the premise that "not tilted" is somehow intrinsically "better", and the same goes for "stationary". There is no logic to that view.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on July 03, 2015, 12:48:32 AM
Yendor,

Here is something to think about,  go outside and  throw a rock as hard as you can and observe it's flight,   you will find the rock travels in a curved path,  that curve is called a parabola,  with slight corrections for wind resistance.   So why does the rock follow a parabolic path?

The answer is that all trajectories in a gravitational field are conic sections  ( you can look that up ) so the shape of the trajectory the rock follows is proof that the force acting on it are following the inverse square law.   That force is gravity.




Rayzor,
I know you believe that, but really it is the atmospheric pressure of 15 psi pushing the rock down towards the ground. If the atmospheric pressure was to suddenly decrease in half, the rock would probably go twice as far. Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object. That's what i think.

Yendor
And yet in a vacuum chamber, things still fall to the ground, even though there is no air pressure.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on July 03, 2015, 12:54:58 AM
People go on about conspiracy theorists trying to deceive people about the moon landings not being real and rockets not working in space, etc.
This is pretty silly because I'd be willing to bet that many people who question this stuff due to it having many holes in it, would love it all to be real.

I'd have loved to be able to go "wow" at a real moon landing or seeing a REAL huge rocket lift off into space with astronauts on board.

I'd love it if a star ship enterprise lookalike entered our atmosphere and brought video of itself coming in so we could see our own Earth as a spinning ball like we were told.

I would love all this to happen and also be shown all the other stuff to be true that we question.
It won't ever happen because it's all bullshit and we are left to try and figure it all out ourselves and have to simply use our own logic and common sense to actually see the bullshit at it's best and worst; some of it so blatant that a kid can see it; yet some of it is very clever and needs plenty of delving into.

Let them show us all it's all true, tomorrow and we can stop questioning. I'd be happy not to.
Seriously; are we going to be shown the truth as being the truth all along or will we be left to feed on scraps while paid people ( not on here, I mean in general) divert us away from the reality?

It's pretty obvious isn't it?

You CAN go and see a real life rocket blast off with astronauts inside.
Nasa lets people watch their rockets blast off, why don't you do so.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2015, 01:20:06 AM
People go on about conspiracy theorists trying to deceive people about the moon landings not being real and rockets not working in space, etc.
This is pretty silly because I'd be willing to bet that many people who question this stuff due to it having many holes in it, would love it all to be real.

I'd have loved to be able to go "wow" at a real moon landing or seeing a REAL huge rocket lift off into space with astronauts on board.

I'd love it if a star ship enterprise lookalike entered our atmosphere and brought video of itself coming in so we could see our own Earth as a spinning ball like we were told.

I would love all this to happen and also be shown all the other stuff to be true that we question.
It won't ever happen because it's all bullshit and we are left to try and figure it all out ourselves and have to simply use our own logic and common sense to actually see the bullshit at it's best and worst; some of it so blatant that a kid can see it; yet some of it is very clever and needs plenty of delving into.

Let them show us all it's all true, tomorrow and we can stop questioning. I'd be happy not to.
Seriously; are we going to be shown the truth as being the truth all along or will we be left to feed on scraps while paid people ( not on here, I mean in general) divert us away from the reality?

It's pretty obvious isn't it?

You CAN go and see a real life rocket blast off with astronauts inside.
Nasa lets people watch their rockets blast off, why don't you do so.
For the same reason everyone else doesn't. It's because N.A.S.A don't let people go and see rocket's launch with astronauts on.
They may let you watch a ballistic missile launch from a distance and tell you it's got astronauts in and is going to space.

Prove what I'm saying is false. Show me you and your pictures of astronauts entering the rocket before lift off. You must have it all to be able to say what you're saying.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 03, 2015, 04:14:25 AM
People go on about conspiracy theorists trying to deceive people about the moon landings not being real and rockets not working in space, etc.
This is pretty silly because I'd be willing to bet that many people who question this stuff due to it having many holes in it, would love it all to be real.

I'd have loved to be able to go "wow" at a real moon landing or seeing a REAL huge rocket lift off into space with astronauts on board.

I'd love it if a star ship enterprise lookalike entered our atmosphere and brought video of itself coming in so we could see our own Earth as a spinning ball like we were told.

I would love all this to happen and also be shown all the other stuff to be true that we question.
It won't ever happen because it's all bullshit and we are left to try and figure it all out ourselves and have to simply use our own logic and common sense to actually see the bullshit at it's best and worst; some of it so blatant that a kid can see it; yet some of it is very clever and needs plenty of delving into.

Let them show us all it's all true, tomorrow and we can stop questioning. I'd be happy not to.
Seriously; are we going to be shown the truth as being the truth all along or will we be left to feed on scraps while paid people ( not on here, I mean in general) divert us away from the reality?

It's pretty obvious isn't it?

You CAN go and see a real life rocket blast off with astronauts inside.
Nasa lets people watch their rockets blast off, why don't you do so.
For the same reason everyone else doesn't. It's because N.A.S.A don't let people go and see rocket's launch with astronauts on.
They may let you watch a ballistic missile launch from a distance and tell you it's got astronauts in and is going to space.

Prove what I'm saying is false. Show me you and your pictures of astronauts entering the rocket before lift off. You must have it all to be able to say what you're saying.

Bring a telescope or binoculars so you can see the astronauts enter themselves? And you can use math's to tell if the rocket is to the right scale.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2015, 05:36:05 AM
People go on about conspiracy theorists trying to deceive people about the moon landings not being real and rockets not working in space, etc.
This is pretty silly because I'd be willing to bet that many people who question this stuff due to it having many holes in it, would love it all to be real.

I'd have loved to be able to go "wow" at a real moon landing or seeing a REAL huge rocket lift off into space with astronauts on board.

I'd love it if a star ship enterprise lookalike entered our atmosphere and brought video of itself coming in so we could see our own Earth as a spinning ball like we were told.

I would love all this to happen and also be shown all the other stuff to be true that we question.
It won't ever happen because it's all bullshit and we are left to try and figure it all out ourselves and have to simply use our own logic and common sense to actually see the bullshit at it's best and worst; some of it so blatant that a kid can see it; yet some of it is very clever and needs plenty of delving into.

Let them show us all it's all true, tomorrow and we can stop questioning. I'd be happy not to.
Seriously; are we going to be shown the truth as being the truth all along or will we be left to feed on scraps while paid people ( not on here, I mean in general) divert us away from the reality?

It's pretty obvious isn't it?

You CAN go and see a real life rocket blast off with astronauts inside.
Nasa lets people watch their rockets blast off, why don't you do so.
For the same reason everyone else doesn't. It's because N.A.S.A don't let people go and see rocket's launch with astronauts on.
They may let you watch a ballistic missile launch from a distance and tell you it's got astronauts in and is going to space.

Prove what I'm saying is false. Show me you and your pictures of astronauts entering the rocket before lift off. You must have it all to be able to say what you're saying.

Bring a telescope or binoculars so you can see the astronauts enter themselves? And you can use math's to tell if the rocket is to the right scale.
And you've seen all this with your binoculars and telescope and done all the calculations for it, plus saw the astronauts enter the rocket, right?

Let's see your footage, it just might help me change my mind.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 03, 2015, 06:09:15 AM
People go on about conspiracy theorists trying to deceive people about the moon landings not being real and rockets not working in space, etc.
This is pretty silly because I'd be willing to bet that many people who question this stuff due to it having many holes in it, would love it all to be real.

I'd have loved to be able to go "wow" at a real moon landing or seeing a REAL huge rocket lift off into space with astronauts on board.

I'd love it if a star ship enterprise lookalike entered our atmosphere and brought video of itself coming in so we could see our own Earth as a spinning ball like we were told.

I would love all this to happen and also be shown all the other stuff to be true that we question.
It won't ever happen because it's all bullshit and we are left to try and figure it all out ourselves and have to simply use our own logic and common sense to actually see the bullshit at it's best and worst; some of it so blatant that a kid can see it; yet some of it is very clever and needs plenty of delving into.

Let them show us all it's all true, tomorrow and we can stop questioning. I'd be happy not to.
Seriously; are we going to be shown the truth as being the truth all along or will we be left to feed on scraps while paid people ( not on here, I mean in general) divert us away from the reality?

It's pretty obvious isn't it?

You CAN go and see a real life rocket blast off with astronauts inside.
Nasa lets people watch their rockets blast off, why don't you do so.
For the same reason everyone else doesn't. It's because N.A.S.A don't let people go and see rocket's launch with astronauts on.
They may let you watch a ballistic missile launch from a distance and tell you it's got astronauts in and is going to space.

Prove what I'm saying is false. Show me you and your pictures of astronauts entering the rocket before lift off. You must have it all to be able to say what you're saying.

Bring a telescope or binoculars so you can see the astronauts enter themselves? And you can use math's to tell if the rocket is to the right scale.
And you've seen all this with your binoculars and telescope and done all the calculations for it, plus saw the astronauts enter the rocket, right?

Let's see your footage, it just might help me change my mind.

I live in Sweden, and we don't launch crewed space vehicles from here, so i do not have footage. And I won't spend the money to travel to a launch site just to get some footage. I can bring footage from the internet here:

(http://)
(http://)

The first video shows a russian Soyuz rocket being prepared for a launch to ISS, and the second video shows the launch. If this is not enough, I can tell you how to do the maths if you decide to watch a launch:

Get a rangefinder, a pen, a dipstick and a pole or stick that you can stand straight up. Walk a bit backwards and mark two spots on the pole/stick; one where the top of the rocket is, and one where the bottom of the rocket is. Stand still and measure the distance to the top of the rocket, and then the top marker on the pole/stick. The markers distance between each other divided by the distance to the top marker of the stick should equal the rocket's height divided by the distance to the top of the rocket, according to the mathematical laws of uniformity.

So:

M/S=H/R

S=Distance to top marker on the stick/pole
M=Distance between markers
R=Distance to rocket top
H=Height of the rocket.

This will give you an approximation, and requires accuracy.

Rewriting the formula a bit:

H=MR/S
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2015, 06:39:47 AM
People go on about conspiracy theorists trying to deceive people about the moon landings not being real and rockets not working in space, etc.
This is pretty silly because I'd be willing to bet that many people who question this stuff due to it having many holes in it, would love it all to be real.

I'd have loved to be able to go "wow" at a real moon landing or seeing a REAL huge rocket lift off into space with astronauts on board.

I'd love it if a star ship enterprise lookalike entered our atmosphere and brought video of itself coming in so we could see our own Earth as a spinning ball like we were told.

I would love all this to happen and also be shown all the other stuff to be true that we question.
It won't ever happen because it's all bullshit and we are left to try and figure it all out ourselves and have to simply use our own logic and common sense to actually see the bullshit at it's best and worst; some of it so blatant that a kid can see it; yet some of it is very clever and needs plenty of delving into.

Let them show us all it's all true, tomorrow and we can stop questioning. I'd be happy not to.
Seriously; are we going to be shown the truth as being the truth all along or will we be left to feed on scraps while paid people ( not on here, I mean in general) divert us away from the reality?

It's pretty obvious isn't it?

You CAN go and see a real life rocket blast off with astronauts inside.
Nasa lets people watch their rockets blast off, why don't you do so.
For the same reason everyone else doesn't. It's because N.A.S.A don't let people go and see rocket's launch with astronauts on.
They may let you watch a ballistic missile launch from a distance and tell you it's got astronauts in and is going to space.

Prove what I'm saying is false. Show me you and your pictures of astronauts entering the rocket before lift off. You must have it all to be able to say what you're saying.

Bring a telescope or binoculars so you can see the astronauts enter themselves? And you can use math's to tell if the rocket is to the right scale.
And you've seen all this with your binoculars and telescope and done all the calculations for it, plus saw the astronauts enter the rocket, right?

Let's see your footage, it just might help me change my mind.

I live in Sweden, and we don't launch crewed space vehicles from here, so i do not have footage. And I won't spend the money to travel to a launch site just to get some footage. I can bring footage from the internet here:

(http://)
(http://)

The first video shows a russian Soyuz rocket being prepared for a launch to ISS, and the second video shows the launch. If this is not enough, I can tell you how to do the maths if you decide to watch a launch:

Get a rangefinder, a pen, a dipstick and a pole or stick that you can stand straight up. Walk a bit backwards and mark two spots on the pole/stick; one where the top of the rocket is, and one where the bottom of the rocket is. Stand still and measure the distance to the top of the rocket, and then the top marker on the pole/stick. The markers distance between each other divided by the distance to the top marker of the stick should equal the rocket's height divided by the distance to the top of the rocket, according to the mathematical laws of uniformity.

So:

M/S=H/R

S=Distance to top marker on the stick/pole
M=Distance between markers
R=Distance to rocket top
H=Height of the rocket.

This will give you an approximation, and requires accuracy.

Rewriting the formula a bit:

H=MR/S
When you bring footage from your own making, then present it to me. Even one of your friends who has footage they've taken themselves of the astronauts entering and then taking off in the rocket.
It's pointless putting up video of models and what not, plus little actors and actresses playing astronauts.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on July 03, 2015, 06:42:47 AM
Yendor,

Here is something to think about,  go outside and  throw a rock as hard as you can and observe it's flight,   you will find the rock travels in a curved path,  that curve is called a parabola,  with slight corrections for wind resistance.   So why does the rock follow a parabolic path?

The answer is that all trajectories in a gravitational field are conic sections  ( you can look that up ) so the shape of the trajectory the rock follows is proof that the force acting on it are following the inverse square law.   That force is gravity.




Rayzor,
I know you believe that, but really it is the atmospheric pressure of 15 psi pushing the rock down towards the ground. If the atmospheric pressure was to suddenly decrease in half, the rock would probably go twice as far. Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object. That's what i think.

Yendor
And yet in a vacuum chamber, things still fall to the ground, even though there is no air pressure.

In the atmosphere pressure holds things to the ground. In a vacuum the mass of an object holds things down because there is less air pressure. You probably couldn't walk around very good until you got use to no atmosphere.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 03, 2015, 06:50:14 AM
People go on about conspiracy theorists trying to deceive people about the moon landings not being real and rockets not working in space, etc.
This is pretty silly because I'd be willing to bet that many people who question this stuff due to it having many holes in it, would love it all to be real.

I'd have loved to be able to go "wow" at a real moon landing or seeing a REAL huge rocket lift off into space with astronauts on board.

I'd love it if a star ship enterprise lookalike entered our atmosphere and brought video of itself coming in so we could see our own Earth as a spinning ball like we were told.

I would love all this to happen and also be shown all the other stuff to be true that we question.
It won't ever happen because it's all bullshit and we are left to try and figure it all out ourselves and have to simply use our own logic and common sense to actually see the bullshit at it's best and worst; some of it so blatant that a kid can see it; yet some of it is very clever and needs plenty of delving into.

Let them show us all it's all true, tomorrow and we can stop questioning. I'd be happy not to.
Seriously; are we going to be shown the truth as being the truth all along or will we be left to feed on scraps while paid people ( not on here, I mean in general) divert us away from the reality?

It's pretty obvious isn't it?

You CAN go and see a real life rocket blast off with astronauts inside.
Nasa lets people watch their rockets blast off, why don't you do so.
For the same reason everyone else doesn't. It's because N.A.S.A don't let people go and see rocket's launch with astronauts on.
They may let you watch a ballistic missile launch from a distance and tell you it's got astronauts in and is going to space.

Prove what I'm saying is false. Show me you and your pictures of astronauts entering the rocket before lift off. You must have it all to be able to say what you're saying.

Bring a telescope or binoculars so you can see the astronauts enter themselves? And you can use math's to tell if the rocket is to the right scale.
And you've seen all this with your binoculars and telescope and done all the calculations for it, plus saw the astronauts enter the rocket, right?

Let's see your footage, it just might help me change my mind.

I live in Sweden, and we don't launch crewed space vehicles from here, so i do not have footage. And I won't spend the money to travel to a launch site just to get some footage. I can bring footage from the internet here:

(http://)
(http://)

The first video shows a russian Soyuz rocket being prepared for a launch to ISS, and the second video shows the launch. If this is not enough, I can tell you how to do the maths if you decide to watch a launch:

Get a rangefinder, a pen, a dipstick and a pole or stick that you can stand straight up. Walk a bit backwards and mark two spots on the pole/stick; one where the top of the rocket is, and one where the bottom of the rocket is. Stand still and measure the distance to the top of the rocket, and then the top marker on the pole/stick. The markers distance between each other divided by the distance to the top marker of the stick should equal the rocket's height divided by the distance to the top of the rocket, according to the mathematical laws of uniformity.

So:

M/S=H/R

S=Distance to top marker on the stick/pole
M=Distance between markers
R=Distance to rocket top
H=Height of the rocket.

This will give you an approximation, and requires accuracy.

Rewriting the formula a bit:

H=MR/S
When you bring footage from your own making, then present it to me. Even one of your friends who has footage they've taken themselves of the astronauts entering and then taking off in the rocket.
It's pointless putting up video of models and what not, plus little actors and actresses playing astronauts.

You can see that the rocket is to scale, and you can see it launch. If you want more proof, you have to get it yourself. You know what; Bring me proof that they use model rockets. Bring me videoproof that every launch by NASA uses model rockets. I've given you video proof, so now you have to give me some proof.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 03, 2015, 06:54:09 AM
Yendor,

Here is something to think about,  go outside and  throw a rock as hard as you can and observe it's flight,   you will find the rock travels in a curved path,  that curve is called a parabola,  with slight corrections for wind resistance.   So why does the rock follow a parabolic path?

The answer is that all trajectories in a gravitational field are conic sections  ( you can look that up ) so the shape of the trajectory the rock follows is proof that the force acting on it are following the inverse square law.   That force is gravity.




Rayzor,
I know you believe that, but really it is the atmospheric pressure of 15 psi pushing the rock down towards the ground. If the atmospheric pressure was to suddenly decrease in half, the rock would probably go twice as far. Gravity is simply atmospheric pressure working against the mass of an object. That's what i think.

Yendor
And yet in a vacuum chamber, things still fall to the ground, even though there is no air pressure.

In the atmosphere pressure holds things to the ground. In a vacuum the mass of an object holds things down because there is less air pressure. You probably couldn't walk around very good until you got use to no atmosphere.

In a vacuum chamber there is NO pressure, so what is holding things to the ground? There needs to be a force. The lack of a force(pressure in this case) doesn't press things down to the ground.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2015, 07:43:14 AM
In a vacuum chamber there is NO pressure, so what is holding things to the ground? There needs to be a force. The lack of a force(pressure in this case) doesn't press things down to the ground.
There is pressure is  a vacuum chamber, it's just much lower than the external pressure.
In A vacuum chamber you have to place the any object inside of it before you cover it and evacuate pressure.
The density of the object will always stay on the ground because of the energy used to put it there and the inability of a vacuum chamber to break it down enough to evacuate it from the ground, molecule by molecule...depending on the object itself being of a superior density.

I don't expect you to understand because you seem like the rest. You came in with all guns blazing to back up the usual global crap.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 03, 2015, 07:54:08 AM
In a vacuum chamber there is NO pressure, so what is holding things to the ground? There needs to be a force. The lack of a force(pressure in this case) doesn't press things down to the ground.
There is pressure is  a vacuum chamber, it's just much lower than the external pressure.
In A vacuum chamber you have to place the any object inside of it before you cover it and evacuate pressure.
The density of the object will always stay on the ground because of the energy used to put it there and the inability of a vacuum chamber to break it down enough to evacuate it from the ground, molecule by molecule...depending on the object itself being of a superior density.

I don't expect you to understand because you seem like the rest. You came in with all guns blazing to back up the usual global crap.

No, there is no pressure at all in a vacuum chamber. Otherwise it would not be a vacuum chamber.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2015, 08:07:02 AM
In a vacuum chamber there is NO pressure, so what is holding things to the ground? There needs to be a force. The lack of a force(pressure in this case) doesn't press things down to the ground.
There is pressure is  a vacuum chamber, it's just much lower than the external pressure.
In A vacuum chamber you have to place the any object inside of it before you cover it and evacuate pressure.
The density of the object will always stay on the ground because of the energy used to put it there and the inability of a vacuum chamber to break it down enough to evacuate it from the ground, molecule by molecule...depending on the object itself being of a superior density.

I don't expect you to understand because you seem like the rest. You came in with all guns blazing to back up the usual global crap.

No, there is no pressure at all in a vacuum chamber. Otherwise it would not be a vacuum chamber.
Why do they call a vacuum cleaner a vacuum cleaner?
Ok, I see i have to play your games.
Ok then, there's no such thing as a vacuum on Earth. It cannot be achieved, so there's your vacuum destroyed and your arguments.

I'll just change vacuum chamber for EVACUATION chamber. This means that a lot of atmospheric pressure can be evacuated or PUSHED out...not sucked, so don't fall for this sucked bit.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 03, 2015, 08:20:25 AM
In a vacuum chamber there is NO pressure, so what is holding things to the ground? There needs to be a force. The lack of a force(pressure in this case) doesn't press things down to the ground.
There is pressure is  a vacuum chamber, it's just much lower than the external pressure.
In A vacuum chamber you have to place the any object inside of it before you cover it and evacuate pressure.
The density of the object will always stay on the ground because of the energy used to put it there and the inability of a vacuum chamber to break it down enough to evacuate it from the ground, molecule by molecule...depending on the object itself being of a superior density.

I don't expect you to understand because you seem like the rest. You came in with all guns blazing to back up the usual global crap.

No, there is no pressure at all in a vacuum chamber. Otherwise it would not be a vacuum chamber.
Why do they call a vacuum cleaner a vacuum cleaner?
Ok, I see i have to play your games.
Ok then, there's no such thing as a vacuum on Earth. It cannot be achieved, so there's your vacuum destroyed and your arguments.

I'll just change vacuum chamber for EVACUATION chamber. This means that a lot of atmospheric pressure can be evacuated or PUSHED out...not sucked, so don't fall for this sucked bit.

I don't know why they called a vacuum cleaner a vacuum cleaner. I am not referring to the name, but to the definition of the noun. A vacuum chamber is a chamber where all gas particles (all the air) is pumped out. Without gas or liquid particles, the room inside a vacuum chamber has no pressure, since pressure requires a medium, which no longer exists. There is nothing above a object in a vacuum chamber pressing it down. What keeps objects grounded in a vacuum chamber is gravity.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2015, 08:57:06 AM
In a vacuum chamber there is NO pressure, so what is holding things to the ground? There needs to be a force. The lack of a force(pressure in this case) doesn't press things down to the ground.
There is pressure is  a vacuum chamber, it's just much lower than the external pressure.
In A vacuum chamber you have to place the any object inside of it before you cover it and evacuate pressure.
The density of the object will always stay on the ground because of the energy used to put it there and the inability of a vacuum chamber to break it down enough to evacuate it from the ground, molecule by molecule...depending on the object itself being of a superior density.

I don't expect you to understand because you seem like the rest. You came in with all guns blazing to back up the usual global crap.

No, there is no pressure at all in a vacuum chamber. Otherwise it would not be a vacuum chamber.
Why do they call a vacuum cleaner a vacuum cleaner?
Ok, I see i have to play your games.
Ok then, there's no such thing as a vacuum on Earth. It cannot be achieved, so there's your vacuum destroyed and your arguments.

I'll just change vacuum chamber for EVACUATION chamber. This means that a lot of atmospheric pressure can be evacuated or PUSHED out...not sucked, so don't fall for this sucked bit.

I don't know why they called a vacuum cleaner a vacuum cleaner. I am not referring to the name, but to the definition of the noun. A vacuum chamber is a chamber where all gas particles (all the air) is pumped out. Without gas or liquid particles, the room inside a vacuum chamber has no pressure, since pressure requires a medium, which no longer exists. There is nothing above a object in a vacuum chamber pressing it down. What keeps objects grounded in a vacuum chamber is gravity.
I'll try again.

You can't make a vacuum on Earth, so your chamber holds a pressure inside of it.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 03, 2015, 09:11:30 AM
In a vacuum chamber there is NO pressure, so what is holding things to the ground? There needs to be a force. The lack of a force(pressure in this case) doesn't press things down to the ground.
There is pressure is  a vacuum chamber, it's just much lower than the external pressure.
In A vacuum chamber you have to place the any object inside of it before you cover it and evacuate pressure.
The density of the object will always stay on the ground because of the energy used to put it there and the inability of a vacuum chamber to break it down enough to evacuate it from the ground, molecule by molecule...depending on the object itself being of a superior density.

I don't expect you to understand because you seem like the rest. You came in with all guns blazing to back up the usual global crap.

No, there is no pressure at all in a vacuum chamber. Otherwise it would not be a vacuum chamber.
Why do they call a vacuum cleaner a vacuum cleaner?
Ok, I see i have to play your games.
Ok then, there's no such thing as a vacuum on Earth. It cannot be achieved, so there's your vacuum destroyed and your arguments.

I'll just change vacuum chamber for EVACUATION chamber. This means that a lot of atmospheric pressure can be evacuated or PUSHED out...not sucked, so don't fall for this sucked bit.

I don't know why they called a vacuum cleaner a vacuum cleaner. I am not referring to the name, but to the definition of the noun. A vacuum chamber is a chamber where all gas particles (all the air) is pumped out. Without gas or liquid particles, the room inside a vacuum chamber has no pressure, since pressure requires a medium, which no longer exists. There is nothing above a object in a vacuum chamber pressing it down. What keeps objects grounded in a vacuum chamber is gravity.
I'll try again.

You can't make a vacuum on Earth, so your chamber holds a pressure inside of it.

You can make a vacuum on earth. It's not going to be a perfect vacuum, but it will still be a vacuum. And the small pressure from the extremely few particles that are not pumped out succesfully is negligible. The object would still float around inside the vacuum chamber as soon as it would be subjected to any force, if gravity wouldn't exist.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2015, 09:19:31 AM
You can make a vacuum on earth. It's not going to be a perfect vacuum, but it will still be a vacuum. And the small pressure from the extremely few particles that are not pumped out succesfully is negligible. The object would still float around inside the vacuum chamber as soon as it would be subjected to any force, if gravity wouldn't exist.
Then it's not a vacuum.

Let's make things clear. You can evacuate pressure from a chamber but you can never push a vacuum.
When you mention a few particles, can you explain what these particles are and what you think they are doing in this chamber after evacuation of pressure.

1. Are they jumping about like  tiny tennis balls just freely bouncing off the chamber walls?

2. Are they expanding due to less compression upon them?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 03, 2015, 10:08:21 AM
You can make a vacuum on earth. It's not going to be a perfect vacuum, but it will still be a vacuum. And the small pressure from the extremely few particles that are not pumped out succesfully is negligible. The object would still float around inside the vacuum chamber as soon as it would be subjected to any force, if gravity wouldn't exist.
Then it's not a vacuum.

Let's make things clear. You can evacuate pressure from a chamber but you can never push a vacuum.
When you mention a few particles, can you explain what these particles are and what you think they are doing in this chamber after evacuation of pressure.

1. Are they jumping about like  tiny tennis balls just freely bouncing off the chamber walls?

2. Are they expanding due to less compression upon them?

It's 1. That's how gas works. It's impossible to get rid of every little gas particle, and gas particles doesn't expand, but they move faster and more freely when there is less other particles around to bounce into. Some air particles will stay, and they will continue bouncing around in the chamber. But it's so few of them that they won't affect any solid object in the chamber, or the chamber itself, in any noticable way.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 03, 2015, 12:43:14 PM
You can make a vacuum on earth. It's not going to be a perfect vacuum, but it will still be a vacuum. And the small pressure from the extremely few particles that are not pumped out succesfully is negligible. The object would still float around inside the vacuum chamber as soon as it would be subjected to any force, if gravity wouldn't exist.
Then it's not a vacuum.

Let's make things clear. You can evacuate pressure from a chamber but you can never push a vacuum.
When you mention a few particles, can you explain what these particles are and what you think they are doing in this chamber after evacuation of pressure.

1. Are they jumping about like  tiny tennis balls just freely bouncing off the chamber walls?

2. Are they expanding due to less compression upon them?

It's 1. That's how gas works. It's impossible to get rid of every little gas particle, and gas particles doesn't expand, but they move faster and more freely when there is less other particles around to bounce into. Some air particles will stay, and they will continue bouncing around in the chamber. But it's so few of them that they won't affect any solid object in the chamber, or the chamber itself, in any noticable way.
Just to clear up. You believe they bounce around in the chamber moving faster and more freely. Is this due to them having free space between them, as in a complete vacuum or what?

I need to know your mindset before I educate you on what really happens.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 03, 2015, 01:00:25 PM
You can make a vacuum on earth. It's not going to be a perfect vacuum, but it will still be a vacuum. And the small pressure from the extremely few particles that are not pumped out succesfully is negligible. The object would still float around inside the vacuum chamber as soon as it would be subjected to any force, if gravity wouldn't exist.
Then it's not a vacuum.

Let's make things clear. You can evacuate pressure from a chamber but you can never push a vacuum.
When you mention a few particles, can you explain what these particles are and what you think they are doing in this chamber after evacuation of pressure.

1. Are they jumping about like  tiny tennis balls just freely bouncing off the chamber walls?

2. Are they expanding due to less compression upon them?

It's 1. That's how gas works. It's impossible to get rid of every little gas particle, and gas particles doesn't expand, but they move faster and more freely when there is less other particles around to bounce into. Some air particles will stay, and they will continue bouncing around in the chamber. But it's so few of them that they won't affect any solid object in the chamber, or the chamber itself, in any noticable way.
Just to clear up. You believe they bounce around in the chamber moving faster and more freely. Is this due to them having free space between them, as in a complete vacuum or what?

I need to know your mindset before I educate you on what really happens.

There is always a small vacuum between particles, as atoms don't actally touch each other-the electron fields are repelling each other. In any gas, particles bounce of each other's electron fields. Bouncing on objects (solid, liquid or gas) transfers kinetic energy. The kinetic energy is applied as pressure. In sea-level atmosphere, there are a lot of particles colliding and bouncing on each other all the time, and the kinetic force from all the particles in the air applies a rather high pressure to objects in the atmosphere, that get's squished between the air particles. In a vacuum chamber, there extremely is fewer particles, and they often miss each other. The extremely small kinetic energy in those particles creates a negligible pressure inside the vacuum chamber. Pressure is just waves of kinetic energy travelling through matter.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Alpha2Omega on July 03, 2015, 01:26:27 PM
...before I educate you on what really happens.
I bet this is going to be good.
(http://i1359.photobucket.com/albums/q799/ava221/Emoticon/popcornemot.gif)
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 04, 2015, 12:38:41 AM
@sceptimatic

Here's a small read upon how air works: http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/hot-air-balloon5.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/hot-air-balloon5.htm)
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on July 04, 2015, 04:08:22 AM
In a vacuum chamber there is NO pressure, so what is holding things to the ground? There needs to be a force. The lack of a force(pressure in this case) doesn't press things down to the ground.
There is pressure is  a vacuum chamber, it's just much lower than the external pressure.
In A vacuum chamber you have to place the any object inside of it before you cover it and evacuate pressure.
The density of the object will always stay on the ground because of the energy used to put it there and the inability of a vacuum chamber to break it down enough to evacuate it from the ground, molecule by molecule...depending on the object itself being of a superior density.

I don't expect you to understand because you seem like the rest. You came in with all guns blazing to back up the usual global crap.

If air pressure is the force pushing the object to the ground, then a decrease in pressure would mean a decrease in the objects weight.
Also, the fact is that pressure acts on the BOTTOM of the object as well as the top. So it wouldn't cause objects to fall.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on July 04, 2015, 04:14:33 AM
You can make a vacuum on earth. It's not going to be a perfect vacuum, but it will still be a vacuum. And the small pressure from the extremely few particles that are not pumped out succesfully is negligible. The object would still float around inside the vacuum chamber as soon as it would be subjected to any force, if gravity wouldn't exist.
Then it's not a vacuum.

Let's make things clear. You can evacuate pressure from a chamber but you can never push a vacuum.
When you mention a few particles, can you explain what these particles are and what you think they are doing in this chamber after evacuation of pressure.

1. Are they jumping about like  tiny tennis balls just freely bouncing off the chamber walls?

2. Are they expanding due to less compression upon them?

Decreasing the pressure in a chamber from the equivalent to sea level to a near vacuum will not cause the individual molecules or atoms to expand. That's not how atoms work.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2015, 04:15:21 AM
You can make a vacuum on earth. It's not going to be a perfect vacuum, but it will still be a vacuum. And the small pressure from the extremely few particles that are not pumped out succesfully is negligible. The object would still float around inside the vacuum chamber as soon as it would be subjected to any force, if gravity wouldn't exist.
Then it's not a vacuum.

Let's make things clear. You can evacuate pressure from a chamber but you can never push a vacuum.
When you mention a few particles, can you explain what these particles are and what you think they are doing in this chamber after evacuation of pressure.

1. Are they jumping about like  tiny tennis balls just freely bouncing off the chamber walls?

2. Are they expanding due to less compression upon them?

It's 1. That's how gas works. It's impossible to get rid of every little gas particle, and gas particles doesn't expand, but they move faster and more freely when there is less other particles around to bounce into. Some air particles will stay, and they will continue bouncing around in the chamber. But it's so few of them that they won't affect any solid object in the chamber, or the chamber itself, in any noticable way.
Just to clear up. You believe they bounce around in the chamber moving faster and more freely. Is this due to them having free space between them, as in a complete vacuum or what?

I need to know your mindset before I educate you on what really happens.

There is always a small vacuum between particles, as atoms don't actally touch each other-the electron fields are repelling each other. In any gas, particles bounce of each other's electron fields. Bouncing on objects (solid, liquid or gas) transfers kinetic energy. The kinetic energy is applied as pressure. In sea-level atmosphere, there are a lot of particles colliding and bouncing on each other all the time, and the kinetic force from all the particles in the air applies a rather high pressure to objects in the atmosphere, that get's squished between the air particles. In a vacuum chamber, there extremely is fewer particles, and they often miss each other. The extremely small kinetic energy in those particles creates a negligible pressure inside the vacuum chamber. Pressure is just waves of kinetic energy travelling through matter.
What makes you believe what you just told me? Did you see this happen under a microscope or some other device, or were you simply told this is what happens.
Or: were you shown some plastic balls and pieces on a desk put together in a pattern that showed you what happens?

Now when you say a vacuum between the particles. Do you mean absence of all matter in that space and if not, what is in that space?

Just a few things for you to answer, if you can.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2015, 04:31:41 AM
In a vacuum chamber there is NO pressure, so what is holding things to the ground? There needs to be a force. The lack of a force(pressure in this case) doesn't press things down to the ground.
There is pressure is  a vacuum chamber, it's just much lower than the external pressure.
In A vacuum chamber you have to place the any object inside of it before you cover it and evacuate pressure.
The density of the object will always stay on the ground because of the energy used to put it there and the inability of a vacuum chamber to break it down enough to evacuate it from the ground, molecule by molecule...depending on the object itself being of a superior density.

I don't expect you to understand because you seem like the rest. You came in with all guns blazing to back up the usual global crap.

If air pressure is the force pushing the object to the ground, then a decrease in pressure would mean a decrease in the objects weight.
Also, the fact is that pressure acts on the BOTTOM of the object as well as the top. So it wouldn't cause objects to fall.
Yes a decrease in pressure would mean a decrease in an objects weight, to our vision, because weight is merely a measure of atmospheric pressure upon density (denpressure) and scales are the only thing that can show us the change.
Unfortunately we need to experiment this because it's not as easy to actually prove as it seems.

You can pick up a brick and say it might weight X amount. The point is, you can weigh that on man made scales to verify what you think.

It doesn't exactly prove anything by eye as to what causes that weight. To you it's gravity if you fail to use logic. To me, by using logic, I can see that the brick by density is pushing against the atmosphere which is pushing down onto it.
I also know that the same brick is porous as well, in small quantities, as it the air holes are super tiny, say, compared to a sponge or a scouring pad, etc.

Because of this, that brick weigh's a certain amount on those scales by the fact that it repels the atmosphere upon it by using the scale plate as a leverage or resistance, meaning that brick is registering a weight on that scale plate.

Make that same brick size out of LEAD and it will weigh much much heavier because that brick is hardly porous at all. It's extremely reactive to the atmosphere by repelling more of it because it refuses to absorb any, meaning that atmosphere is close to full force upon it on that scale plate which registers a much greater weight.

The issue now is by putting this to the test in an evacuation chamber, as sokarul attempted to do but for some reason failed to follow my instructions and did it his way, very quickly, citing that he had to because his boss was due back. What a crank.


It's surprising all the scientists on here who know the in's and out's of a fart where science is concerned and yet only one seems to have access to a shitty evacuation chamber that's only good for evacuating a small amount of atmosphere.

There's quite a few experiments that people can do if they have access to an evacuation chamber. I'd mention vacuum chamber but this always causes people like globalists to play games.

Now the issue is, you put a MANUAL scale in a chamber with various objects and so on and so on. I won't explain it because it will be wasting my time when no one is remotely interested in testing it out.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 04, 2015, 05:02:33 AM
In a vacuum chamber there is NO pressure, so what is holding things to the ground? There needs to be a force. The lack of a force(pressure in this case) doesn't press things down to the ground.
There is pressure is  a vacuum chamber, it's just much lower than the external pressure.
In A vacuum chamber you have to place the any object inside of it before you cover it and evacuate pressure.
The density of the object will always stay on the ground because of the energy used to put it there and the inability of a vacuum chamber to break it down enough to evacuate it from the ground, molecule by molecule...depending on the object itself being of a superior density.

I don't expect you to understand because you seem like the rest. You came in with all guns blazing to back up the usual global crap.

If air pressure is the force pushing the object to the ground, then a decrease in pressure would mean a decrease in the objects weight.
Also, the fact is that pressure acts on the BOTTOM of the object as well as the top. So it wouldn't cause objects to fall.
Yes a decrease in pressure would mean a decrease in an objects weight, to our vision, because weight is merely a measure of atmospheric pressure upon density (denpressure) and scales are the only thing that can show us the change.
Unfortunately we need to experiment this because it's not as easy to actually prove as it seems.

You can pick up a brick and say it might weight X amount. The point is, you can weigh that on man made scales to verify what you think.

It doesn't exactly prove anything by eye as to what causes that weight. To you it's gravity if you fail to use logic. To me, by using logic, I can see that the brick by density is pushing against the atmosphere which is pushing down onto it.
I also know that the same brick is porous as well, in small quantities, as it the air holes are super tiny, say, compared to a sponge or a scouring pad, etc.

Because of this, that brick weigh's a certain amount on those scales by the fact that it repels the atmosphere upon it by using the scale plate as a leverage or resistance, meaning that brick is registering a weight on that scale plate.

Make that same brick size out of LEAD and it will weigh much much heavier because that brick is hardly porous at all. It's extremely reactive to the atmosphere by repelling more of it because it refuses to absorb any, meaning that atmosphere is close to full force upon it on that scale plate which registers a much greater weight.

The issue now is by putting this to the test in an evacuation chamber, as sokarul attempted to do but for some reason failed to follow my instructions and did it his way, very quickly, citing that he had to because his boss was due back. What a crank.


It's surprising all the scientists on here who know the in's and out's of a fart where science is concerned and yet only one seems to have access to a shitty evacuation chamber that's only good for evacuating a small amount of atmosphere.

There's quite a few experiments that people can do if they have access to an evacuation chamber. I'd mention vacuum chamber but this always causes people like globalists to play games.

Now the issue is, you put a MANUAL scale in a chamber with various objects and so on and so on. I won't explain it because it will be wasting my time when no one is remotely interested in testing it out.

But pressure works from the bottom as well. Pressure is just... pressure. It presses. If there is air or ground beneath an object, the object will be pushed up. Pressure doesn't only applies downwards, it applies to every direction in 3D space. And scientists uses different tools that let's them observe how atoms behave, in gas, liquid and solid. I have never seen a scientific peer describing how an atom swell up when there is more space around it. Also, you are not talking about pressure anymore, but buoyancy. And buoancy requires a local directional force that applies equally to all particles, in this case gravity. If something weighs heavier, it's because gravity is pulling it down more strongly. Pressure doesn't only press down. A hydraulic lift uses pressure to press a platform or an object up. And when I say that there is a vacuum between all particles, that's what I mean-abscence of all matter. An atom is much much bigger than the core, but it is only the core and the electrons that are matter. The rest of the atom is empty space, filled with electromagnetic charge from the electrons. This electromegnetically charged empty space repells the electromagnetically charged empty space of other atoms. Atoms never touch each other, here's a couple of great videos explaining it:
(http://)
(http://)
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2015, 05:20:29 AM

But pressure works from the bottom as well. Pressure is just... pressure. It presses.

Pressure works from the bottom because of energy applied. That's why we have an atmosphere of stacked matter, because of the energy applied from underground to push up that matter into the atmosphere, that now stacks back onto whatever is in that atmosphere. Namely us and everything else within it.

If there is air or ground beneath an object, the object will be pushed up.

Pressure doesn't only applies downwards, it applies to every direction in 3D space.
Pressure only applies in every direction due to energy being applied under different expansions that create it.

And scientists uses different tools that let's them observe how atoms behave, in gas, liquid and solid. I have never seen a scientific peer describing how an atom swell up when there is more space around it. Also, you are not talking about pressure anymore, but buoyancy. And buoancy requires a local directional force that applies equally to all particles, in this case gravity.
That's what you believe. The truth is, they are guessing how they behave. They have a theory on how they behave just like most things we can't see. You either buy into it or question it. Now seeing as gravity is bullshit; I question it.


If something weighs heavier, it's because gravity is pulling it down more strongly. Pressure doesn't only press down.
Pressure is only created when atmospheric pressure is PUSHED against by any dense object within it. A tree is pushed into it by energy from below. It's a push of war instead of a tug of war.

A hydraulic lift uses pressure to press a platform or an object up.
Yes it uses pressure. It requires energy to do so; to push it into the atmosphere because that atmosphere is pushing against  IT.

And when I say that there is a vacuum between all particles, that's what I mean-abscence of all matter.
To have absence of all matter you have nothing. You have absolutely nothing and nothing cannot exist as something, which renders your atom as bullshit for an explanation.

An atom is much much bigger than the core, but it is only the core and the electrons that are matter. The rest of the atom is empty space, filled with electromagnetic charge from the electrons. This electromegnetically charged empty space repells the electromagnetically charged empty space of other atoms. Atoms never touch each other, here's a couple of great videos explaining it:
(http://)
(http://)
I'm sure you enjoy these kinds of video's. I don't buy into bullshit when I don;t see any logic in it.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 04, 2015, 05:39:41 AM
Pressure is only created when atmospheric pressure is PUSHED against by any dense object within it. A tree is pushed into it by energy from below. It's a push of war instead of a tug of war.

That sentence doesn't make sense, first of all:

"Pressure is created when atmospheric pressure is pushed by any dense object within it."

So pressure is created when matter pressures pressure? Ineresting... (Pushing something=Applying pressure, Atmospheric pressure=pressure)

But if we were to follow the logic of that sentence, we could jump and stay in the air. Why? Because if I jump, I will have air below me and above me. The air above me would push me down, but the air below me, and the ground below the air, would push me up, equally. Therefore I would float up until air resistance would eventually bring me to a stop. But that doesn't happen.


Also, you're questioning how atoms work? Good luck.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2015, 05:52:41 AM
Pressure is only created when atmospheric pressure is PUSHED against by any dense object within it. A tree is pushed into it by energy from below. It's a push of war instead of a tug of war.

That sentence doesn't make sense, first of all:

"Pressure is created when atmospheric pressure is pushed by any dense object within it."

So pressure is created when matter pressures pressure? Ineresting... (Pushing something=Applying pressure, Atmospheric pressure=pressure)

But if we were to follow the logic of that sentence, we could jump and stay in the air. Why? Because if I jump, I will have air below me and above me. The air above me would push me down, but the air below me, and the ground below the air, would push me up, equally. Therefore I would float up until air resistance would eventually bring me to a stop. But that doesn't happen.


Also, you're questioning how atoms work? Good luck.
In bold:

If you have to ask this, then you're not taking any notice of it, are you?

Let's see if this absorbs into your head or floats by.
You are already stood on the ground with atmospheric pressure pushing back against your body pushing up.
Your body is situated under a mass of air and that mass of air is trying to push you down but you are resisting it by your feet being planted on the more dense surface.

If you jump into the air, you can jump a few feet but your body is displacing it's full size against the atmosphere above which is far more than what you leave below, meaning it pushes you back down.

However: if you were to jump up and someone took away the air above your head, you would actually float. You would become buoyant as if you were treading water .

I'd go into explanation mode but I have a strange feeling that this will whizz right over your head. Anyone interested who can grasp this stuff; feel free to ask and delve.
I'm aiming this at free thinkers.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 04, 2015, 06:03:56 AM
Pressure is only created when atmospheric pressure is PUSHED against by any dense object within it. A tree is pushed into it by energy from below. It's a push of war instead of a tug of war.

That sentence doesn't make sense, first of all:

"Pressure is created when atmospheric pressure is pushed by any dense object within it."

So pressure is created when matter pressures pressure? Ineresting... (Pushing something=Applying pressure, Atmospheric pressure=pressure)

But if we were to follow the logic of that sentence, we could jump and stay in the air. Why? Because if I jump, I will have air below me and above me. The air above me would push me down, but the air below me, and the ground below the air, would push me up, equally. Therefore I would float up until air resistance would eventually bring me to a stop. But that doesn't happen.


Also, you're questioning how atoms work? Good luck.
In bold:

If you have to ask this, then you're not taking any notice of it, are you?

Let's see if this absorbs into your head or floats by.
You are already stood on the ground with atmospheric pressure pushing back against your body pushing up.
Your body is situated under a mass of air and that mass of air is trying to push you down but you are resisting it by your feet being planted on the more dense surface.

If you jump into the air, you can jump a few feet but your body is displacing it's full size against the atmosphere above which is far more than what you leave below, meaning it pushes you back down.

However: if you were to jump up and someone took away the air above your head, you would actually float. You would become buoyant as if you were treading water .

I'd go into explanation mode but I have a strange feeling that this will whizz right over your head. Anyone interested who can grasp this stuff; feel free to ask and delve.
I'm aiming this at free thinkers.

SO that would means that if i dig a hole down and go down it, I could float because I press the air below me but leaves space above me. Right?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: guv on July 04, 2015, 06:17:55 AM
Pressure is only created when atmospheric pressure is PUSHED against by any dense object within it. A tree is pushed into it by energy from below. It's a push of war instead of a tug of war.

That sentence doesn't make sense, first of all:

"Pressure is created when atmospheric pressure is pushed by any dense object within it."

So pressure is created when matter pressures pressure? Ineresting... (Pushing something=Applying pressure, Atmospheric pressure=pressure)

But if we were to follow the logic of that sentence, we could jump and stay in the air. Why? Because if I jump, I will have air below me and above me. The air above me would push me down, but the air below me, and the ground below the air, would push me up, equally. Therefore I would float up until air resistance would eventually bring me to a stop. But that doesn't happen.


Also, you're questioning how atoms work? Good luck.
In bold:

If you have to ask this, then you're not taking any notice of it, are you?

Let's see if this absorbs into your head or floats by.
You are already stood on the ground with atmospheric pressure pushing back against your body pushing up.
Your body is situated under a mass of air and that mass of air is trying to push you down but you are resisting it by your feet being planted on the more dense surface.

If you jump into the air, you can jump a few feet but your body is displacing it's full size against the atmosphere above which is far more than what you leave below, meaning it pushes you back down.

However: if you were to jump up and someone took away the air above your head, you would actually float. You would become buoyant as if you were treading water .

I'd go into explanation mode but I have a strange feeling that this will whizz right over your head. Anyone interested who can grasp this stuff; feel free to ask and delve.
I'm aiming this at free thinkers.

SO that would means that if i dig a hole down and go down it, I could float because I press the air below me but leaves space above me. Right?


Are you picking holes in dunny pressure?.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2015, 06:24:21 AM
SO that would means that if i dig a hole down and go down it, I could float because I press the air below me but leaves space above me. Right?
I'm going to try and be very patient with you and give you the benefit of the doubt on your naivety. All I ask is that you observe what I'm typing and absorb it.

If you dig a hole and go down it, what follows you?
I'll make this a shit load simpler.

If you were in a sink in a little diving suit and that sink was full of water. And just say...I mean, JUST SAY....imagine that this sink was made of MUD and that the water was simply the ATMOSPHERE.

Now can I trust you to imagine this? I'll carry on in the hope that you will.

Ok, now you dig a hole on the bottom of your sink. You dig it as deep as your height, for instance.
Ok, now where is the water?

Is it in your dug hole? it is, right?...why?
Because the pressure of it fills whatever you open up for it. Now if that was a metal box and you opened the box, it would fill the box, too.

Now imagine that same box before it was filled. Imagine trying to open that lid. That lid would be hard to open because the water/atmospheric pressure is applying pressure to it and that box and lid is resisting it, meaning you cannot open it easily with your energy.
Once you do, the water/atmosphere will fill that box very quickly, leaving only the box's skin density acting against the water/atmosphere.

Now get your head around this and please read this as well.

Please do not come out with, " yeah but water makes us buoyant and we act differently in water."

If you come out with something like this then I'm wasting my time explaining to you.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: guv on July 04, 2015, 06:37:52 AM
try this. yeah but water makes us buoyant and we act differently in water."
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 04, 2015, 06:49:13 AM

If you jump into the air, you can jump a few feet but your body is displacing it's full size against the atmosphere above which is far more than what you leave below, meaning it pushes you back down.

So, if I go to the edge of a cliff and walk off I'd just float, right?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Yendor on July 04, 2015, 07:11:52 AM

If you jump into the air, you can jump a few feet but your body is displacing it's full size against the atmosphere above which is far more than what you leave below, meaning it pushes you back down.

So, if I go to the edge of a cliff and walk off I'd just float, right?

I don't know Jimmy. If you were a feather you'd probably float. But because you are a crab you would probably just fall off the cliff onto the ground. Make sense to you?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2015, 07:39:37 AM
try this. yeah but water makes us buoyant and we act differently in water."
There's always one.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2015, 07:41:28 AM

If you jump into the air, you can jump a few feet but your body is displacing it's full size against the atmosphere above which is far more than what you leave below, meaning it pushes you back down.

So, if I go to the edge of a cliff and walk off I'd just float, right?
Take away all the air above your head. leaving the same dense air below and you would, yeah. As long as there is that air above your head as you know it, you will fall to the ground.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 04, 2015, 07:48:29 AM
But, if I stand on a cliff the air pressure is acting equally in all directions on me.  So, why, when I step of a cliff do I travel downwards and not just stay where I am, or drift to the left, or go upwards?  What's so special about down?

You were saying the reason that you travel back down after jumping up is because you compress the air above you, and, like a coiled spring, this pushes you back down.  This clearly can't be the explanation for when someone steps out of a plane, off a cliff or out of a building.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on July 04, 2015, 07:55:32 AM

If you jump into the air, you can jump a few feet but your body is displacing it's full size against the atmosphere above which is far more than what you leave below, meaning it pushes you back down.

So, if I go to the edge of a cliff and walk off I'd just float, right?
Take away all the air above your head. leaving the same dense air below and you would, yeah. As long as there is that air above your head as you know it, you will fall to the ground.

So if I jump out of a very high plane I fall up because there is more air below me?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2015, 08:04:15 AM
But, if I stand on a cliff the air pressure is acting equally in all directions on me.  So, why, when I step of a cliff do I travel downwards and not just stay where I am, or drift to the left, or go upwards?  What's so special about down?
I've just told you why. Why can't you grasp it?
There is a lot of atmosphere above you than there is below you.
You were saying the reason that you travel back down after jumping up is because you compress the air above you, and, like a coiled spring, this pushes you back down.  This clearly can't be the explanation for when someone steps out of a plane, off a cliff or out of a building.
Jumping up is different than standing on a cliff.

Let's try and make this easier.
If someone holds a trampoline directly above your head and asks you to jump up, you know that your head will compress it and it will compress back, pushing you down. Think hard at what I'm saying here because my patience will only last so long on your piss taking mate, seriously.

Now climb upon a house roof and have the people put that same trampoline above your head, just resting on it.
The house roof is your cliff but also your solid base against the atmosphere above you.
Walk off the house roof and your trampoline follows you because it's pushing down on you with some force but less force than if you jumped into it to compress it.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2015, 08:11:13 AM

If you jump into the air, you can jump a few feet but your body is displacing it's full size against the atmosphere above which is far more than what you leave below, meaning it pushes you back down.

So, if I go to the edge of a cliff and walk off I'd just float, right?
Take away all the air above your head. leaving the same dense air below and you would, yeah. As long as there is that air above your head as you know it, you will fall to the ground.

So if I jump out of a very high plane I fall up because there is more air below me?
Very possible, yes, as long as your body doesn't go BANG.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 04, 2015, 09:23:18 AM
There is a lot of atmosphere above you than there is below you.
So what?  It's all just molecules floating around isn't it?  Why should they press downwards?  Anyway, air pressure acts equally in all directions - are you denying this?

Quote
Think hard at what I'm saying here because my patience will only last so long on your piss taking mate, seriously.
Look, we both know this isn't going to go anywhere, so if you don't want to play, then don't play.

Quote
Now climb upon a house roof and have the people put that same trampoline above your head, just resting on it.
The house roof is your cliff but also your solid base against the atmosphere above you.
Walk off the house roof and your trampoline follows you because it's pushing down on you with some force but less force than if you jumped into it to compress it.
Lol, what?

I'll drop to the floor whether the trampoline is there or not.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2015, 09:33:54 AM
There is a lot of atmosphere above you than there is below you.
So what?  It's all just molecules floating around isn't it?  Why should they press downwards?  Anyway, air pressure acts equally in all directions - are you denying this?

Quote
Think hard at what I'm saying here because my patience will only last so long on your piss taking mate, seriously.
Look, we both know this isn't going to go anywhere, so if you don't want to play, then don't play.

Quote
Now climb upon a house roof and have the people put that same trampoline above your head, just resting on it.
The house roof is your cliff but also your solid base against the atmosphere above you.
Walk off the house roof and your trampoline follows you because it's pushing down on you with some force but less force than if you jumped into it to compress it.
Lol, what?

I'll drop to the floor whether the trampoline is there or not.
The bold bit is enough for me.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on July 04, 2015, 10:11:03 AM
Did you figure out a procedure yet?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on July 04, 2015, 10:18:24 AM
You can make a vacuum on earth. It's not going to be a perfect vacuum, but it will still be a vacuum. And the small pressure from the extremely few particles that are not pumped out succesfully is negligible. The object would still float around inside the vacuum chamber as soon as it would be subjected to any force, if gravity wouldn't exist.
Then it's not a vacuum.

Let's make things clear. You can evacuate pressure from a chamber but you can never push a vacuum.
When you mention a few particles, can you explain what these particles are and what you think they are doing in this chamber after evacuation of pressure.

1. Are they jumping about like  tiny tennis balls just freely bouncing off the chamber walls?

2. Are they expanding due to less compression upon them?

It's 1. That's how gas works. It's impossible to get rid of every little gas particle, and gas particles doesn't expand, but they move faster and more freely when there is less other particles around to bounce into. Some air particles will stay, and they will continue bouncing around in the chamber. But it's so few of them that they won't affect any solid object in the chamber, or the chamber itself, in any noticable way.
Just to clear up. You believe they bounce around in the chamber moving faster and more freely. Is this due to them having free space between them, as in a complete vacuum or what?

I need to know your mindset before I educate you on what really happens.

There is always a small vacuum between particles, as atoms don't actally touch each other-the electron fields are repelling each other. In any gas, particles bounce of each other's electron fields. Bouncing on objects (solid, liquid or gas) transfers kinetic energy. The kinetic energy is applied as pressure. In sea-level atmosphere, there are a lot of particles colliding and bouncing on each other all the time, and the kinetic force from all the particles in the air applies a rather high pressure to objects in the atmosphere, that get's squished between the air particles. In a vacuum chamber, there extremely is fewer particles, and they often miss each other. The extremely small kinetic energy in those particles creates a negligible pressure inside the vacuum chamber. Pressure is just waves of kinetic energy travelling through matter.
What makes you believe what you just told me? Did you see this happen under a microscope or some other device, or were you simply told this is what happens.
Or: were you shown some plastic balls and pieces on a desk put together in a pattern that showed you what happens?

Now when you say a vacuum between the particles. Do you mean absence of all matter in that space and if not, what is in that space?

Just a few things for you to answer, if you can.
Because the current model of the atom was created by a number of experiments by quite a number of different scientists. And it's been backed up by an enormous number of experiments by a large number of different scientists, many of whom would just love to prove to be able to prove the current model wrong in some way and replace part of it with their own ideas. As if they did so it would likely guarantee that they get remembered for their contributions for a long time.

And by the way, i do remember doing a number of experiments in class about air pressure.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 04, 2015, 10:20:24 AM
There is a lot of atmosphere above you than there is below you.
So what?  It's all just molecules floating around isn't it?  Why should they press downwards?  Anyway, air pressure acts equally in all directions - are you denying this?

Quote
Think hard at what I'm saying here because my patience will only last so long on your piss taking mate, seriously.
Look, we both know this isn't going to go anywhere, so if you don't want to play, then don't play.

Quote
Now climb upon a house roof and have the people put that same trampoline above your head, just resting on it.
The house roof is your cliff but also your solid base against the atmosphere above you.
Walk off the house roof and your trampoline follows you because it's pushing down on you with some force but less force than if you jumped into it to compress it.
Lol, what?

I'll drop to the floor whether the trampoline is there or not.
The bold bit is enough for me.

 :'( :'( :'(
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on July 04, 2015, 10:26:13 AM
You can make a vacuum on earth. It's not going to be a perfect vacuum, but it will still be a vacuum. And the small pressure from the extremely few particles that are not pumped out succesfully is negligible. The object would still float around inside the vacuum chamber as soon as it would be subjected to any force, if gravity wouldn't exist.
Then it's not a vacuum.

Let's make things clear. You can evacuate pressure from a chamber but you can never push a vacuum.
When you mention a few particles, can you explain what these particles are and what you think they are doing in this chamber after evacuation of pressure.

1. Are they jumping about like  tiny tennis balls just freely bouncing off the chamber walls?

2. Are they expanding due to less compression upon them?

It's 1. That's how gas works. It's impossible to get rid of every little gas particle, and gas particles doesn't expand, but they move faster and more freely when there is less other particles around to bounce into. Some air particles will stay, and they will continue bouncing around in the chamber. But it's so few of them that they won't affect any solid object in the chamber, or the chamber itself, in any noticable way.
Just to clear up. You believe they bounce around in the chamber moving faster and more freely. Is this due to them having free space between them, as in a complete vacuum or what?

I need to know your mindset before I educate you on what really happens.

There is always a small vacuum between particles, as atoms don't actally touch each other-the electron fields are repelling each other. In any gas, particles bounce of each other's electron fields. Bouncing on objects (solid, liquid or gas) transfers kinetic energy. The kinetic energy is applied as pressure. In sea-level atmosphere, there are a lot of particles colliding and bouncing on each other all the time, and the kinetic force from all the particles in the air applies a rather high pressure to objects in the atmosphere, that get's squished between the air particles. In a vacuum chamber, there extremely is fewer particles, and they often miss each other. The extremely small kinetic energy in those particles creates a negligible pressure inside the vacuum chamber. Pressure is just waves of kinetic energy travelling through matter.
What makes you believe what you just told me? Did you see this happen under a microscope or some other device, or were you simply told this is what happens.
Or: were you shown some plastic balls and pieces on a desk put together in a pattern that showed you what happens?

Now when you say a vacuum between the particles. Do you mean absence of all matter in that space and if not, what is in that space?

Just a few things for you to answer, if you can.

Two questions.
First of all, are you saying that a objects density is to do with how porous it is. I.E. Two fully non-porous objects should have the same density.
Second, do you agree that a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight.
PLEASE ANSWER THESE CLEARLY.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 04, 2015, 10:39:04 AM

Two questions.First of all, are you saying that a objects density is to do with how porous it is. I.E. Two fully non-porous objects should have the same density.

You need to be careful by what you're saying about two fully non-porous objects. What you think are two fully non-porous objects may not be so, or anywhere near so. Be particular when you mention this and give me examples of what you deem as two fully non porous objects.

Second, do you agree that a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight.
PLEASE ANSWER THESE CLEARLY.
Yes, a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight....BUT it has to be carefully done, because weight is a man made measurement by man made scales and these scales are built and calibrated under the very same atmospheric conditions, so it's not quite as simple as you might believe.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on July 04, 2015, 11:13:14 AM

Two questions.First of all, are you saying that a objects density is to do with how porous it is. I.E. Two fully non-porous objects should have the same density.

You need to be careful by what you're saying about two fully non-porous objects. What you think are two fully non-porous objects may not be so, or anywhere near so. Be particular when you mention this and give me examples of what you deem as two fully non porous objects.

Second, do you agree that a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight.
PLEASE ANSWER THESE CLEARLY.
Yes, a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight....BUT it has to be carefully done, because weight is a man made measurement by man made scales and these scales are built and calibrated under the very same atmospheric conditions, so it's not quite as simple as you might believe.
Thanks for your answers.
First, lets say an metal object that was originally liquid, therefor any air bubbles of air would leave the object before it solidified.

For the second one two further questions. First of all, if decreasing the pressure causes a decrease in weight, then would increasing the pressure the levels greater then normal increase the weight.
Secondly, does the weight scale linearly with pressure.

For example, halving the pressure causes the weight to also be halved. Decreasing the pressure to one third decreases the pressure to one ninth.
Or would it scale differently. E.G. decreasing the pressure 1/4 decrease weight to 1/2, while decreasing the pressure to 1/9th decreases the weight to 1/3.
E.G. decreasing the pressure.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on July 04, 2015, 01:48:13 PM

Two questions.First of all, are you saying that a objects density is to do with how porous it is. I.E. Two fully non-porous objects should have the same density.

You need to be careful by what you're saying about two fully non-porous objects. What you think are two fully non-porous objects may not be so, or anywhere near so. Be particular when you mention this and give me examples of what you deem as two fully non porous objects.

Second, do you agree that a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight.
PLEASE ANSWER THESE CLEARLY.
Yes, a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight....BUT it has to be carefully done, because weight is a man made measurement by man made scales and these scales are built and calibrated under the very same atmospheric conditions, so it's not quite as simple as you might believe.
So why don't compresed gas cylinders weight really heavy compared to when they are empty? 3000 psi should greatly increase weight.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: panoslydios on July 04, 2015, 02:49:53 PM

If you jump into the air, you can jump a few feet but your body is displacing it's full size against the atmosphere above which is far more than what you leave below, meaning it pushes you back down.

So, if I go to the edge of a cliff and walk off I'd just float, right?
Take away all the air above your head. leaving the same dense air below and you would, yeah. As long as there is that air above your head as you know it, you will fall to the ground.

Think about it guys,helicopters simply float because the high speed movement of the propellers  ,
drive out the air (air pressure) from above.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on July 04, 2015, 11:33:07 PM

If you jump into the air, you can jump a few feet but your body is displacing it's full size against the atmosphere above which is far more than what you leave below, meaning it pushes you back down.

So, if I go to the edge of a cliff and walk off I'd just float, right?
Take away all the air above your head. leaving the same dense air below and you would, yeah. As long as there is that air above your head as you know it, you will fall to the ground.

Think about it guys,helicopters simply float because the high speed movement of the propellers  ,
drive out the air (air pressure) from above.

And yet the shape and angle of the rotors matter.  They are shaped like airplane wings because they need to generate lift.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Dog on July 05, 2015, 12:39:03 AM
To make the earth tilted , to make the earth rotating, to make the sun moving in 65000 mph in the universe just for life to be sustainable does it sound to you elegant ?

It doesn't matter that in your simple mind it's not elegant that the Earth is tilted, or that we're moving at 65000mph, or that life exists. All that matters are that the fundamental laws that allowed and caused all of that to happen are elegant. Take an actual Physics course. You might learn something.

It's pointless putting up video of models and what not, plus little actors and actresses playing astronauts.
Yes a decrease in pressure would mean a decrease in an objects weight, to our vision, because weight is merely a measure of atmospheric pressure upon density (denpressure)
Because of this, that brick weigh's a certain amount on those scales by the fact that it repels the atmosphere upon it by using the scale plate as a leverage or resistance,
Pressure works from the bottom because of energy applied. That's why we have an atmosphere of stacked matter, because of the energy applied from underground to push up that matter into the atmosphere, that now stacks back onto whatever is in that atmosphere. Namely us and everything else within it.
Pressure only applies in every direction due to energy being applied under different expansions that create it.
That's what you believe. The truth is, they are guessing how they behave. They have a theory on how they behave just like most things we can't see. You either buy into it or question it. Now seeing as gravity is bullshit; I question it.

[CITATION NEEDED]


I fully expect a hissy fit and being called "indoctrinated", instead of actual citations.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 02:19:16 AM
Thanks for your answers.
First, lets say an metal object that was originally liquid, therefor any air bubbles of air would leave the object before it solidified.
No. It depends on the actual metal. For instance, the melting points. An example is LEAD. It's melting point is low which means it turns to liquid and is dense enough to squeeze out most atmospheric pressure, which leaves it extremely dense and weighing heavier on a scale due to it's density being able to exert most of it's entire mass on resistance to the atmosphere.
However, if other metals are melted and cooled, the cooling process can be slow and this allows atmosphere to be trapped in it, meaning it's absorbed a fair bit which also means that less of that metal is resisting the atmosphere outside of it.

That's why I use water as an analogy to those who are prepared to understand it. Few seem to want to and are quite happy believing in gravity and willing to simply reject anything said against it, no matter what. I'll see how you fare.
For the second one two further questions. First of all, if decreasing the pressure causes a decrease in weight, then would increasing the pressure the levels greater then normal increase the weight.
Secondly, does the weight scale linearly with pressure.
Course it would increase the weight. You would have more psi upon you so you would need to resist that, which means your body would show that on a scale plate.
It depends on how you look at it when you say linear. You see, realistically the atmosphere is stacked upon you. It's pushing you as you resist that push. You could sort of think it was linear but then it depends on how you look at the grip or friction effect as it's pushing down and around you to grip you. It's why I didn't answer that little dipshit who used to come on here...ermmm Geoffrey I think her name was.

So you make your choice what you think it is....or simply stop asking about vectors and shite because all you're doing is making it harder for yourselves you pack of dipshits.

For example, halving the pressure causes the weight to also be halved. Decreasing the pressure to one third decreases the pressure to one ninth.
Or would it scale differently. E.G. decreasing the pressure 1/4 decrease weight to 1/2, while decreasing the pressure to 1/9th decreases the weight to 1/3.
E.G. decreasing the pressure.
No not necessarily. It depends on the scales. Scales are calibrated and made under atmospheric conditions. Basically they rely on various methods of weighing, depending on the scale used, so all scales will probably show many differences. This needs to be checked out and I was in the process of doing it with a waif like girl called sokarul but she decided to take fits and jump about when I told her that she wasn't following what I asked.


Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 05, 2015, 02:30:53 AM
Thanks for your answers.
First, lets say an metal object that was originally liquid, therefor any air bubbles of air would leave the object before it solidified.
No. It depends on the actual metal. For instance, the melting points. An example is LEAD. It's melting point is low which means it turns to liquid and is dense enough to squeeze out most atmospheric pressure, which leaves it extremely dense and weighing heavier on a scale due to it's density being able to exert most of it's entire mass on resistance to the atmosphere.
However, if other metals are melted and cooled, the cooling process can be slow and this allows atmosphere to be trapped in it, meaning it's absorbed a fair bit which also means that less of that metal is resisting the atmosphere outside of it.

That's why I use water as an analogy to those who are prepared to understand it. Few seem to want to and are quite happy believing in gravity and willing to simply reject anything said against it, no matter what. I'll see how you fare.
For the second one two further questions. First of all, if decreasing the pressure causes a decrease in weight, then would increasing the pressure the levels greater then normal increase the weight.
Secondly, does the weight scale linearly with pressure.
Course it would increase the weight. You would have more psi upon you so you would need to resist that, which means your body would show that on a scale plate.
It depends on how you look at it when you say linear. You see, realistically the atmosphere is stacked upon you. It's pushing you as you resist that push. You could sort of think it was linear but then it depends on how you look at the grip or friction effect as it's pushing down and around you to grip you. It's why I didn't answer that little dipshit who used to come on here...ermmm Geoffrey I think her name was.

So you make your choice what you think it is....or simply stop asking about vectors and shite because all you're doing is making it harder for yourselves you pack of dipshits.

For example, halving the pressure causes the weight to also be halved. Decreasing the pressure to one third decreases the pressure to one ninth.
Or would it scale differently. E.G. decreasing the pressure 1/4 decrease weight to 1/2, while decreasing the pressure to 1/9th decreases the weight to 1/3.
E.G. decreasing the pressure.
No not necessarily. It depends on the scales. Scales are calibrated and made under atmospheric conditions. Basically they rely on various methods of weighing, depending on the scale used, so all scales will probably show many differences. This needs to be checked out and I was in the process of doing it with a waif like girl called sokarul but she decided to take fits and jump about when I told her that she wasn't following what I asked.

Why does air have weight?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 02:43:24 AM

Two questions.First of all, are you saying that a objects density is to do with how porous it is. I.E. Two fully non-porous objects should have the same density.

You need to be careful by what you're saying about two fully non-porous objects. What you think are two fully non-porous objects may not be so, or anywhere near so. Be particular when you mention this and give me examples of what you deem as two fully non porous objects.

Second, do you agree that a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight.
PLEASE ANSWER THESE CLEARLY.
Yes, a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight....BUT it has to be carefully done, because weight is a man made measurement by man made scales and these scales are built and calibrated under the very same atmospheric conditions, so it's not quite as simple as you might believe.
So why don't compresed gas cylinders weight really heavy compared to when they are empty? 3000 psi should greatly increase weight.
Do you really need an answer to that?
I supposed you will.

Do you know the space inside a compressed air cylinder? you know how thick the casing it and the small amount of space that has to have compressed air pushed into it.
Naturally it will weigh more but not much, because it's almost like adding water into a little internal tube of a dense as hell thick skinned container.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 02:49:42 AM
Thanks for your answers.
First, lets say an metal object that was originally liquid, therefor any air bubbles of air would leave the object before it solidified.
No. It depends on the actual metal. For instance, the melting points. An example is LEAD. It's melting point is low which means it turns to liquid and is dense enough to squeeze out most atmospheric pressure, which leaves it extremely dense and weighing heavier on a scale due to it's density being able to exert most of it's entire mass on resistance to the atmosphere.
However, if other metals are melted and cooled, the cooling process can be slow and this allows atmosphere to be trapped in it, meaning it's absorbed a fair bit which also means that less of that metal is resisting the atmosphere outside of it.

That's why I use water as an analogy to those who are prepared to understand it. Few seem to want to and are quite happy believing in gravity and willing to simply reject anything said against it, no matter what. I'll see how you fare.
For the second one two further questions. First of all, if decreasing the pressure causes a decrease in weight, then would increasing the pressure the levels greater then normal increase the weight.
Secondly, does the weight scale linearly with pressure.
Course it would increase the weight. You would have more psi upon you so you would need to resist that, which means your body would show that on a scale plate.
It depends on how you look at it when you say linear. You see, realistically the atmosphere is stacked upon you. It's pushing you as you resist that push. You could sort of think it was linear but then it depends on how you look at the grip or friction effect as it's pushing down and around you to grip you. It's why I didn't answer that little dipshit who used to come on here...ermmm Geoffrey I think her name was.

So you make your choice what you think it is....or simply stop asking about vectors and shite because all you're doing is making it harder for yourselves you pack of dipshits.

For example, halving the pressure causes the weight to also be halved. Decreasing the pressure to one third decreases the pressure to one ninth.
Or would it scale differently. E.G. decreasing the pressure 1/4 decrease weight to 1/2, while decreasing the pressure to 1/9th decreases the weight to 1/3.
E.G. decreasing the pressure.
No not necessarily. It depends on the scales. Scales are calibrated and made under atmospheric conditions. Basically they rely on various methods of weighing, depending on the scale used, so all scales will probably show many differences. This needs to be checked out and I was in the process of doing it with a waif like girl called sokarul but she decided to take fits and jump about when I told her that she wasn't following what I asked.

Why does air have weight?
Air doesn't have weight. Nothing has weight until it's stacked against each other in a push on push fight. Weight only comes from man made measuring plates that measure the resistance of this push on push of object against air. or air against air.
The problem is, you can't measure air by simply placing a scale on the ground because that scale is already in atmospheric sea level pressured environment.

As for measuring air to air to weight it; you can't. You need a dense surface to weight air. A surface denser than air that is capable of resisting it.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 05, 2015, 03:05:33 AM
Thanks for your answers.
First, lets say an metal object that was originally liquid, therefor any air bubbles of air would leave the object before it solidified.
No. It depends on the actual metal. For instance, the melting points. An example is LEAD. It's melting point is low which means it turns to liquid and is dense enough to squeeze out most atmospheric pressure, which leaves it extremely dense and weighing heavier on a scale due to it's density being able to exert most of it's entire mass on resistance to the atmosphere.
However, if other metals are melted and cooled, the cooling process can be slow and this allows atmosphere to be trapped in it, meaning it's absorbed a fair bit which also means that less of that metal is resisting the atmosphere outside of it.

That's why I use water as an analogy to those who are prepared to understand it. Few seem to want to and are quite happy believing in gravity and willing to simply reject anything said against it, no matter what. I'll see how you fare.
For the second one two further questions. First of all, if decreasing the pressure causes a decrease in weight, then would increasing the pressure the levels greater then normal increase the weight.
Secondly, does the weight scale linearly with pressure.
Course it would increase the weight. You would have more psi upon you so you would need to resist that, which means your body would show that on a scale plate.
It depends on how you look at it when you say linear. You see, realistically the atmosphere is stacked upon you. It's pushing you as you resist that push. You could sort of think it was linear but then it depends on how you look at the grip or friction effect as it's pushing down and around you to grip you. It's why I didn't answer that little dipshit who used to come on here...ermmm Geoffrey I think her name was.

So you make your choice what you think it is....or simply stop asking about vectors and shite because all you're doing is making it harder for yourselves you pack of dipshits.

For example, halving the pressure causes the weight to also be halved. Decreasing the pressure to one third decreases the pressure to one ninth.
Or would it scale differently. E.G. decreasing the pressure 1/4 decrease weight to 1/2, while decreasing the pressure to 1/9th decreases the weight to 1/3.
E.G. decreasing the pressure.
No not necessarily. It depends on the scales. Scales are calibrated and made under atmospheric conditions. Basically they rely on various methods of weighing, depending on the scale used, so all scales will probably show many differences. This needs to be checked out and I was in the process of doing it with a waif like girl called sokarul but she decided to take fits and jump about when I told her that she wasn't following what I asked.

Why does air have weight?
Air doesn't have weight. Nothing has weight until it's stacked against each other in a push on push fight. Weight only comes from man made measuring plates that measure the resistance of this push on push of object against air. or air against air.
The problem is, you can't measure air by simply placing a scale on the ground because that scale is already in atmospheric sea level pressured environment.

As for measuring air to air to weight it; you can't. You need a dense surface to weight air. A surface denser than air that is capable of resisting it.

So if air doesn't have weight how does a helium balloon rise?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 03:26:14 AM


So if air doesn't have weight how does a helium balloon rise?
I said air doesn't have measurable weight against itself. It has to push on push against objects for it to be weighed.

Oh and helium balloons rise because it is more expanded and less dense than the atmosphere which by more dense and smaller (compressed) molecules in larger numbers, try to squash or crush the helium but like wet soap in your hand, a crush only PUSHES the helium vertically, until that helium can expand to a state of equalisation at whatever height it goes, unless the balloon gives way before that happens, which is always.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 05, 2015, 03:29:42 AM


So if air doesn't have weight how does a helium balloon rise?
I said air doesn't have measurable weight against itself. It has to push on push against objects for it to be weighed.

Oh and helium balloons rise because it is more expanded and less dense than the atmosphere which by more dense and smaller (compressed) molecules in larger numbers, try to squash or crush the helium but like wet soap in your hand, a crush only PUSHES the helium vertically, until that helium can expand to a state of equalisation at whatever height it goes, unless the balloon gives way before that happens, which is always.

So does Helium weigh anything?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 06:18:00 AM


So if air doesn't have weight how does a helium balloon rise?
I said air doesn't have measurable weight against itself. It has to push on push against objects for it to be weighed.

Oh and helium balloons rise because it is more expanded and less dense than the atmosphere which by more dense and smaller (compressed) molecules in larger numbers, try to squash or crush the helium but like wet soap in your hand, a crush only PUSHES the helium vertically, until that helium can expand to a state of equalisation at whatever height it goes, unless the balloon gives way before that happens, which is always.

So does Helium weigh anything?
Same thing. It would weigh by a push on push system against a measurable man made scale.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on July 05, 2015, 08:45:57 AM

Two questions.First of all, are you saying that a objects density is to do with how porous it is. I.E. Two fully non-porous objects should have the same density.

You need to be careful by what you're saying about two fully non-porous objects. What you think are two fully non-porous objects may not be so, or anywhere near so. Be particular when you mention this and give me examples of what you deem as two fully non porous objects.

Second, do you agree that a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight.
PLEASE ANSWER THESE CLEARLY.
Yes, a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight....BUT it has to be carefully done, because weight is a man made measurement by man made scales and these scales are built and calibrated under the very same atmospheric conditions, so it's not quite as simple as you might believe.
So why don't compresed gas cylinders weight really heavy compared to when they are empty? 3000 psi should greatly increase weight.
Do you really need an answer to that?
I supposed you will.

Do you know the space inside a compressed air cylinder? you know how thick the casing it and the small amount of space that has to have compressed air pushed into it.
Naturally it will weigh more but not much, because it's almost like adding water into a little internal tube of a dense as hell thick skinned container.
But if I were to drop a wrench into it. The wrench should weigh almost 200 times as much. How can this be and how has no one ever noticed?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on July 05, 2015, 09:19:24 AM
Sokural read my PM
Scepti, would placing an object in increase atmospheric pressure increase the objects weight.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 10:02:34 AM

Two questions.First of all, are you saying that a objects density is to do with how porous it is. I.E. Two fully non-porous objects should have the same density.

You need to be careful by what you're saying about two fully non-porous objects. What you think are two fully non-porous objects may not be so, or anywhere near so. Be particular when you mention this and give me examples of what you deem as two fully non porous objects.

Second, do you agree that a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight.
PLEASE ANSWER THESE CLEARLY.
Yes, a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight....BUT it has to be carefully done, because weight is a man made measurement by man made scales and these scales are built and calibrated under the very same atmospheric conditions, so it's not quite as simple as you might believe.
So why don't compresed gas cylinders weight really heavy compared to when they are empty? 3000 psi should greatly increase weight.
Do you really need an answer to that?
I supposed you will.

Do you know the space inside a compressed air cylinder? you know how thick the casing it and the small amount of space that has to have compressed air pushed into it.
Naturally it will weigh more but not much, because it's almost like adding water into a little internal tube of a dense as hell thick skinned container.
But if I were to drop a wrench into it. The wrench should weigh almost 200 times as much. How can this be and how has no one ever noticed?
You're not making any sense.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 10:05:47 AM
Sokural read my PM
Scepti, would placing an object in increase atmospheric pressure increase the objects weight.
It would increase the objects resistance to the increase in pressure which would show on a scale, provided the scale wasn't calibrated for that new pressure.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: guv on July 05, 2015, 10:37:05 AM

Two questions.First of all, are you saying that a objects density is to do with how porous it is. I.E. Two fully non-porous objects should have the same density.

You need to be careful by what you're saying about two fully non-porous objects. What you think are two fully non-porous objects may not be so, or anywhere near so. Be particular when you mention this and give me examples of what you deem as two fully non porous objects.

Second, do you agree that a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight.
PLEASE ANSWER THESE CLEARLY.
Yes, a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight....BUT it has to be carefully done, because weight is a man made measurement by man made scales and these scales are built and calibrated under the very same atmospheric conditions, so it's not quite as simple as you might believe.
So why don't compresed gas cylinders weight really heavy compared to when they are empty? 3000 psi should greatly increase weight.
Do you really need an answer to that?
I supposed you will.

Do you know the space inside a compressed air cylinder? you know how thick the casing it and the small amount of space that has to have compressed air pushed into it.
Naturally it will weigh more but not much, because it's almost like adding water into a little internal tube of a dense as hell thick skinned container.
But if I were to drop a wrench into it. The wrench should weigh almost 200 times as much. How can this be and how has no one ever noticed?
You're not making any sense.


3000 psi is about 200 ATM's so how heavy will the bloody spanner get septic. Come on you are the local wise man.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 11:09:54 AM

Two questions.First of all, are you saying that a objects density is to do with how porous it is. I.E. Two fully non-porous objects should have the same density.

You need to be careful by what you're saying about two fully non-porous objects. What you think are two fully non-porous objects may not be so, or anywhere near so. Be particular when you mention this and give me examples of what you deem as two fully non porous objects.

Second, do you agree that a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight.
PLEASE ANSWER THESE CLEARLY.
Yes, a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight....BUT it has to be carefully done, because weight is a man made measurement by man made scales and these scales are built and calibrated under the very same atmospheric conditions, so it's not quite as simple as you might believe.
So why don't compresed gas cylinders weight really heavy compared to when they are empty? 3000 psi should greatly increase weight.
Do you really need an answer to that?
I supposed you will.

Do you know the space inside a compressed air cylinder? you know how thick the casing it and the small amount of space that has to have compressed air pushed into it.
Naturally it will weigh more but not much, because it's almost like adding water into a little internal tube of a dense as hell thick skinned container.
But if I were to drop a wrench into it. The wrench should weigh almost 200 times as much. How can this be and how has no one ever noticed?
You're not making any sense.


3000 psi is about 200 ATM's so how heavy will the bloody spanner get septic. Come on you are the local wise man.
How do you get a spanner under the pressure of 3000 psi? just sling one inside a cylinder do you?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: guv on July 05, 2015, 11:26:32 AM

Two questions.First of all, are you saying that a objects density is to do with how porous it is. I.E. Two fully non-porous objects should have the same density.

You need to be careful by what you're saying about two fully non-porous objects. What you think are two fully non-porous objects may not be so, or anywhere near so. Be particular when you mention this and give me examples of what you deem as two fully non porous objects.

Second, do you agree that a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight.
PLEASE ANSWER THESE CLEARLY.
Yes, a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight....BUT it has to be carefully done, because weight is a man made measurement by man made scales and these scales are built and calibrated under the very same atmospheric conditions, so it's not quite as simple as you might believe.
So why don't compresed gas cylinders weight really heavy compared to when they are empty? 3000 psi should greatly increase weight.
Do you really need an answer to that?
I supposed you will.

Do you know the space inside a compressed air cylinder? you know how thick the casing it and the small amount of space that has to have compressed air pushed into it.
Naturally it will weigh more but not much, because it's almost like adding water into a little internal tube of a dense as hell thick skinned container.
But if I were to drop a wrench into it. The wrench should weigh almost 200 times as much. How can this be and how has no one ever noticed?
You're not making any sense.


3000 psi is about 200 ATM's so how heavy will the bloody spanner get septic. Come on you are the local wise man.
How do you get a spanner under the pressure of 3000 psi? just sling one inside a cylinder do you?


Yes, how heavy would it get.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 12:00:09 PM

Two questions.First of all, are you saying that a objects density is to do with how porous it is. I.E. Two fully non-porous objects should have the same density.

You need to be careful by what you're saying about two fully non-porous objects. What you think are two fully non-porous objects may not be so, or anywhere near so. Be particular when you mention this and give me examples of what you deem as two fully non porous objects.

Second, do you agree that a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight.
PLEASE ANSWER THESE CLEARLY.
Yes, a decrease in air pressure should cause a decrease in an objects weight....BUT it has to be carefully done, because weight is a man made measurement by man made scales and these scales are built and calibrated under the very same atmospheric conditions, so it's not quite as simple as you might believe.
So why don't compresed gas cylinders weight really heavy compared to when they are empty? 3000 psi should greatly increase weight.
Do you really need an answer to that?
I supposed you will.

Do you know the space inside a compressed air cylinder? you know how thick the casing it and the small amount of space that has to have compressed air pushed into it.
Naturally it will weigh more but not much, because it's almost like adding water into a little internal tube of a dense as hell thick skinned container.
But if I were to drop a wrench into it. The wrench should weigh almost 200 times as much. How can this be and how has no one ever noticed?
You're not making any sense.


3000 psi is about 200 ATM's so how heavy will the bloody spanner get septic. Come on you are the local wise man.
How do you get a spanner under the pressure of 3000 psi? just sling one inside a cylinder do you?


Yes, how heavy would it get.
I don't know, try it out. I've never stuck a spanner inside a compressed air cylinder and weighed it. Have a go and let me know.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on July 05, 2015, 12:39:09 PM
I don't know, try it out. I've never stuck a spanner inside a compressed air cylinder and weighed it. Have a go and let me know.
Take a guess. You had no trouble guessing for weights in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 02:06:28 PM
I don't know, try it out. I've never stuck a spanner inside a compressed air cylinder and weighed it. Have a go and let me know.
Take a guess. You had no trouble guessing for weights in a vacuum.
Find out how much the certain spanner weighs, of your choice, then add it to the weight of the compressed air cylinder.
You don't half come out with some cack.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 05, 2015, 02:39:39 PM
I don't know, try it out. I've never stuck a spanner inside a compressed air cylinder and weighed it. Have a go and let me know.
Take a guess. You had no trouble guessing for weights in a vacuum.
Find out how much the certain spanner weighs, of your choice, then add it to the weight of the compressed air cylinder.
You don't half come out with some cack.
So you are now saying that increased pressure doesn't cause the weight to increase?  But that goes against everything that you have been saying.  Have you been hitting the bottle more than usual?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on July 05, 2015, 02:41:35 PM
I don't know, try it out. I've never stuck a spanner inside a compressed air cylinder and weighed it. Have a go and let me know.
Take a guess. You had no trouble guessing for weights in a vacuum.
Find out how much the certain spanner weighs, of your choice, then add it to the weight of the compressed air cylinder.
You don't half come out with some cack.
1 pound weight of wrench and the compressed air cylinder weighs 60 pounds. So at 3000psi inside, what is the new weight of the cylinder?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 02:48:46 PM
I don't know, try it out. I've never stuck a spanner inside a compressed air cylinder and weighed it. Have a go and let me know.
Take a guess. You had no trouble guessing for weights in a vacuum.
Find out how much the certain spanner weighs, of your choice, then add it to the weight of the compressed air cylinder.
You don't half come out with some cack.
So you are now saying that increased pressure doesn't cause the weight to increase?  But that goes against everything that you have been saying.  Have you been hitting the bottle more than usual?
But your increased pressure is inside of a cylinder and you have thrown a spanner in that cylinder, but the scales are external to the cylinder, so you are weighing that cylinder on the scales, not the spanner on the scales inside the cylinder.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 02:53:10 PM
I don't know, try it out. I've never stuck a spanner inside a compressed air cylinder and weighed it. Have a go and let me know.
Take a guess. You had no trouble guessing for weights in a vacuum.
Find out how much the certain spanner weighs, of your choice, then add it to the weight of the compressed air cylinder.
You don't half come out with some cack.
1 pound weight of wrench and the compressed air cylinder weighs 60 pounds. So at 3000psi inside, what is the new weight of the cylinder?
Is the cylinder 60 pounds with this 3000 psi inside of it and also the 1 pound wrench.

I don't know why you're using this wrench crap inside a cylinder.  ;D
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on July 05, 2015, 03:03:29 PM
I don't know, try it out. I've never stuck a spanner inside a compressed air cylinder and weighed it. Have a go and let me know.
Take a guess. You had no trouble guessing for weights in a vacuum.
Find out how much the certain spanner weighs, of your choice, then add it to the weight of the compressed air cylinder.
You don't half come out with some cack.
1 pound weight of wrench and the compressed air cylinder weighs 60 pounds. So at 3000psi inside, what is the new weight of the cylinder?
Is the cylinder 60 pounds with this 3000 psi inside of it and also the 1 pound wrench.

I don't know why you're using this wrench crap inside a cylinder.  ;D
And with that, denpressure is dead again. Personally I thought it died after my videos.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 03:08:18 PM
I don't know, try it out. I've never stuck a spanner inside a compressed air cylinder and weighed it. Have a go and let me know.
Take a guess. You had no trouble guessing for weights in a vacuum.
Find out how much the certain spanner weighs, of your choice, then add it to the weight of the compressed air cylinder.
You don't half come out with some cack.
1 pound weight of wrench and the compressed air cylinder weighs 60 pounds. So at 3000psi inside, what is the new weight of the cylinder?
Is the cylinder 60 pounds with this 3000 psi inside of it and also the 1 pound wrench.

I don't know why you're using this wrench crap inside a cylinder.  ;D
And with that, denpressure is dead again. Personally I thought it died after my videos.
Denpressure is alive and kicking because it's the sole reason we are alive inside this Earth. A loop like you will not change that.
You have no clue what you're talking about, that's why you use a frigging wrench inside a compressed air cylinder, as if that changes anything when you can't get it into your head what denpressure is, clearly.

Once you understand it a little bit, get back to me, otherwise take off your little council boots, (the one's you shuffled along the floor with when you used your phone video) and just chill out in your little white ankle socks.

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on July 05, 2015, 03:22:15 PM
I don't know, try it out. I've never stuck a spanner inside a compressed air cylinder and weighed it. Have a go and let me know.
Take a guess. You had no trouble guessing for weights in a vacuum.
Find out how much the certain spanner weighs, of your choice, then add it to the weight of the compressed air cylinder.
You don't half come out with some cack.
1 pound weight of wrench and the compressed air cylinder weighs 60 pounds. So at 3000psi inside, what is the new weight of the cylinder?
Is the cylinder 60 pounds with this 3000 psi inside of it and also the 1 pound wrench.

I don't know why you're using this wrench crap inside a cylinder.  ;D
And with that, denpressure is dead again. Personally I thought it died after my videos.
Denpressure is alive and kicking because it's the sole reason we are alive inside this Earth. A loop like you will not change that.
You have no clue what you're talking about, that's why you use a frigging wrench inside a compressed air cylinder, as if that changes anything when you can't get it into your head what denpressure is, clearly.

Once you understand it a little bit, get back to me, otherwise take off your little council boots, (the one's you shuffled along the floor with when you used your phone video) and just chill out in your little white ankle socks.
You cannot explain why objects under high pressure don't show a huge weight change. So, no, denpressure is not alive.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 03:47:15 PM
I don't know, try it out. I've never stuck a spanner inside a compressed air cylinder and weighed it. Have a go and let me know.
Take a guess. You had no trouble guessing for weights in a vacuum.
Find out how much the certain spanner weighs, of your choice, then add it to the weight of the compressed air cylinder.
You don't half come out with some cack.
1 pound weight of wrench and the compressed air cylinder weighs 60 pounds. So at 3000psi inside, what is the new weight of the cylinder?
Is the cylinder 60 pounds with this 3000 psi inside of it and also the 1 pound wrench.

I don't know why you're using this wrench crap inside a cylinder.  ;D
And with that, denpressure is dead again. Personally I thought it died after my videos.
Denpressure is alive and kicking because it's the sole reason we are alive inside this Earth. A loop like you will not change that.
You have no clue what you're talking about, that's why you use a frigging wrench inside a compressed air cylinder, as if that changes anything when you can't get it into your head what denpressure is, clearly.

Once you understand it a little bit, get back to me, otherwise take off your little council boots, (the one's you shuffled along the floor with when you used your phone video) and just chill out in your little white ankle socks.
You cannot explain why objects under high pressure don't show a huge weight change. So, no, denpressure is not alive.
Oh I can. I just can't do it by putting a wrench inside a compressed air cylinder at 3000 psi, can you?

Here's a better way for you to try it.
Get a perspex box and place a set of scales inside it. Place an object on the scales. Something like a metal object or wooden or plastic and see what it weighs.
Now fit a square board or plastic in the top of the perspex box, making sure it's a real snug fit and push down on the lid. It will compress the air. Now see if the reading on the scale changes. This should give you your answer.
Go and try it, you appear to have the equipment at your college workshop.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 05, 2015, 04:41:20 PM
I don't know, try it out. I've never stuck a spanner inside a compressed air cylinder and weighed it. Have a go and let me know.
Take a guess. You had no trouble guessing for weights in a vacuum.
Find out how much the certain spanner weighs, of your choice, then add it to the weight of the compressed air cylinder.
You don't half come out with some cack.
1 pound weight of wrench and the compressed air cylinder weighs 60 pounds. So at 3000psi inside, what is the new weight of the cylinder?
Is the cylinder 60 pounds with this 3000 psi inside of it and also the 1 pound wrench.

I don't know why you're using this wrench crap inside a cylinder.  ;D
And with that, denpressure is dead again. Personally I thought it died after my videos.
Denpressure is alive and kicking because it's the sole reason we are alive inside this Earth. A loop like you will not change that.
You have no clue what you're talking about, that's why you use a frigging wrench inside a compressed air cylinder, as if that changes anything when you can't get it into your head what denpressure is, clearly.

Once you understand it a little bit, get back to me, otherwise take off your little council boots, (the one's you shuffled along the floor with when you used your phone video) and just chill out in your little white ankle socks.
You cannot explain why objects under high pressure don't show a huge weight change. So, no, denpressure is not alive.
Oh I can. I just can't do it by putting a wrench inside a compressed air cylinder at 3000 psi, can you?

Here's a better way for you to try it.
Get a perspex box and place a set of scales inside it. Place an object on the scales. Something like a metal object or wooden or plastic and see what it weighs.
Now fit a square board or plastic in the top of the perspex box, making sure it's a real snug fit and push down on the lid. It will compress the air. Now see if the reading on the scale changes. This should give you your answer.
Go and try it, you appear to have the equipment at your college workshop.
Well, why would increasing the pressure affect the weight when decreasing the pressure didn't affect the weight?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 04:45:33 PM

Well, why would increasing the pressure affect the weight when decreasing the pressure didn't affect the weight?
Have you done the experiment to verify it doesn't or are you hanging onto the little coat tails of sokarul?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Misero on July 05, 2015, 05:24:23 PM
Would you bones be crushed instantly in a 3000 psi chamber?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 05, 2015, 05:25:15 PM

Well, why would increasing the pressure affect the weight when decreasing the pressure didn't affect the weight?
Have you done the experiment to verify it doesn't or are you hanging onto the little coat tails of sokarul?
Going by the evidence that has been presented on both sides, I would have to go with sokarul.  He did the experiment, recorded it, then presented it.  Something you have yet to do.

Speaking of which, have you published your findings from the ice lake laser experiment that you touted proved beyond doubt that the earth was flat?  No?  Oh yeah, you were only going to present the evidence to people who already believed the earth was flat.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Dog on July 05, 2015, 05:52:00 PM
Oh I can. I just can't do it by putting a wrench inside a compressed air cylinder at 3000 psi, can you?

Why not? Your "model" can't make predictions? Sounds like a pretty shitty "model".

If you could prove it, and show that this wrench is now magically orders of magnitude heavier, you could prove a large chunk of modern science wrong. Your name could be in the books. You could educate the world. You could be a millionaire.

But I guess you can't be bothered with that as you have some heated internet forum debates to tend to, right?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on July 05, 2015, 08:20:04 PM
Oh I can. I just can't do it by putting a wrench inside a compressed air cylinder at 3000 psi, can you?

Here's a better way for you to try it.
Get a perspex box and place a set of scales inside it. Place an object on the scales. Something like a metal object or wooden or plastic and see what it weighs.
Now fit a square board or plastic in the top of the perspex box, making sure it's a real snug fit and push down on the lid. It will compress the air. Now see if the reading on the scale changes. This should give you your answer.
Go and try it, you appear to have the equipment at your college workshop.
I have clogged syringe filters. The 5 ml of slurry doesn't magically feel like 5 pounds since I put extra pressure on it. Why do you use your millions to make a video? Oh let me guess, it's hard to buy things with pretend money.

You were destroyed. Just go out gracefully and ask for your account to be closed.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: guv on July 05, 2015, 09:06:44 PM
I don't know, try it out. I've never stuck a spanner inside a compressed air cylinder and weighed it. Have a go and let me know.
Take a guess. You had no trouble guessing for weights in a vacuum.
Find out how much the certain spanner weighs, of your choice, then add it to the weight of the compressed air cylinder.
You don't half come out with some cack.
So you are now saying that increased pressure doesn't cause the weight to increase?  But that goes against everything that you have been saying.  Have you been hitting the bottle more than usual?
But your increased pressure is inside of a cylinder and you have thrown a spanner in that cylinder, but the scales are external to the cylinder, so you are weighing that cylinder on the scales, not the spanner on the scales inside the cylinder.


[/quote]But your increased pressure is inside of a cylinder and you have thrown a spanner in that cylinder, but the scales are external to the cylinder, so you are weighing that cylinder on the scales, not the spanner on the scales inside the cylinder.
[/quote]


The magic of dunny pressure, Eat more beans septic that should keep the pressure up.
.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 06, 2015, 12:02:37 AM
It's comical that you people can fill a forum with equations for all kinds of truth's and bullshit but you can't understand a basic concept. That's because gravity is so ingrained into your minds that nothing else will cater for it, because nothing else is magical enough.

Present you with what really happens and you all reel back as if you are vampires exposed to bright light.  ;D
Denpressure is 100% the reason why we are alive on this Earth and is the reason why the Earth works. It's not stupid gravity or any other magical force. It's the force of what's around you. It's slapping you all so hard in the face and your faces are simply numb to it to notice.

All I can say is, get on with it, because you're only cheating yourselves. I'm never changing my stance on it because I know what I'm saying is true.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Poko on July 06, 2015, 12:31:47 AM
I'm never changing my stance on it because I know what I'm saying is true.

Flat Earth in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen.

This seems to be the prevailing attitude within the Flat Earth community. I recently listened to an interview with jeranism, and he basically said that he would be willing to accept any shape for the earth as long as it's not the globe. If you already have your conclusion and you're never going to change your mind, why are you on a debate forum?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: panoslydios on July 06, 2015, 12:46:42 AM
You can also do another experiment guys.

Take two bags of almonds. Each of the bags should weigh 5 kg.

Now soak the first almonds into water.The other leave them as they are.

By soaking the first almonds in the water ,the pressure of the water should make
the almonds expand thus becoming more porous thus being able to absorb more atmospheric pressure
thus being more light cause of less resistance against the push of the atmosphere.

Now let them dry and weigh them into a scale.
You would see that the soaked almonds would weigh less than the unsoaked almonds.
They would weigh less than5 kg.

Do you guys have the equipment for such experiment lol?

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 06, 2015, 01:02:08 AM
I'm never changing my stance on it because I know what I'm saying is true.

Flat Earth in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen.

This seems to be the prevailing attitude within the Flat Earth community. I recently listened to an interview with jeranism, and he basically said that he would be willing to accept any shape for the earth as long as it's not the globe. If you already have your conclusion and you're never going to change your mind, why are you on a debate forum?
I'm not changing my stance on denpressure, because I know it's correct. I'm open to many other things if they present a better logical thought to me.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Poko on July 06, 2015, 01:05:28 AM
You can also do another experiment guys.

Take two bags of almonds. Each of the bags should weigh 5 kg.

Now soak the first almonds into water.The other leave them as they are.

By soaking the first almonds in the water ,the pressure of the water should make
the almonds expand thus becoming more porous thus being able to absorb more atmospheric pressure
thus being more light cause of less resistance against the push of the atmosphere.

Now let them dry and weigh them into a scale.
You would see that the soaked almonds would weigh less than the unsoaked almonds.
They would weigh less than5 kg.

Do you guys have the equipment for such experiment lol?

Assuming the soaked almonds actually became porous, they would still have the same weight. They would, however, have a greater mass because of the air trapped inside.

Another good example to think of is a balloon. Weigh an empty balloon, inflate it, then weigh it again. You should get the same weight. However, the inflated balloon will have a greater mass because air has a nonzero mass.

It all has to do with the medium in which you are weighing your objects. In a vacuum, an inflated balloon will weigh more than an empty balloon, ignoring the fact that an inflated balloon would pop in a vacuum.

edit: Actually, the weight of the inflated balloon would be slightly greater because the air from your lungs would have more water and carbon dioxide than the air around the balloon.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 06, 2015, 02:18:35 AM
lol, scepti's throwing one of his little tantrums.  :'(

He'll be deleting all his posts next.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 06, 2015, 02:24:37 AM
lol, scepti's throwing one of his little tantrums.  :'(

He'll be deleting all his posts next.
Come on crabby boy, you're slacking.  ;D
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 06, 2015, 02:31:23 AM
Heh, I see you have just deleted the post where you had your little melt down.

Calmed down now have we?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: panoslydios on July 06, 2015, 03:04:10 AM
You can also do another experiment guys.

Take two bags of almonds. Each of the bags should weigh 5 kg.

Now soak the first almonds into water.The other leave them as they are.

By soaking the first almonds in the water ,the pressure of the water should make
the almonds expand thus becoming more porous thus being able to absorb more atmospheric pressure
thus being more light cause of less resistance against the push of the atmosphere.

Now let them dry and weigh them into a scale.
You would see that the soaked almonds would weigh less than the unsoaked almonds.
They would weigh less than5 kg.

Do you guys have the equipment for such experiment lol?

Assuming the soaked almonds actually became porous, they would still have the same weight. They would, however, have a greater mass because of the air trapped inside.

Another good example to think of is a balloon. Weigh an empty balloon, inflate it, then weigh it again. You should get the same weight. However, the inflated balloon will have a greater mass because air has a nonzero mass.

It all has to do with the medium in which you are weighing your objects. In a vacuum, an inflated balloon will weigh more than an empty balloon, ignoring the fact that an inflated balloon would pop in a vacuum.

edit: Actually, the weight of the inflated balloon would be slightly greater because the air from your lungs would have more water and carbon dioxide than the air around the balloon.

An inflated balloon will weigh nothing because weight is just atmospheric resistance pushing on
scale that man has invented.
An inflated balloon wont push downwards so you cant measure its ''weight''.

You can measure though the weight of a non inflated balloon.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: panoslydios on July 06, 2015, 03:13:46 AM
Think of it like a man being under 3 meter of the surface of water and floating upwards.
In this ENVIROMENT/SEA PRESSURE the man weighs nothing.
As long as he sees the less dense air  and begins to place his feet on the beach he begins to have weight.

Same thing with the balloon.It weighs nothing till it reaches the surface of our SEA/ATMOSPHERE.That cant happend because it gets crushed as it gets expanded/stretched from less and less pressurized enviroment as we are going upwards.
There are many levels up above all becoming less and less dense ,more and more expanded.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Poko on July 06, 2015, 03:16:28 AM
You can also do another experiment guys.

Take two bags of almonds. Each of the bags should weigh 5 kg.

Now soak the first almonds into water.The other leave them as they are.

By soaking the first almonds in the water ,the pressure of the water should make
the almonds expand thus becoming more porous thus being able to absorb more atmospheric pressure
thus being more light cause of less resistance against the push of the atmosphere.

Now let them dry and weigh them into a scale.
You would see that the soaked almonds would weigh less than the unsoaked almonds.
They would weigh less than5 kg.

Do you guys have the equipment for such experiment lol?

Assuming the soaked almonds actually became porous, they would still have the same weight. They would, however, have a greater mass because of the air trapped inside.

Another good example to think of is a balloon. Weigh an empty balloon, inflate it, then weigh it again. You should get the same weight. However, the inflated balloon will have a greater mass because air has a nonzero mass.

It all has to do with the medium in which you are weighing your objects. In a vacuum, an inflated balloon will weigh more than an empty balloon, ignoring the fact that an inflated balloon would pop in a vacuum.

edit: Actually, the weight of the inflated balloon would be slightly greater because the air from your lungs would have more water and carbon dioxide than the air around the balloon.

An inflated balloon will weigh nothing because weight is just atmospheric resistance pushing on
scale that man has invented.
An inflated balloon wont push downwards so you cant measure its ''weight''.

You can measure though the weight of a non inflated balloon.

I apologize for quoting the entire post. I'll fix it when I can get to my laptop.

Actually, an inflated balloon would have a measurable weight because the rubber is desner than air, effectively (not literally) creating a downward force. This force would be the same as in a deflated baloon, assuming that the density of air inside the balloon is the same as outside the balloon.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: guv on July 06, 2015, 03:46:47 AM
Think of it like a man being under 3 meter of the surface of water and floating upwards.
In this ENVIROMENT/SEA PRESSURE the man weighs nothing.
As long as he sees the less dense air  and begins to place his feet on the beach he begins to have weight.

Same thing with the balloon.It weighs nothing till it reaches the surface of our SEA/ATMOSPHERE.That cant happend because it gets crushed as it gets expanded/stretched from less and less pressurized enviroment as we are going upwards.
There are many levels up above all becoming less and less dense ,more and more expanded.


This mad Greek is as bad as septic.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 06, 2015, 05:54:44 AM
Think of it like a man being under 3 meter of the surface of water and floating upwards.
In this ENVIROMENT/SEA PRESSURE the man weighs nothing.
As long as he sees the less dense air  and begins to place his feet on the beach he begins to have weight.

Same thing with the balloon.It weighs nothing till it reaches the surface of our SEA/ATMOSPHERE.That cant happend because it gets crushed as it gets expanded/stretched from less and less pressurized enviroment as we are going upwards.
There are many levels up above all becoming less and less dense ,more and more expanded.


This mad Greek is as bad as septic.
Fixed that for you.  It is amazing that as soon as septic is getting shown how wrong he is, a brand new user signs up with his exact same thinking.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 06, 2015, 06:08:31 AM
Think of it like a man being under 3 meter of the surface of water and floating upwards.
In this ENVIROMENT/SEA PRESSURE the man weighs nothing.
As long as he sees the less dense air  and begins to place his feet on the beach he begins to have weight.

Same thing with the balloon.It weighs nothing till it reaches the surface of our SEA/ATMOSPHERE.That cant happend because it gets crushed as it gets expanded/stretched from less and less pressurized enviroment as we are going upwards.
There are many levels up above all becoming less and less dense ,more and more expanded.


This mad Greek is as bad as septic.
Fixed that for you.  It is amazing that as soon as septic is getting shown how wrong he is, a brand new user signs up with his exact same thinking.
Or could it be that some people are starting to understand what you people can't or refuse to understand?

You have not proved me wrong at all and never will, because what I'm saying, is correct.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on July 06, 2015, 06:26:46 AM
Think of it like a man being under 3 meter of the surface of water and floating upwards.
In this ENVIROMENT/SEA PRESSURE the man weighs nothing.
As long as he sees the less dense air  and begins to place his feet on the beach he begins to have weight.

Same thing with the balloon.It weighs nothing till it reaches the surface of our SEA/ATMOSPHERE.That cant happend because it gets crushed as it gets expanded/stretched from less and less pressurized enviroment as we are going upwards.
There are many levels up above all becoming less and less dense ,more and more expanded.


This mad Greek is as bad as septic.
Fixed that for you.  It is amazing that as soon as septic is getting shown how wrong he is, a brand new user signs up with his exact same thinking.
Or could it be that some people are starting to understand what you people can't or refuse to understand?

You have not proved me wrong at all and never will, because what I'm saying, is correct.
If I have a 33 gallon air compressor that over time filled up with 10 gallons of water, give water weighs a little over 8 pounds per gallon, how much extra does the compressor weight if it's at 147 psi?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 06, 2015, 06:32:33 AM
Think of it like a man being under 3 meter of the surface of water and floating upwards.
In this ENVIROMENT/SEA PRESSURE the man weighs nothing.
As long as he sees the less dense air  and begins to place his feet on the beach he begins to have weight.

Same thing with the balloon.It weighs nothing till it reaches the surface of our SEA/ATMOSPHERE.That cant happend because it gets crushed as it gets expanded/stretched from less and less pressurized enviroment as we are going upwards.
There are many levels up above all becoming less and less dense ,more and more expanded.


This mad Greek is as bad as septic.
Fixed that for you.  It is amazing that as soon as septic is getting shown how wrong he is, a brand new user signs up with his exact same thinking.
Or could it be that some people are starting to understand what you people can't or refuse to understand?

You have not proved me wrong at all and never will, because what I'm saying, is correct.
You ignoring evidence, hand waving, and asserting don't make you right.  There has been a multitude of evidence presented against denpressure and none in support of it.  So yeah, you have been proven wrong time and time again.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 06, 2015, 06:42:59 AM
Think of it like a man being under 3 meter of the surface of water and floating upwards.
In this ENVIROMENT/SEA PRESSURE the man weighs nothing.
As long as he sees the less dense air  and begins to place his feet on the beach he begins to have weight.

Same thing with the balloon.It weighs nothing till it reaches the surface of our SEA/ATMOSPHERE.That cant happend because it gets crushed as it gets expanded/stretched from less and less pressurized enviroment as we are going upwards.
There are many levels up above all becoming less and less dense ,more and more expanded.


This mad Greek is as bad as septic.
Fixed that for you.  It is amazing that as soon as septic is getting shown how wrong he is, a brand new user signs up with his exact same thinking.
I suspect panoslydios is taking the piss.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: guv on July 06, 2015, 06:47:25 AM
Think of it like a man being under 3 meter of the surface of water and floating upwards.
In this ENVIROMENT/SEA PRESSURE the man weighs nothing.
As long as he sees the less dense air  and begins to place his feet on the beach he begins to have weight.

Same thing with the balloon.It weighs nothing till it reaches the surface of our SEA/ATMOSPHERE.That cant happend because it gets crushed as it gets expanded/stretched from less and less pressurized enviroment as we are going upwards.
There are many levels up above all becoming less and less dense ,more and more expanded.


This mad Greek is as bad as septic.
Fixed that for you.  It is amazing that as soon as septic is getting shown how wrong he is, a brand new user signs up with his exact same thinking.


He might be doing a puppet show. He can knock out 10 posts in 10 mins but it gets slower when has backup. About 6 months ago he let slip that he was taking the piss so he is a good actor he even has tantrums.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: hoyhoy5 on July 06, 2015, 07:00:20 AM
Wait, what?

What in heavens is denpressure? Is it the 'new gravity' now? Wasn't it the Earth moving upwards in some magical way?

See, in a flat earth, gravity would apparently be just the Earth accelerating upwards. By what or how, nobody knows, but let's go with it for the moment.

That theory makes little sense, as the sun, moon, and starts don't behave anything like that. The movement of the stars in the night sky also shows either a rotation of the Earth or rotation of the "sky dome", whatever that could be.

Now there's this "denpressure". Anyone care to tell me what that could be now?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 06, 2015, 07:14:50 AM
Wait, what?

Now there's this "denpressure". Anyone care to tell me what that could be now?
I don't think you have any intention of knowing what it is. Next time you enter into a topic, do so after you've read it and you won't need to come in and shout " wait, what? you can simply come into the topic and see what it's all about.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: panoslydios on July 06, 2015, 07:18:50 AM
The thing is how do we understand how EXACTLY ths atmospheric pressure grips and resists so
that we can defy it in some level.
Just imagine how easier life would be if we could make objects much lighter .

But first we need to learn the law.Its not gravity.Gravity is crap
cause history proved it cant have practical  applications to real life.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: guv on July 06, 2015, 07:19:19 AM
Wait, what?

What in heavens is denpressure? Is it the 'new gravity' now? Wasn't it the Earth moving upwards in some magical way?

See, in a flat earth, gravity would apparently be just the Earth accelerating upwards. By what or how, nobody knows, but let's go with it for the moment.

That theory makes little sense, as the sun, moon, and starts don't behave anything like that. The movement of the stars in the night sky also shows either a rotation of the Earth or rotation of the "sky dome", whatever that could be.

Now there's this "denpressure". Anyone care to tell me what that could be now?


You have found a nut farm. Dunny pressure happened when a nut got hold of a computer. I think it has something to do with bake beans. Hello
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 06, 2015, 07:32:12 AM
Gravity is crap
cause history proved it cant have practical  applications to real life.

So you don't think that buildings and bridges are practical applications,  what about  everything that relies on Newtonian mechanics,   cars, planes,  trains,  literally everything in the world that moves or doesn't move is described perfectly by Newtonian gravity and laws of motion. 

Sceptimatic is a nutter of the first order,  he is so steeped in conspiracy he actually thinks that maths and logic are part of the conspiracy.   He is beyond reason.  If anyone has taken the blue pill it's scepti.   

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 06, 2015, 07:43:29 AM
People need to read up on Newton. They may find that he was more of a magician and alchemist than any real time scientist.
Atmospheric pressure upon any dense object within it is what people believe is gravity. Gravity is a lie and denpressure is the reality.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 06, 2015, 07:49:14 AM
People need to read up on Newton. They may find that he was more of a magician and alchemist than any real time scientist.
Atmospheric pressure upon any dense object within it is what people believe is gravity. Gravity is a lie and denpressure is the reality.

I walked away from arguing with you on denspressure,   since you weren't going to accept anything I had to say, so why should I start now... 

Explain to me again how  denspressure causes things to fall at a constant acceleration in a vacuum and that acceleration is independant of their mass.

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 06, 2015, 07:52:22 AM
People need to read up on Newton. They may find that he was more of a magician and alchemist than any real time scientist.
Atmospheric pressure upon any dense object within it is what people believe is gravity. Gravity is a lie and denpressure is the reality.

I walked away from arguing with you on denspressure,   since you weren't going to accept anything I had to say, so why should I start now... 

Explain to me again how  denspressure causes things to fall at a constant acceleration in a vacuum and that acceleration is independant of their mass.
Nothing falls at a constant rate in a vacuum, because a vacuum does not exist for us to try it. I'm just being honest.
Acceleration is dependent on mass in atmosphere.

I'm being as fair as  I can with your words.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on July 06, 2015, 07:56:59 AM
Think of it like a man being under 3 meter of the surface of water and floating upwards.
In this ENVIROMENT/SEA PRESSURE the man weighs nothing.
As long as he sees the less dense air  and begins to place his feet on the beach he begins to have weight.

Same thing with the balloon.It weighs nothing till it reaches the surface of our SEA/ATMOSPHERE.That cant happend because it gets crushed as it gets expanded/stretched from less and less pressurized enviroment as we are going upwards.
There are many levels up above all becoming less and less dense ,more and more expanded.


This mad Greek is as bad as septic.
Fixed that for you.  It is amazing that as soon as septic is getting shown how wrong he is, a brand new user signs up with his exact same thinking.
Or could it be that some people are starting to understand what you people can't or refuse to understand?

You have not proved me wrong at all and never will, because what I'm saying, is correct.
If I have a 33 gallon air compressor that over time filled up with 10 gallons of water, give water weighs a little over 8 pounds per gallon, how much extra does the compressor weight if it's at 147 psi?
Still waiting...
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 06, 2015, 07:58:01 AM
People need to read up on Newton. They may find that he was more of a magician and alchemist than any real time scientist.
Atmospheric pressure upon any dense object within it is what people believe is gravity. Gravity is a lie and denpressure is the reality.

I walked away from arguing with you on denspressure,   since you weren't going to accept anything I had to say, so why should I start now... 

Explain to me again how  denspressure causes things to fall at a constant acceleration in a vacuum and that acceleration is independant of their mass.
Nothing falls at a constant rate in a vacuum, because a vacuum does not exist for us to try it. I'm just being honest.
Acceleration is dependent on mass in atmosphere.

I'm being as fair as  I can with your words.

Yeah,  that's what I thought, not even an attempt at an explanation.   So,  let's both pull up a chair and watch an experiment.

(http://)

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: 29silhouette on July 06, 2015, 08:23:58 AM
Now there's this "denpressure". Anyone care to tell me what that could be now?
Some claptrap about when an object is lifted, air pressure builds up above it, and that pressure is what pushes it back down.  Nevermind that objects never return to their original place (this only happens to work in one directions) when they are moved sideways or even downward (in reality there is more air pressure under an object than above it by the way), also this buildup of pressure in the direction of movement somehow still works in windy conditions, and the air molecules themselves are stacked with no free room between them because they change shape to take up all room, yet something is still causing the top most layer of air molecules to push down on those below.

So there is denpressure.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 06, 2015, 08:40:44 AM
Maths is pointless. It does not help you people understand anything.
LoL, the computer you type this crap into could never have been invented and built without maths.  The internet you broadcast your drivel over could not have been invented without maths.

The entire modern world could not have been built without maths.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 06, 2015, 08:51:26 AM
People need to read up on Newton. They may find that he was more of a magician and alchemist than any real time scientist.
Atmospheric pressure upon any dense object within it is what people believe is gravity. Gravity is a lie and denpressure is the reality.

I walked away from arguing with you on denspressure,   since you weren't going to accept anything I had to say, so why should I start now... 

Explain to me again how  denspressure causes things to fall at a constant acceleration in a vacuum and that acceleration is independant of their mass.
Nothing falls at a constant rate in a vacuum, because a vacuum does not exist for us to try it. I'm just being honest.
Acceleration is dependent on mass in atmosphere.

I'm being as fair as  I can with your words.

Yeah,  that's what I thought, not even an attempt at an explanation.   So,  let's both pull up a chair and watch an experiment.

(http://)

I assume you would have watched the video by now,  and just so we are clear,  I'm not actually expecting a denspressure explanation since there can't be one.
So,  take another blue pill,  and drift off into self delusion.   I'll leave you alone.

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 06, 2015, 08:59:44 AM
Maths is pointless. It does not help you people understand anything.
LoL, the computer you type this crap into could never have been invented and built without maths.  The internet you broadcast your drivel over could not have been invented without maths.

The entire modern world could not have been built without maths.
Great, I'm happy for it all but it still doesn't need to be used for people to grasp what denpressure is and does.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 06, 2015, 09:12:00 AM
Maths is pointless. It does not help you people understand anything.
LoL, the computer you type this crap into could never have been invented and built without maths.  The internet you broadcast your drivel over could not have been invented without maths.

The entire modern world could not have been built without maths.
Great, I'm happy for it all but it still doesn't need to be used for people to grasp what denpressure is and does.
True, maths is not needed for people to grasp what denpressure is, a load of garbage, and what it does, makes zero predictions in the practical world.  So yeah, math is pointless in denpressure, because once you think about applying math to denpressure, denpressure falls apart.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: guv on July 06, 2015, 09:31:21 AM
Maths is pointless. It does not help you people understand anything.
LoL, the computer you type this crap into could never have been invented and built without maths.  The internet you broadcast your drivel over could not have been invented without maths.

The entire modern world could not have been built without maths.
Great, I'm happy for it all but it still doesn't need to be used for people to grasp what denpressure is and does.
True, maths is not needed for people to grasp what denpressure is, a load of garbage, and what it does, makes zero predictions in the practical world.  So yeah, math is pointless in denpressure, because once you think about applying math to denpressure, denpressure falls apart.



Dunny pressure fell apart at birth, only an idiot would cum up with a load of crap like that and be dumb enough to tell someone else his stupid thought.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 06, 2015, 09:39:21 AM
Maths is pointless. It does not help you people understand anything.
LoL, the computer you type this crap into could never have been invented and built without maths.  The internet you broadcast your drivel over could not have been invented without maths.

The entire modern world could not have been built without maths.
Great, I'm happy for it all but it still doesn't need to be used for people to grasp what denpressure is and does.
True, maths is not needed for people to grasp what denpressure is, a load of garbage, and what it does, makes zero predictions in the practical world.  So yeah, math is pointless in denpressure, because once you think about applying math to denpressure, denpressure falls apart.
I could have sworn I saw your lips move.
SO just more hand waving from scepti.  Can't explain what would happen in certain situations, guesses wrong, is shown he is wrong, yet denies the evidence and continues spouting out his tripe.  Then goes on a rant calling everyone babies.  Typical Scepti.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 06, 2015, 09:47:04 AM
Maths is pointless. It does not help you people understand anything.
LoL, the computer you type this crap into could never have been invented and built without maths.  The internet you broadcast your drivel over could not have been invented without maths.

The entire modern world could not have been built without maths.
Great, I'm happy for it all but it still doesn't need to be used for people to grasp what denpressure is and does.
True, maths is not needed for people to grasp what denpressure is, a load of garbage, and what it does, makes zero predictions in the practical world.  So yeah, math is pointless in denpressure, because once you think about applying math to denpressure, denpressure falls apart.
I could have sworn I saw your lips move.
SO just more hand waving from scepti.  Can't explain what would happen in certain situations, guesses wrong, is shown he is wrong, yet denies the evidence and continues spouting out his tripe.  Then goes on a rant calling everyone babies.  Typical Scepti.
I see the lips moving but it appears to be derp derp derp derp derp.  ;D
ou people just seem to piss yourselves. Put some effort in or stay out you backward idiot.  ;D
Oh, scepti is stomping his feet and is resorting to name calling.  Pretty soon we will get a block of text, followed closely by deleting of his posts.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 06, 2015, 10:03:08 AM
Well, it escalated right past the block of text to the deleting of posts by scepti.  Note, this is why I always quote his posts when I respond to him.  That way my posts don't look like they are just random.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Poko on July 06, 2015, 10:21:48 AM
Gravity is crap
cause history proved it cant have practical  applications to real life.

So you don't think that buildings and bridges are practical applications,  what about  everything that relies on Newtonian mechanics,   cars, planes,  trains,  literally everything in the world that moves or doesn't move is described perfectly by Newtonian gravity and laws of motion. 

Sceptimatic is a nutter of the first order,  he is so steeped in conspiracy he actually thinks that maths and logic are part of the conspiracy.   He is beyond reason.  If anyone has taken the blue pill it's scepti.

Nah, I think scepti mistook a smartie for a red pill and proceeded to grind it up and snort it. Now he thinks he's been awakened to "the truth". He's trying to leap from building to building and learn kung fu but he's failing spectacularly.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 06, 2015, 12:12:11 PM
Maths is pointless. It does not help you people understand anything.
LoL, the computer you type this crap into could never have been invented and built without maths.  The internet you broadcast your drivel over could not have been invented without maths.

The entire modern world could not have been built without maths.
Great, I'm happy for it all but it still doesn't need to be used for people to grasp what denpressure is and does.
No, of course it doesn't need to be used.  Denpressure is just some absurd shite you made up, so obviously it doesn't need any maths.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: MikDaTv on July 06, 2015, 12:22:57 PM
How can there be this magic pressure if there is no air?  Wasn't that a thing a while ago?  Air didn't exist, it's all "force" and Aether
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Alpha2Omega on July 06, 2015, 12:36:23 PM
People need to read up on Newton. They may find that he was more of a magician and alchemist than any real time scientist.

Newton's day job when he came up with his well-known physical principles was indeed alchemist. He was not, however, a magician. The process of applying scientific principles to alchemy is how he deduced much of what he's known for in physics. Alchemy was, as we now know, a dead end; its principles (e.g. elements can be transmuted using chemical reactions) were simply wrong. This was by no means established while Newton was working in it; as far as he knew, it had a factual basis and he was conducting experiments to learn its principles. He was wrong about what alchemy could do, but learned enough in the process to devise the principles that were the backbone of physics for centuries (and still are for many purposes). Alchemy formed the basis for what we now call chemistry.

Quote
Atmospheric pressure upon any dense object within it is what people believe is gravity.

Now that's magic. And funny!

Quote
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is the reality.

Nope. Repeating this ad infinitum doesn't make it true. Sorry. Like alchemy, "denpressure" is a total dead end for the simple reason that it's completely wrong!

By the way, how's that scale model of the ice dome going, buddy?

You were "70% done" last fall and expected to be finished in about a year. Remember?

Have you managed that diagram of how sunsets occur under your ice dome yet?
Yep. I'm also 70% into building of a dome with all the necessary stuff built into it, including small camera's set up inside of it. It's looking extremely promising.

All my drawings and pictures are done.
I look forward to seeing them.  Of course I won't be too disappointed if it turns out you are talking out of your arse again, and you haven't actually got any diagrams....
Just to give you the scale of my model. It's 12 feet in diameter, set in the grounds of my home. The dome is double skinned with the inner being a clear perspex mould and the outer being a fibre glass matt black coated dome with a 3 inch gap between. Like a flask, which in time will be evacuated to closely match what space would be to people's minds.
Inside looks like a sort of mini Earth, or will do when it's fully set up, complete with mini oceans and greenery, etc.
22 mini camera's will be set up around the surface.

There a massive amount more I could say but it would take pages and pages. It's looking exciting and I wouldn't have spent the money on it if I didn't believe in it.

I can't arrogantly say it will be a full on working model in its entirety but that's why there's variations in how I do it, which I estimate will take me a year to fine tune all the different experiments I make using it.

The project up to this point has cost me just under £7,000 with an estimated 3 to 4,000 still to spend to get it all in perspective.

If any of that ice dome pans out, you'll be well along the way to "selling" denpressure. If.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Dog on July 06, 2015, 05:55:21 PM
I'm never changing my stance on it because I know what I'm saying is true.

Okay then acknowledge this post:

Oh I can. I just can't do it by putting a wrench inside a compressed air cylinder at 3000 psi, can you?

Why not? Your "model" can't make predictions? Sounds like a pretty shitty "model". One of the most important attributes of a scientific model is the ability to make predictions. Those equations you call "nonsense "? Yeah those enable us to make real predictions in the real world.

If you could prove it, and show that this wrench is now magically orders of magnitude heavier, you could prove a large chunk of modern science wrong. Your name could be in the books. You could educate the world. You could be a millionaire.

But I guess you can't be bothered with that as you have some heated internet forum debates to tend to, right?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 06, 2015, 08:42:35 PM
People need to read up on Newton. They may find that he was more of a magician and alchemist than any real time scientist.

Newton's day job when he came up with his well-known physical principles was indeed alchemist. He was not, however, a magician. The process of applying scientific principles to alchemy is how he deduced much of what he's known for in physics. Alchemy was, as we now know, a dead end; its principles (e.g. elements can be transmuted using chemical reactions) were simply wrong. This was by no means established while Newton was working in it; as far as he knew, it had a factual basis and he was conducting experiments to learn its principles. He was wrong about what alchemy could do, but learned enough in the process to devise the principles that were the backbone of physics for centuries (and still are for many purposes). Alchemy formed the basis for what we now call chemistry.

Quote
Atmospheric pressure upon any dense object within it is what people believe is gravity.

Now that's magic. And funny!

Quote
Gravity is a lie and denpressure is the reality.

Nope. Repeating this ad infinitum doesn't make it true. Sorry. Like alchemy, "denpressure" is a total dead end for the simple reason that it's completely wrong!

By the way, how's that scale model of the ice dome going, buddy?

You were "70% done" last fall and expected to be finished in about a year. Remember?

Have you managed that diagram of how sunsets occur under your ice dome yet?
Yep. I'm also 70% into building of a dome with all the necessary stuff built into it, including small camera's set up inside of it. It's looking extremely promising.

All my drawings and pictures are done.
I look forward to seeing them.  Of course I won't be too disappointed if it turns out you are talking out of your arse again, and you haven't actually got any diagrams....
Just to give you the scale of my model. It's 12 feet in diameter, set in the grounds of my home. The dome is double skinned with the inner being a clear perspex mould and the outer being a fibre glass matt black coated dome with a 3 inch gap between. Like a flask, which in time will be evacuated to closely match what space would be to people's minds.
Inside looks like a sort of mini Earth, or will do when it's fully set up, complete with mini oceans and greenery, etc.
22 mini camera's will be set up around the surface.

There a massive amount more I could say but it would take pages and pages. It's looking exciting and I wouldn't have spent the money on it if I didn't believe in it.

I can't arrogantly say it will be a full on working model in its entirety but that's why there's variations in how I do it, which I estimate will take me a year to fine tune all the different experiments I make using it.
The project up to this point has cost me just under £7,000 with an estimated 3 to 4,000 still to spend to get it all in perspective.

If any of that ice dome pans out, you'll be well along the way to "selling" denpressure. If.


Newton was also famously obsessed with the occult,  biblical prophesy, and predicting the apocalypse.  He published several works in the area.

I wonder, did the sceptimatic model dome design require the application of maths, perhaps to work out the surface area of a hemisphere,  or calculate the weight required to be supported using denspressure.   Either would be reasons for failure to complete.    Or just procrastination.

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Alpha2Omega on July 06, 2015, 10:07:14 PM
I wonder, did the sceptimatic model dome design require the application of maths, perhaps to work out the surface area of a hemisphere,  or calculate the weight required to be supported using denspressure.   Either would be reasons for failure to complete.    Or just procrastination.

He was planning on pulling a vacuum between the inner and outer 12-foot-diameter domes made of plexiglass and fiberglass, respectively, thought it was necessary, and didn't foresee any problems. I suspect he hasn't done any math (or engineering), but maybe that's just me. It should be simple, right? What could possibly go wrong?

He's never said he failed or abandoned the project, but I haven't heard of any progress since nine months ago, either. Maybe it was a matter of "Oh... they were right. Light from the center doesn't reflect off the inner surface of a hemispherical concave mirror the way I was sure it would. This just doesn't work. Oops." Unless he tells us what happened or publishes a paper about it, we'll just be guessing. I'm guessing we'll be guessing.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 06, 2015, 10:53:12 PM
I wonder, did the sceptimatic model dome design require the application of maths, perhaps to work out the surface area of a hemisphere,  or calculate the weight required to be supported using denspressure.   Either would be reasons for failure to complete.    Or just procrastination.

He was planning on pulling a vacuum between the inner and outer 12-foot-diameter domes made of plexiglass and fiberglass, respectively, thought it was necessary, and didn't foresee any problems. I suspect he hasn't done any math (or engineering), but maybe that's just me. It should be simple, right? What could possibly go wrong?

He's never said he failed or abandoned the project, but I haven't heard of any progress since nine months ago, either. Maybe it was a matter of "Oh... they were right. Light from the center doesn't reflect off the inner surface of a hemispherical concave mirror the way I was sure it would. This just doesn't work. Oops." Unless he tells us what happened or publishes a paper about it, we'll just be guessing. I'm guessing we'll be guessing.
I think he just got too caught up in his ice lake laser experiment that he did. ::)
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 01:03:35 AM
Trying the ridicule mode by numbers never worked last time so why you think it'll work this time is beyond me.  ;D

I've shown that atmospheric pressure is the real time force that people believe is, gravity. I have no problem with people believing in gravity because it's ingrained in to their heads, basically from birth.
I would expect real thinkers to actually see the truth or potential of that in what I'm saying. I also expect those who strictly follow mainstream science to reject anything that goes against it.

The real thinkers. The real inventors. the real people who prefer truth over fiction. The real genuine people who have the ability to sit there and say, "hmmm, wait one second here, I can see what's being said. It makes sense."
These are the people that will see the truth and they will be very few, because humans are accustomed to being LED by their own stronger  characters and they forget to think for themselves once their thinking is done for them to simply copy.

I see the usual suspects jumping in and shouting loud but making no progress towards me. Their game is not to make progress towards me. their goal is to make sure that those looking in can see how they play the ridicule game so that any potential thinkers do not follow the same path, or face the consequences.


I know there's plenty of people looking in here that can see the potential truth and can certainly see through many parroted lies by those on here that do not possess the ability to think rationally, yet will kick and scream that ridiculous theories are correct.

Anyone who looks up enough about gravity and what it has to do, will see...or should see how absurd it is.
I swear it's atmospheric pressure. I absolutely 100% swear it is. People just have to understand what I'm getting at before they too will understand.

As long as you allow shills to dictate play, you will never understand anything. I promise you one thing. Once you realise that atmospheric pressure upon  any dense object/mater is the reality, then you'll not only know that gravity is a sham, you'll also know that it destroys one hell of a lot about what you believed you knew about Earth and space.

If people dare to look they will find. If you're too meek to go against mass attempted ridicule, then stick to following the leader who will tell you what and when to think.

That's the best I can do. All I ask is that people try their best to see the simplicity in what I'm saying. Try and absorb it and pushing aside the obvious bullying tactics that will be employed to derail your thoughts.

There's only a few people on here with the mind to try and understand what I'm saying. They know who they are. How about other's have a go.
This one thing when understood will wake you up to reality. I promise you that. It just requires your attention to the details and if you can't grasp it at first, you go back in, again and again until you can see what's really in your face.

It can take a few recaps and revisions to achieve, because the mainstream indoctrination is and has been intense and is hard to simply wipe away. It requires a scouring pad.

Now as per normal, I will be inundated with the usual suspects who will go into ridicule mode in a much more intense way to make sure that what I'm saying here is bypassed.

The problem with this site is that the more that free thinkers start to gain , it seems they get banned when it looks like they're gaining numbers against this mass of global shills. I've never understood this in it's entirety.

I can understand anyone being discarded if they don't follow one specific flat earth but to see so many alternative Earth theorists and free thinkers get banned whilst the globalists are allowed to infest, is, frankly weird as hell.

I went into a little mild rant there. It's just how I feel. It's like I'm dealing with frigging robots most of the time.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 07, 2015, 01:14:34 AM
Funnily enough I understand where you are coming from,  but you've made a fatal left turn along the way,  you've opted to ignore the evidence,  and for that reason alone your search for understanding will fail.   You have to stop and back up, start looking at the evidence that contradicts your theory.  If you can come up with a new theory that doesn't ignore obvious facts then maybe people will listen.

The other thing you have misunderstood completely is the simple fact that mathematics can and does describe the world.  Get over your psychological aversion to maths and you will make progress.   You might even be able to make predictions that can be tested.

Let's start with understanding and explaining why things of different mass fall at the same acceleration.   Imagine you are Galileo,  thumbing your nose at the church establishment,  standing on the top of the leaning tower of pisa, dropping rocks and cannon balls.  Proving once and for all that Archimedes was wrong about heavier objects falling faster.

Any chance of a picture of this famous dome?


Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 01:53:02 AM
Funnily enough I understand where you are coming from,  but you've made a fatal left turn along the way,  you've opted to ignore the evidence,  and for that reason alone your search for understanding will fail.   You have to stop and back up, start looking at the evidence that contradicts your theory.  If you can come up with a new theory that doesn't ignore obvious facts then maybe people will listen.

The other thing you have misunderstood completely is the simple fact that mathematics can and does describe the world.  Get over your psychological aversion to maths and you will make progress.   You might even be able to make predictions that can be tested.

Let's start with understanding and explaining why things of different mass fall at the same acceleration.   Imagine you are Galileo,  thumbing your nose at the church establishment,  standing on the top of the leaning tower of pisa, dropping rocks and cannon balls.  Proving once and for all that Archimedes was wrong about heavier objects falling faster.

Any chance of a picture of this famous dome?
You do not need maths to understand anything about Earth. You just need what you were born with, meaning your senses.
Maths is fine for calculating measurements and what not, or building stuff. I have no issues with that. I have no issues with a lot of maths to do with Earth that can be physically verified.

The issue here is, maths cannot physically verify any of what we're told about space and invisible forces. It's just used as a pretence that is made to fit. I won't argue about that because you can live with it as far as I'm cocnerned. Logical thought on reality is what's needed, not maths on fantasy.

As for this:
Let's start with understanding and explaining why things of different mass fall at the same acceleration.   Imagine you are Galileo,  thumbing your nose at the church establishment,  standing on the top of the leaning tower of pisa, dropping rocks and cannon balls.  Proving once and for all that Archimedes was wrong about heavier objects falling faster.

As for that. It's been proved that things don't fall at the same rate. The problem is, the so called science world move the goal posts when they're shown to be wrong and they do it for anything that shows discrepancies.
The problem is simple. Anything found out about mainstream science being wrong is immediately altered in a refit of words to make it appear correct again.

I'm, not into arguing about all that though because it's never ending and there's only one winner, which is mainstream scientists word against anyone with a thinking brain that sees the lie or at best, error.

Heavy objects  appear to drop at the same rate when dropped from a small height. That doesn't tell the story at all, just like the feathers and bowling ball in a supposed vacuum chamber didn't. It stunk of deliberate sickly lies that (again) any thinking person should be able to see through.
Anyone who wants to see it, just look back into this thread, a page and see what Rayzor put up with Brian Cox at N.A.S.A.
Brian Cox is a TV made professor of script reading and a shit actor when required to use facial expressions to make viewers believe in a reality.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 07, 2015, 03:10:57 AM

The real thinkers. The real inventors. the real people who prefer truth over fiction.
Who are these people you have in mind?  Can you name any?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 03:27:38 AM

The real thinkers. The real inventors. the real people who prefer truth over fiction.
Who are these people you have in mind?  Can you name any?
I can give you a small bit of help. None of them are YOU.  ;D

You need to go away and chill out. You're too nasty and bad tempered to actually think straight. That's why nothing you ever say means anything other than attempts at antagonising people.
You're a sad little college kid. How about using your brain and chilling out. the world doesn't owe you a living. Put some effort in, crab boy.  ;)
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 07, 2015, 04:15:16 AM

The real thinkers. The real inventors. the real people who prefer truth over fiction.
Who are these people you have in mind?  Can you name any?
I can give you a small bit of help. None of them are YOU.  ;D
So, you can't name any.  You could just say so, instead of releasing another one of your rants to cover for it.   

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 07, 2015, 04:46:28 AM
Funnily enough I understand where you are coming from,  but you've made a fatal left turn along the way,  you've opted to ignore the evidence,  and for that reason alone your search for understanding will fail.   You have to stop and back up, start looking at the evidence that contradicts your theory.  If you can come up with a new theory that doesn't ignore obvious facts then maybe people will listen.

The other thing you have misunderstood completely is the simple fact that mathematics can and does describe the world.  Get over your psychological aversion to maths and you will make progress.   You might even be able to make predictions that can be tested.

Let's start with understanding and explaining why things of different mass fall at the same acceleration.   Imagine you are Galileo,  thumbing your nose at the church establishment,  standing on the top of the leaning tower of pisa, dropping rocks and cannon balls.  Proving once and for all that Archimedes was wrong about heavier objects falling faster.

Any chance of a picture of this famous dome?
You do not need maths to understand anything about Earth. You just need what you were born with, meaning your senses.
Maths is fine for calculating measurements and what not, or building stuff. I have no issues with that. I have no issues with a lot of maths to do with Earth that can be physically verified.

The issue here is, maths cannot physically verify any of what we're told about space and invisible forces. It's just used as a pretence that is made to fit. I won't argue about that because you can live with it as far as I'm cocnerned. Logical thought on reality is what's needed, not maths on fantasy.

As for this:
Let's start with understanding and explaining why things of different mass fall at the same acceleration.   Imagine you are Galileo,  thumbing your nose at the church establishment,  standing on the top of the leaning tower of pisa, dropping rocks and cannon balls.  Proving once and for all that Archimedes was wrong about heavier objects falling faster.

As for that. It's been proved that things don't fall at the same rate. The problem is, the so called science world move the goal posts when they're shown to be wrong and they do it for anything that shows discrepancies.
The problem is simple. Anything found out about mainstream science being wrong is immediately altered in a refit of words to make it appear correct again.

I'm, not into arguing about all that though because it's never ending and there's only one winner, which is mainstream scientists word against anyone with a thinking brain that sees the lie or at best, error.

Heavy objects  appear to drop at the same rate when dropped from a small height. That doesn't tell the story at all, just like the feathers and bowling ball in a supposed vacuum chamber didn't. It stunk of deliberate sickly lies that (again) any thinking person should be able to see through.
Anyone who wants to see it, just look back into this thread, a page and see what Rayzor put up with Brian Cox at N.A.S.A.
Brian Cox is a TV made professor of script reading and a shit actor when required to use facial expressions to make viewers believe in a reality.

There's your main stumbling block,  you are ignoring evidence and facts that are proven  there is no evidence supporting your assertion that heavier objects fall faster than light objects. 
If you continue to ignore what is right in front of your nose, then you have already lost the ability to reason logically. 

Here's that video mentioned above, that scepti doesn't like, simply because it makes his theory complete nonsense.    (http://)


Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 05:48:57 AM
Funnily enough I understand where you are coming from,  but you've made a fatal left turn along the way,  you've opted to ignore the evidence,  and for that reason alone your search for understanding will fail.   You have to stop and back up, start looking at the evidence that contradicts your theory.  If you can come up with a new theory that doesn't ignore obvious facts then maybe people will listen.

The other thing you have misunderstood completely is the simple fact that mathematics can and does describe the world.  Get over your psychological aversion to maths and you will make progress.   You might even be able to make predictions that can be tested.

Let's start with understanding and explaining why things of different mass fall at the same acceleration.   Imagine you are Galileo,  thumbing your nose at the church establishment,  standing on the top of the leaning tower of pisa, dropping rocks and cannon balls.  Proving once and for all that Archimedes was wrong about heavier objects falling faster.

Any chance of a picture of this famous dome?
You do not need maths to understand anything about Earth. You just need what you were born with, meaning your senses.
Maths is fine for calculating measurements and what not, or building stuff. I have no issues with that. I have no issues with a lot of maths to do with Earth that can be physically verified.

The issue here is, maths cannot physically verify any of what we're told about space and invisible forces. It's just used as a pretence that is made to fit. I won't argue about that because you can live with it as far as I'm cocnerned. Logical thought on reality is what's needed, not maths on fantasy.

As for this:
Let's start with understanding and explaining why things of different mass fall at the same acceleration.   Imagine you are Galileo,  thumbing your nose at the church establishment,  standing on the top of the leaning tower of pisa, dropping rocks and cannon balls.  Proving once and for all that Archimedes was wrong about heavier objects falling faster.

As for that. It's been proved that things don't fall at the same rate. The problem is, the so called science world move the goal posts when they're shown to be wrong and they do it for anything that shows discrepancies.
The problem is simple. Anything found out about mainstream science being wrong is immediately altered in a refit of words to make it appear correct again.

I'm, not into arguing about all that though because it's never ending and there's only one winner, which is mainstream scientists word against anyone with a thinking brain that sees the lie or at best, error.

Heavy objects  appear to drop at the same rate when dropped from a small height. That doesn't tell the story at all, just like the feathers and bowling ball in a supposed vacuum chamber didn't. It stunk of deliberate sickly lies that (again) any thinking person should be able to see through.
Anyone who wants to see it, just look back into this thread, a page and see what Rayzor put up with Brian Cox at N.A.S.A.
Brian Cox is a TV made professor of script reading and a shit actor when required to use facial expressions to make viewers believe in a reality.

There's your main stumbling block,  you are ignoring evidence and facts that are proven  there is no evidence supporting your assertion that heavier objects fall faster than light objects. 
If you continue to ignore what is right in front of your nose, then you have already lost the ability to reason logically. 

Here's that video mentioned above, that scepti doesn't like, simply because it makes his theory complete nonsense.    (http://)
It doesn't make my theory nonsense, it makes my theory more solid because anyone with a brain can see the absolute trickery in that video.

You global Earther's will obviously see absolutely nothing wrong but I bet plenty genuine people will.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Mikey T. on July 07, 2015, 05:59:02 AM
Ok, I watched the video several times over there.  I still see no "trickery".  The only reason you parrot the same old crap about conspiracy, is that you get a rise out of someone arguing with you.  I see you have enough brain cells to form sentences, therefore you do not believe the crap you spout.  Seriously, looking at your "theories" shows very limited thinking and a refusal to accept anything that would disprove it.  It's like arguing with a 2 year old kid.  So don't give me the crap that you think for yourself, as it is clear to anyone that has ever read anything you have said that you are not a researcher, a thinker, or anything other than another sad little troll thinking you are getting under someones skin.  You sir do not matter in the grand scheme of things, stop thinking you do and maybe go out and do something to be more involved.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 06:19:22 AM
Ok, I watched the video several times over there.  I still see no "trickery".  The only reason you parrot the same old crap about conspiracy, is that you get a rise out of someone arguing with you.  I see you have enough brain cells to form sentences, therefore you do not believe the crap you spout.  Seriously, looking at your "theories" shows very limited thinking and a refusal to accept anything that would disprove it.  It's like arguing with a 2 year old kid.  So don't give me the crap that you think for yourself, as it is clear to anyone that has ever read anything you have said that you are not a researcher, a thinker, or anything other than another sad little troll thinking you are getting under someones skin.  You sir do not matter in the grand scheme of things, stop thinking you do and maybe go out and do something to be more involved.
You seem to spend enough time telling me I don't matter, in the grand scheme of things. Save you typing to this two year old. Can you do it?...don't answer that.  ;D

Of course you see nothing wrong in the video. It's because nobody sees flaws in their idols work or bullshit.
 For anyone with a brain who watches the video - start off by watching how they use normal video motion to show you that the feather's and bowling ball fall as they do.
Pay attention to those feathers. Pay close attention to those feather's and their quill's.

Ok, now you see them supposedly evacuate the air from the chamber.
Now they run the video and show you SLOW MOTION of the very same thing. Why?......why would they do that and not show you it is normal motion first?
Why show you one experiment in a normal atmospheric chamber in normal motion, only and not slow motion, then show you the supposed evacuated  chamber video of the drop in slow motion?


The reason is very simple. It's because it's bullshit and also those feather's in the second clip in slow motion are not the same feather's and if you look closely, they are most probably metal rods for quill's, or something like that. Look at when the feather's hit the table, they bend unnaturally for them to be normal quill's.
it's utter crap.

Now observe Brian frigging Cox and his little friends who are supposed to be the operators of this supposed large vacuum chamber. Look how shocked hey appear to be. In awe of the drop. It's almost like they've never ever seen this before. Wow. Oh my. Look at that, they fell together. Wow.

Experts and geniuses, we are told, who sit back in awe, smirking as they do because the smirk is their way of saying, look at us silly bastard conning he public with this cock and bull  story.

I piss myself laughing at this crap. You know what? if one day I could see something that actually looks good and is acted well enough to fool me, I'll let you know how clever it is or even say it nearly had me believing.

Guess what?

None of hose bozo's has produced anything remotely believable. It's like the bullshit stench oozes out of them and no amount of showering and deodorant, to after shave, to perfume, seems to be able to mask the smell of it.  ::)
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 07, 2015, 06:25:56 AM
Ok, I watched the video several times over there.  I still see no "trickery".  The only reason you parrot the same old crap about conspiracy, is that you get a rise out of someone arguing with you.  I see you have enough brain cells to form sentences, therefore you do not believe the crap you spout.  Seriously, looking at your "theories" shows very limited thinking and a refusal to accept anything that would disprove it.  It's like arguing with a 2 year old kid.  So don't give me the crap that you think for yourself, as it is clear to anyone that has ever read anything you have said that you are not a researcher, a thinker, or anything other than another sad little troll thinking you are getting under someones skin.  You sir do not matter in the grand scheme of things, stop thinking you do and maybe go out and do something to be more involved.

Pretty much sums up what I think of scepti at this point,  I tried to push him gently in the right direction,  but  the conspiracy blinkers come down and his brain goes into some weird reality distort mode. 

Someone on here said it perfectly when they said,  trying to talk to scepti  is  like playing chess with a pigeon,  they strut about, knocking pieces over,  then squawk  a bit,   crap all over the board and fly off to the roost claiming victory.   

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 06:35:48 AM
Ok, I watched the video several times over there.  I still see no "trickery".  The only reason you parrot the same old crap about conspiracy, is that you get a rise out of someone arguing with you.  I see you have enough brain cells to form sentences, therefore you do not believe the crap you spout.  Seriously, looking at your "theories" shows very limited thinking and a refusal to accept anything that would disprove it.  It's like arguing with a 2 year old kid.  So don't give me the crap that you think for yourself, as it is clear to anyone that has ever read anything you have said that you are not a researcher, a thinker, or anything other than another sad little troll thinking you are getting under someones skin.  You sir do not matter in the grand scheme of things, stop thinking you do and maybe go out and do something to be more involved.

Pretty much sums up what I think of scepti at this point,  I tried to push him gently in the right direction,  but  the conspiracy blinkers come down and his brain goes into some weird reality distort mode. 

Someone on here said it perfectly when they said,  trying to talk to scepti  is  like playing chess with a pigeon,  they strut about, knocking pieces over,  then squawk  a bit,   crap all over the board and fly off to the roost claiming victory.
Stop playing chess with pigeons and play real people. It might help you to think.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 07, 2015, 06:50:08 AM
Ok, I watched the video several times over there.  I still see no "trickery".  The only reason you parrot the same old crap about conspiracy, is that you get a rise out of someone arguing with you.  I see you have enough brain cells to form sentences, therefore you do not believe the crap you spout.  Seriously, looking at your "theories" shows very limited thinking and a refusal to accept anything that would disprove it.  It's like arguing with a 2 year old kid.  So don't give me the crap that you think for yourself, as it is clear to anyone that has ever read anything you have said that you are not a researcher, a thinker, or anything other than another sad little troll thinking you are getting under someones skin.  You sir do not matter in the grand scheme of things, stop thinking you do and maybe go out and do something to be more involved.

Pretty much sums up what I think of scepti at this point,  I tried to push him gently in the right direction,  but  the conspiracy blinkers come down and his brain goes into some weird reality distort mode. 

Someone on here said it perfectly when they said,  trying to talk to scepti  is  like playing chess with a pigeon,  they strut about, knocking pieces over,  then squawk  a bit,   crap all over the board and fly off to the roost claiming victory.
Stop playing chess with pigeons and play real people. It might help you to think.

Stop acting like a pigeon and start acting like a real person,  not a conspiracy zombie.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on July 07, 2015, 06:51:50 AM
Ok, I watched the video several times over there.  I still see no "trickery".  The only reason you parrot the same old crap about conspiracy, is that you get a rise out of someone arguing with you.  I see you have enough brain cells to form sentences, therefore you do not believe the crap you spout.  Seriously, looking at your "theories" shows very limited thinking and a refusal to accept anything that would disprove it.  It's like arguing with a 2 year old kid.  So don't give me the crap that you think for yourself, as it is clear to anyone that has ever read anything you have said that you are not a researcher, a thinker, or anything other than another sad little troll thinking you are getting under someones skin.  You sir do not matter in the grand scheme of things, stop thinking you do and maybe go out and do something to be more involved.

Pretty much sums up what I think of scepti at this point,  I tried to push him gently in the right direction,  but  the conspiracy blinkers come down and his brain goes into some weird reality distort mode. 

Someone on here said it perfectly when they said,  trying to talk to scepti  is  like playing chess with a pigeon,  they strut about, knocking pieces over,  then squawk  a bit,   crap all over the board and fly off to the roost claiming victory.
Stop playing chess with pigeons and play real people. It might help you to think.
Take your defeat like a man and just move on.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: hoyhoy5 on July 07, 2015, 07:01:07 AM
Alright, this thread has had enough of personal discussion and accusation of "not thinking for yourselves". Then let's think, gentlemen. We have here a particular set of men claiming that gravity effectively does not exist and the real force maintaing us on the ground, in a Flat Earth, is buoyancy, air preessure and so-called "denpressure".

Therefore, the burden of proof falls under them to prove all phenomenons involving gravity wrong, based on observational evidence.

Let's remember that the force currently acting upon us behaves at an acceleration of approximately 9.8m/s/s, and every other observational evidence we can gather regarding air, fluids, buoyancy and the force currently acting upon us.

Now, let this particular set of gentlemen prove this hypothesis. Or at least try to.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 07:03:06 AM
Ok, I watched the video several times over there.  I still see no "trickery".  The only reason you parrot the same old crap about conspiracy, is that you get a rise out of someone arguing with you.  I see you have enough brain cells to form sentences, therefore you do not believe the crap you spout.  Seriously, looking at your "theories" shows very limited thinking and a refusal to accept anything that would disprove it.  It's like arguing with a 2 year old kid.  So don't give me the crap that you think for yourself, as it is clear to anyone that has ever read anything you have said that you are not a researcher, a thinker, or anything other than another sad little troll thinking you are getting under someones skin.  You sir do not matter in the grand scheme of things, stop thinking you do and maybe go out and do something to be more involved.

Pretty much sums up what I think of scepti at this point,  I tried to push him gently in the right direction,  but  the conspiracy blinkers come down and his brain goes into some weird reality distort mode. 

Someone on here said it perfectly when they said,  trying to talk to scepti  is  like playing chess with a pigeon,  they strut about, knocking pieces over,  then squawk  a bit,   crap all over the board and fly off to the roost claiming victory.
Stop playing chess with pigeons and play real people. It might help you to think.

Stop acting like a pigeon and start acting like a real person,  not a conspiracy zombie.
Stop acting like a wax work dummy at the chess board and start playing the game of chess.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 07:04:27 AM
Ok, I watched the video several times over there.  I still see no "trickery".  The only reason you parrot the same old crap about conspiracy, is that you get a rise out of someone arguing with you.  I see you have enough brain cells to form sentences, therefore you do not believe the crap you spout.  Seriously, looking at your "theories" shows very limited thinking and a refusal to accept anything that would disprove it.  It's like arguing with a 2 year old kid.  So don't give me the crap that you think for yourself, as it is clear to anyone that has ever read anything you have said that you are not a researcher, a thinker, or anything other than another sad little troll thinking you are getting under someones skin.  You sir do not matter in the grand scheme of things, stop thinking you do and maybe go out and do something to be more involved.

Pretty much sums up what I think of scepti at this point,  I tried to push him gently in the right direction,  but  the conspiracy blinkers come down and his brain goes into some weird reality distort mode. 

Someone on here said it perfectly when they said,  trying to talk to scepti  is  like playing chess with a pigeon,  they strut about, knocking pieces over,  then squawk  a bit,   crap all over the board and fly off to the roost claiming victory.
Stop playing chess with pigeons and play real people. It might help you to think.
Take your defeat like a man and just move on.
When one of you manages to do it I will move one. Until then I'll educate people on reality against the lies that people like you spew.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 07, 2015, 07:28:05 AM
Ok, I watched the video several times over there.  I still see no "trickery".  The only reason you parrot the same old crap about conspiracy, is that you get a rise out of someone arguing with you.  I see you have enough brain cells to form sentences, therefore you do not believe the crap you spout.  Seriously, looking at your "theories" shows very limited thinking and a refusal to accept anything that would disprove it.  It's like arguing with a 2 year old kid.  So don't give me the crap that you think for yourself, as it is clear to anyone that has ever read anything you have said that you are not a researcher, a thinker, or anything other than another sad little troll thinking you are getting under someones skin.  You sir do not matter in the grand scheme of things, stop thinking you do and maybe go out and do something to be more involved.

Pretty much sums up what I think of scepti at this point,  I tried to push him gently in the right direction,  but  the conspiracy blinkers come down and his brain goes into some weird reality distort mode. 

Someone on here said it perfectly when they said,  trying to talk to scepti  is  like playing chess with a pigeon,  they strut about, knocking pieces over,  then squawk  a bit,   crap all over the board and fly off to the roost claiming victory.
Stop playing chess with pigeons and play real people. It might help you to think.
Take your defeat like a man and just move on.
When one of you manages to do it I will move one.
You denying you lost, over and over and over and over, does not make you the winner.
Quote
Until then I'll educate people on reality against the lies that people like you spew.
You got anything more than "possible" assertion that we are liars and you are telling the truth?  You know, why don't you show the results of your ice lake experiment, show us progress on your scale model of the ice dome you have been working on, anything.  Why should we do a bunch of leg work, just for you to spout off with a rant about how we are liars and what we are showing you is fake?  Why don't you support some of your claims first?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 07, 2015, 07:30:44 AM
Ok, I watched the video several times over there.  I still see no "trickery".  The only reason you parrot the same old crap about conspiracy, is that you get a rise out of someone arguing with you.  I see you have enough brain cells to form sentences, therefore you do not believe the crap you spout.  Seriously, looking at your "theories" shows very limited thinking and a refusal to accept anything that would disprove it.  It's like arguing with a 2 year old kid.  So don't give me the crap that you think for yourself, as it is clear to anyone that has ever read anything you have said that you are not a researcher, a thinker, or anything other than another sad little troll thinking you are getting under someones skin.  You sir do not matter in the grand scheme of things, stop thinking you do and maybe go out and do something to be more involved.

Pretty much sums up what I think of scepti at this point,  I tried to push him gently in the right direction,  but  the conspiracy blinkers come down and his brain goes into some weird reality distort mode. 

Someone on here said it perfectly when they said,  trying to talk to scepti  is  like playing chess with a pigeon,  they strut about, knocking pieces over,  then squawk  a bit,   crap all over the board and fly off to the roost claiming victory.
Stop playing chess with pigeons and play real people. It might help you to think.
Take your defeat like a man and just move on.
When one of you manages to do it I will move one. Until then I'll educate people on reality against the lies that people like you spew.

Ok,  last chance.   Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum.    And don't say they don't unless you can prove it.    Your move.
 
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 07:35:35 AM
Ok, I watched the video several times over there.  I still see no "trickery".  The only reason you parrot the same old crap about conspiracy, is that you get a rise out of someone arguing with you.  I see you have enough brain cells to form sentences, therefore you do not believe the crap you spout.  Seriously, looking at your "theories" shows very limited thinking and a refusal to accept anything that would disprove it.  It's like arguing with a 2 year old kid.  So don't give me the crap that you think for yourself, as it is clear to anyone that has ever read anything you have said that you are not a researcher, a thinker, or anything other than another sad little troll thinking you are getting under someones skin.  You sir do not matter in the grand scheme of things, stop thinking you do and maybe go out and do something to be more involved.

Pretty much sums up what I think of scepti at this point,  I tried to push him gently in the right direction,  but  the conspiracy blinkers come down and his brain goes into some weird reality distort mode. 

Someone on here said it perfectly when they said,  trying to talk to scepti  is  like playing chess with a pigeon,  they strut about, knocking pieces over,  then squawk  a bit,   crap all over the board and fly off to the roost claiming victory.
Stop playing chess with pigeons and play real people. It might help you to think.
Take your defeat like a man and just move on.
When one of you manages to do it I will move one.
You denying you lost, over and over and over and over, does not make you the winner.
Quote
Until then I'll educate people on reality against the lies that people like you spew.
You got anything more than "possible" assertion that we are liars and you are telling the truth?  You know, why don't you show the results of your ice lake experiment, show us progress on your scale model of the ice dome you have been working on, anything.  Why should we do a bunch of leg work, just for you to spout off with a rant about how we are liars and what we are showing you is fake?  Why don't you support some of your claims first?
Get this into your numb meat head.

I don't care what you or your silly global mates think of me or what I say. My stuff is there for those who have a brain and are willing to logically look at all this stuff to make their own minds up.
You people jumping in is a minor hindrance and I deal with you  people as and when I feel the need with whatever I feel you deserve at the time.

I don't talk serious with dunces like you for crying out loud. Dogs have better understanding of small commands than people like you do of actually understanding one small piece of logic. You'll probably jump right in and ask what logic next.  ;D

Seriously you're as thick as crap. Off you pop and deal with your little global mates. You can pat each other on the back as many times as you feel the need.

Denpressure is gravity. It's 100% proven and people will eventually take notice once they actually realise how duped they've been.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 07:38:27 AM
Ok, I watched the video several times over there.  I still see no "trickery".  The only reason you parrot the same old crap about conspiracy, is that you get a rise out of someone arguing with you.  I see you have enough brain cells to form sentences, therefore you do not believe the crap you spout.  Seriously, looking at your "theories" shows very limited thinking and a refusal to accept anything that would disprove it.  It's like arguing with a 2 year old kid.  So don't give me the crap that you think for yourself, as it is clear to anyone that has ever read anything you have said that you are not a researcher, a thinker, or anything other than another sad little troll thinking you are getting under someones skin.  You sir do not matter in the grand scheme of things, stop thinking you do and maybe go out and do something to be more involved.

Pretty much sums up what I think of scepti at this point,  I tried to push him gently in the right direction,  but  the conspiracy blinkers come down and his brain goes into some weird reality distort mode. 

Someone on here said it perfectly when they said,  trying to talk to scepti  is  like playing chess with a pigeon,  they strut about, knocking pieces over,  then squawk  a bit,   crap all over the board and fly off to the roost claiming victory.
Stop playing chess with pigeons and play real people. It might help you to think.
Take your defeat like a man and just move on.
When one of you manages to do it I will move one. Until then I'll educate people on reality against the lies that people like you spew.

Ok,  last chance.   Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum.    And don't say they don't unless you can prove it.    Your move.
There's no chamber big enough to evacuate enough air to to prove your case. 10 feet or 20 feet is hardly enough height to verify anything. Now go to the top of a sky scraper and do it and you'll see that your theory you stand by, is bullshit.

Why hasn't it been done?....because to do it will destroy the illusion. Over to you.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 07, 2015, 07:46:51 AM
Ok, I watched the video several times over there.  I still see no "trickery".  The only reason you parrot the same old crap about conspiracy, is that you get a rise out of someone arguing with you.  I see you have enough brain cells to form sentences, therefore you do not believe the crap you spout.  Seriously, looking at your "theories" shows very limited thinking and a refusal to accept anything that would disprove it.  It's like arguing with a 2 year old kid.  So don't give me the crap that you think for yourself, as it is clear to anyone that has ever read anything you have said that you are not a researcher, a thinker, or anything other than another sad little troll thinking you are getting under someones skin.  You sir do not matter in the grand scheme of things, stop thinking you do and maybe go out and do something to be more involved.

Pretty much sums up what I think of scepti at this point,  I tried to push him gently in the right direction,  but  the conspiracy blinkers come down and his brain goes into some weird reality distort mode. 

Someone on here said it perfectly when they said,  trying to talk to scepti  is  like playing chess with a pigeon,  they strut about, knocking pieces over,  then squawk  a bit,   crap all over the board and fly off to the roost claiming victory.
Stop playing chess with pigeons and play real people. It might help you to think.
Take your defeat like a man and just move on.
When one of you manages to do it I will move one. Until then I'll educate people on reality against the lies that people like you spew.

Ok,  last chance.   Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum.    And don't say they don't unless you can prove it.    Your move.
There's no chamber big enough to evacuate enough air to to prove your case. 10 feet or 20 feet is hardly enough height to verify anything. Now go to the top of a sky scraper and do it and you'll see that your theory you stand by, is bullshit.

Why hasn't it been done?....because to do it will destroy the illusion. Over to you.

Well there's the squawk and knocking a few pieces over..      So let's try some other basic questions. 

1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
2. What is the difference between mass and weight?
3. Why does it take more force to accelerate a greater mass?
4. Have you ever heard of the Cavendish Experiment?

Your move.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: hoyhoy5 on July 07, 2015, 07:51:57 AM
Well, it seems my comment has been effectively and purposely ignored by the FE'ers. So much for trying.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 07, 2015, 08:06:11 AM
Someone on here said it perfectly when they said,  trying to talk to scepti  is  like playing chess with a pigeon,  they strut about, knocking pieces over,  then squawk  a bit,   crap all over the board and fly off to the roost claiming victory.
Heh, nailed.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 08:13:32 AM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
2. What is the difference between mass and weight?
Mass is a grouping of matter into any shape and weight is the measurement of matter that is grouped into whatever shape.
3. Why does it take more force to accelerate a greater mass?
It takes more force to accelerate a greater mass because there's a greater resistance on that mass. Meaning he mass is resisting more atmospheric pressure so it takes more energy to move into that resistance.
4. Have you ever heard of the Cavendish Experiment?

Your move.
Yes I've heard of the Cavendish experiment and it's nonsense. It's another Foucault's pendulum scam. A slow moving piece of dog crap designed to fool people into believing fantasy.

Your move.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 07, 2015, 08:22:29 AM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
2. What is the difference between mass and weight?
Mass is a grouping of matter into any shape and weight is the measurement of matter that is grouped into whatever shape.
3. Why does it take more force to accelerate a greater mass?
It takes more force to accelerate a greater mass because there's a greater resistance on that mass. Meaning he mass is resisting more atmospheric pressure so it takes more energy to move into that resistance.
4. Have you ever heard of the Cavendish Experiment?

Your move.
Yes I've heard of the Cavendish experiment and it's nonsense. It's another Foucault's pendulum scam. A slow moving piece of dog crap designed to fool people into believing fantasy.

Your move.

If we use the materials aerogel(Near air density) and steel (Much denser than air, much denser), then we should be able to see the difference in a 10 feet drop in a vacuum chamber. If you say that they do not fall/accelerate at the same rate, bring us proof.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 07, 2015, 08:26:29 AM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YwjORDnEQ8k/UzIXGAuX_CI/AAAAAAAAwO4/T67U9LuSzp0/s1600/arguing-with-idiots-is-like-playing-chess-with-a-pigeon.jpg)
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 07, 2015, 08:27:09 AM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
OK, then why does thsi happen, in a vacuum chamber that is 120ft tall? In a near perfect vacuum?  Why doesn't the air pressure cause the less dense object to fall slower?
(http://)
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 08:28:00 AM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
2. What is the difference between mass and weight?
Mass is a grouping of matter into any shape and weight is the measurement of matter that is grouped into whatever shape.
3. Why does it take more force to accelerate a greater mass?
It takes more force to accelerate a greater mass because there's a greater resistance on that mass. Meaning he mass is resisting more atmospheric pressure so it takes more energy to move into that resistance.
4. Have you ever heard of the Cavendish Experiment?

Your move.
Yes I've heard of the Cavendish experiment and it's nonsense. It's another Foucault's pendulum scam. A slow moving piece of dog crap designed to fool people into believing fantasy.

Your move.

If we use the materials aerogel(Near air density) and steel (Much denser than air, much denser), then we should be able to see the difference in a 10 feet drop in a vacuum chamber. If you say that they do not fall/accelerate at the same rate, bring us proof.
Hire a 10 foot vacuum chamber and bring it over, then we'll both perform the experiment. Deal?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: hoyhoy5 on July 07, 2015, 08:30:05 AM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
2. What is the difference between mass and weight?
Mass is a grouping of matter into any shape and weight is the measurement of matter that is grouped into whatever shape.
3. Why does it take more force to accelerate a greater mass?
It takes more force to accelerate a greater mass because there's a greater resistance on that mass. Meaning he mass is resisting more atmospheric pressure so it takes more energy to move into that resistance.
4. Have you ever heard of the Cavendish Experiment?

Your move.
Yes I've heard of the Cavendish experiment and it's nonsense. It's another Foucault's pendulum scam. A slow moving piece of dog crap designed to fool people into believing fantasy.

Your move.

Wrong.

An experiment involving a vacuum and dropping both a bowling ball and a feather has already been done. Guess the results? Both fell at the same rate and reached the ground at the same time.

Your answer on why it takes more force in order to change the momentum in a massive object is not valid because it also works in a vacuum, where there is no atmospheric pressure and air resistance. 

Mass is a property of matter given by the Higgs Field. And how exactly would you measure that mass grouped in whatever shape? Based on what force? Weight as we know it is measured acording to the gravitational attraction it suffers from the earth. Weight would have no meaning if gravity didn't exist.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Mikey T. on July 07, 2015, 08:30:35 AM
That was not a move, that was more taking a crap on the board scepti, please say something that actually addresses things rather than saying it doesn't.  Again your only response is to say the test is invalid, with no reason, and suggest something that can't currently be tested.  If such a chamber the size of a skyscraper were ever built and the test again showed the same thing, you would again change the parameters of the test.  You think you are moving the goal posts in a way to ensure victory, yet you haven't gotten off of the sidelines to play yet.  The scoreboard has broken because the points against you are so high and you still sit with zero refusing to compete.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 07, 2015, 08:31:33 AM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
2. What is the difference between mass and weight?
Mass is a grouping of matter into any shape and weight is the measurement of matter that is grouped into whatever shape.
3. Why does it take more force to accelerate a greater mass?
It takes more force to accelerate a greater mass because there's a greater resistance on that mass. Meaning he mass is resisting more atmospheric pressure so it takes more energy to move into that resistance.
4. Have you ever heard of the Cavendish Experiment?

Your move.
Yes I've heard of the Cavendish experiment and it's nonsense. It's another Foucault's pendulum scam. A slow moving piece of dog crap designed to fool people into believing fantasy.

Your move.

You score zero out of  4 so far,  but you have a chance.

1.   The Brian Cox video was a drop in vacuum from  >  60'  of a bowling ball, and feathers, and showed they fell at the same rate.    Since you dispute the result, where is your evidence that they fall at different rates?

2.  You seem to be saying that mass and weight are the same thing, is that your contention?

3.  If what you say is true then why does it take the same force to accelerate an object  in a vacuum as it does in air?   If you disagree show your evidence.

4.  You seem unaware that the Cavendish experiment was about density of the earth.   Knowing that do you still think it's nonsense?

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 08:32:24 AM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
OK, then why does thsi happen, in a vacuum chamber that is 120ft tall? In a near perfect vacuum?  Why doesn't the air pressure cause the less dense object to fall slower?
(http://)
[/quote]Air resistance caused the feather's to fall slower, right?
What more proof do you need?

The next experiment  in a supposed vacuum was bullshit and is clear to see.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 07, 2015, 08:37:41 AM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
2. What is the difference between mass and weight?
Mass is a grouping of matter into any shape and weight is the measurement of matter that is grouped into whatever shape.
3. Why does it take more force to accelerate a greater mass?
It takes more force to accelerate a greater mass because there's a greater resistance on that mass. Meaning he mass is resisting more atmospheric pressure so it takes more energy to move into that resistance.
4. Have you ever heard of the Cavendish Experiment?

Your move.
Yes I've heard of the Cavendish experiment and it's nonsense. It's another Foucault's pendulum scam. A slow moving piece of dog crap designed to fool people into believing fantasy.

Your move.

If we use the materials aerogel(Near air density) and steel (Much denser than air, much denser), then we should be able to see the difference in a 10 feet drop in a vacuum chamber. If you say that they do not fall/accelerate at the same rate, bring us proof.
Hire a 10 foot vacuum chamber and bring it over, then we'll both perform the experiment. Deal?

I won't hire anything for you, you have to get the proof yourself. I'm pretty sure you won't even need a 10 foot chamber, especially if you film it with a camera. See if any university near you has a vacuum chamber you can lend for the test, and use a camera to film the whole experiment, then upload it. Think of the fame you'd get if you were right.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 08:38:13 AM
An experiment involving a vacuum and dropping both a bowling ball and a feather has already been done. Guess the results? Both fell at the same rate and reached the ground at the same time.
Read back to what I said about this scam. Stop being so naive.
Your answer on why it takes more force in order to change the momentum in a massive object is not valid because it also works in a vacuum, where there is no atmospheric pressure and air resistance. 
Again, stop being so naive. You're told about this vacuum and you have no clue about the reality of it.
Mass is a property of matter given by the Higgs Field. And how exactly would you measure that mass grouped in whatever shape? Based on what force? Weight as we know it is measured acording to the gravitational attraction it suffers from the earth.
Weight is simply a measurement of mass that man numbered to give meaning on a scale. Take away the scale and weight does not exist.

Weight would have no meaning if gravity didn't exist.
Weight would have no meaning if man made scales weren't invented. Simple as that. Nothing to do with fictional gravity.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 08:40:23 AM
That was not a move, that was more taking a crap on the board scepti, please say something that actually addresses things rather than saying it doesn't.  Again your only response is to say the test is invalid, with no reason, and suggest something that can't currently be tested.  If such a chamber the size of a skyscraper were ever built and the test again showed the same thing, you would again change the parameters of the test.  You think you are moving the goal posts in a way to ensure victory, yet you haven't gotten off of the sidelines to play yet.  The scoreboard has broken because the points against you are so high and you still sit with zero refusing to compete.
If we both keep crapping on the board we won't see the squares to play the game. Over to you.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 07, 2015, 08:41:09 AM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
OK, then why does thsi happen, in a vacuum chamber that is 120ft tall? In a near perfect vacuum?  Why doesn't the air pressure cause the less dense object to fall slower?
(http://)
Air resistance caused the feather's to fall slower, right?
What more proof do you need?
Yes, outside the vacuum chamber, air resistance causes the feather to fall slower, just as predicted.
Quote
 
The next experiment  in a supposed vacuum was bullshit and is clear to see.
Why?  Because it goes against everything you spout out and destroys denpressure?  Where is your evidence that the experiment is bullshit?  Burden of proof is on you.  Incredulity is not a valid argument.

I am also going to play your game of semantics, the video never claimed it was a perfect vacuum, they said it was a near perfect vacuum.  So don't pull out your bull shit of "There is no such thing as a vacuum"
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 08:48:37 AM

1.   The Brian Cox video was a drop in vacuum from  >  60'  of a bowling ball, and feathers, and showed they fell at the same rate.    Since you dispute the result, where is your evidence that they fall at different rates?
My evidence is the feather's used in the supposed vacuum and also the usage of slow motion. The feather's were changed, You know this and so does anyone with a brain. The slow motion was to hide the truth.
2.  You seem to be saying that mass and weight are the same thing, is that your contention?
mass is grouped matter in any form or shape. Weight is the measurement of that matter by usage of a numbered man made scale. No scale and no weight.
3.  If what you say is true then why does it take the same force to accelerate an object  in a vacuum as it does in air?   If you disagree show your evidence.
Have you ever accelerated an object in a vacuum as opposed to in air? if so, what was the force reading?
4.  You seem unaware that the Cavendish experiment was about density of the earth.   Knowing that do you still think it's nonsense?
The Cavendish experiment may be a real thing but it does not prove gravity at all. Mass attracting mass over a long period of time and it's called gravitational attraction. Come on, it's bollocks.
Don;t mention it again. It's bollocks and weak as piss as an argument by you people.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 08:56:51 AM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
2. What is the difference between mass and weight?
Mass is a grouping of matter into any shape and weight is the measurement of matter that is grouped into whatever shape.
3. Why does it take more force to accelerate a greater mass?
It takes more force to accelerate a greater mass because there's a greater resistance on that mass. Meaning he mass is resisting more atmospheric pressure so it takes more energy to move into that resistance.
4. Have you ever heard of the Cavendish Experiment?

Your move.
Yes I've heard of the Cavendish experiment and it's nonsense. It's another Foucault's pendulum scam. A slow moving piece of dog crap designed to fool people into believing fantasy.

Your move.

If we use the materials aerogel(Near air density) and steel (Much denser than air, much denser), then we should be able to see the difference in a 10 feet drop in a vacuum chamber. If you say that they do not fall/accelerate at the same rate, bring us proof.
Hire a 10 foot vacuum chamber and bring it over, then we'll both perform the experiment. Deal?

I won't hire anything for you, you have to get the proof yourself. I'm pretty sure you won't even need a 10 foot chamber, especially if you film it with a camera. See if any university near you has a vacuum chamber you can lend for the test, and use a camera to film the whole experiment, then upload it. Think of the fame you'd get if you were right.
I'm not after fame. I couldn't give a shit about any of it. The world will be here long after I've gone and the bullshit will be heaped upon the populace just as much, if not more, when I'm gone.

What you accept or deny is down to you - not me. I don't care - seriously - what you think or believe, because ultimately your peace of mind will be found by your own means and if that means you believe everything you're told, then don't frequent places like this. It will work against your mind.

I'm trying to help you. If your mind is so made up that your only course of action is to believe you are getting somewhere by adding a force against my cart so I can't push, then you have to keep up that force and eventually it will wear you down and you will tire and get irritated, then you will start to question why you tried to push against me, because now you're in a dilemma. If you slack off, you know I will push that cart forwards and roll over you, leaving you to dust yourself down and either disappear - take your place further back for another go - or start to wonder if aiding in the push with me might get you to a place that you didn't think existed.

Either way is fine with me.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 09:00:53 AM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
OK, then why does thsi happen, in a vacuum chamber that is 120ft tall? In a near perfect vacuum?  Why doesn't the air pressure cause the less dense object to fall slower?
(http://)
Air resistance caused the feather's to fall slower, right?
What more proof do you need?
Yes, outside the vacuum chamber, air resistance causes the feather to fall slower, just as predicted.
Quote
 
The next experiment  in a supposed vacuum was bullshit and is clear to see.
Why?  Because it goes against everything you spout out and destroys denpressure?  Where is your evidence that the experiment is bullshit?  Burden of proof is on you.  Incredulity is not a valid argument.

I am also going to play your game of semantics, the video never claimed it was a perfect vacuum, they said it was a near perfect vacuum.  So don't pull out your bull shit of "There is no such thing as a vacuum"
How many square inches would you say the inside of that supposed vacuum chamber is?
A rough guess, you don't have to be accurate.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 07, 2015, 09:03:00 AM

1.   The Brian Cox video was a drop in vacuum from  >  60'  of a bowling ball, and feathers, and showed they fell at the same rate.    Since you dispute the result, where is your evidence that they fall at different rates?
My evidence is the feather's used in the supposed vacuum and also the usage of slow motion. The feather's were changed, You know this and so does anyone with a brain. The slow motion was to hide the truth.
You have evidence that the feathers are changed? Because the orientation of the feathers are different? Also, how does slow motion create the illusion that the feather falls at the same speed as the bowling ball?
Once again, incredulity and assertion are not valid arguments.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 07, 2015, 09:04:26 AM

1.   The Brian Cox video was a drop in vacuum from  >  60'  of a bowling ball, and feathers, and showed they fell at the same rate.    Since you dispute the result, where is your evidence that they fall at different rates?
My evidence is the feather's used in the supposed vacuum and also the usage of slow motion. The feather's were changed, You know this and so does anyone with a brain. The slow motion was to hide the truth.
2.  You seem to be saying that mass and weight are the same thing, is that your contention?
mass is grouped matter in any form or shape. Weight is the measurement of that matter by usage of a numbered man made scale. No scale and no weight.
3.  If what you say is true then why does it take the same force to accelerate an object  in a vacuum as it does in air?   If you disagree show your evidence.
Have you ever accelerated an object in a vacuum as opposed to in air? if so, what was the force reading?
4.  You seem unaware that the Cavendish experiment was about density of the earth.   Knowing that do you still think it's nonsense?
The Cavendish experiment may be a real thing but it does not prove gravity at all. Mass attracting mass over a long period of time and it's called gravitational attraction. Come on, it's bollocks.
Don;t mention it again. It's bollocks and weak as piss as an argument by you people.

1. Where is your evidence that objects of different mass fall at different accelerations in a vacuum?   if you don't have any evidence you can't claim that as a fact.
2. If you contend that weight is related somehow to mass, what it the relationship,  Or put it another way how do scales work?
3. What is the relationship of force to acceleration and mass.   More mass requires more force doesn't it.  More force on the same mass gives more acceleration,  Do you agree?
4. Cavendish measured the gravitational constant,  which proves gravitational attraction,   if you disagree you need to do more than just call it bollocks. 

Just to warn you about mass and weight,  you are walking into a trap.   Think carefully before you answer Q2.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: hoyhoy5 on July 07, 2015, 09:08:21 AM
An experiment involving a vacuum and dropping both a bowling ball and a feather has already been done. Guess the results? Both fell at the same rate and reached the ground at the same time.
Read back to what I said about this scam. Stop being so naive.
Your answer on why it takes more force in order to change the momentum in a massive object is not valid because it also works in a vacuum, where there is no atmospheric pressure and air resistance. 
Again, stop being so naive. You're told about this vacuum and you have no clue about the reality of it.
Mass is a property of matter given by the Higgs Field. And how exactly would you measure that mass grouped in whatever shape? Based on what force? Weight as we know it is measured acording to the gravitational attraction it suffers from the earth.
Weight is simply a measurement of mass that man numbered to give meaning on a scale. Take away the scale and weight does not exist.

Weight would have no meaning if gravity didn't exist.
Weight would have no meaning if man made scales weren't invented. Simple as that. Nothing to do with fictional gravity.

I, here, officialy declare that I am done argueing with you in this thread.

Any evidence that we present is claimed false by you, without any ceremony. All is part of the great conspiracy, apparently, even the mathematics and physics.

You make up arguments on the spot, hoping for them to fit in your non-sensical theory that fails to explain simple phenomenons.

Nothing, even clear evidence can convince you because you find yourself so stuck in this blind and desperate fanaticism for a flawed "truth".

No matter how many experiments are done, no matter how much wrong your theories are, you will always claim that our evidence is a setup, CGI or rigged, and will promptly modify your theory in anyway possible.

An example was just made clear by you: we showed evidence that a feather and a bowling ball fall at the same rate in a vacuum, and not only you claimed that it was false, but you denyed the very existence of vacuum.

Your main argumentation to FET is not showing how it explains the phenomenons we see everyday, but accusing us all for being blind to a greater "truth", apparently exclusive to you.

Perhaps solipsism is a more fitting ideology for you to follow. Check it out.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 09:10:15 AM

1.   The Brian Cox video was a drop in vacuum from  >  60'  of a bowling ball, and feathers, and showed they fell at the same rate.    Since you dispute the result, where is your evidence that they fall at different rates?
My evidence is the feather's used in the supposed vacuum and also the usage of slow motion. The feather's were changed, You know this and so does anyone with a brain. The slow motion was to hide the truth.
You have evidence that the feathers are changed? Because the orientation of the feathers are different? Also, how does slow motion create the illusion that the feather falls at the same speed as the bowling ball?
Once again, incredulity and assertion are not valid arguments.
Are you serious?  ;D
Do you know how films are made?

Let's make a film about a bowling ball and feather's. You're the film maker and you goal is to make the feather's fall the same as the bowling ball. Who do you call?

Your modelling department to make you the feather's so they fall with the bowling ball. Metal quills or whatever it takes to achieve it.
Not hard to do, is it?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 07, 2015, 09:14:34 AM

1.   The Brian Cox video was a drop in vacuum from  >  60'  of a bowling ball, and feathers, and showed they fell at the same rate.    Since you dispute the result, where is your evidence that they fall at different rates?
My evidence is the feather's used in the supposed vacuum and also the usage of slow motion. The feather's were changed, You know this and so does anyone with a brain. The slow motion was to hide the truth.
You have evidence that the feathers are changed? Because the orientation of the feathers are different? Also, how does slow motion create the illusion that the feather falls at the same speed as the bowling ball?
Once again, incredulity and assertion are not valid arguments.
Are you serious?  ;D
Do you know how films are made?

Let's make a film about a bowling ball and feather's. You're the film maker and you goal is to make the feather's fall the same as the bowling ball. Who do you call?

Your modelling department to make you the feather's so they fall with the bowling ball. Metal quills or whatever it takes to achieve it.
Not hard to do, is it?

But you saw the feathers before the vacuum-test, and there they fell at a slower rate than the bowling ball.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 07, 2015, 09:17:17 AM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
OK, then why does thsi happen, in a vacuum chamber that is 120ft tall? In a near perfect vacuum?  Why doesn't the air pressure cause the less dense object to fall slower?
(http://)
Air resistance caused the feather's to fall slower, right?
What more proof do you need?
Yes, outside the vacuum chamber, air resistance causes the feather to fall slower, just as predicted.
Quote
 
The next experiment  in a supposed vacuum was bullshit and is clear to see.
Why?  Because it goes against everything you spout out and destroys denpressure?  Where is your evidence that the experiment is bullshit?  Burden of proof is on you.  Incredulity is not a valid argument.

I am also going to play your game of semantics, the video never claimed it was a perfect vacuum, they said it was a near perfect vacuum.  So don't pull out your bull shit of "There is no such thing as a vacuum"
How many square inches would you say the inside of that supposed vacuum chamber is?
A rough guess, you don't have to be accurate.
Are you asking for the floor size?  Or for the total surface area?  Just wanting to make sure I know what you are asking.  I believe that I know where this is going, but once again, I know the games you play and want to make sure I know exactly what you are going on about. 
The total surface area is about 7.6 million square inches, if my math is right.

I feel you are going to go on about how air pressure is 14.7 psi, so there is a total of 14.7 times 7.6 million pounds acting on it.  But here is the thing, that weight is spread over an area of 7.6 million square inches.  So the pressure pushing on it is only 14.7 psi. 
The walls in the vacuum chamber are two feet thick, reinforced concrete.  This concrete stuff, if you haven't noticed is very good at withstanding crushing forces. 
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 07, 2015, 09:19:09 AM

1.   The Brian Cox video was a drop in vacuum from  >  60'  of a bowling ball, and feathers, and showed they fell at the same rate.    Since you dispute the result, where is your evidence that they fall at different rates?
My evidence is the feather's used in the supposed vacuum and also the usage of slow motion. The feather's were changed, You know this and so does anyone with a brain. The slow motion was to hide the truth.
You have evidence that the feathers are changed? Because the orientation of the feathers are different? Also, how does slow motion create the illusion that the feather falls at the same speed as the bowling ball?
Once again, incredulity and assertion are not valid arguments.
Are you serious?  ;D
Do you know how films are made?

Let's make a film about a bowling ball and feather's. You're the film maker and you goal is to make the feather's fall the same as the bowling ball. Who do you call?

Your modelling department to make you the feather's so they fall with the bowling ball. Metal quills or whatever it takes to achieve it.
Not hard to do, is it?
Do you have anything more than incredulity and assertion?  No?  Then get on with your evidence.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 09:21:34 AM
1. Where is your evidence that objects of different mass fall at different accelerations in a vacuum?   if you don't have any evidence you can't claim that as a fact.
Nor can you.
2. If you contend that weight is related somehow to mass, what it the relationship,  Or put it another way how do scales work?

Scales work by measuring the resistance of any matter/object that is resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it. It reads that resistance because the scale plate is designed to move under the dense object's leverage/resistance against that scale plate.
3. What is the relationship of force to acceleration and mass.   More mass requires more force doesn't it.  More force on the same mass gives more acceleration,  Do you agree?
Agreed.

4. Cavendish measured the gravitational constant,  which proves gravitational attraction,   if you disagree you need to do more than just call it bollocks. 

Just to warn you about mass and weight,  you are walking into a trap.   Think carefully before you answer Q2.
Cavendish can go and suck eggs. I can't be arsed arguing that silly experiment.

Oh and there's no trap for me. I'm serious about what I say. If I make an error at any time I'll be the first to admit. I'm fine at the moment.

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 09:25:55 AM
An experiment involving a vacuum and dropping both a bowling ball and a feather has already been done. Guess the results? Both fell at the same rate and reached the ground at the same time.
Read back to what I said about this scam. Stop being so naive.
Your answer on why it takes more force in order to change the momentum in a massive object is not valid because it also works in a vacuum, where there is no atmospheric pressure and air resistance. 
Again, stop being so naive. You're told about this vacuum and you have no clue about the reality of it.
Mass is a property of matter given by the Higgs Field. And how exactly would you measure that mass grouped in whatever shape? Based on what force? Weight as we know it is measured acording to the gravitational attraction it suffers from the earth.
Weight is simply a measurement of mass that man numbered to give meaning on a scale. Take away the scale and weight does not exist.

Weight would have no meaning if gravity didn't exist.
Weight would have no meaning if man made scales weren't invented. Simple as that. Nothing to do with fictional gravity.

I, here, officialy declare that I am done argueing with you in this thread.

Any evidence that we present is claimed false by you, without any ceremony. All is part of the great conspiracy, apparently, even the mathematics and physics.

You make up arguments on the spot, hoping for them to fit in your non-sensical theory that fails to explain simple phenomenons.

Nothing, even clear evidence can convince you because you find yourself so stuck in this blind and desperate fanaticism for a flawed "truth".

No matter how many experiments are done, no matter how much wrong your theories are, you will always claim that our evidence is a setup, CGI or rigged, and will promptly modify your theory in anyway possible.

An example was just made clear by you: we showed evidence that a feather and a bowling ball fall at the same rate in a vacuum, and not only you claimed that it was false, but you denyed the very existence of vacuum.

Your main argumentation to FET is not showing how it explains the phenomenons we see everyday, but accusing us all for being blind to a greater "truth", apparently exclusive to you.

Perhaps solipsism is a more fitting ideology for you to follow. Check it out.
There's plenty of other topic to be getting on with. Leave this one to those that can handle it. Don't fret though. Many like you have tried and most tend to fail quite quickly. Only the die hard's last a a little longer.

Go and scrub up on your global physics and start a topic on how clever you are for copying stuff.  ;)
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 09:28:14 AM

1.   The Brian Cox video was a drop in vacuum from  >  60'  of a bowling ball, and feathers, and showed they fell at the same rate.    Since you dispute the result, where is your evidence that they fall at different rates?
My evidence is the feather's used in the supposed vacuum and also the usage of slow motion. The feather's were changed, You know this and so does anyone with a brain. The slow motion was to hide the truth.
You have evidence that the feathers are changed? Because the orientation of the feathers are different? Also, how does slow motion create the illusion that the feather falls at the same speed as the bowling ball?
Once again, incredulity and assertion are not valid arguments.
Are you serious?  ;D
Do you know how films are made?

Let's make a film about a bowling ball and feather's. You're the film maker and you goal is to make the feather's fall the same as the bowling ball. Who do you call?

Your modelling department to make you the feather's so they fall with the bowling ball. Metal quills or whatever it takes to achieve it.
Not hard to do, is it?

But you saw the feathers before the vacuum-test, and there they fell at a slower rate than the bowling ball.
Have you ever watched a film where a person jumps from a building and then they show you it again and you realise they changed the person for a dummy. Well look at the feather's in both clips and don't be a one.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 09:33:37 AM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
OK, then why does thsi happen, in a vacuum chamber that is 120ft tall? In a near perfect vacuum?  Why doesn't the air pressure cause the less dense object to fall slower?
(http://)
Air resistance caused the feather's to fall slower, right?
What more proof do you need?
Yes, outside the vacuum chamber, air resistance causes the feather to fall slower, just as predicted.
Quote
 
The next experiment  in a supposed vacuum was bullshit and is clear to see.
Why?  Because it goes against everything you spout out and destroys denpressure?  Where is your evidence that the experiment is bullshit?  Burden of proof is on you.  Incredulity is not a valid argument.

I am also going to play your game of semantics, the video never claimed it was a perfect vacuum, they said it was a near perfect vacuum.  So don't pull out your bull shit of "There is no such thing as a vacuum"
How many square inches would you say the inside of that supposed vacuum chamber is?
A rough guess, you don't have to be accurate.
Are you asking for the floor size?  Or for the total surface area?  Just wanting to make sure I know what you are asking.  I believe that I know where this is going, but once again, I know the games you play and want to make sure I know exactly what you are going on about. 
The total surface area is about 7.6 million square inches, if my math is right.

I feel you are going to go on about how air pressure is 14.7 psi, so there is a total of 14.7 times 7.6 million pounds acting on it.  But here is the thing, that weight is spread over an area of 7.6 million square inches.  So the pressure pushing on it is only 14.7 psi. 
The walls in the vacuum chamber are two feet thick, reinforced concrete.  This concrete stuff, if you haven't noticed is very good at withstanding crushing forces.
I'm not trying to trick you at all.  ;D Stop panicking man.  ;D

Anyway, the reason I asked is because you do realise that for every psi of pressure you evacuate from that chamber, it is transferred to the external of that chamber and is acting upon that chamber.

So how many psi of pressure did they evacuate from that chamber?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 07, 2015, 09:35:51 AM
1. Where is your evidence that objects of different mass fall at different accelerations in a vacuum?   if you don't have any evidence you can't claim that as a fact.
Nor can you.
Yes I can, I showed you one experiment,  I can also recall throwing rocks off a cliff into water, the bigger ones hit the water the same time as the smaller ones,  Galileo climbed up the leaning tower of Pisa and proved it as well,  you can prove the same with inclined planes.  You could go outside right now and drop large and small rocks or ball bearings they all fall at the same rate, the only limiting factor is air resistance.   By contrast,  you have nothing, zip, zero zilch, no evidence at all, why,  because it simply doesn't happen.  Not in this world,  the only place it might be true is in your imagination.   
Your time has expired on this one. You lose.

2. If you contend that weight is related somehow to mass, what it the relationship,  Or put it another way how do scales work?

Scales work by measuring the resistance of any matter/object that is resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it. It reads that resistance because the scale plate is designed to move under the dense object's leverage/resistance against that scale plate.
So if I  put a liter of water the scales will read 1kg  after allowing for the container.   What is the mass, and what is the weight?

3. What is the relationship of force to acceleration and mass.   More mass requires more force doesn't it.  More force on the same mass gives more acceleration,  Do you agree?
Agreed.

So what force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec. 

4. Cavendish measured the gravitational constant,  which proves gravitational attraction,   if you disagree you need to do more than just call it bollocks. 
Cavendish can go and suck eggs. I can't be arsed arguing that silly experiment.
You lose this one as well,  since you can't be arsed refuting the experiment. 

Oh and there's no trap for me. I'm serious about what I say. If I make an error at any time I'll be the first to admit. I'm fine at the moment.
Good.   We are almost done.




Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 07, 2015, 09:36:27 AM

1.   The Brian Cox video was a drop in vacuum from  >  60'  of a bowling ball, and feathers, and showed they fell at the same rate.    Since you dispute the result, where is your evidence that they fall at different rates?
My evidence is the feather's used in the supposed vacuum and also the usage of slow motion. The feather's were changed, You know this and so does anyone with a brain. The slow motion was to hide the truth.
You have evidence that the feathers are changed? Because the orientation of the feathers are different? Also, how does slow motion create the illusion that the feather falls at the same speed as the bowling ball?
Once again, incredulity and assertion are not valid arguments.
Are you serious?  ;D
Do you know how films are made?

Let's make a film about a bowling ball and feather's. You're the film maker and you goal is to make the feather's fall the same as the bowling ball. Who do you call?

Your modelling department to make you the feather's so they fall with the bowling ball. Metal quills or whatever it takes to achieve it.
Not hard to do, is it?

But you saw the feathers before the vacuum-test, and there they fell at a slower rate than the bowling ball.
Have you ever watched a film where a person jumps from a building and then they show you it again and you realise they changed the person for a dummy. Well look at the feather's in both clips and don't be a one.

Hmmm, weird. They look oddly similar. It is as if they were the exact same feathers for both tests...

Ahhhh!, cause they are.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 07, 2015, 09:46:05 AM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
OK, then why does thsi happen, in a vacuum chamber that is 120ft tall? In a near perfect vacuum?  Why doesn't the air pressure cause the less dense object to fall slower?
(http://)
Air resistance caused the feather's to fall slower, right?
What more proof do you need?
Yes, outside the vacuum chamber, air resistance causes the feather to fall slower, just as predicted.
Quote
 
The next experiment  in a supposed vacuum was bullshit and is clear to see.
Why?  Because it goes against everything you spout out and destroys denpressure?  Where is your evidence that the experiment is bullshit?  Burden of proof is on you.  Incredulity is not a valid argument.

I am also going to play your game of semantics, the video never claimed it was a perfect vacuum, they said it was a near perfect vacuum.  So don't pull out your bull shit of "There is no such thing as a vacuum"
How many square inches would you say the inside of that supposed vacuum chamber is?
A rough guess, you don't have to be accurate.
Are you asking for the floor size?  Or for the total surface area?  Just wanting to make sure I know what you are asking.  I believe that I know where this is going, but once again, I know the games you play and want to make sure I know exactly what you are going on about. 
The total surface area is about 7.6 million square inches, if my math is right.

I feel you are going to go on about how air pressure is 14.7 psi, so there is a total of 14.7 times 7.6 million pounds acting on it.  But here is the thing, that weight is spread over an area of 7.6 million square inches.  So the pressure pushing on it is only 14.7 psi. 
The walls in the vacuum chamber are two feet thick, reinforced concrete.  This concrete stuff, if you haven't noticed is very good at withstanding crushing forces.
I'm not trying to trick you at all.  ;D Stop panicking man.  ;D

Anyway, the reason I asked is because you do realise that for every psi of pressure you evacuate from that chamber, it is transferred to the external of that chamber and is acting upon that chamber.

So how many psi of pressure did they evacuate from that chamber?
They evacuated almost 14.7 psi from the chamber.  And as you can see from my previous post, I knew this was where you were going.  I already answered this.  They have 2 foot thick reinforced concrete walls, and concrete is really good at being compressed. 
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 10:18:59 AM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
OK, then why does thsi happen, in a vacuum chamber that is 120ft tall? In a near perfect vacuum?  Why doesn't the air pressure cause the less dense object to fall slower?
(http://)
Air resistance caused the feather's to fall slower, right?
What more proof do you need?
Yes, outside the vacuum chamber, air resistance causes the feather to fall slower, just as predicted.
Quote
 
The next experiment  in a supposed vacuum was bullshit and is clear to see.
Why?  Because it goes against everything you spout out and destroys denpressure?  Where is your evidence that the experiment is bullshit?  Burden of proof is on you.  Incredulity is not a valid argument.

I am also going to play your game of semantics, the video never claimed it was a perfect vacuum, they said it was a near perfect vacuum.  So don't pull out your bull shit of "There is no such thing as a vacuum"
How many square inches would you say the inside of that supposed vacuum chamber is?
A rough guess, you don't have to be accurate.
Are you asking for the floor size?  Or for the total surface area?  Just wanting to make sure I know what you are asking.  I believe that I know where this is going, but once again, I know the games you play and want to make sure I know exactly what you are going on about. 
The total surface area is about 7.6 million square inches, if my math is right.

I feel you are going to go on about how air pressure is 14.7 psi, so there is a total of 14.7 times 7.6 million pounds acting on it.  But here is the thing, that weight is spread over an area of 7.6 million square inches.  So the pressure pushing on it is only 14.7 psi. 
The walls in the vacuum chamber are two feet thick, reinforced concrete.  This concrete stuff, if you haven't noticed is very good at withstanding crushing forces.
I'm not trying to trick you at all.  ;D Stop panicking man.  ;D

Anyway, the reason I asked is because you do realise that for every psi of pressure you evacuate from that chamber, it is transferred to the external of that chamber and is acting upon that chamber.

So how many psi of pressure did they evacuate from that chamber?
They evacuated almost 14.7 psi from the chamber.  And as you can see from my previous post, I knew this was where you were going.  I already answered this.  They have 2 foot thick reinforced concrete walls, and concrete is really good at being compressed.
Ok, so you're saying that there's almost 14.7 psi on the external of that chamber but it's 2 feet thick concrete walls are excellent at being compressed and manage to hold this  14.7 psi of pressure taken from inside, despite the inside having nothing to resist it ?


 That massive chamber has had 14.7 pounds of pressure PER square INCH taken from it. You see, when that chamber is full of air or at sea level atmospheric pressure, it's balanced with he external pressure, so the concrete walls of it are simply clamped from inside and outside by 14.7 pounds per square inch of pressure on each side.
In the middle of hat is the two feet thick concrete. Like a concrete sandwich with the atmosphere being the bread and a big hand clamping each slice of that bread onto that concrete.

Imagine taking away that huge 14.7 psi from inside. You create a minus environment. You force the internal concrete to lose it's integrity. You force it to expand to try and fill the void. It has to expand but to expand would mean it would explode into the chamber.

Obviously that is, unless the chamber was only partially evacuated of SOME atmosphere. But I clearly heard Brian Cox mention 30 tons of air evacuated, leaving 2 gram's.

30 tons?
What would 30 ton's of air be in pounds per square inch evacuation?

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 07, 2015, 10:24:03 AM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
OK, then why does thsi happen, in a vacuum chamber that is 120ft tall? In a near perfect vacuum?  Why doesn't the air pressure cause the less dense object to fall slower?
(http://)
Air resistance caused the feather's to fall slower, right?
What more proof do you need?
Yes, outside the vacuum chamber, air resistance causes the feather to fall slower, just as predicted.
Quote
 
The next experiment  in a supposed vacuum was bullshit and is clear to see.
Why?  Because it goes against everything you spout out and destroys denpressure?  Where is your evidence that the experiment is bullshit?  Burden of proof is on you.  Incredulity is not a valid argument.

I am also going to play your game of semantics, the video never claimed it was a perfect vacuum, they said it was a near perfect vacuum.  So don't pull out your bull shit of "There is no such thing as a vacuum"
How many square inches would you say the inside of that supposed vacuum chamber is?
A rough guess, you don't have to be accurate.
Are you asking for the floor size?  Or for the total surface area?  Just wanting to make sure I know what you are asking.  I believe that I know where this is going, but once again, I know the games you play and want to make sure I know exactly what you are going on about. 
The total surface area is about 7.6 million square inches, if my math is right.

I feel you are going to go on about how air pressure is 14.7 psi, so there is a total of 14.7 times 7.6 million pounds acting on it.  But here is the thing, that weight is spread over an area of 7.6 million square inches.  So the pressure pushing on it is only 14.7 psi. 
The walls in the vacuum chamber are two feet thick, reinforced concrete.  This concrete stuff, if you haven't noticed is very good at withstanding crushing forces.
I'm not trying to trick you at all.  ;D Stop panicking man.  ;D

Anyway, the reason I asked is because you do realise that for every psi of pressure you evacuate from that chamber, it is transferred to the external of that chamber and is acting upon that chamber.

So how many psi of pressure did they evacuate from that chamber?
They evacuated almost 14.7 psi from the chamber.  And as you can see from my previous post, I knew this was where you were going.  I already answered this.  They have 2 foot thick reinforced concrete walls, and concrete is really good at being compressed.
Ok, so you're saying that there's almost 14.7 psi on the external of that chamber but it's 2 feet thick concrete walls are excellent at being compressed and manage to hold this  14.7 psi of pressure taken from inside, despite the inside having nothing to resist it ?


 That massive chamber has had 14.7 pounds of pressure PER square INCH taken from it. You see, when that chamber is full of air or at sea level atmospheric pressure, it's balanced with he external pressure, so the concrete walls of it are simply clamped from inside and outside by 14.7 pounds per square inch of pressure on each side.
In the middle of hat is the two feet thick concrete. Like a concrete sandwich with the atmosphere being the bread and a big hand clamping each slice of that bread onto that concrete.

Imagine taking away that huge 14.7 psi from inside. You create a minus environment. You force the internal concrete to lose it's integrity. You force it to expand to try and fill the void. It has to expand but to expand would mean it would explode into the chamber.

Obviously that is, unless the chamber was only partially evacuated of SOME atmosphere. But I clearly heard Brian Cox mention 30 tons of air evacuated, leaving 2 gram's.

30 tons?
What would 30 ton's of air be in pounds per square inch evacuation?

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 10:28:28 AM

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
It works exactly how I think. It doesn't work how you've been told. I don't know if atoms expand. I don't know what an atom is.
What's a molecule? what is matter?

We have to call this stuff something even though we can't really see it. It expands, so get used to that. Matter expands. Until you get a grip on it, you will always be in the dark.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 07, 2015, 10:33:35 AM

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
It works exactly how I think. It doesn't work how you've been told. I don't know if atoms expand. I don't know what an atom is.
What's a molecule? what is matter?

We have to call this stuff something even though we can't really see it. It expands, so get used to that. Matter expands. Until you get a grip on it, you will always be in the dark.

Objects are built out of atoms. Atoms are matter. Scientists have seen atoms using electron microscopes, so we know that atoms exist. You have to bring proof that atoms do not exist, and that matter is one great thing that expands and retracts.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 07, 2015, 10:43:26 AM

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
It works exactly how I think. It doesn't work how you've been told. I don't know if atoms expand. I don't know what an atom is.
What's a molecule? what is matter?

We have to call this stuff something even though we can't really see it. It expands, so get used to that. Matter expands. Until you get a grip on it, you will always be in the dark.

Also, how would nuclear reactors work otherwise? Nuclear reactors are built upon the principle that objects are built up from atoms. Without atoms, no nuclear fission.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 11:01:29 AM

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
It works exactly how I think. It doesn't work how you've been told. I don't know if atoms expand. I don't know what an atom is.
What's a molecule? what is matter?

We have to call this stuff something even though we can't really see it. It expands, so get used to that. Matter expands. Until you get a grip on it, you will always be in the dark.

Objects are built out of atoms. Atoms are matter. Scientists have seen atoms using electron microscopes, so we know that atoms exist. You have to bring proof that atoms do not exist, and that matter is one great thing that expands and retracts.
Your problem is thinking plastic balls and sticks assembled on a desk are reality. They're not.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 11:03:13 AM

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
It works exactly how I think. It doesn't work how you've been told. I don't know if atoms expand. I don't know what an atom is.
What's a molecule? what is matter?

We have to call this stuff something even though we can't really see it. It expands, so get used to that. Matter expands. Until you get a grip on it, you will always be in the dark.

Also, how would nuclear reactors work otherwise? Nuclear reactors are built upon the principle that objects are built up from atoms. Without atoms, no nuclear fission.
There's no such thing as nuclear reactors or power or bombs. That's discussed in another topic so we won't go into that here.

You, like the rest of us, have been conned. We've all been duped and it's time we started to look at reality instead of the fantasy we've been given.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 07, 2015, 11:06:28 AM

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
It works exactly how I think. It doesn't work how you've been told. I don't know if atoms expand. I don't know what an atom is.
What's a molecule? what is matter?

We have to call this stuff something even though we can't really see it. It expands, so get used to that. Matter expands. Until you get a grip on it, you will always be in the dark.

Also, how would nuclear reactors work otherwise? Nuclear reactors are built upon the principle that objects are built up from atoms. Without atoms, no nuclear fission.
There's no such thing as nuclear reactors or power or bombs. That's discussed in another topic so we won't go into that here.

You, like the rest of us, have been conned. We've all been duped and it's time we started to look at reality instead of the fantasy we've been given.

I will not reply to you any more. Either you are just a complete troll or a completely lost cause. Good day.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: MikDaTv on July 07, 2015, 11:24:50 AM

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
It works exactly how I think. It doesn't work how you've been told. I don't know if atoms expand. I don't know what an atom is.
What's a molecule? what is matter?

We have to call this stuff something even though we can't really see it. It expands, so get used to that. Matter expands. Until you get a grip on it, you will always be in the dark.

Also, how would nuclear reactors work otherwise? Nuclear reactors are built upon the principle that objects are built up from atoms. Without atoms, no nuclear fission.
There's no such thing as nuclear reactors or power or bombs. That's discussed in another topic so we won't go into that here.

You, like the rest of us, have been conned. We've all been duped and it's time we started to look at reality instead of the fantasy we've been given.

Hey everybody look!  He's doing it again!
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 11:30:58 AM

Pressure doesn't work the way you think, so there's no point trying to argue against you on this one since you clearly refuse to learn how pressure works. Get this now: Atoms do not expand. Got it?
It works exactly how I think. It doesn't work how you've been told. I don't know if atoms expand. I don't know what an atom is.
What's a molecule? what is matter?

We have to call this stuff something even though we can't really see it. It expands, so get used to that. Matter expands. Until you get a grip on it, you will always be in the dark.

Also, how would nuclear reactors work otherwise? Nuclear reactors are built upon the principle that objects are built up from atoms. Without atoms, no nuclear fission.
There's no such thing as nuclear reactors or power or bombs. That's discussed in another topic so we won't go into that here.

You, like the rest of us, have been conned. We've all been duped and it's time we started to look at reality instead of the fantasy we've been given.

I will not reply to you any more. Either you are just a complete troll or a completely lost cause. Good day.
Ok that's great. There's lots of topics to be getting on with.

If you go into your profile and look down to the bottom  of the MODIFY PROFILE bar. You will see BUDDIES/IGNORE LIST.

Click on that and to the right of the MODIFY PROFILE bar, you will see EDIT BUDDIES or EDIT IGNORE LIST.
click on the EDIT IGNORE list and under it it will say ADD to ignore list. Just type my name into it and add it. This will ensure you do not see my posts. You will see people's quotes of my posts but not me directly. All you will see is my name and it will give you the option of un-ignoring it for that post or you can bypass it.

If you and your little mates do this, you solve a lot of  your headaches. Please take the advice. No need to thank me. You're welcome.  ;D
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 07, 2015, 12:01:11 PM
1. Why do objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a vacuum?  ( For heights up to 60 ft )
The simple answer is, they don't in mos cases. Sometimes they will depending on the masses involved, such as a bowling ball and a cannon ball may fall roughly the same but that's because they are dense enough to overcome air resistance more easily.
As for 60 feet in a vacuum. It's never been done.
OK, then why does thsi happen, in a vacuum chamber that is 120ft tall? In a near perfect vacuum?  Why doesn't the air pressure cause the less dense object to fall slower?
(http://)
Air resistance caused the feather's to fall slower, right?
What more proof do you need?
Yes, outside the vacuum chamber, air resistance causes the feather to fall slower, just as predicted.
Quote
 
The next experiment  in a supposed vacuum was bullshit and is clear to see.
Why?  Because it goes against everything you spout out and destroys denpressure?  Where is your evidence that the experiment is bullshit?  Burden of proof is on you.  Incredulity is not a valid argument.

I am also going to play your game of semantics, the video never claimed it was a perfect vacuum, they said it was a near perfect vacuum.  So don't pull out your bull shit of "There is no such thing as a vacuum"
How many square inches would you say the inside of that supposed vacuum chamber is?
A rough guess, you don't have to be accurate.
Are you asking for the floor size?  Or for the total surface area?  Just wanting to make sure I know what you are asking.  I believe that I know where this is going, but once again, I know the games you play and want to make sure I know exactly what you are going on about. 
The total surface area is about 7.6 million square inches, if my math is right.

I feel you are going to go on about how air pressure is 14.7 psi, so there is a total of 14.7 times 7.6 million pounds acting on it.  But here is the thing, that weight is spread over an area of 7.6 million square inches.  So the pressure pushing on it is only 14.7 psi. 
The walls in the vacuum chamber are two feet thick, reinforced concrete.  This concrete stuff, if you haven't noticed is very good at withstanding crushing forces.
I'm not trying to trick you at all.  ;D Stop panicking man.  ;D

Anyway, the reason I asked is because you do realise that for every psi of pressure you evacuate from that chamber, it is transferred to the external of that chamber and is acting upon that chamber.

So how many psi of pressure did they evacuate from that chamber?
They evacuated almost 14.7 psi from the chamber.  And as you can see from my previous post, I knew this was where you were going.  I already answered this.  They have 2 foot thick reinforced concrete walls, and concrete is really good at being compressed.
Ok, so you're saying that there's almost 14.7 psi on the external of that chamber but it's 2 feet thick concrete walls are excellent at being compressed and manage to hold this  14.7 psi of pressure taken from inside, despite the inside having nothing to resist it ?


 That massive chamber has had 14.7 pounds of pressure PER square INCH taken from it. You see, when that chamber is full of air or at sea level atmospheric pressure, it's balanced with he external pressure, so the concrete walls of it are simply clamped from inside and outside by 14.7 pounds per square inch of pressure on each side.
In the middle of hat is the two feet thick concrete. Like a concrete sandwich with the atmosphere being the bread and a big hand clamping each slice of that bread onto that concrete.

Imagine taking away that huge 14.7 psi from inside. You create a minus environment. You force the internal concrete to lose it's integrity. You force it to expand to try and fill the void. It has to expand but to expand would mean it would explode into the chamber.

Obviously that is, unless the chamber was only partially evacuated of SOME atmosphere. But I clearly heard Brian Cox mention 30 tons of air evacuated, leaving 2 gram's.

30 tons?
What would 30 ton's of air be in pounds per square inch evacuation?
Well, 30 tons of air in a chamber that large, would be, let me see, 14.7 psi.  I fail to see where your incredulity is coming from.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Alpha2Omega on July 07, 2015, 12:24:45 PM
I wonder, did the sceptimatic model dome design require the application of maths, perhaps to work out the surface area of a hemisphere,  or calculate the weight required to be supported using denspressure.   Either would be reasons for failure to complete.    Or just procrastination.

He was planning on pulling a vacuum between the inner and outer 12-foot-diameter domes made of plexiglass and fiberglass, respectively, thought it was necessary, and didn't foresee any problems. I suspect he hasn't done any math (or engineering), but maybe that's just me. It should be simple, right? What could possibly go wrong?

He's never said he failed or abandoned the project, but I haven't heard of any progress since nine months ago, either. Maybe it was a matter of "Oh... they were right. Light from the center doesn't reflect off the inner surface of a hemispherical concave mirror the way I was sure it would. This just doesn't work. Oops." Unless he tells us what happened or publishes a paper about it, we'll just be guessing. I'm guessing we'll be guessing.


<Long, rambling rant that seems to be sceptimatic saying he doesn't do math and that only he is able to understand anything at all. Or something.>

I went into a little mild rant there. It's just how I feel.

Feel better now?

Quote
It's like I'm dealing with frigging robots most of the time.

People who aren't complete stark raving flakes might seem like robots to someone who's totally off his rocker. They can accomplish so much using tools like math, patient analysis, and clear and organized thought instead of just flailing wildly and ignoring everything they see that they don't want to have to explain. I can see why a methodical approach might seem somewhat robotic in comparison with utter chaos.

Now that all that outburst is out of the way, did you have any update on the dome project? If I missed it in the pages of ranting since this was brought up yesterday, I apologize.

This suggestion is from last fall, but I'll repeat it as a favor: if you're having trouble getting and holding a vacuum between the inner and outer domes, just defer that part. It will be difficult to do and won't affect the results in any meaningful way. You can thank me later.

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 01:07:38 PM
I wonder, did the sceptimatic model dome design require the application of maths, perhaps to work out the surface area of a hemisphere,  or calculate the weight required to be supported using denspressure.   Either would be reasons for failure to complete.    Or just procrastination.

He was planning on pulling a vacuum between the inner and outer 12-foot-diameter domes made of plexiglass and fiberglass, respectively, thought it was necessary, and didn't foresee any problems. I suspect he hasn't done any math (or engineering), but maybe that's just me. It should be simple, right? What could possibly go wrong?

He's never said he failed or abandoned the project, but I haven't heard of any progress since nine months ago, either. Maybe it was a matter of "Oh... they were right. Light from the center doesn't reflect off the inner surface of a hemispherical concave mirror the way I was sure it would. This just doesn't work. Oops." Unless he tells us what happened or publishes a paper about it, we'll just be guessing. I'm guessing we'll be guessing.


<Long, rambling rant that seems to be sceptimatic saying he doesn't do math and that only he is able to understand anything at all. Or something.>

I went into a little mild rant there. It's just how I feel.

Feel better now?

Quote
It's like I'm dealing with frigging robots most of the time.

People who aren't complete stark raving flakes might seem like robots to someone who's totally off his rocker. They can accomplish so much using tools like math, patient analysis, and clear and organized thought instead of just flailing wildly and ignoring everything they see that they don't want to have to explain. I can see why a methodical approach might seem somewhat robotic in comparison with utter chaos.

Now that all that outburst is out of the way, did you have any update on the dome project? If I missed it in the pages of ranting since this was brought up yesterday, I apologize.

This suggestion is from last fall, but I'll repeat it as a favor: if you're having trouble getting and holding a vacuum between the inner and outer domes, just defer that part. It will be difficult to do and won't affect the results in any meaningful way. You can thank me later.
I managed the dome and gap for evacuation of pressure. It consists of 62 - 12 inch pillars between both domes.
Outer dome is sprayed matt black with a black felt covering that is laquered externally to protect it from the weather wear of our weather system.

A few more months and it will be ready for testing out. It's looking rather good.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: BJ1234 on July 07, 2015, 01:29:45 PM
I wonder, did the sceptimatic model dome design require the application of maths, perhaps to work out the surface area of a hemisphere,  or calculate the weight required to be supported using denspressure.   Either would be reasons for failure to complete.    Or just procrastination.

He was planning on pulling a vacuum between the inner and outer 12-foot-diameter domes made of plexiglass and fiberglass, respectively, thought it was necessary, and didn't foresee any problems. I suspect he hasn't done any math (or engineering), but maybe that's just me. It should be simple, right? What could possibly go wrong?

He's never said he failed or abandoned the project, but I haven't heard of any progress since nine months ago, either. Maybe it was a matter of "Oh... they were right. Light from the center doesn't reflect off the inner surface of a hemispherical concave mirror the way I was sure it would. This just doesn't work. Oops." Unless he tells us what happened or publishes a paper about it, we'll just be guessing. I'm guessing we'll be guessing.


<Long, rambling rant that seems to be sceptimatic saying he doesn't do math and that only he is able to understand anything at all. Or something.>

I went into a little mild rant there. It's just how I feel.

Feel better now?

Quote
It's like I'm dealing with frigging robots most of the time.

People who aren't complete stark raving flakes might seem like robots to someone who's totally off his rocker. They can accomplish so much using tools like math, patient analysis, and clear and organized thought instead of just flailing wildly and ignoring everything they see that they don't want to have to explain. I can see why a methodical approach might seem somewhat robotic in comparison with utter chaos.

Now that all that outburst is out of the way, did you have any update on the dome project? If I missed it in the pages of ranting since this was brought up yesterday, I apologize.

This suggestion is from last fall, but I'll repeat it as a favor: if you're having trouble getting and holding a vacuum between the inner and outer domes, just defer that part. It will be difficult to do and won't affect the results in any meaningful way. You can thank me later.
I managed the dome and gap for evacuation of pressure. It consists of 62 - 12 inch pillars between both domes.
Outer dome is sprayed matt black with a black felt covering that is laquered externally to protect it from the weather wear of our weather system.

A few more months and it will be ready for testing out. It's looking rather good.
You got pics of the build?  I would find them interesting.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 07, 2015, 02:05:46 PM
I wonder, did the sceptimatic model dome design require the application of maths, perhaps to work out the surface area of a hemisphere,  or calculate the weight required to be supported using denspressure.   Either would be reasons for failure to complete.    Or just procrastination.

He was planning on pulling a vacuum between the inner and outer 12-foot-diameter domes made of plexiglass and fiberglass, respectively, thought it was necessary, and didn't foresee any problems. I suspect he hasn't done any math (or engineering), but maybe that's just me. It should be simple, right? What could possibly go wrong?

He's never said he failed or abandoned the project, but I haven't heard of any progress since nine months ago, either. Maybe it was a matter of "Oh... they were right. Light from the center doesn't reflect off the inner surface of a hemispherical concave mirror the way I was sure it would. This just doesn't work. Oops." Unless he tells us what happened or publishes a paper about it, we'll just be guessing. I'm guessing we'll be guessing.


<Long, rambling rant that seems to be sceptimatic saying he doesn't do math and that only he is able to understand anything at all. Or something.>

I went into a little mild rant there. It's just how I feel.

Feel better now?

Quote
It's like I'm dealing with frigging robots most of the time.

People who aren't complete stark raving flakes might seem like robots to someone who's totally off his rocker. They can accomplish so much using tools like math, patient analysis, and clear and organized thought instead of just flailing wildly and ignoring everything they see that they don't want to have to explain. I can see why a methodical approach might seem somewhat robotic in comparison with utter chaos.

Now that all that outburst is out of the way, did you have any update on the dome project? If I missed it in the pages of ranting since this was brought up yesterday, I apologize.

This suggestion is from last fall, but I'll repeat it as a favor: if you're having trouble getting and holding a vacuum between the inner and outer domes, just defer that part. It will be difficult to do and won't affect the results in any meaningful way. You can thank me later.
I managed the dome and gap for evacuation of pressure. It consists of 62 - 12 inch pillars between both domes.
Outer dome is sprayed matt black with a black felt covering that is laquered externally to protect it from the weather wear of our weather system.

A few more months and it will be ready for testing out. It's looking rather good.
You got pics of the build?  I would find them interesting.
I'll have the full  lot in a few months time, plus a working model that can be seen from all angles inside, complete with waterfalls and real growth. The only thing it will lack is small humans and elephants, etc. Greenery and energy source is all in hand.


Pictures and video will all follow in good time.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sokarul on July 07, 2015, 02:21:59 PM
Sure they are. 
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Alpha2Omega on July 07, 2015, 03:18:31 PM
did you have any update on the dome project? If I missed it in the pages of ranting since this was brought up yesterday, I apologize.

This suggestion is from last fall, but I'll repeat it as a favor: if you're having trouble getting and holding a vacuum between the inner and outer domes, just defer that part. It will be difficult to do and won't affect the results in any meaningful way. You can thank me later.
I managed the dome and gap for evacuation of pressure. It consists of 62 - 12 inch pillars between both domes.
Outer dome is sprayed matt black with a black felt covering that is laquered externally to protect it from the weather wear of our weather system.

A few more months and it will be ready for testing out. It's looking rather good.

Cool!

You got pics of the build?  I would find them interesting.
I'll have the full  lot in a few months time, plus a working model that can be seen from all angles inside, complete with waterfalls and real growth. The only thing it will lack is small humans and elephants, etc. Greenery and energy source is all in hand.


Pictures and video will all follow in good time.

Aw, shoot! It's another "a few months time" and never "now". Maybe this one will be different. I'll ask again in a few months.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Dog on July 07, 2015, 05:49:37 PM
Scepti why can't your "model" make predictions?

And as I said before, why don't you want to make millions of dollars? You don't want a Nobel prize either?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM
Ok where were we,   Clean bowled for a duck by Galileo with a feather and a bowling ball,   Hit wicket when facing a slow ball from Cavendish.     
The score at stumps on day 1 is England 0  Australia 2    Aside...  When did the Welsh start playing cricket?  Cardiff... FFS.

Scales work by measuring the resistance of any matter/object that is resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it. It reads that resistance because the scale plate is designed to move under the dense object's leverage/resistance against that scale plate.

3. What is the relationship of force to acceleration and mass.   More mass requires more force doesn't it.  More force on the same mass gives more acceleration,  Do you agree?
Agreed.

So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?

2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: mikeman7918 on July 07, 2015, 10:11:19 PM
Your problem is thinking plastic balls and sticks assembled on a desk are reality. They're not.

There's no such thing as nuclear reactors or power or bombs. That's discussed in another topic so we won't go into that here.

You, like the rest of us, have been conned. We've all been duped and it's time we started to look at reality instead of the fantasy we've been given.

I suppose you think that the sky being blue is faked by the omnipotent government too.

If nuclear reactors are fake then I have to ask the obvious question here: how do nuclear reactors provide power to so many people?

For technology to exist people must understand the universe, and the simple fact that so much technology is being developed proves that we understand the universe quite well.  Even your computer uses billions of transistors which exploit the properties of impure silicon crystals to make a switch with no moving parts, and it relies on properties that are predicted to exist using the standard model.  You might as well claim that airplanes don't exist while you are riding an airplane.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 12:13:38 AM
did you have any update on the dome project? If I missed it in the pages of ranting since this was brought up yesterday, I apologize.

This suggestion is from last fall, but I'll repeat it as a favor: if you're having trouble getting and holding a vacuum between the inner and outer domes, just defer that part. It will be difficult to do and won't affect the results in any meaningful way. You can thank me later.
I managed the dome and gap for evacuation of pressure. It consists of 62 - 12 inch pillars between both domes.
Outer dome is sprayed matt black with a black felt covering that is laquered externally to protect it from the weather wear of our weather system.

A few more months and it will be ready for testing out. It's looking rather good.

Cool!

You got pics of the build?  I would find them interesting.
I'll have the full  lot in a few months time, plus a working model that can be seen from all angles inside, complete with waterfalls and real growth. The only thing it will lack is small humans and elephants, etc. Greenery and energy source is all in hand.


Pictures and video will all follow in good time.

Aw, shoot! It's another "a few months time" and never "now". Maybe this one will be different. I'll ask again in a few months.
You've spent the majority of your time calling me an idiot and every other name. You will wait for as long as I decide because ultimately my experiments are not for people like you. You started off decent and turned into a shit house because you got backed up by shit houses.
I have a good enough memory to weed out shit like you.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 12:14:48 AM
Scepti why can't your "model" make predictions?

And as I said before, why don't you want to make millions of dollars? You don't want a Nobel prize either?
How about elaborating on that.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 12:23:10 AM


So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?
I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.


2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   
A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 08, 2015, 12:54:50 AM
So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?
I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.


2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   
A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

1.  I'm trying to establish whether you understand the difference between mass and weight.   And why they are different under your theory of denspressure.  We will get to the why soon enough.


2.  You already agreed that greater mass requires greater force to accelerate to the same speed,  so I'll press onto falling objects.   You claim larger mass objects fall faster than smaller mass objects.    So a fast falling 100 kg object is subject to more force than slow falling 1 kg object,   would it be 100x  the force?  Yes or No?

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 02:57:20 AM
So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?
I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.


2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   
A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

1.  I'm trying to establish whether you understand the difference between mass and weight.   And why they are different under your theory of denspressure.  We will get to the why soon enough.


2.  You already agreed that greater mass requires greater force to accelerate to the same speed,  so I'll press onto falling objects.   You claim larger mass objects fall faster than smaller mass objects.    So a fast falling 100 kg object is subject to more force than slow falling 1 kg object,   would it be 100x  the force?  Yes or No?
You need to understand something before you try to tie me in knots. You need to understand that you need 100 times more energy to raise a 100 kg object than raising a 1kg object.

Now then, on the drop you have a different scenario because you are now holding the objects up so in effect they are potential energies is massively different forces.

You only get out of something what you put into it, in EQUAL force.

Ok now we have that out of the way, we also have to account for atmospheric resistance on the fall. You see, you could carry up a slab of lead  to a roof top by balancing it flat on your head but as you climb you are pushing atmospheric pressure away from you in a wide area meaning the resistance on you is a lot more as opposed to carrying it under your arm so it slices through the air to the top, creating minimal resistance against the atmosphere as you push through it.

Now then, at the top, it depends on how you drop that slab which determines how fast it falls against resistance. If it falls flat it will act like a lead parachute. Still enough to push the atmosphere out of the way quite quickly but nowhere near as quickly as if you dropped it  so it's thin edge cut through the atmosphere.

Get your teeth round that and get back to me.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 08, 2015, 03:11:44 AM
So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?
I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.


2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   
A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

1.  I'm trying to establish whether you understand the difference between mass and weight.   And why they are different under your theory of denspressure.  We will get to the why soon enough.


2.  You already agreed that greater mass requires greater force to accelerate to the same speed,  so I'll press onto falling objects.   You claim larger mass objects fall faster than smaller mass objects.    So a fast falling 100 kg object is subject to more force than slow falling 1 kg object,   would it be 100x  the force?  Yes or No?
You need to understand something before you try to tie me in knots. You need to understand that you need 100 times more energy to raise a 100 kg object than raising a 1kg object.

Now then, on the drop you have a different scenario because you are now holding the objects up so in effect they are potential energies is massively different forces.

You only get out of something what you put into it, in EQUAL force.

Ok now we have that out of the way, we also have to account for atmospheric resistance on the fall. You see, you could carry up a slab of lead  to a roof top by balancing it flat on your head but as you climb you are pushing atmospheric pressure away from you in a wide area meaning the resistance on you is a lot more as opposed to carrying it under your arm so it slices through the air to the top, creating minimal resistance against the atmosphere as you push through it.

Now then, at the top, it depends on how you drop that slab which determines how fast it falls against resistance. If it falls flat it will act like a lead parachute. Still enough to push the atmosphere out of the way quite quickly but nowhere near as quickly as if you dropped it  so it's thin edge cut through the atmosphere.

Get your teeth round that and get back to me.

Ok,   let's leave the weight vs mass question for a minute,   I'll come back to that,  since it's an important distinction.

Now,  you agree it takes 100 times the energy to carry the 100 kg lump of lead to the top of the building as it did to carry the 1kg lump of lead to the top.   So the potential energy of the 100 kg lump of lead  is 100 times the potential energy of the 1kg lump of lead.   So when we drop both of them off the top of the building, and they fall converting that potential energy to kinetic energy, the 100kg lump will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump.   Agreed so far?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 04:12:07 AM
So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?
I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.


2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   
A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

1.  I'm trying to establish whether you understand the difference between mass and weight.   And why they are different under your theory of denspressure.  We will get to the why soon enough.


2.  You already agreed that greater mass requires greater force to accelerate to the same speed,  so I'll press onto falling objects.   You claim larger mass objects fall faster than smaller mass objects.    So a fast falling 100 kg object is subject to more force than slow falling 1 kg object,   would it be 100x  the force?  Yes or No?
You need to understand something before you try to tie me in knots. You need to understand that you need 100 times more energy to raise a 100 kg object than raising a 1kg object.

Now then, on the drop you have a different scenario because you are now holding the objects up so in effect they are potential energies is massively different forces.

You only get out of something what you put into it, in EQUAL force.

Ok now we have that out of the way, we also have to account for atmospheric resistance on the fall. You see, you could carry up a slab of lead  to a roof top by balancing it flat on your head but as you climb you are pushing atmospheric pressure away from you in a wide area meaning the resistance on you is a lot more as opposed to carrying it under your arm so it slices through the air to the top, creating minimal resistance against the atmosphere as you push through it.

Now then, at the top, it depends on how you drop that slab which determines how fast it falls against resistance. If it falls flat it will act like a lead parachute. Still enough to push the atmosphere out of the way quite quickly but nowhere near as quickly as if you dropped it  so it's thin edge cut through the atmosphere.

Get your teeth round that and get back to me.

Ok,   let's leave the weight vs mass question for a minute,   I'll come back to that,  since it's an important distinction.

Now,  you agree it takes 100 times the energy to carry the 100 kg lump of lead to the top of the building as it did to carry the 1kg lump of lead to the top.   So the potential energy of the 100 kg lump of lead  is 100 times the potential energy of the 1kg lump of lead.   So when we drop both of them off the top of the building, and they fall converting that potential energy to kinetic energy, the 100kg lump will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump.   Agreed so far?
Agreed.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 08, 2015, 04:32:10 AM
So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?
I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.


2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   
A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

1.  I'm trying to establish whether you understand the difference between mass and weight.   And why they are different under your theory of denspressure.  We will get to the why soon enough.


2.  You already agreed that greater mass requires greater force to accelerate to the same speed,  so I'll press onto falling objects.   You claim larger mass objects fall faster than smaller mass objects.    So a fast falling 100 kg object is subject to more force than slow falling 1 kg object,   would it be 100x  the force?  Yes or No?
You need to understand something before you try to tie me in knots. You need to understand that you need 100 times more energy to raise a 100 kg object than raising a 1kg object.

Now then, on the drop you have a different scenario because you are now holding the objects up so in effect they are potential energies is massively different forces.

You only get out of something what you put into it, in EQUAL force.

Ok now we have that out of the way, we also have to account for atmospheric resistance on the fall. You see, you could carry up a slab of lead  to a roof top by balancing it flat on your head but as you climb you are pushing atmospheric pressure away from you in a wide area meaning the resistance on you is a lot more as opposed to carrying it under your arm so it slices through the air to the top, creating minimal resistance against the atmosphere as you push through it.

Now then, at the top, it depends on how you drop that slab which determines how fast it falls against resistance. If it falls flat it will act like a lead parachute. Still enough to push the atmosphere out of the way quite quickly but nowhere near as quickly as if you dropped it  so it's thin edge cut through the atmosphere.

Get your teeth round that and get back to me.

Ok,   let's leave the weight vs mass question for a minute,   I'll come back to that,  since it's an important distinction.

Now,  you agree it takes 100 times the energy to carry the 100 kg lump of lead to the top of the building as it did to carry the 1kg lump of lead to the top.   So the potential energy of the 100 kg lump of lead  is 100 times the potential energy of the 1kg lump of lead.   So when we drop both of them off the top of the building, and they fall converting that potential energy to kinetic energy, the 100kg lump will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump.   Agreed so far?
Agreed.

Ok,  kinetic energy is proportional to mass times velocity squared,    by that I mean that double the mass for the same velocity and you double the kinetic energy.

So,  our 100 kg lump of lead will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump of lead,    Divide the energy by the mass, and you get the same answer for the velocity for both the 100kg and the 1kg lump of lead.

We have proven that a 100kg mass falls at the same velocity as a 1kg mass.     For any given height.

We haven't yet tackled acceleration,  or force.   Do you want to continue?


Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 06:01:09 AM
So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?
I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.


2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   
A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

1.  I'm trying to establish whether you understand the difference between mass and weight.   And why they are different under your theory of denspressure.  We will get to the why soon enough.


2.  You already agreed that greater mass requires greater force to accelerate to the same speed,  so I'll press onto falling objects.   You claim larger mass objects fall faster than smaller mass objects.    So a fast falling 100 kg object is subject to more force than slow falling 1 kg object,   would it be 100x  the force?  Yes or No?
You need to understand something before you try to tie me in knots. You need to understand that you need 100 times more energy to raise a 100 kg object than raising a 1kg object.

Now then, on the drop you have a different scenario because you are now holding the objects up so in effect they are potential energies is massively different forces.

You only get out of something what you put into it, in EQUAL force.

Ok now we have that out of the way, we also have to account for atmospheric resistance on the fall. You see, you could carry up a slab of lead  to a roof top by balancing it flat on your head but as you climb you are pushing atmospheric pressure away from you in a wide area meaning the resistance on you is a lot more as opposed to carrying it under your arm so it slices through the air to the top, creating minimal resistance against the atmosphere as you push through it.

Now then, at the top, it depends on how you drop that slab which determines how fast it falls against resistance. If it falls flat it will act like a lead parachute. Still enough to push the atmosphere out of the way quite quickly but nowhere near as quickly as if you dropped it  so it's thin edge cut through the atmosphere.

Get your teeth round that and get back to me.

Ok,   let's leave the weight vs mass question for a minute,   I'll come back to that,  since it's an important distinction.

Now,  you agree it takes 100 times the energy to carry the 100 kg lump of lead to the top of the building as it did to carry the 1kg lump of lead to the top.   So the potential energy of the 100 kg lump of lead  is 100 times the potential energy of the 1kg lump of lead.   So when we drop both of them off the top of the building, and they fall converting that potential energy to kinetic energy, the 100kg lump will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump.   Agreed so far?
Agreed.

Ok,  kinetic energy is proportional to mass times velocity squared,    by that I mean that double the mass for the same velocity and you double the kinetic energy.

So,  our 100 kg lump of lead will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump of lead,    Divide the energy by the mass, and you get the same answer for the velocity for both the 100kg and the 1kg lump of lead.

We have proven that a 100kg mass falls at the same velocity as a 1kg mass.     For any given height.

We haven't yet tackled acceleration,  or force.   Do you want to continue?
Go on, carry on, I want to see where you're going with this.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 08, 2015, 06:19:01 AM
So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?
I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.


2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   
A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

1.  I'm trying to establish whether you understand the difference between mass and weight.   And why they are different under your theory of denspressure.  We will get to the why soon enough.


2.  You already agreed that greater mass requires greater force to accelerate to the same speed,  so I'll press onto falling objects.   You claim larger mass objects fall faster than smaller mass objects.    So a fast falling 100 kg object is subject to more force than slow falling 1 kg object,   would it be 100x  the force?  Yes or No?
You need to understand something before you try to tie me in knots. You need to understand that you need 100 times more energy to raise a 100 kg object than raising a 1kg object.

Now then, on the drop you have a different scenario because you are now holding the objects up so in effect they are potential energies is massively different forces.

You only get out of something what you put into it, in EQUAL force.

Ok now we have that out of the way, we also have to account for atmospheric resistance on the fall. You see, you could carry up a slab of lead  to a roof top by balancing it flat on your head but as you climb you are pushing atmospheric pressure away from you in a wide area meaning the resistance on you is a lot more as opposed to carrying it under your arm so it slices through the air to the top, creating minimal resistance against the atmosphere as you push through it.

Now then, at the top, it depends on how you drop that slab which determines how fast it falls against resistance. If it falls flat it will act like a lead parachute. Still enough to push the atmosphere out of the way quite quickly but nowhere near as quickly as if you dropped it  so it's thin edge cut through the atmosphere.

Get your teeth round that and get back to me.

Ok,   let's leave the weight vs mass question for a minute,   I'll come back to that,  since it's an important distinction.

Now,  you agree it takes 100 times the energy to carry the 100 kg lump of lead to the top of the building as it did to carry the 1kg lump of lead to the top.   So the potential energy of the 100 kg lump of lead  is 100 times the potential energy of the 1kg lump of lead.   So when we drop both of them off the top of the building, and they fall converting that potential energy to kinetic energy, the 100kg lump will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump.   Agreed so far?
Agreed.

Ok,  kinetic energy is proportional to mass times velocity squared,    by that I mean that double the mass for the same velocity and you double the kinetic energy.

So,  our 100 kg lump of lead will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump of lead,    Divide the energy by the mass, and you get the same answer for the velocity for both the 100kg and the 1kg lump of lead.

We have proven that a 100kg mass falls at the same velocity as a 1kg mass.     For any given height.

We haven't yet tackled acceleration,  or force.   Do you want to continue?
Go on, carry on, I want to see where you're going with this.

We agreed earlier that  in requires more force to accelerate a larger mass,   the force required to accelerate a 100kg lump of lead  is 100 times the force required to accelerate a 1kg mass by the same amount.   

So when you drop a 100 kg lump of lead from the top of a building and it accelerates as it falls,  the force acting to accelerate the 100 kg lump must be 100 times the force required to accelerate the 1kg lump of lead.   

Now here's where we diverge,  the force accelerating the lump of lead towards the ground  is called gravity.  You are going to say that force is denspressure.   
Are you agreed so far?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 07:14:05 AM
So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?
I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.


2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   
A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

1.  I'm trying to establish whether you understand the difference between mass and weight.   And why they are different under your theory of denspressure.  We will get to the why soon enough.


2.  You already agreed that greater mass requires greater force to accelerate to the same speed,  so I'll press onto falling objects.   You claim larger mass objects fall faster than smaller mass objects.    So a fast falling 100 kg object is subject to more force than slow falling 1 kg object,   would it be 100x  the force?  Yes or No?
You need to understand something before you try to tie me in knots. You need to understand that you need 100 times more energy to raise a 100 kg object than raising a 1kg object.

Now then, on the drop you have a different scenario because you are now holding the objects up so in effect they are potential energies is massively different forces.

You only get out of something what you put into it, in EQUAL force.

Ok now we have that out of the way, we also have to account for atmospheric resistance on the fall. You see, you could carry up a slab of lead  to a roof top by balancing it flat on your head but as you climb you are pushing atmospheric pressure away from you in a wide area meaning the resistance on you is a lot more as opposed to carrying it under your arm so it slices through the air to the top, creating minimal resistance against the atmosphere as you push through it.

Now then, at the top, it depends on how you drop that slab which determines how fast it falls against resistance. If it falls flat it will act like a lead parachute. Still enough to push the atmosphere out of the way quite quickly but nowhere near as quickly as if you dropped it  so it's thin edge cut through the atmosphere.

Get your teeth round that and get back to me.

Ok,   let's leave the weight vs mass question for a minute,   I'll come back to that,  since it's an important distinction.

Now,  you agree it takes 100 times the energy to carry the 100 kg lump of lead to the top of the building as it did to carry the 1kg lump of lead to the top.   So the potential energy of the 100 kg lump of lead  is 100 times the potential energy of the 1kg lump of lead.   So when we drop both of them off the top of the building, and they fall converting that potential energy to kinetic energy, the 100kg lump will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump.   Agreed so far?
Agreed.

Ok,  kinetic energy is proportional to mass times velocity squared,    by that I mean that double the mass for the same velocity and you double the kinetic energy.

So,  our 100 kg lump of lead will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump of lead,    Divide the energy by the mass, and you get the same answer for the velocity for both the 100kg and the 1kg lump of lead.

We have proven that a 100kg mass falls at the same velocity as a 1kg mass.     For any given height.

We haven't yet tackled acceleration,  or force.   Do you want to continue?
Go on, carry on, I want to see where you're going with this.

We agreed earlier that  in requires more force to accelerate a larger mass,   the force required to accelerate a 100kg lump of lead  is 100 times the force required to accelerate a 1kg mass by the same amount.   

So when you drop a 100 kg lump of lead from the top of a building and it accelerates as it falls,  the force acting to accelerate the 100 kg lump must be 100 times the force required to accelerate the 1kg lump of lead.   

Now here's where we diverge,  the force accelerating the lump of lead towards the ground  is called gravity.  You are going to say that force is denspressure.   
Are you agreed so far?
Yep we agree so far.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM
We agreed earlier that  in requires more force to accelerate a larger mass,   the force required to accelerate a 100kg lump of lead  is 100 times the force required to accelerate a 1kg mass by the same amount.   
So when you drop a 100 kg lump of lead from the top of a building and it accelerates as it falls,  the force acting to accelerate the 100 kg lump must be 100 times the force required to accelerate the 1kg lump of lead.   
Now here's where we diverge,  the force accelerating the lump of lead towards the ground  is called gravity.  You are going to say that force is denspressure.   
Are you agreed so far?
Yep we agree so far.

So we agree there is a force acting to accelerate objects downwards which is proportional to their mass,    that force is what we measure when we place a 1kg mass on a set of scales.    That force is called the weight,  a weight of 1kg is the force that acts on a mass of 1kg.   

I could put the scales in a vacuum chamber and we would see the weight change only a tiny amount due to air buoyancy.   But you'll dispute the vacuum.   So instead we go to a building with a lift.

Put the 1kg on the scales, on the floor of the lift,  and it should read 1kg,  now go up to the top floor.  You will see  the weight momentarily increase  as the lift starts upwards,  then settle back to the same weight as when the lift was still.   Then when the lift starts down then weight decreases momentarily and then settles back to the same weight.

What is causing the weight to change when the scales are accelerated?   It can't be air pressure since that didn't change,   it must the the force acting on the 1kg mass that has changed.

So the force which gives weight to mass can be changed by acceleration?    If you take it to the extreme of a zero g plane the weight vanishes completely,  that's called weightlessness.   You can get the same effect in free fall.  So if you put the scales and 1kg into a box with a camera and then drop the box off a high building,  you will see the weight go to zero during the acceleration of free fall.

So the weight doesn't depend on air pressure,  it  depends on acceleration.  Now the tricky step.   When the 1kg lump of lead is sitting still on the scales on your kitchen table,  it is actually being accelerated,  the acceleration is due to the gravitational field.     That  acceleration is 9.8 meters/sec/sec 

So far so good?      From here on it gets a bit more complicated. 
 

 
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 08:15:44 AM
So we agree there is a force acting to accelerate objects downwards which is proportional to their mass,    that force is what we measure when we place a 1kg mass on a set of scales.    That force is called the weight,  a weight of 1kg is the force that acts on a mass of 1kg.   
I'll go along with this.
I could put the scales in a vacuum chamber and we would see the weight change only a tiny amount due to air buoyancy.   But you'll dispute the vacuum.   So instead we go to a building with a lift.
The vacuum chamber is a tricky thing. It depends on the amount evacuated as to what would happen in truth, so until that's properly done, we will leave this.
Put the scales on the floor of the lift,  and it should read 1kg,  now go up to the top floor.  You will see  the weight momentarily increase  as the lift starts upwards,  then settle back to the same weight as when the lift was still.   Then when the lift starts down then weight decreases momentarily and then settles back to the same weight.
Ok I know what you're saying. There would be a marginal increase or decrease depending on the lift speed up or down.
What is causing the weight to change when the scales are accelerated?   It can't be air pressure since that didn't change,   it must the the force acting on the 1kg mass that has changed.
But it is air pressure. It's just that you won't accept it because your gravity takes over and it's wrong. The acceleration of the lift compresses the air inside of it by creating a higher pressure upon it's inner roof and a lower pressure at the feet on descent and the opposite on ascent.
I know you won't accept this and it baffles me that you're willing to accept a force that cannot be described for a force that can.
The very same reason you get pushed back in a bus upon acceleration or forward upon breaking.

So the force which gives weight to mass can be changed by acceleration?    If you take it to the extreme of a zero g plane the weight vanishes completely,  that's called weightlessness.   You can get the same effect in free fall.  So if you put the scales and 1kg into a box with a camera and then drop the box off a high building,  you will see the weight go to zero during the acceleration of free fall.
Yes you see the weight go to zero because you compress the air into the roof, taking the weight off of the object and scale plate. together.
So the weight doesn't depend on air pressure,  it  depends on acceleration.  Now the tricky step.   When the 1kg lump of lead is sitting still on the scales on your kitchen table,  it is actually being accelerated,  the acceleration is due to the gravitational field.     That  acceleration is 9.8 meters/sec/sec 

So far so good?      From here on it gets a bit more complicated.
Not so far so good. We differ massively on this.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 08, 2015, 08:24:52 AM
So we agree there is a force acting to accelerate objects downwards which is proportional to their mass,    that force is what we measure when we place a 1kg mass on a set of scales.    That force is called the weight,  a weight of 1kg is the force that acts on a mass of 1kg.   
I'll go along with this.
I could put the scales in a vacuum chamber and we would see the weight change only a tiny amount due to air buoyancy.   But you'll dispute the vacuum.   So instead we go to a building with a lift.
The vacuum chamber is a tricky thing. It depends on the amount evacuated as to what would happen in truth, so until that's properly done, we will leave this.
Put the scales on the floor of the lift,  and it should read 1kg,  now go up to the top floor.  You will see  the weight momentarily increase  as the lift starts upwards,  then settle back to the same weight as when the lift was still.   Then when the lift starts down then weight decreases momentarily and then settles back to the same weight.
Ok I know what you're saying. There would be a marginal increase or decrease depending on the lift speed up or down.
What is causing the weight to change when the scales are accelerated?   It can't be air pressure since that didn't change,   it must the the force acting on the 1kg mass that has changed.
But it is air pressure. It's just that you won't accept it because your gravity takes over and it's wrong. The acceleration of the lift compresses the air inside of it by creating a higher pressure upon it's inner roof and a lower pressure at the feet on descent and the opposite on ascent.
I know you won't accept this and it baffles me that you're willing to accept a force that cannot be described for a force that can.
The very same reason you get pushed back in a bus upon acceleration or forward upon breaking.

So the force which gives weight to mass can be changed by acceleration?    If you take it to the extreme of a zero g plane the weight vanishes completely,  that's called weightlessness.   You can get the same effect in free fall.  So if you put the scales and 1kg into a box with a camera and then drop the box off a high building,  you will see the weight go to zero during the acceleration of free fall.
Yes you see the weight go to zero because you compress the air into the roof, taking the weight off of the object and scale plate. together.
So the weight doesn't depend on air pressure,  it  depends on acceleration.  Now the tricky step.   When the 1kg lump of lead is sitting still on the scales on your kitchen table,  it is actually being accelerated,  the acceleration is due to the gravitational field.     That  acceleration is 9.8 meters/sec/sec 

So far so good?      From here on it gets a bit more complicated.
Not so far so good. We differ massively on this.

You agree that objects in free fall are weightless? 
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 08:34:14 AM
So we agree there is a force acting to accelerate objects downwards which is proportional to their mass,    that force is what we measure when we place a 1kg mass on a set of scales.    That force is called the weight,  a weight of 1kg is the force that acts on a mass of 1kg.   
I'll go along with this.
I could put the scales in a vacuum chamber and we would see the weight change only a tiny amount due to air buoyancy.   But you'll dispute the vacuum.   So instead we go to a building with a lift.
The vacuum chamber is a tricky thing. It depends on the amount evacuated as to what would happen in truth, so until that's properly done, we will leave this.
Put the scales on the floor of the lift,  and it should read 1kg,  now go up to the top floor.  You will see  the weight momentarily increase  as the lift starts upwards,  then settle back to the same weight as when the lift was still.   Then when the lift starts down then weight decreases momentarily and then settles back to the same weight.
Ok I know what you're saying. There would be a marginal increase or decrease depending on the lift speed up or down.
What is causing the weight to change when the scales are accelerated?   It can't be air pressure since that didn't change,   it must the the force acting on the 1kg mass that has changed.
But it is air pressure. It's just that you won't accept it because your gravity takes over and it's wrong. The acceleration of the lift compresses the air inside of it by creating a higher pressure upon it's inner roof and a lower pressure at the feet on descent and the opposite on ascent.
I know you won't accept this and it baffles me that you're willing to accept a force that cannot be described for a force that can.
The very same reason you get pushed back in a bus upon acceleration or forward upon breaking.

So the force which gives weight to mass can be changed by acceleration?    If you take it to the extreme of a zero g plane the weight vanishes completely,  that's called weightlessness.   You can get the same effect in free fall.  So if you put the scales and 1kg into a box with a camera and then drop the box off a high building,  you will see the weight go to zero during the acceleration of free fall.
Yes you see the weight go to zero because you compress the air into the roof, taking the weight off of the object and scale plate. together.
So the weight doesn't depend on air pressure,  it  depends on acceleration.  Now the tricky step.   When the 1kg lump of lead is sitting still on the scales on your kitchen table,  it is actually being accelerated,  the acceleration is due to the gravitational field.     That  acceleration is 9.8 meters/sec/sec 

So far so good?      From here on it gets a bit more complicated.
Not so far so good. We differ massively on this.

You agree that objects in free fall are weightless?
Objects in free fall cannot be weighed. To weigh something on man made scales, you need a resistant base to place the scales onto.
Anything in free fall cannot have that so cannot be weighed.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: hoyhoy5 on July 08, 2015, 08:39:14 AM
Rayzor,

Sorry the interruption, I just have a question regarding objects of different mass falling at the same speed. See, the gravitational attraction is F = M*m*G/d^2, isn't that right? Lets call X the mass of the Earth in kg, and H the height at which they fall to the surface of Earth.

So, the equation for an object of 100kg would be 100X/h^2, and the equation for an object of 1kg would be X/h^2. So, would the force acting upon the 100kg object be 100 times bigger than the force acting upon the 1kg object? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 08, 2015, 08:49:30 AM
@sceptimatic I'll break the radio silence just so that I can teach you how atmospheric pressure works.

Atmospheric pressure is created when the atmospheric matter is concentrated into an area small enough for the matter to collide with matter (Since you don't believe in atoms, this is how I'll put it). This means that all matter in a confined area will push matter equally in every direction, capishe?

If we would put a rock in the atmosphere, and if it was completely sorrounded by atmospheric matter, the atmospheric matter would then push this rock in every direction equally, because of atmospheric pressure, capishe?

Higher density of matter means higher pressure, capishe?

If I put something with higher density than air in our atmosphere, the object would push the atmospheric matter away equally in every direction, capishe?

If I put something with less density than air in the atmosphere, it would get compressed equally from every direction, capishe?

So if I put a rock in the atmosphere, it will not fall  due to pressure. Since the atmospheric matter would push the object equally in every direction, and the object would push the atmospheric matter equally in every direction, no acceleration would occour, capishe?

All air above the object will push down on the object. But equally all air below the object, and the ground beneath the air, will push the object up, because those things also apply pressure. Therefore no downwards acceleration could possibly occour. Capishe?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 08, 2015, 08:51:57 AM
Rayzor,

Sorry the interruption, I just have a question regarding objects of different mass falling at the same speed. See, the gravitational attraction is F = M*m*G/d^2, isn't that right? Lets call X the mass of the Earth in kg, and H the height at which they fall to the surface of Earth.

So, the equation for an object of 100kg would be 100X/h^2, and the equation for an object of 1kg would be X/h^2. So, would the force acting upon the 100kg object be 100 times bigger than the force acting upon the 1kg object? Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are right.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 08, 2015, 08:53:48 AM
So we agree there is a force acting to accelerate objects downwards which is proportional to their mass,    that force is what we measure when we place a 1kg mass on a set of scales.    That force is called the weight,  a weight of 1kg is the force that acts on a mass of 1kg.   
I'll go along with this.
I could put the scales in a vacuum chamber and we would see the weight change only a tiny amount due to air buoyancy.   But you'll dispute the vacuum.   So instead we go to a building with a lift.
The vacuum chamber is a tricky thing. It depends on the amount evacuated as to what would happen in truth, so until that's properly done, we will leave this.
Put the scales on the floor of the lift,  and it should read 1kg,  now go up to the top floor.  You will see  the weight momentarily increase  as the lift starts upwards,  then settle back to the same weight as when the lift was still.   Then when the lift starts down then weight decreases momentarily and then settles back to the same weight.
Ok I know what you're saying. There would be a marginal increase or decrease depending on the lift speed up or down.
What is causing the weight to change when the scales are accelerated?   It can't be air pressure since that didn't change,   it must the the force acting on the 1kg mass that has changed.
But it is air pressure. It's just that you won't accept it because your gravity takes over and it's wrong. The acceleration of the lift compresses the air inside of it by creating a higher pressure upon it's inner roof and a lower pressure at the feet on descent and the opposite on ascent.
I know you won't accept this and it baffles me that you're willing to accept a force that cannot be described for a force that can.
The very same reason you get pushed back in a bus upon acceleration or forward upon breaking.

So the force which gives weight to mass can be changed by acceleration?    If you take it to the extreme of a zero g plane the weight vanishes completely,  that's called weightlessness.   You can get the same effect in free fall.  So if you put the scales and 1kg into a box with a camera and then drop the box off a high building,  you will see the weight go to zero during the acceleration of free fall.
Yes you see the weight go to zero because you compress the air into the roof, taking the weight off of the object and scale plate. together.
So the weight doesn't depend on air pressure,  it  depends on acceleration.  Now the tricky step.   When the 1kg lump of lead is sitting still on the scales on your kitchen table,  it is actually being accelerated,  the acceleration is due to the gravitational field.     That  acceleration is 9.8 meters/sec/sec 

So far so good?      From here on it gets a bit more complicated.
Not so far so good. We differ massively on this.

You agree that objects in free fall are weightless?
Objects in free fall cannot be weighed. To weigh something on man made scales, you need a resistant base to place the scales onto.
Anything in free fall cannot have that so cannot be weighed.

The zero g aeroplane has a pressurized cabin, so the pressure doesn't change.  So  the air pressure hasn't changed and yet the weight goes to zero during the parabolic flight trajectory. 

If we go further down the path of examining the detail of denspressure,  the air pressure comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface,  as you go higher the pressure decreases, but the weight doesn't change.    A 1kg mass on the scale will still weigh 1kg when it's at 30,000 feet,  and air pressure is a fraction of what it is at sea level.

Putting it another way, what gives the mass of air it's weight?
 

Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 08:55:43 AM
@sceptimatic I'll break the radio silence just so that I can teach you how atmospheric pressure works.

Atmospheric pressure is created when the atmospheric mass is concentrated into an area small enough for the mass to collide with mass (Since you don't believe in atoms, this is how I'll put it). This means that all mass in a confined area will push matter equally in every direction, capishe?

If we would put a rock in the atmosphere, and if it was completely sorrounded by atmospheric mass, the atmospheric mass would then push this rock in every direction equally, because of atmospheric pressure, capishe?

Higher density of mass means higher pressure, capishe?

If I put something with higher density than air in our atmosphere, the object would push the atmosphere away equally in every direction, capishe?

If I put something with less density than air in the atmosphere, it would get compressed equally from every direction, capishe?

So if I put a rock in the atmosphere, it will not fall  due to pressure. Since the atmospheric mass would push the object equally in every direction, and the object would push the atmospheric mass equally in every direction, no acceleration would occour, capishe?

All air above the object will push down on the object. But equally all air below the object, and the ground beneath the air, will push the object up, because those things also apply pressure. Therefore no downwards acceleration could possibly occour. Capishe?
Wrong.
Now get back to your silence.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: hoyhoy5 on July 08, 2015, 08:56:19 AM
Rayzor,

Sorry the interruption, I just have a question regarding objects of different mass falling at the same speed. See, the gravitational attraction is F = M*m*G/d^2, isn't that right? Lets call X the mass of the Earth in kg, and H the height at which they fall to the surface of Earth.

So, the equation for an object of 100kg would be 100X/h^2, and the equation for an object of 1kg would be X/h^2. So, would the force acting upon the 100kg object be 100 times bigger than the force acting upon the 1kg object? Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are right.


Oh, wait, I see... The force, even though it is 100 bigger, the 100kg object requires 100 times the force acting on the 1kg object because of momentum... So they would be accelerated at the same rate? No slight variation, or anything?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 08, 2015, 08:58:01 AM
@sceptimatic I'll break the radio silence just so that I can teach you how atmospheric pressure works.

Atmospheric pressure is created when the atmospheric mass is concentrated into an area small enough for the mass to collide with mass (Since you don't believe in atoms, this is how I'll put it). This means that all mass in a confined area will push matter equally in every direction, capishe?

If we would put a rock in the atmosphere, and if it was completely sorrounded by atmospheric mass, the atmospheric mass would then push this rock in every direction equally, because of atmospheric pressure, capishe?

Higher density of mass means higher pressure, capishe?

If I put something with higher density than air in our atmosphere, the object would push the atmosphere away equally in every direction, capishe?

If I put something with less density than air in the atmosphere, it would get compressed equally from every direction, capishe?

So if I put a rock in the atmosphere, it will not fall  due to pressure. Since the atmospheric mass would push the object equally in every direction, and the object would push the atmospheric mass equally in every direction, no acceleration would occour, capishe?

All air above the object will push down on the object. But equally all air below the object, and the ground beneath the air, will push the object up, because those things also apply pressure. Therefore no downwards acceleration could possibly occour. Capishe?
Wrong.
Now get back to your silence.

Prove it, or I'm right, capishe?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 08, 2015, 09:02:41 AM
Rayzor,

Sorry the interruption, I just have a question regarding objects of different mass falling at the same speed. See, the gravitational attraction is F = M*m*G/d^2, isn't that right? Lets call X the mass of the Earth in kg, and H the height at which they fall to the surface of Earth.

So, the equation for an object of 100kg would be 100X/h^2, and the equation for an object of 1kg would be X/h^2. So, would the force acting upon the 100kg object be 100 times bigger than the force acting upon the 1kg object? Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are right.

Yes  that's right,  both the 100kg and the 1kg accelerate exactly the same,   the force on the 100 kg ( it's weight)  is 100 times that on the 1kg,     Galileo found  F = -mg,   Newton generalized it to F=ma.
If in free fall the terminal velocity depends on the air resistance.    The potential energy is   mgh   and kinetic energy is  1/2 mv2   but scepti doesn't do maths. 
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: guv on July 08, 2015, 09:06:37 AM
@sceptimatic I'll break the radio silence just so that I can teach you how atmospheric pressure works.

Atmospheric pressure is created when the atmospheric mass is concentrated into an area small enough for the mass to collide with mass (Since you don't believe in atoms, this is how I'll put it). This means that all mass in a confined area will push matter equally in every direction, capishe?

If we would put a rock in the atmosphere, and if it was completely sorrounded by atmospheric mass, the atmospheric mass would then push this rock in every direction equally, because of atmospheric pressure, capishe?

Higher density of mass means higher pressure, capishe?

If I put something with higher density than air in our atmosphere, the object would push the atmosphere away equally in every direction, capishe?

If I put something with less density than air in the atmosphere, it would get compressed equally from every direction, capishe?

So if I put a rock in the atmosphere, it will not fall  due to pressure. Since the atmospheric mass would push the object equally in every direction, and the object would push the atmospheric mass equally in every direction, no acceleration would occour, capishe?

All air above the object will push down on the object. But equally all air below the object, and the ground beneath the air, will push the object up, because those things also apply pressure. Therefore no downwards acceleration could possibly occour. Capishe?
Wrong.
Now get back to your silence.

Prove it, or I'm right, capishe?


Your dead right ok. septic has lost track of truth.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: guv on July 08, 2015, 09:26:45 AM
The pressure relief valve on a pressure cooker is at the top and steam comes out of it because pressure pushes in all directions.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: panoslydios on July 08, 2015, 10:28:12 AM
The pressure relief valve on a pressure cooker is at the top and steam comes out of it because pressure pushes in all directions.
Sceptimatic says that this happens because when you put force onto an object( and in your example
heat) the matter agitates and expands leaving gas matter.
This gas matter is pushing its way through denser smaller particles .
The dense particles are in the bottom, squeezing the more expanded  that go upwards.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: MikDaTv on July 08, 2015, 11:56:48 AM
The pressure relief valve on a pressure cooker is at the top and steam comes out of it because pressure pushes in all directions.
Sceptimatic says that this happens because when you put force onto an object( and in your example
heat) the matter agitates and expands leaving gas matter.
This gas matter is pushing its way through denser smaller particles .
The dense particles are in the bottom, squeezing the more expanded  that go upwards.

He also says the world is flat.  I'd take anything he says with two healthy doses of skepticism.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Mikey T. on July 08, 2015, 03:56:11 PM
So the explanation for the lift in scepti's terms was that the floor of the lift moving upwards causes the air to compress towards the roof of the lift car thus pressing you back down.  Ok this air movement is so slight that it isn't even felt correct.   So lets say this air pressure difference makes your weight increase for the beginning of the acceleration by 1%.  Not a large amount but say a 100 kg person in the lift will momentarily weigh 101kg due to scepti's air movement to increase pressure at the top to push this person back down.
Ok, next step then.  Take a fan blowing roughly 150 times as much as this slight air movement.  This would compress the air on one side ot the lift car 150% correct?  Why is the person not throw to the opposite wall?  Have the fan not blowing on the person but angled at the wall behind him.  So you won't have the air movement canceling itself out.  If we insist it is the oncoming air canceling the effect out then why doesn't the movement of the air going upwards not cancel itself out in the lift car scenario?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 09, 2015, 12:16:53 AM
So the explanation for the lift in scepti's terms was that the floor of the lift moving upwards causes the air to compress towards the roof of the lift car thus pressing you back down.  Ok this air movement is so slight that it isn't even felt correct.   So lets say this air pressure difference makes your weight increase for the beginning of the acceleration by 1%.  Not a large amount but say a 100 kg person in the lift will momentarily weigh 101kg due to scepti's air movement to increase pressure at the top to push this person back down.
Ok, next step then.  Take a fan blowing roughly 150 times as much as this slight air movement.  This would compress the air on one side ot the lift car 150% correct?  Why is the person not throw to the opposite wall?  Have the fan not blowing on the person but angled at the wall behind him.  So you won't have the air movement canceling itself out.  If we insist it is the oncoming air canceling the effect out then why doesn't the movement of the air going upwards not cancel itself out in the lift car scenario?
The lift car is not a sealed container, so as it falls (for instance), the density of the lift down the shaft pushes against the air under it and compresses it. This compressed air is channelled back around the lift and back up the sides of it, plus the air seeps into the car itself and builds up he pressure inside that car, which creates more pressure inside.
While this is all happening, the external lift roof is moving away from the atmosphere at speed so the atmosphere cannot compress it, meaning there is a pressure difference between the front, sides and top.

Because the air above is less compressed than below, that has to be equalised all the time and it does by the compressed air under the lift being pushed back around it and over he top which fills the lower pressure the lift leave behind it as it plummets.

The opposite happens when ascending, only it requires energy to push the lift up so it will be slower changes in pressure which would be hardly noticeable.

You mention a fan. Go and see the fans that the sky divers practice on that keep them afloat. The only difference to what's happening to them is the fact that air pressure is being compressed below creating a massive void of lower pressure above he people. Because of this, they float on he higher pressure cushion.

This is what happens in lifts, cars, buses, trains and planes, etc.
The problem is, because gravity is mentioned in such a way - atmospheric pressure gets thrown aside as if it's a nothing. People just think it's a small breeze of air that's insignificant.
It's only insignificant to us because we are equalised to it.
The minute it becomes unequal on us, we start to feel it. We feel the pressure change. Now that's either wind or accelerating in a vehicle or free falling from a plane, etc.

Gravity 100% does not exist. It's made up nonsense to cater for the globe and space.
Atmospheric pressure  is the reason why everything works and happens that we know of. The space that we don't know of is irrelevant, because it doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 09, 2015, 12:38:09 AM
We already proved that objects fall at an acceleration independent of their mass,  and that  some force is acting to give weight to mass.   You think air pressure,  I say gravity. 

So we need to dig  deeper to get to the truth.   

If we go further down the path of examining the detail of denspressure,  the air pressure comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface,  as you go higher the pressure decreases.

So where does air pressure come from,   where does that 14.7 psi come from? 

Putting it another way, what gives the mass of air it's weight?


Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 09, 2015, 12:49:30 AM
We already proved that objects fall at an acceleration independent of their mass,  and that  some force is acting to give weight to mass.   You think air pressure,  I say gravity. 

So we need to dig  deeper to get to the truth.   

If we go further down the path of examining the detail of denspressure,  the air pressure comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface,  as you go higher the pressure decreases.

So where does air pressure come from,   where does that 14.7 psi come from? 

Putting it another way, what gives the mass of air it's weight?
All matter under your feet is stacked in a sandwich like dense form and the denser matter is naturally more compressed.
Once energy is applied, this dense matter can be broken down. It can be friction burned and vibrated to expand against where it's compressed at. This means it pushes through material above it which immediately tries to crush it but only manages to push it up.

This happens all the way up with all kinds of matter in all kinds of densities and expansions; eventually ending up on top as water, then atmosphere that consists of a lot of other expanding and contracting elements or matter that settle into their own sandwich depending on their energy of push and also squeeze of denser mater that tries to crush the less dense, meaning it's PUSHED higher. As this expansion goes on and on, it creates the atmosphere from compressed to basically super expanded up in the sky.

There's much more to it but the basics is what people need to grasp. Whether you do or will or care, is entirely down to you.

One thing for certain. here's absolutely no such thing as gravity. It's fantasy and a con job to hide the true Earth and what the so called universe actually is.
It's all there right in your face if you dare to open your eyes and allow yourself to think outside of those labs that the paid scientists patrol to make sure you follow their model, or he model they've been given for you to learn.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 09, 2015, 01:09:54 AM
We already proved that objects fall at an acceleration independent of their mass,  and that  some force is acting to give weight to mass.   You think air pressure,  I say gravity. 

So we need to dig  deeper to get to the truth.   

If we go further down the path of examining the detail of denspressure,  the air pressure comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface,  as you go higher the pressure decreases.

So where does air pressure come from,   where does that 14.7 psi come from? 

Putting it another way, what gives the mass of air it's weight?
All matter under your feet is stacked in a sandwich like dense form and the denser matter is naturally more compressed.
Once energy is applied, this dense matter can be broken down. It can be friction burned and vibrated to expand against where it's compressed at. This means it pushes through material above it which immediately tries to crush it but only manages to push it up.

This happens all the way up with all kinds of matter in all kinds of densities and expansions; eventually ending up on top as water, then atmosphere that consists of a lot of other expanding and contracting elements or matter that settle into their own sandwich depending on their energy of push and also squeeze of denser mater that tries to crush the less dense, meaning it's PUSHED higher. As this expansion goes on and on, it creates the atmosphere from compressed to basically super expanded up in the sky.

There's much more to it but the basics is what people need to grasp. Whether you do or will or care, is entirely down to you.

One thing for certain. here's absolutely no such thing as gravity. It's fantasy and a con job to hide the true Earth and what the so called universe actually is.
It's all there right in your face if you dare to open your eyes and allow yourself to think outside of those labs that the paid scientists patrol to make sure you follow their model, or he model they've been given for you to learn.

At  32,000 feet  where the air pressure is  4 psi,   about  1/4 of what it is at sea level,   a 1kg lump of lead will still weigh close to 1kg.     
So it's  not air pressure or density that produces the force  that gives the 1kg mass it's weight,  how does denspressure explain the discrepancy?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 09, 2015, 01:21:47 AM
We already proved that objects fall at an acceleration independent of their mass,  and that  some force is acting to give weight to mass.   You think air pressure,  I say gravity. 

So we need to dig  deeper to get to the truth.   

If we go further down the path of examining the detail of denspressure,  the air pressure comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface,  as you go higher the pressure decreases.

So where does air pressure come from,   where does that 14.7 psi come from? 

Putting it another way, what gives the mass of air it's weight?
All matter under your feet is stacked in a sandwich like dense form and the denser matter is naturally more compressed.
Once energy is applied, this dense matter can be broken down. It can be friction burned and vibrated to expand against where it's compressed at. This means it pushes through material above it which immediately tries to crush it but only manages to push it up.

This happens all the way up with all kinds of matter in all kinds of densities and expansions; eventually ending up on top as water, then atmosphere that consists of a lot of other expanding and contracting elements or matter that settle into their own sandwich depending on their energy of push and also squeeze of denser mater that tries to crush the less dense, meaning it's PUSHED higher. As this expansion goes on and on, it creates the atmosphere from compressed to basically super expanded up in the sky.

There's much more to it but the basics is what people need to grasp. Whether you do or will or care, is entirely down to you.

One thing for certain. here's absolutely no such thing as gravity. It's fantasy and a con job to hide the true Earth and what the so called universe actually is.
It's all there right in your face if you dare to open your eyes and allow yourself to think outside of those labs that the paid scientists patrol to make sure you follow their model, or he model they've been given for you to learn.

At  32,000 feet  where the air pressure is  4 psi,   about  1/4 of what it is at sea level,   a 1kg lump of lead will still weigh close to 1kg.     
So it's  not air pressure or density that produces the force  that gives the 1kg mass it's weight,  how does denspressure explain the discrepancy?
How about telling me how you weigh it. Don't just tell me what it weighs. Tell me how you go about weighing it.
Sky scales?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 09, 2015, 01:40:08 AM
We already proved that objects fall at an acceleration independent of their mass,  and that  some force is acting to give weight to mass.   You think air pressure,  I say gravity. 

So we need to dig  deeper to get to the truth.   

If we go further down the path of examining the detail of denspressure,  the air pressure comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface,  as you go higher the pressure decreases.

So where does air pressure come from,   where does that 14.7 psi come from? 

Putting it another way, what gives the mass of air it's weight?
All matter under your feet is stacked in a sandwich like dense form and the denser matter is naturally more compressed.
Once energy is applied, this dense matter can be broken down. It can be friction burned and vibrated to expand against where it's compressed at. This means it pushes through material above it which immediately tries to crush it but only manages to push it up.

This happens all the way up with all kinds of matter in all kinds of densities and expansions; eventually ending up on top as water, then atmosphere that consists of a lot of other expanding and contracting elements or matter that settle into their own sandwich depending on their energy of push and also squeeze of denser mater that tries to crush the less dense, meaning it's PUSHED higher. As this expansion goes on and on, it creates the atmosphere from compressed to basically super expanded up in the sky.

There's much more to it but the basics is what people need to grasp. Whether you do or will or care, is entirely down to you.

One thing for certain. here's absolutely no such thing as gravity. It's fantasy and a con job to hide the true Earth and what the so called universe actually is.
It's all there right in your face if you dare to open your eyes and allow yourself to think outside of those labs that the paid scientists patrol to make sure you follow their model, or he model they've been given for you to learn.

At  32,000 feet  where the air pressure is  4 psi,   about  1/4 of what it is at sea level,   a 1kg lump of lead will still weigh close to 1kg.     
So it's  not air pressure or density that produces the force  that gives the 1kg mass it's weight,  how does denspressure explain the discrepancy?
How about telling me how you weigh it. Don't just tell me what it weighs. Tell me how you go about weighing it.
Sky scales?

Just ordinary scales.   
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 09, 2015, 01:44:17 AM
We already proved that objects fall at an acceleration independent of their mass,  and that  some force is acting to give weight to mass.   You think air pressure,  I say gravity. 

So we need to dig  deeper to get to the truth.   

If we go further down the path of examining the detail of denspressure,  the air pressure comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface,  as you go higher the pressure decreases.

So where does air pressure come from,   where does that 14.7 psi come from? 

Putting it another way, what gives the mass of air it's weight?
All matter under your feet is stacked in a sandwich like dense form and the denser matter is naturally more compressed.
Once energy is applied, this dense matter can be broken down. It can be friction burned and vibrated to expand against where it's compressed at. This means it pushes through material above it which immediately tries to crush it but only manages to push it up.

This happens all the way up with all kinds of matter in all kinds of densities and expansions; eventually ending up on top as water, then atmosphere that consists of a lot of other expanding and contracting elements or matter that settle into their own sandwich depending on their energy of push and also squeeze of denser mater that tries to crush the less dense, meaning it's PUSHED higher. As this expansion goes on and on, it creates the atmosphere from compressed to basically super expanded up in the sky.

There's much more to it but the basics is what people need to grasp. Whether you do or will or care, is entirely down to you.

One thing for certain. here's absolutely no such thing as gravity. It's fantasy and a con job to hide the true Earth and what the so called universe actually is.
It's all there right in your face if you dare to open your eyes and allow yourself to think outside of those labs that the paid scientists patrol to make sure you follow their model, or he model they've been given for you to learn.

At  32,000 feet  where the air pressure is  4 psi,   about  1/4 of what it is at sea level,   a 1kg lump of lead will still weigh close to 1kg.     
So it's  not air pressure or density that produces the force  that gives the 1kg mass it's weight,  how does denspressure explain the discrepancy?
How about telling me how you weigh it. Don't just tell me what it weighs. Tell me how you go about weighing it.
Sky scales?

Just ordinary scales.
So where do you take them to weigh the lead?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 09, 2015, 01:46:24 AM
We already proved that objects fall at an acceleration independent of their mass,  and that  some force is acting to give weight to mass.   You think air pressure,  I say gravity. 

So we need to dig  deeper to get to the truth.   

If we go further down the path of examining the detail of denspressure,  the air pressure comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface,  as you go higher the pressure decreases.

So where does air pressure come from,   where does that 14.7 psi come from? 

Putting it another way, what gives the mass of air it's weight?
All matter under your feet is stacked in a sandwich like dense form and the denser matter is naturally more compressed.
Once energy is applied, this dense matter can be broken down. It can be friction burned and vibrated to expand against where it's compressed at. This means it pushes through material above it which immediately tries to crush it but only manages to push it up.

This happens all the way up with all kinds of matter in all kinds of densities and expansions; eventually ending up on top as water, then atmosphere that consists of a lot of other expanding and contracting elements or matter that settle into their own sandwich depending on their energy of push and also squeeze of denser mater that tries to crush the less dense, meaning it's PUSHED higher. As this expansion goes on and on, it creates the atmosphere from compressed to basically super expanded up in the sky.

There's much more to it but the basics is what people need to grasp. Whether you do or will or care, is entirely down to you.

One thing for certain. here's absolutely no such thing as gravity. It's fantasy and a con job to hide the true Earth and what the so called universe actually is.
It's all there right in your face if you dare to open your eyes and allow yourself to think outside of those labs that the paid scientists patrol to make sure you follow their model, or he model they've been given for you to learn.

At  32,000 feet  where the air pressure is  4 psi,   about  1/4 of what it is at sea level,   a 1kg lump of lead will still weigh close to 1kg.     
So it's  not air pressure or density that produces the force  that gives the 1kg mass it's weight,  how does denspressure explain the discrepancy?
How about telling me how you weigh it. Don't just tell me what it weighs. Tell me how you go about weighing it.
Sky scales?

Just ordinary scales.
So where do you take them to weigh the lead?

On a plane.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 09, 2015, 01:50:59 AM
We already proved that objects fall at an acceleration independent of their mass,  and that  some force is acting to give weight to mass.   You think air pressure,  I say gravity. 

So we need to dig  deeper to get to the truth.   

If we go further down the path of examining the detail of denspressure,  the air pressure comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface,  as you go higher the pressure decreases.

So where does air pressure come from,   where does that 14.7 psi come from? 

Putting it another way, what gives the mass of air it's weight?
All matter under your feet is stacked in a sandwich like dense form and the denser matter is naturally more compressed.
Once energy is applied, this dense matter can be broken down. It can be friction burned and vibrated to expand against where it's compressed at. This means it pushes through material above it which immediately tries to crush it but only manages to push it up.

This happens all the way up with all kinds of matter in all kinds of densities and expansions; eventually ending up on top as water, then atmosphere that consists of a lot of other expanding and contracting elements or matter that settle into their own sandwich depending on their energy of push and also squeeze of denser mater that tries to crush the less dense, meaning it's PUSHED higher. As this expansion goes on and on, it creates the atmosphere from compressed to basically super expanded up in the sky.

There's much more to it but the basics is what people need to grasp. Whether you do or will or care, is entirely down to you.

One thing for certain. here's absolutely no such thing as gravity. It's fantasy and a con job to hide the true Earth and what the so called universe actually is.
It's all there right in your face if you dare to open your eyes and allow yourself to think outside of those labs that the paid scientists patrol to make sure you follow their model, or he model they've been given for you to learn.

At  32,000 feet  where the air pressure is  4 psi,   about  1/4 of what it is at sea level,   a 1kg lump of lead will still weigh close to 1kg.     
So it's  not air pressure or density that produces the force  that gives the 1kg mass it's weight,  how does denspressure explain the discrepancy?
How about telling me how you weigh it. Don't just tell me what it weighs. Tell me how you go about weighing it.
Sky scales?

Just ordinary scales.
So where do you take them to weigh the lead?

On a plane.
But aren't you putting the scales in a similar environment and negating the 32,000 feet experiment?

I mean, the plane is pressurised and heated so humans can survive as they would at sea level, so all you've done is taken your scales to someone else's house, basically.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 09, 2015, 02:07:29 AM
We already proved that objects fall at an acceleration independent of their mass,  and that  some force is acting to give weight to mass.   You think air pressure,  I say gravity. 

So we need to dig  deeper to get to the truth.   

If we go further down the path of examining the detail of denspressure,  the air pressure comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface,  as you go higher the pressure decreases.

So where does air pressure come from,   where does that 14.7 psi come from? 

Putting it another way, what gives the mass of air it's weight?
All matter under your feet is stacked in a sandwich like dense form and the denser matter is naturally more compressed.
Once energy is applied, this dense matter can be broken down. It can be friction burned and vibrated to expand against where it's compressed at. This means it pushes through material above it which immediately tries to crush it but only manages to push it up.

This happens all the way up with all kinds of matter in all kinds of densities and expansions; eventually ending up on top as water, then atmosphere that consists of a lot of other expanding and contracting elements or matter that settle into their own sandwich depending on their energy of push and also squeeze of denser mater that tries to crush the less dense, meaning it's PUSHED higher. As this expansion goes on and on, it creates the atmosphere from compressed to basically super expanded up in the sky.

There's much more to it but the basics is what people need to grasp. Whether you do or will or care, is entirely down to you.

One thing for certain. here's absolutely no such thing as gravity. It's fantasy and a con job to hide the true Earth and what the so called universe actually is.
It's all there right in your face if you dare to open your eyes and allow yourself to think outside of those labs that the paid scientists patrol to make sure you follow their model, or he model they've been given for you to learn.

At  32,000 feet  where the air pressure is  4 psi,   about  1/4 of what it is at sea level,   a 1kg lump of lead will still weigh close to 1kg.     
So it's  not air pressure or density that produces the force  that gives the 1kg mass it's weight,  how does denspressure explain the discrepancy?
How about telling me how you weigh it. Don't just tell me what it weighs. Tell me how you go about weighing it.
Sky scales?

Just ordinary scales.
So where do you take them to weigh the lead?

On a plane.
But aren't you putting the scales in a similar environment and negating the 32,000 feet experiment?

I mean, the plane is pressurised and heated so humans can survive as they would at sea level, so all you've done is taken your scales to someone else's house, basically.

Who said it was pressurized?   I specifically nominated 4 psi. 
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 09, 2015, 02:09:14 AM
scepti, you don't need to get on a plane.  Just climb a mountain.

At 10,000ft at air pressure will be about 10 psi.  Which means everything up there should weigh a third less than usual, right?

I've climbed several mountains of this height, and I know from hauling a rucksack up them that things definitely don't get a third lighter at the top.  In fact if that did happen the top of every mountain would be full of climbers bouncing around enjoying their low weight.  This doesn't happen.

There are several mountains this height in Europe that can be climbed without specialist equipment in the summer - so in case you think there is some mass conspiracy to hide the fact that everything is really light at the top of big mountains, you can try it yourself.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 09, 2015, 02:10:21 AM
We already proved that objects fall at an acceleration independent of their mass,  and that  some force is acting to give weight to mass.   You think air pressure,  I say gravity. 

So we need to dig  deeper to get to the truth.   

If we go further down the path of examining the detail of denspressure,  the air pressure comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface,  as you go higher the pressure decreases.

So where does air pressure come from,   where does that 14.7 psi come from? 

Putting it another way, what gives the mass of air it's weight?
All matter under your feet is stacked in a sandwich like dense form and the denser matter is naturally more compressed.
Once energy is applied, this dense matter can be broken down. It can be friction burned and vibrated to expand against where it's compressed at. This means it pushes through material above it which immediately tries to crush it but only manages to push it up.

This happens all the way up with all kinds of matter in all kinds of densities and expansions; eventually ending up on top as water, then atmosphere that consists of a lot of other expanding and contracting elements or matter that settle into their own sandwich depending on their energy of push and also squeeze of denser mater that tries to crush the less dense, meaning it's PUSHED higher. As this expansion goes on and on, it creates the atmosphere from compressed to basically super expanded up in the sky.

There's much more to it but the basics is what people need to grasp. Whether you do or will or care, is entirely down to you.

One thing for certain. here's absolutely no such thing as gravity. It's fantasy and a con job to hide the true Earth and what the so called universe actually is.
It's all there right in your face if you dare to open your eyes and allow yourself to think outside of those labs that the paid scientists patrol to make sure you follow their model, or he model they've been given for you to learn.

At  32,000 feet  where the air pressure is  4 psi,   about  1/4 of what it is at sea level,   a 1kg lump of lead will still weigh close to 1kg.     
So it's  not air pressure or density that produces the force  that gives the 1kg mass it's weight,  how does denspressure explain the discrepancy?
How about telling me how you weigh it. Don't just tell me what it weighs. Tell me how you go about weighing it.
Sky scales?

Just ordinary scales.
So where do you take them to weigh the lead?

On a plane.
But aren't you putting the scales in a similar environment and negating the 32,000 feet experiment?

I mean, the plane is pressurised and heated so humans can survive as they would at sea level, so all you've done is taken your scales to someone else's house, basically.

Who said it was pressurized?   I specifically nominated 4 psi.
You're going to have to up your game or deck out.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 09, 2015, 02:16:07 AM
We already proved that objects fall at an acceleration independent of their mass,  and that  some force is acting to give weight to mass.   You think air pressure,  I say gravity. 

So we need to dig  deeper to get to the truth.   

If we go further down the path of examining the detail of denspressure,  the air pressure comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface,  as you go higher the pressure decreases.

So where does air pressure come from,   where does that 14.7 psi come from? 

Putting it another way, what gives the mass of air it's weight?
All matter under your feet is stacked in a sandwich like dense form and the denser matter is naturally more compressed.
Once energy is applied, this dense matter can be broken down. It can be friction burned and vibrated to expand against where it's compressed at. This means it pushes through material above it which immediately tries to crush it but only manages to push it up.

This happens all the way up with all kinds of matter in all kinds of densities and expansions; eventually ending up on top as water, then atmosphere that consists of a lot of other expanding and contracting elements or matter that settle into their own sandwich depending on their energy of push and also squeeze of denser mater that tries to crush the less dense, meaning it's PUSHED higher. As this expansion goes on and on, it creates the atmosphere from compressed to basically super expanded up in the sky.

There's much more to it but the basics is what people need to grasp. Whether you do or will or care, is entirely down to you.

One thing for certain. here's absolutely no such thing as gravity. It's fantasy and a con job to hide the true Earth and what the so called universe actually is.
It's all there right in your face if you dare to open your eyes and allow yourself to think outside of those labs that the paid scientists patrol to make sure you follow their model, or he model they've been given for you to learn.

At  32,000 feet  where the air pressure is  4 psi,   about  1/4 of what it is at sea level,   a 1kg lump of lead will still weigh close to 1kg.     
So it's  not air pressure or density that produces the force  that gives the 1kg mass it's weight,  how does denspressure explain the discrepancy?
How about telling me how you weigh it. Don't just tell me what it weighs. Tell me how you go about weighing it.
Sky scales?

Just ordinary scales.
So where do you take them to weigh the lead?

On a plane.
But aren't you putting the scales in a similar environment and negating the 32,000 feet experiment?

I mean, the plane is pressurised and heated so humans can survive as they would at sea level, so all you've done is taken your scales to someone else's house, basically.

Who said it was pressurized?   I specifically nominated 4 psi.
You're going to have to up your game or deck out.

You need to stop making assumptions,   I was thinking of Halo jumps,  but  Jimmy has a good point,  Mt Everest is about 29,000 ft above sea level,  so people should weigh 1/4 of what they weigh at sea level,  that doesn't happen.   So denspressure fails.

I'll reverse the argument,  I've given examples of things denpressure can't explain,  how about you suggest something that gravity doesn't explain?
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 09, 2015, 02:19:38 AM
So the explanation for the lift in scepti's terms was that the floor of the lift moving upwards causes the air to compress towards the roof of the lift car thus pressing you back down.  Ok this air movement is so slight that it isn't even felt correct.   So lets say this air pressure difference makes your weight increase for the beginning of the acceleration by 1%.  Not a large amount but say a 100 kg person in the lift will momentarily weigh 101kg due to scepti's air movement to increase pressure at the top to push this person back down.
Ok, next step then.  Take a fan blowing roughly 150 times as much as this slight air movement.  This would compress the air on one side ot the lift car 150% correct?  Why is the person not throw to the opposite wall?  Have the fan not blowing on the person but angled at the wall behind him.  So you won't have the air movement canceling itself out.  If we insist it is the oncoming air canceling the effect out then why doesn't the movement of the air going upwards not cancel itself out in the lift car scenario?
The lift car is not a sealed container, so as it falls (for instance), the density of the lift down the shaft pushes against the air under it and compresses it. This compressed air is channelled back around the lift and back up the sides of it, plus the air seeps into the car itself and builds up he pressure inside that car, which creates more pressure inside.
While this is all happening, the external lift roof is moving away from the atmosphere at speed so the atmosphere cannot compress it, meaning there is a pressure difference between the front, sides and top.

Because the air above is less compressed than below, that has to be equalised all the time and it does by the compressed air under the lift being pushed back around it and over he top which fills the lower pressure the lift leave behind it as it plummets.

The opposite happens when ascending, only it requires energy to push the lift up so it will be slower changes in pressure which would be hardly noticeable.

You mention a fan. Go and see the fans that the sky divers practice on that keep them afloat. The only difference to what's happening to them is the fact that air pressure is being compressed below creating a massive void of lower pressure above he people. Because of this, they float on he higher pressure cushion.

This is what happens in lifts, cars, buses, trains and planes, etc.
The problem is, because gravity is mentioned in such a way - atmospheric pressure gets thrown aside as if it's a nothing. People just think it's a small breeze of air that's insignificant.
It's only insignificant to us because we are equalised to it.
The minute it becomes unequal on us, we start to feel it. We feel the pressure change. Now that's either wind or accelerating in a vehicle or free falling from a plane, etc.

Gravity 100% does not exist. It's made up nonsense to cater for the globe and space.
Atmospheric pressure  is the reason why everything works and happens that we know of. The space that we don't know of is irrelevant, because it doesn't exist.

I've done the maths according to your model now, this is the result:

Your model is impossible. If somehow air pressure and buoyancy worked, and there was nothing such as gravity, we'd be subject to 0.841N of force (If we assume an average human) that would push us UP. The problem is that without gravity, buoyancy is impossible, so already there your model falls apart. Air pressure would subject an average human to roughly 177275 N of force, that is equally distributed (except for the extra pushing us up due to buoyancy) And our internal pressure is the same, also in every direction, so there is no force pushing us down.

Also, if gravity does not exist, what is keeping the atmosphere from expanding out into space? We already know that air pressure decreases the higher (further away from the central point of gravity) we go, and without gravity the higher pressure air down here should decompress to compress the less compressed air above. We know that matter strives for equal pressure, so why is the atmospheric pressure not equally distributed? That would be impossible according to your model, but we can climb mount everest and feel it ourselves.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 09, 2015, 02:27:42 AM
We already proved that objects fall at an acceleration independent of their mass,  and that  some force is acting to give weight to mass.   You think air pressure,  I say gravity. 

So we need to dig  deeper to get to the truth.   

If we go further down the path of examining the detail of denspressure,  the air pressure comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface,  as you go higher the pressure decreases.

So where does air pressure come from,   where does that 14.7 psi come from? 

Putting it another way, what gives the mass of air it's weight?
All matter under your feet is stacked in a sandwich like dense form and the denser matter is naturally more compressed.
Once energy is applied, this dense matter can be broken down. It can be friction burned and vibrated to expand against where it's compressed at. This means it pushes through material above it which immediately tries to crush it but only manages to push it up.

This happens all the way up with all kinds of matter in all kinds of densities and expansions; eventually ending up on top as water, then atmosphere that consists of a lot of other expanding and contracting elements or matter that settle into their own sandwich depending on their energy of push and also squeeze of denser mater that tries to crush the less dense, meaning it's PUSHED higher. As this expansion goes on and on, it creates the atmosphere from compressed to basically super expanded up in the sky.

There's much more to it but the basics is what people need to grasp. Whether you do or will or care, is entirely down to you.

One thing for certain. here's absolutely no such thing as gravity. It's fantasy and a con job to hide the true Earth and what the so called universe actually is.
It's all there right in your face if you dare to open your eyes and allow yourself to think outside of those labs that the paid scientists patrol to make sure you follow their model, or he model they've been given for you to learn.

At  32,000 feet  where the air pressure is  4 psi,   about  1/4 of what it is at sea level,   a 1kg lump of lead will still weigh close to 1kg.     
So it's  not air pressure or density that produces the force  that gives the 1kg mass it's weight,  how does denspressure explain the discrepancy?
How about telling me how you weigh it. Don't just tell me what it weighs. Tell me how you go about weighing it.
Sky scales?

Just ordinary scales.
So where do you take them to weigh the lead?

On a plane.
But aren't you putting the scales in a similar environment and negating the 32,000 feet experiment?

I mean, the plane is pressurised and heated so humans can survive as they would at sea level, so all you've done is taken your scales to someone else's house, basically.

Who said it was pressurized?   I specifically nominated 4 psi.
You're going to have to up your game or deck out.

You need to stop making assumptions,   I was thinking of Halo jumps,  but  Jimmy has a good point,  Mt Everest is about 29,000 ft above sea level,  so people should weigh 1/4 of what they weigh at sea level,  that doesn't happen.   So denspressure fails.

I'll reverse the argument,  I've given examples of things denpressure can't explain,  how about you suggest something that gravity doesn't explain?
Do you personally know anything about the top of Everest and how much anything weighs up there?
You seem to be making assumptions about scales and weights up there without anything to back it up. You can't use little crabby.

You've given me nothing that denpressure can't explain. Nothing provable, anyway.
I can't disprove your gravity because how can you disprove something that does not exist? that's why gravity is perfect for feeding the population, bullshit.

When the real reason for gravity is put forward and makes complete sense, you get people that say, " you can't have atmospheric pressure without gravity."  ;D

You see, gravity caters for everything. Mainstream say it and make any shit up and that's that. The ordinary thinker counteracts it and they are called NUTTERS or TROUBLEMAKERS or conspiracy clowns. For what?

For actually using logic to scupper a ridiculous magical force that apparently isn't a force when the timer arises - depending on the argument, which can be explained but not proven to exist and even scientists say they don't fully understand it, yet can predict it for all kinds of things as well as graity measurements on planets as far as you want to think.

And people believe this shit. It's bastard shocking that so called intelligent people actually still believe it when they can see the reality.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 09, 2015, 02:33:54 AM
I've done the maths according to your model now, this is the result:

Your model is impossible. If somehow air pressure and buoyancy worked, and there was nothing such as gravity, we'd be subject to 0.841N of force (If we assume an average human) that would push us UP. The problem is that without gravity, buoyancy is impossible, so already there your model falls apart. Air pressure would subject an average human to roughly 177275 N of force, that is equally distributed (except for the extra pushing us up due to buoyancy) And our internal pressure is the same, also in every direction, so there is no force pushing us down.

Also, if gravity does not exist, what is keeping the atmosphere from expanding out into space? We already know that air pressure decreases the higher (further away from the central point of gravity) we go, and without gravity the higher pressure air down here should decompress to compress the less compressed air above. We know that matter strives for equal pressure, so why is the atmospheric pressure not equally distributed? That would be impossible according to your model, but we can climb mount everest and feel it ourselves.
I'll get back to you on this if I decide to. You see I don't know if I can be arsed with you. Weren't you the one that binned me?

Just by reading what you said, I doubt you actually want to know the truth. Your head is so far up gravity's arse that it could be there forever.

Scientists aren't calculating magical forces like gravity. They're calculating reality in atmospheric pressure in another way and just applying the word gravity to it.

Anyway, all of what you said, is wrong, you're just too arrogant to accept that.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 09, 2015, 02:38:01 AM
Do you personally know anything about the top of Everest and how much anything weighs up there?
You seem to be making assumptions about scales and weights up there without anything to back it up. You can't use little crabby.

You've given me nothing that denpressure can't explain. Nothing provable, anyway.
I can't disprove your gravity because how can you disprove something that does not exist? that's why gravity is perfect for feeding the population, bullshit.

When the real reason for gravity is put forward and makes complete sense, you get people that say, " you can't have atmospheric pressure without gravity."  ;D

You see, gravity caters for everything. Mainstream say it and make any shit up and that's that. The ordinary thinker counteracts it and they are called NUTTERS or TROUBLEMAKERS or conspiracy clowns. For what?

For actually using logic to scupper a ridiculous magical force that apparently isn't a force when the timer arises - depending on the argument, which can be explained but not proven to exist and even scientists say they don't fully understand it, yet can predict it for all kinds of things as well as graity measurements on planets as far as you want to think.

And people believe this shit. It's bastard shocking that so called intelligent people actually still believe it when they can see the reality.

Denspressure can't explain why weight changes with acceleration,  ( remember the lift and the zero G aeroplane. )

it can't explain why things still weight the same in vacuum,   it can't explain why things still weigh nearly the same at high altitude. 

And yes,  gravity does elegantly explain all of those things,  as well as tides,  orbits of the planets,  orbit of the earth around the sun,  in fact everything we observe up to galactic scales, at those scales it seems to fail,  but if might just be that it is predicting the existence of dark matter.   Denspressure fails at the very very basics.

Gravity is not magic,   at least not at the level we are discussing.    I think you are too deep into the conspiracy mindset to see the reality,   that's your choice not mine.


Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: sceptimatic on July 09, 2015, 02:41:14 AM
Do you personally know anything about the top of Everest and how much anything weighs up there?
You seem to be making assumptions about scales and weights up there without anything to back it up. You can't use little crabby.

You've given me nothing that denpressure can't explain. Nothing provable, anyway.
I can't disprove your gravity because how can you disprove something that does not exist? that's why gravity is perfect for feeding the population, bullshit.

When the real reason for gravity is put forward and makes complete sense, you get people that say, " you can't have atmospheric pressure without gravity."  ;D

You see, gravity caters for everything. Mainstream say it and make any shit up and that's that. The ordinary thinker counteracts it and they are called NUTTERS or TROUBLEMAKERS or conspiracy clowns. For what?

For actually using logic to scupper a ridiculous magical force that apparently isn't a force when the timer arises - depending on the argument, which can be explained but not proven to exist and even scientists say they don't fully understand it, yet can predict it for all kinds of things as well as graity measurements on planets as far as you want to think.

And people believe this shit. It's bastard shocking that so called intelligent people actually still believe it when they can see the reality.

Denspressure can't explain why weight changes with acceleration,  ( remember the lift and the zero G aeroplane. )

it can't explain why things still weight the same in vacuum,   it can't explain why things still weigh nearly the same at high altitude. 

And yes,  gravity does elegantly explain all of those things,  as well as tides,  orbits of the planets,  orbit of the earth around the sun,  in fact everything we observe up to galactic scales, at those scales it seems to fail,  but if might just be that it is predicting the existence of dark matter.   Denspressure fails at the very very basics.

Gravity is not magic,   at least not at the level we are discussing.    I think you are too deep into the conspiracy mind set to see the reality,   that's your choice not mine.
Well, it seems like we've hit a dead end. You have tried your best to disprove denpressure and only made it stronger.
Your gravity is getting weaker (pardon the pun) by the second and will be seen through by many, in due course.

Good try but just not good enough. I can see the desperation in your post that you have nothing else to add.
Send someone else in or up your game.
Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: JerkFace on July 09, 2015, 02:49:09 AM
Do you personally know anything about the top of Everest and how much anything weighs up there?
You seem to be making assumptions about scales and weights up there without anything to back it up. You can't use little crabby.

You've given me nothing that denpressure can't explain. Nothing provable, anyway.
I can't disprove your gravity because how can you disprove something that does not exist? that's why gravity is perfect for feeding the population, bullshit.

When the real reason for gravity is put forward and makes complete sense, you get people that say, " you can't have atmospheric pressure without gravity."  ;D

You see, gravity caters for everything. Mainstream say it and make any shit up and that's that. The ordinary thinker counteracts it and they are called NUTTERS or TROUBLEMAKERS or conspiracy clowns. For what?

For actually using logic to scupper a ridiculous magical force that apparently isn't a force when the timer arises - depending on the argument, which can be explained but not proven to exist and even scientists say they don't fully understand it, yet can predict it for all kinds of things as well as graity measurements on planets as far as you want to think.

And people believe this shit. It's bastard shocking that so called intelligent people actually still believe it when they can see the reality.

Denspressure can't explain why weight changes with acceleration,  ( remember the lift and the zero G aeroplane. )

it can't explain why things still weight the same in vacuum,   it can't explain why things still weigh nearly the same at high altitude. 

And yes,  gravity does elegantly explain all of those things,  as well as tides,  orbits of the planets,  orbit of the earth around the sun,  in fact everything we observe up to galactic scales, at those scales it seems to fail,  but if might just be that it is predicting the existence of dark matter.   Denspressure fails at the very very basics.

Gravity is not magic,   at least not at the level we are discussing.    I think you are too deep into the conspiracy mind set to see the reality,   that's your choice not mine.
Well, it seems like we've hit a dead end. You have tried your best to disprove denpressure and only made it stronger.
Your gravity is getting weaker (pardon the pun) by the second and will be seen through by many, in due course.

Good try but just not good enough. I can see the desperation in your post that you have nothing else to add.
Send someone else in or up your game.

I never expected to change you mind,  but I hope I rattled a few neurons,  either way,   we did make a little progress and who knows,  just a few more steps and you might get there.   

Thanks for an interesting  debate.


Title: Re: Disproof of gravity
Post by: Master_Evar on July 09, 2015, 02:51:34 AM