The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Danang on January 18, 2021, 07:09:54 PM

Title: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Danang on January 18, 2021, 07:09:54 PM


Flat Earth is coming to schools???
Yeah free fall object has to do with flat earth + Downwards Universal Deceleration. 👌
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sokarul on January 18, 2021, 07:12:04 PM
Ducking hell.

Hot air is less dense so it rises.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on January 18, 2021, 07:16:43 PM


Flat Earth is coming to schools???
Yeah free fall object has to do with flat earth + Downwards Universal Deceleration. 👌

You're joking, right?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Bullwinkle on January 18, 2021, 07:19:41 PM
fire is made of boner
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Danang on January 18, 2021, 08:05:54 PM
Even the smaller mass the easier to fall, if gravity existed.

About boner, that's a good info. Let me research about it later. 👌
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 19, 2021, 12:57:45 AM
Even the smaller mass the easier to fall, if gravity existed.
Not if it has to push denser mass out of the way.

Do it in a vacuum and see what happens.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Timeisup on January 19, 2021, 04:09:33 AM
Even the smaller mass the easier to fall, if gravity existed.
Not if it has to push denser mass out of the way.

Do it in a vacuum and see what happens.

Do it in a vacuum! What would you expect with no oxygen to support combustion?... unless like on a spacecraft the lighter had both fuel and an O2 supply.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Danang on January 19, 2021, 10:08:21 AM
Even the smaller mass the easier to fall, if gravity existed.
Not if it has to push denser mass out of the way.

Do it in a vacuum and see what happens.

In vacuum, with rocket toy experiment, the fire goes horizontal. The smoke ain't fall in 1g.

So you try again  8)
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Timeisup on January 19, 2021, 10:57:07 AM
Even the smaller mass the easier to fall, if gravity existed.
Not if it has to push denser mass out of the way.

Do it in a vacuum and see what happens.

In vacuum, with rocket toy experiment, the fire goes horizontal. The smoke ain't fall in 1g.

So you try again  8)

You think?   Think again.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sokarul on January 19, 2021, 11:14:22 AM
Even the smaller mass the easier to fall, if gravity existed.
Not if it has to push denser mass out of the way.

Do it in a vacuum and see what happens.

In vacuum, with rocket toy experiment, the fire goes horizontal. The smoke ain't fall in 1g.

So you try again  8)

Fluid dynamics does not state it would fall at one G. Try again.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 19, 2021, 11:56:04 AM
In vacuum, with rocket toy experiment, the fire goes horizontal. The smoke ain't fall in 1g.
No, not a rocket fire. You need it to basically sit there, not fly out so it would hit the side of the container before it has a chance to fall.
So try again.

Or just acknowledge the much denser air around the flame in your experiment and thus accept it is 100% in accordance with gravity.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Danang on January 19, 2021, 04:25:38 PM
The fire goes horizontal. The smoke is not strong enough to lift the fire like in open air.



The bonus:
In aeronautic, thrust requires a closed system -- in which there is glass wall -- for realizing action-reaction mechanism.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Danang on January 19, 2021, 04:27:26 PM
Dome is Real.  8)
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sokarul on January 19, 2021, 04:52:22 PM
The fire goes horizontal. The smoke is not strong enough to lift the fire like in open air.



The bonus:
In aeronautic, thrust requires a closed system -- in which there is glass wall -- for realizing action-reaction mechanism.
Draw a force diagram.

Rocket engines donít need a glass wall.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Danang on January 19, 2021, 05:04:21 PM
@Sokarul

So.. what makes action-reaction mechanism?

The rocket toy accepts a reaction because of the smoke hitting from behind, or from reverse direction of the action. And it requires a closed system in which there is a wall resisting the smoke, so that the smoke goes back towards the rocket toy to make a thrust.

Vacuum cannot give the thrust as you saw at the beginning of the firing. After the smoke sufficiently fill the cylinder, it's not vacuum anymore.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Danang on January 19, 2021, 05:06:40 PM
Magical reaction?  :o
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sokarul on January 19, 2021, 05:07:58 PM
Nope.

There is a 100+ page thread stating you are wrong.


Thrust comes from the velocity and mass of exhaust of the rocket. Equal and opposite of it.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 19, 2021, 07:56:22 PM
The fire goes horizontal.
Yes, because of how fast it is going.
You can do the same with a jet lighter in open air.

In aeronautic, thrust requires a closed system
Nope. It requires action-reaction.
A closed system cannot develop thrust, the centre of mass must remain moving without any change.

Planes work by moving air, the action-reaction pair is accelerating the air backwards and accelerating the plane forwards.

A rocket works in a similar manner, but provides its own air, the pair is the air/exhaust accelerating backwards, and the rocket accelerating forwards.

Vacuum cannot give the thrust as you saw at the beginning of the firing.
No, even at the beginning it gives thrust. What you are confused about is the ignition of the rocket is not simultaneous. It starts off at a very low power, and then rapidly builds up.
So the thrust increases as it all starts burning.

If you wish to disagree, tell us what accelerates the air backwards to leave the rocket.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Timeisup on January 20, 2021, 12:24:02 AM
@Sokarul

So.. what makes action-reaction mechanism?

The rocket toy accepts a reaction because of the smoke hitting from behind, or from reverse direction of the action. And it requires a closed system in which there is a wall resisting the smoke, so that the smoke goes back towards the rocket toy to make a thrust.

Vacuum cannot give the thrust as you saw at the beginning of the firing. After the smoke sufficiently fill the cylinder, it's not vacuum anymore.

Itís really quite a display of ignorance on this thread. Fire of course points upwards! For thousands of years candles and other wick based light sources have used flames for illumination and they have all pointed upward! As for them proving gravity does not exist!!!
 A ball kicked or thrown upwards will move in that direction. You whenever you stand or raise arm or head are opposing gravity..... what happens when you trip? Or when the ball stops rising after being kicked. Or you drop a cup or plate?
If you cant even understand those simple concepts what makes you think you can understand and comment on rocked based combustion and thrust?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Groit on January 20, 2021, 08:22:55 AM
Vacuum cannot give the thrust as you saw at the beginning of the firing. After the smoke sufficiently fill the cylinder, it's not vacuum anymore.

Rockets are actually more efficient in a vacuum. As you can see in the equation for thrust, when P0 (atmospheric pressure) is zero then the thrust is at its maximum.

(https://i.imgur.com/3Vx3XcM.png) 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Danang on January 20, 2021, 11:50:37 AM
Wow you guys read a book and then you forward its idea without question.  :o

Thrust ain't have to do with what's in the book. It also ain't magic.
Thrust is real, it needs a hitting by the air mass from behind. It's the closed system that allows such thrust.

Back to my experiment...

My proposition is Downwards Universal Deceleration in which the entire earth's close system -- along with the air -- is hit by the velociting downwards fire which in turn will make the fire goes upwards.
(Or if you use UA model: 👉 the air hit the fire upwards).

Let's be simple.

If the lighter's fire goes upwards, it NEEDS some amount of energy from below to make it goes upwards.

WHAT IF the position of the lighter is changed to be 👉 vertical (not horizontal as shown in the video),

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ5p0iFm1dqIlHOSDB7pt_PBTpgA7vsSKN-fw&usqp=CAU)

In order to make the fire goes horizontal, you need to store similar amount of energy, say, with mouth blowing, while you know a horizontal "magnet" doesn't count. It's irrelevant.

Precisely, if you blow the fire from the left side, the fire will go rightwards. No magnet from the left to pull the fire leftwards.

"Left side magnet doesn't exist".

If you claim there is a magnet at the left side. It might be the case only in the dream.👌
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 20, 2021, 12:07:29 PM
Thrust is real
Yes, thrust for a rocket is real. All it needs is to be expelling gas/exhaust behind it,

Again, all it takes is a simple question:
What accelerates the exhaust to cause it to leave the rocket at such high velocity?

That demands a reactionary force which can only act on the rocket.

Back to my experiment...
You mean your experiment that is entirely consistent with gravity where the low density gas rises due to all the much denser gas around it?

Like I said, if you want to use this as evidence against gravity, you need to remove all that low density gas around it, yet still have it slow.

The only other option would be to light it in a 0-g environment.

Either way, a flame like that doesn't work well.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: itsanoblatespheroid on January 20, 2021, 12:47:38 PM
Wow you guys read a book and then you forward its idea without question.  :o

Thrust ain't have to do with what's in the book. It also ain't magic.
Thrust is real, it needs a hitting by the air mass from behind. It's the closed system that allows such thrust.

Back to my experiment...

My proposition is Downwards Universal Deceleration in which the entire earth's close system -- along with the air -- is hit by the velociting downwards fire which in turn will make the fire goes upwards.
(Or if you use UA model: 👉 the air hit the fire upwards).

Let's be simple.

If the lighter's fire goes upwards, it NEEDS some amount of energy from below to make it goes upwards.

WHAT IF the position of the lighter is changed to be 👉 vertical (not horizontal as shown in the video),

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ5p0iFm1dqIlHOSDB7pt_PBTpgA7vsSKN-fw&usqp=CAU)

In order to make the fire goes horizontal, you need to store similar amount of energy, say, with mouth blowing, while you know a horizontal "magnet" doesn't count. It's irrelevant.

Precisely, if you blow the fire from the left side, the fire will go rightwards. No magnet from the left to pull the fire leftwards.

"Left side magnet doesn't exist".

If you claim there is a magnet at the left side. It might be the case only in the dream.👌

Because of density (p = m/v), hot air rises. This is because, when something has an increase in energy, its molecules become more active and "bounce" around, thus becoming less dense. When this happens to a certain degree, it becomes less dense than the surrounding air, thus, it can float. It's not because of any Downwards Acceleration mumbo jumbo; just simple math and physics. And because of Newton's third law, when you blow it on the left side, it goes rightwards.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sokarul on January 20, 2021, 01:07:38 PM
No air needed.

(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Danang on January 20, 2021, 11:47:10 PM
If such blowing from below doesn't exist, how can you certain that gravity produce air dense on the ground? (Which is also doesn't exist).

The thing is, our universe is traveling downwards so that the detached fire -- with faster velocity than the earth -- gets colided against the decelerating air, which in turn makes the fire goes up as much as the vertical fire (as comparison) goes horizontal.
Where is such blowing energy?

Try again  8)
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 21, 2021, 03:16:02 AM
If such blowing from below does exist, how can you certain that gravity produce air dense on the ground?
Measurements of it and simple logic.

There are quite a few ways to explain it. One is like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)
Any layer of air needs to support all the weight of the air above.
As you go down through the air, more and more weight is added, and thus the pressure increases.

You can also do some simple math. If you have a column, with an cross sectional area of A, and a height of h, with the pressure pushing down at the top of P, the column is made of air with a density of p:
The volume of the column is A*h.
The mass is p*A*h.
The weight is g*p*A*h.
The force due to the pressure at the top is P*A.
The force at the bottom is P*A + g*p*A*h
The pressure at the bottom is (P*A + g*p*A*h)/A=P+g*p*h

And this pressure is hydrostatic. If it wasn't constant at the bottom, the higher pressure would push outwards.
So if you have 2 columns of air, side by side, where they each have a different density, the greater density air will push the lower density air out of the way, pushing it up so the more dense air falls and the less dense air rises.


This is also why and other fluids are self-leveling.

Try again  8)
Why? You are the one who needs to try again.
You still haven't got your candle flame without gas around it, nor have you got a flame in 0g.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 21, 2021, 03:20:23 AM
No air needed.

(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
In a one of your vacuums, is he?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 21, 2021, 03:41:31 AM
No air needed.

(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
In a one of your vacuums, is he?
The air plays no significant role, as easily demonstrated by varying the weight of the thrown object while keeping the volume the same.

And the simple question, what force accelerates the ball and what is the reactionary force in that force pair?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 21, 2021, 04:01:26 AM
fire is made of boner

Unfortunately yours wouldnt make too big of a fire :/
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 21, 2021, 04:14:48 AM
No air needed.

(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
In a one of your vacuums, is he?
The air plays no significant role, as easily demonstrated by varying the weight of the thrown object while keeping the volume the same.

And the simple question, what force accelerates the ball and what is the reactionary force in that force pair?
You have to look at how much air in front of the person is being pushed away and actually replaced.


The medicine ball is dense. It is much much less porous than a air filled ball of a similar size....meaning, it displaces much more air by its overall dense mass.

The person who uses their own energy to not only pick it up, also uses it to throw that ball, meaning they add the movement of their own mass against the air around that movement. In this case, their bent to outstretched arms.


Once that ball is pushed into the air....and notice the angle it is thrown at..... that ball compresses the air it's pushed into whilst the air it was initially displacing rushes in, immediately to fill that lower pressure void, causing a crash back towards the person who threw it, which moves that person a little.

It has absolutely everything to do with air and it has everything to do with equal action and reaction upon the overall dense mass of the objects in play..
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sokarul on January 21, 2021, 04:45:45 AM
Just stop. You were played out 5 years ago.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 21, 2021, 12:28:41 PM
You have to look at how much air in front of the person is being pushed away and actually replaced.
Yes, basically nothing.

The medicine ball is dense. It is much much less porous than a air filled ball of a similar size
The fact that air doesn't go through it and instead goes around it means that is irrelevant. Any air that is inside the ball is just part of the ball.
Again, the fact that it is the mass of the ball that determines how fast/for you go back and how much force you need to apply shows that the air is basically irrelavent.

If it was actually the air, the mass of the ball would not matter, and instead it would be the size of the ball.

The person who uses their own energy to not only pick it up, also uses it to throw that ball
Meaning they push the ball in one direction and the ball pushes them in the other.
Simple action and reaction.
No need to invoke the air.


It has absolutely everything to do with air and it has everything to do with equal action and reaction upon the overall dense mass of the objects in play..
Close, it has basically nothing to do with the air and it has everything to do with equal action and reaction upon the overall dense mass of the objects in play.

Person applies force to accelerate heavy ball (action) and the ball in turn applies a force to accelerate person (reaction).

Pretty simple when you don't want to add in a bunch of nonsensical complexity to pretend there is a massive problem with physics.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 21, 2021, 09:25:05 PM
You have to look at how much air in front of the person is being pushed away and actually replaced.
Yes, basically nothing.

And this is where you fail.
A bird can lift with the flap of its wings. I wonder why, if air is irrelevant.
You negate the air because it kills your gravity and it really is as simple as that.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 21, 2021, 10:45:57 PM
And this is where you fail.
No, this is where you fail.
You continually reject reality and refuse to answer simple questions.

Again, what accelerates the ball?

There are really only 2 options.
1 - The air. In this case the reactionary force is on the air, and there is no reason at all for the person to move. The person is merely acting as a force conduit to transfer the force from the air to the ball.
2 - The person. The simplest and most logical option. The person, by extending their arms, applies a force to accelerate the ball. This results in a reactionary force of the ball pushing on the person.

Option 2 is the only one which explains why the person moves, and it doesn't need the air to explain it.

If you want to replace the small, dense ball with a giant fan that the person swings back and forth, or a similarly small, but low density ball (like a balloon), then you can bring air into it.

A bird can lift with the flap of its wings
A light weight, high surface area object moving quickly through the air.
So nothing like the scenario here.

If air was the only thing that mattered, the weight of a bird shouldn't matter, and you should be able to fly by flapping your arms.
And again, if the air was the only thing that mattered, the weight of the ball wouldn't matter.

You negate the air because it kills your gravity and it really is as simple as that.
If you are referring to your denp BS, when we last left that it was implicitly relying upon gravity to explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, and just completely failing to explain anything other than why an object sitting on the ground has a force applied to it.

I negate the air in this situation because it is insignificant.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 21, 2021, 11:14:57 PM
A bird can lift with the flap of its wings
A light weight, high surface area object moving quickly through the air.
So nothing like the scenario here.

If air was the only thing that mattered, the weight of a bird shouldn't matter, and you should be able to fly by flapping your arms.
And again, if the air was the only thing that mattered, the weight of the ball wouldn't matter.


Let's work it out.
If you had a container with a lid that was slightly bigger than a medicine ball and you placed that medicine ball into that container and placed the lid on....where does all the air go from inside that container?

Is the air irrelevant that was originally inside that container?

If you were to place a plunger into that empty (except for air) container and that plunger fitted that container wall so as to not leak air, then you pushed down onto it...how long before that push of the plunger, by you, would it take before that air stopped you compressing it?

Is it irrelevant?

If that plunger had a hole in it as you pushed down, you would push that air up through that hole by using your dense mass of pressure upon that plunger and the result would be to push/compress that air under it which is pushed through the hole and back behind the plunger along with the external atmosphere already upon the backside of that plunger.
Once your plunger hits the bottom of the container, where has all that air went?

If you were to have that container hanging up and on its side and had a medicine ball to throw at it, would the container move before the medicine ball hits it?


Air is massively relevant because air is the reason why everything works and the very reason why equal and opposite reaction to action, occurs.

There is absolutely no such thing as gravity unless the word atmosphere is replaced by gravity, which is when we'd know for sure what gravity was and what it does...and why.

The problem with that is, it kills off the vacuum and space....etc.

Gravity as a force, is absolute nonsense. It's simply made up to make the world work in a fictional universe and really should be seen for that It really takes very little basic thought to understand how naff it is.




Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 21, 2021, 11:21:11 PM
I'll make this more simpler.

If you were on a skateboard with your medicine ball, inside a big tube and threw that medicine ball, do you think you'd compress the air in that tube and if so, where does that air go?
Does it go around the medicine ball and back towards you on the skateboard, which would push you the opposite way?
If you think it wouldn't, then explain why?

As soon as you understand the basics, you also understand how and why atmosphere is the sole cause and effect and nothing to do with gravity.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 21, 2021, 11:31:02 PM
Let's work it out.
You sure do love ignoring simple questions.

Lets not deal with the bird, and instead lets deal with the situation at hand?

What is accelerating the ball?
The only simple, logical answer is the person.
The person is applying a force to the ball. This results in a reactionary force to move the person.

There is no need for any air.

If you had a container with a lid that was slightly bigger than a medicine ball
You would not be in the situation of throwing such a ball in a very large room.
Again, can you deal with the situation at hand rather than trying to completely change it to pretend air is needed?

The fact that that is such a drastically different situation, and that by having the container a significantly different size you get a completely different result, shows that air is not the cause in this case.


There is absolutely no such thing as gravity unless the word atmosphere is replaced by gravity
Only in your delusional fantasies.
In reality, the atmosphere and gravity function in vastly different ways.
The atmosphere pushes in response to pressure gradients. This means it pushes up, and is the reason why the low density air of the fire rises.
Gravity instead pushes down. And it is gravity pushing down which creates the pressure gradient in the atmosphere in the first place.

The problem with that is, it kills
The only thing it kills is any credibility you have.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Danang on January 21, 2021, 11:40:08 PM
If the lighter position is vertical, it needs certain amount of energy (from side) to bend its fire.

When the lighter position is horizontal, the similar amount of energy (from below) is supposed to exist, in fact not. The existence of the blowing energy is supposed to be felt/tangible (as occuring in the vertical lighter). That's not the case.

The actual air is relatively in the same pressure everywhere, That indicates: such blowing energy doesn't exist.

So where does such energy come from?

Surely not from gravity. It's all about DUD or the traveling universe.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 21, 2021, 11:54:34 PM

You sure do love ignoring simple questions.

It appears you do.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on January 22, 2021, 12:16:10 AM
Just stop. You were played out 5 years ago.

Five years?  Is that how long this has been going on?

Kind of hilarious, and also quite sad.  He imagines he has discovered a great hidden truth of the world, and what has he done?  Used the past years mindlessly bickering about it on a backwater internet site.  He has convinced no one, performed no demonstrative experiments, invented no new thoughts on how this knowledge he has obtained can help us. 

No, he knows this is played out - he cant share this with anyone, do anything, or take it any farther.

All that is left for him is impotent self deception and pretending that by still arguing it, he hasnt actually lost.   

I would feel sorry for him if he wasn't such a jerk to everyone. 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 22, 2021, 12:40:29 AM
You sure do love ignoring simple questions.
It appears you do.
Try asking one that is on topic, rather than intentionally trying to change the subject to pretend air is required for everything.

Again:
What force is pushing the ball away?

When the lighter position is horizontal, the similar amount of energy (from below) is supposed to exist, in fact not. The existence of the blowing energy is supposed to be felt/tangible (as occuring in the vertical lighter). That's not the case.
That is because it isn't blowing. It is the air directly around it.

The actual air is relatively in the same pressure everywhere
But there is a pressure gradient, which is well known. The pressure is greater the lower down you go.

So where does such energy come from?
Surely not from gravity.
Gravity is what causes the air to have a pressure gradient in the first place.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 22, 2021, 06:31:57 AM
You sure do love ignoring simple questions.
It appears you do.
Try asking one that is on topic, rather than intentionally trying to change the subject to pretend air is required for everything.

Again:
What force is pushing the ball away?


The energy applied to it by the person.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sokarul on January 22, 2021, 06:35:30 AM
So if I jump off the ground I can then jump off the air?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 22, 2021, 07:21:26 AM
So if I jump off the ground I can then jump off the air?
I don't think we are talking about using the ground to jump off, so what are you talking about?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sokarul on January 22, 2021, 07:27:08 AM
Every one knows they can jump off the ground. See basketball players. Iím wondering if I first jump off the ground can I then jump off the air?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 22, 2021, 07:30:10 AM
Every one knows they can jump off the ground. See basketball players. Iím wondering if I first jump off the ground can I then jump off the air?
Why would you need to jump off the air?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sokarul on January 22, 2021, 07:35:08 AM
Maybe this will help:
Quote from: sokarul
...
Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?


Quote from: sokarul link=Etopic=74250.msg2022893#msg2022893 date=1518300242
You should learn how to double jump. You know, like in video games. You jump and then jump in air to get s double jump. Since you can push off air and all.



Iím not a question of need, itís a question if itís possible.

Is it possible to jump off air like a rocket and medicine ball ďjumpĒ off air?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 22, 2021, 07:45:47 AM
Maybe this will help:
Quote from: sokarul
...
Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?


Quote from: sokarul link=Etopic=74250.msg2022893#msg2022893 date=1518300242
You should learn how to double jump. You know, like in video games. You jump and then jump in air to get s double jump. Since you can push off air and all.



Iím not a question of need, itís a question if itís possible.

Is it possible to jump off air like a rocket and medicine ball ďjumpĒ off air?
Yes it's possible but why are you asking this?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sokarul on January 22, 2021, 07:57:20 AM
Do you have any video of people jumping off the air? I tried it but I canít.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 22, 2021, 08:02:42 AM
Do you have any video of people jumping off the air? I tried it but I canít.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sokarul on January 22, 2021, 08:07:50 AM
So no. I didnít think so.

You will never beat me.


For the others, sceptitank is just using recycled arguments. One of my quotes was from 2017. He was long destroyed on this topic. Just ignore the North Korean.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 22, 2021, 08:09:57 AM
So no. I didnít think so.

You will never beat me.


For the others, sceptitank is just using recycled arguments. One of my quotes was from 2017. He was long destroyed on this topic. Just ignore the North Korean.
Maybe the video didn't show up where you live.
Never mind.
It shows people being catapulted up with compressed air trapped inside a thin membrane.


Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 22, 2021, 12:25:46 PM
You sure do love ignoring simple questions.
It appears you do.
Try asking one that is on topic, rather than intentionally trying to change the subject to pretend air is required for everything.

Again:
What force is pushing the ball away?


The energy applied to it by the person.
And thus by the law of action-reaction, that means the ball is accelerating the person.

i.e. no need for any air.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 23, 2021, 01:47:59 AM
You sure do love ignoring simple questions.
It appears you do.
Try asking one that is on topic, rather than intentionally trying to change the subject to pretend air is required for everything.

Again:
What force is pushing the ball away?


The energy applied to it by the person.
And thus by the law of action-reaction, that means the ball is accelerating the person.

i.e. no need for any air.
But you know fine well the ball cannot push back. It has to create a resistance to the person's push.
That resistance is?.......................?

Atmospheric pressure.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 23, 2021, 02:49:12 AM
But you know fine well the ball cannot push back.
No, I know that it can.
The fact that it takes energy to accelerate is the resistance. It is called inertia, something you hate as it destroys your attacks on science.
It takes a force to accelerate the ball.
This force exists as part of an action-reaction pair.
The action is the person applying a force to accelerate the ball.
The reaction is the ball applying a force to accelerate the person.

Nice and simple.

No need to invoke any air.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 23, 2021, 05:24:13 AM
But you know fine well the ball cannot push back.
No, I know that it can.
The fact that it takes energy to accelerate is the resistance. It is called inertia, something you hate as it destroys your attacks on science.
It takes a force to accelerate the ball.
This force exists as part of an action-reaction pair.
The action is the person applying a force to accelerate the ball.
The reaction is the ball applying a force to accelerate the person.

Nice and simple.

No need to invoke any air.
I'm going to give you a scenario and see if you can answer it honestly and without bias.



 You have a medicine ball at the front end of a  tube that is sealed at the other end and that tube is horizontal and affixed to a wall at the sealed end.
You are on a skateboard holding a medicine ball that is just smaller than the tube. Just enough to hold it in one hand while you have the other hand to push it.
With the palm of your hand you push as hard as you can on that ball.

Immediately you feel the skateboard going in the opposite direction to your push and quite a rate of movement.
You also notice the ball didn't go anywhere near the other end of the tube, because it seemed to have something that prevented it that you could feel on that push.

So here's some questions and I'd appreciate as many people answering to this and not just globalists.

1. Do you believe the medicine ball compressed the air inside that tube?

2. Do you think the medicine ball compressing that air was due to your energy in pushing it to cause that compression?

3. Do you believe a reaction to this would be for the air to decompress and find a way past the medicine ball as much as it pushes back on that medicine ball by the energy applied to it, as in, action and equal and opposite,reaction?

4.Do you believe the reaction against your push in due to this and is why the skateboard is pushed backwards due to it having little friction, nor high resistance to that push?



Scenario 2.


Turn the tube vertically plumb, or close to it and affix the sealed end to a ceiling or a fairly solid resistance.

Hold the medicine ball in the palm of your hand whilst standing on a small trampoline.
Now you push the medicine ball up the tube with as much force as you can muster.

You feel the trampoline resistance underfoot being stretched and being pushed down. You know for sure it isn't being pulled down from under you...right? If you think it is, then tell me why?

Anyway, logic can tell you your energy and push on that medicine ball has compressed the air inside the tube and the harder and faster you push, the more compressed to make the air inside of that tube and that air creates an opposite reaction to that action, equally, which is why the trampoline springs stretch and the cloth moves down.

I think any logical person can understand this.



Now then, if you were to do the very same experiments without the tube you will lose a lot of reactionary compression of air but the initial compression of it is enough to cause opposite movement, albeit much less, as we see with the skateboard experiment that the little lad put up, earlier on.


The more densely packed an object is, the more atmosphere is displaces. For example: the medicine ball.
The less densely packed and object is, the less atmosphere it displaces. For example: a thin skinned air filled football.

Let's deal with the throwing of these two balls, on that skateboard.

The medicine ball resists a lot of air around it with it's dense make up of matter displacing it. To give you an example and a mindset on what that means, just think of it being in water and how much water that ball would displace by it's very own mass, if it was submerged.
You can understand that very little water could penetrate it except what was already within it, in between the mass of matter it's made up from (think back to air).

If you were to stop time/movement and take that medicine ball out of the water, it would leave a cartoon like gap of it. This is what it was displacing.
To understand the pressure upon that ball, restart time and movement and watch as the water crashes into the gap left by the ball.
Quite a push...right?
Ok, transfer that to it being in atmosphere and displacing the atmosphere just the same and stopping time and movement, then take away the ball and you see the same kind of thing. the cartoon gap.
Restart time and movement and the atmosphere crashes in to fill that gap.

A lot of pressure that is overlooked in favour of fictional gravity.

Now let's go to the football with the thin skin and air and go back to the water analogy.

You have a football filled with water in water and separated by a skin that displaces the water. The water inside of it is already part of the water outside but is trapped inside by the thin skin.
So basically the thin skin is all that is displacing the water, which means it is under little pressure.
To gain a better understanding of it, you have to burst that ball and release the water. You now have a small skin that, if folded up tight, would be minimal in size.

Let's go back to air.
The ball is air and skin against air.
It has little displacement of it, provable by bursting it and folding it up to show that.














Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 23, 2021, 12:09:35 PM
But you know fine well the ball cannot push back.
No, I know that it can.
The fact that it takes energy to accelerate is the resistance. It is called inertia, something you hate as it destroys your attacks on science.
It takes a force to accelerate the ball.
This force exists as part of an action-reaction pair.
The action is the person applying a force to accelerate the ball.
The reaction is the ball applying a force to accelerate the person.

Nice and simple.

No need to invoke any air.
I'm going to give you a scenario and see if you can answer it honestly and without bias.
How about you try to ask questions directly related to the topic, rather than you trying to change the topic and situation to pretend air is needed.
Again, the fact that you get such a different result when you make it so much harder to move air out of the way shows that air is not a significant factor in this experiment.

Like I have explained repeatedly, the situation is quite simple and there is no need to invoke the air.
The person applies a force to the ball to accelerate it.
This means there MUST be an equal and opposite reaction where the ball applies a force to the person.

Now then, if you were to do the very same experiments without the tube
You turn it into a completely different situation.
In your situations, the ball was acting as a seal and a mechanism of force transfer.
You were using the ball to push on the air.
You can achieve the same effect regardless of what object you use to seal the tube, as long as it is rigid enough.
It could be a plunger that is a few hundred grams, or a solid metal ball that is a few 10s of kgs.
You have the same effect because the ball itself is not being accelerated any significant amount.

But when you take it out of the tube, it is then completely different.
The ball is then accelerating significantly.
And now, the force you can achieve and the acceleration depends on the ball.
You can accelerate a low density ball quite quickly, with minimal force and thus it doesn't' accelerate you a lot.
But if you use a medium density ball, you can achieve similar acceleration with a greater force and it accelerates you significantly.
And if you use an even higher density ball, you can make it so you can't actually apply a large enough force to accelerate it to the same speed.


The more densely packed an object is, the more atmosphere is displaces. For example: the medicine ball.
The less densely packed and object is, the less atmosphere it displaces. For example: a thin skinned air filled football.
No, it doesn't.
Even if you want to claim there is magically air trapped inside it, the 2 objects displace the same amount of air when they move.
Again, you can try this by doing your experiment and measuring the forces involved.

We can also determine this by looking at what happens to the 2 objects after they are thrown.
If you do it with a balloon, the vast majority of the horizontal speed is lost almost straight after you release it.
But if you try it with a dense object, it continues to move with no significant change in horizontal speed until it hits a solid object.

If your nonsense was correct, and the only thing providing a resistance to motion was the displacement of air, then they should follow the exact same trajectory.
The fact they don't shows there is something other than the air resisting changes in motion, and that is the mass of the objects.
When you throw the light object, it has a low mass and thus is easily accelerated. It flowing through the air causes air resistance to try to slow it down with a force based upon velocity and the amount of air displaced. Its low mass and thus low resistance to changes in motion allows the air to easily stop it.
When you throw the heavy object, it has a large mass and thus is difficult to accelerate. It flowing through the air causes air resistance to try to slow it down with a force based upon velocity and the amount of air displaced. But its large mass and thus large resistance to changes in motion makes it much harder for the air to stop it, so it takes a lot longer for the air to stop it.


A lot of pressure that is overlooked in favour of fictional gravity.
Pressure that is "overlooked" because it plays no significant role.
Gravity is not what is replacing it, and gravity is certainly real.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 24, 2021, 01:17:22 AM
The more densely packed an object is, the more atmosphere is displaces. For example: the medicine ball.
The less densely packed and object is, the less atmosphere it displaces. For example: a thin skinned air filled football.
No, it doesn't.
Even if you want to claim there is magically air trapped inside it, the 2 objects displace the same amount of air when they move.
Again, you can try this by doing your experiment and measuring the forces involved.

Are you seriously trying to tell me there is no air trapped inside those balls?
Surely you can't be pushing that line.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 24, 2021, 01:57:07 AM
The more densely packed an object is, the more atmosphere is displaces. For example: the medicine ball.
The less densely packed and object is, the less atmosphere it displaces. For example: a thin skinned air filled football.
No, it doesn't.
Even if you want to claim there is magically air trapped inside it, the 2 objects displace the same amount of air when they move.
Again, you can try this by doing your experiment and measuring the forces involved.

Are you seriously trying to tell me there is no air trapped inside those balls?
Surely you can't be pushing that line.
No, I am saying when you move the balls you are displacing the same around it.

If you want to get to more detail, you actually move more air with the balloon and in your fantasy more air inside any low density object, because not only are you moving the air around it, but also the air in it.
That means a lower density object should be harder to accelerate and you should be able to easily push off it.
But yet again, your nonsense fails to match reality.

Again, the simple explanation is the person applies a force to the ball and the ball applies a force back.
No need to invoke your magic air.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 24, 2021, 06:26:38 AM
Maybe this will help:
Quote from: sokarul
...
Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?


Quote from: sokarul link=Etopic=74250.msg2022893#msg2022893 date=1518300242
You should learn how to double jump. You know, like in video games. You jump and then jump in air to get s double jump. Since you can push off air and all.



Iím not a question of need, itís a question if itís possible.

Is it possible to jump off air like a rocket and medicine ball ďjumpĒ off air?


Anything else you need to know?
It's not gravity that's pushing that egg into the bottle.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 24, 2021, 06:37:27 AM

Again, the simple explanation is the person applies a force to the ball and the ball applies a force back.
No need to invoke your magic air.
The reason a ball applies a force back is due to that ball having a resistance to its dense mass and your hands pushing on that ball and against that resistance (air pressure), is what propels you back a little.

No gravity needed and no gravity can be explained from this point.
If you think it can, then explain it.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sokarul on January 24, 2021, 06:48:56 AM
Maybe this will help:
Quote from: sokarul
...
Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?


Quote from: sokarul link=Etopic=74250.msg2022893#msg2022893 date=1518300242
You should learn how to double jump. You know, like in video games. You jump and then jump in air to get s double jump. Since you can push off air and all.



Iím not a question of need, itís a question if itís possible.

Is it possible to jump off air like a rocket and medicine ball ďjumpĒ off air?


Anything else you need to know?
It's not gravity that's pushing that egg into the bottle.
You are trying to make a point but all you are doing is furthering my point. You canít explain why I canít jump off air. A 100 ton rocket can push off air but I canít? Makes no sense.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Shifter on January 24, 2021, 07:47:39 AM
I think we can all agree that the concept of gravity is not completely understood. We know something exists but we don't know what it is. We notice a behaviour but we don't understand exactly the how or why

My existence on this Earth is not insignificant. My presence here, the coalescence of mass I've put together has a non zero measurable effect that will eventually affect the orbit of the exoplanet OGLE-2014-BLG-0124L. Hell, even an alien babe banging her mate far in the future in a far away galaxy will unwittingly be affected by me even if she'll never notice it  :'(

Of course, no one could ever craft a tool sensitive enough to detect the attraction but the number is not zero
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 24, 2021, 08:54:52 AM
I think we can all agree that the concept of gravity is not completely understood. We know something exists but we don't know what it is. We notice a behaviour but we don't understand exactly the how or why

We can all agree that nothing is, or ever will be completely understood.  No matter how much we know, there will always be one more 'why' to look into. You can never 'get to the bottom'. You can always ask why one more time.

But that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat.

Remember, even Flat Earth theory is susceptible to the same objections, they can never ever fully explain anything either.  So any objection you bring up about not knowing EVERYTHING about gravity can be used against any of their theories to dismiss them too.

I can never measure a piece of wood exactly, no matter how exact I get, it will never be exact. That doesn't mean that I can't cut a board to fit a bench. You can't tell me that I have no idea how big a board is that I measured down to 1/100th of an inch because I don't know it's length to 1/1000th of an inch.

If you want to argue that because we will never fully understand everything, that all our knowledge is useless, well I present the entire civilization we have built on those foundations.  Science seems to be doing pretty well.

To go back to your opening statement... we notice a behavior and have explained exactly HOW it behaves, to the point that every experiment performed gives exactly the results we predicted. Science deals with how, philosophy and religion deal with why. Don't get them mixed up.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: itsanoblatespheroid on January 24, 2021, 10:56:47 AM

Again, the simple explanation is the person applies a force to the ball and the ball applies a force back.
No need to invoke your magic air.
The reason a ball applies a force back is due to that ball having a resistance to its dense mass and your hands pushing on that ball and against that resistance (air pressure), is what propels you back a little.

No gravity needed and no gravity can be explained from this point.
If you think it can, then explain it.

The reason why you are propelled back when you throw a ball is because of Newton's third law which can be roughly outlined by the equation Fa = -Fb. This is also why rockets can propel themselves due to thrust (F = ṁeVe-ṁ0V0 + (pe - p0)Ae)

Maybe this will help:
Quote from: sokarul
...
Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?


Quote from: sokarul link=Etopic=74250.msg2022893#msg2022893 date=1518300242
You should learn how to double jump. You know, like in video games. You jump and then jump in air to get s double jump. Since you can push off air and all.



Iím not a question of need, itís a question if itís possible.

Is it possible to jump off air like a rocket and medicine ball ďjumpĒ off air?


Anything else you need to know?
It's not gravity that's pushing that egg into the bottle.

It is gravity that's pushing the egg into the bottle. Gravity is a force. Gravity pulls anything with mass (Fg = Gm1m2/r2). The air is rushing past the egg, making it vibrate, and then it gets pushed into the bottle because the pressure is so intense. Even if there are more causes than gravity for something to fall, like this case, the air pressure helps it fall into the bottle, gravity is still acting on it as eggs have mass.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Shifter on January 24, 2021, 11:11:15 AM
I think we can all agree that the concept of gravity is not completely understood. We know something exists but we don't know what it is. We notice a behaviour but we don't understand exactly the how or why

We can all agree that nothing is, or ever will be completely understood.  No matter how much we know, there will always be one more 'why' to look into. You can never 'get to the bottom'. You can always ask why one more time.

But that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat.

Remember, even Flat Earth theory is susceptible to the same objections, they can never ever fully explain anything either.  So any objection you bring up about not knowing EVERYTHING about gravity can be used against any of their theories to dismiss them too.

I can never measure a piece of wood exactly, no matter how exact I get, it will never be exact. That doesn't mean that I can't cut a board to fit a bench. You can't tell me that I have no idea how big a board is that I measured down to 1/100th of an inch because I don't know it's length to 1/1000th of an inch.

If you want to argue that because we will never fully understand everything, that all our knowledge is useless, well I present the entire civilization we have built on those foundations.  Science seems to be doing pretty well.

To go back to your opening statement... we notice a behavior and have explained exactly HOW it behaves, to the point that every experiment performed gives exactly the results we predicted. Science deals with how, philosophy and religion deal with why. Don't get them mixed up.

We don't even know how to classify gravity. Einstein argued that it was not a force at all. He described it as a space-time curvature caused by mass and energy. My point about gravity and the debate as to its existence is it's hard to have a reasonable debate when what we are debating about is still enigmatic

We know of particles associated with the other forces like the strong and weak nuclear force but have yet to find one regarding gravity. At this point the existence of the graviton is just a theory you can believe or not.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 24, 2021, 11:35:25 AM
I think we can all agree that the concept of gravity is not completely understood. We know something exists but we don't know what it is. We notice a behaviour but we don't understand exactly the how or why

We can all agree that nothing is, or ever will be completely understood.  No matter how much we know, there will always be one more 'why' to look into. You can never 'get to the bottom'. You can always ask why one more time.

But that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat.

Remember, even Flat Earth theory is susceptible to the same objections, they can never ever fully explain anything either.  So any objection you bring up about not knowing EVERYTHING about gravity can be used against any of their theories to dismiss them too.

I can never measure a piece of wood exactly, no matter how exact I get, it will never be exact. That doesn't mean that I can't cut a board to fit a bench. You can't tell me that I have no idea how big a board is that I measured down to 1/100th of an inch because I don't know it's length to 1/1000th of an inch.

If you want to argue that because we will never fully understand everything, that all our knowledge is useless, well I present the entire civilization we have built on those foundations.  Science seems to be doing pretty well.

To go back to your opening statement... we notice a behavior and have explained exactly HOW it behaves, to the point that every experiment performed gives exactly the results we predicted. Science deals with how, philosophy and religion deal with why. Don't get them mixed up.

We don't even know how to classify gravity. Einstein argued that it was not a force at all. He described it as a space-time curvature caused by mass and energy. My point about gravity and the debate as to its existence is it's hard to have a reasonable debate when what we are debating about is still enigmatic

We know of particles associated with the other forces like the strong and weak nuclear force but have yet to find one regarding gravity. At this point the existence of the graviton is just a theory you can believe or not.

These particles associated with the strong and weak nuclear force, what makes them up? And what makes up those things? And what makes those up, and those up? Why? Why? Why?

See, you can ask endless questions about everything. You seem to think gravity doesn't exist because we know more about other things? That's a weak argument.

Again, science explains how things work.  You are focusing on why, which is a valid discussion... if you are discussing philosophy.

Science is very, very good at describing how gravity works. From calculating orbits to bending light to detecting gravity waves to detecting the tug of spinning objects on the very fabric of spacetime itself.  Every experiment to verify Einstein's theories of time and space and gravity have resulted in exactly what was predicted.

If you think the theory of gravity is wrong, please provide an experiment that gives results contrary to what Einstein predicts.

We don't know everything, sure, and never will. What created the universe? Can you tell me?  If not, then it's hard to debate ANYTHING when what we are debating about is still enigmatic. Right? We all might as well just stop posting and asking questions forever since the entire universe is unknowable and nobody knows anything.  :P
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Shifter on January 24, 2021, 11:38:31 AM
We don't know everything, sure, and never will. What created the universe? Can you tell me?  If not, then it's hard to debate ANYTHING when what we are debating about is still enigmatic. Right? We all might as well just stop posting and asking questions forever since the entire universe is unknowable and nobody knows anything.  :P

But it's about the journey though, not the destination :P

I guess that sounds philosophical... Whoops :)
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 24, 2021, 11:46:22 AM
We don't know everything, sure, and never will. What created the universe? Can you tell me?  If not, then it's hard to debate ANYTHING when what we are debating about is still enigmatic. Right? We all might as well just stop posting and asking questions forever since the entire universe is unknowable and nobody knows anything.  :P

But it's about the journey though, not the destination :P

I guess that sounds philosophical... Whoops :)

Unless you're born on year 87 on a slower than light generation starship on it's way to Wolf 359 then it's literally about the journey, not the destination.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 24, 2021, 12:28:26 PM
The reason a ball applies a force back is due to that ball having a resistance to its dense mass
And that resistance is called inertia.
Again, we know it isn't the air, because it requires a dense mass to achieve a significant push by simply throwing it away like that.
If it was air pressure, any similar sized object will do.

Likewise, we know it isn't the air, because if it was, there is no reason for the air to be able to easily blow low density objects like feathers and paper while doing basically nothing to dense objects like the medicine ball or bowling ball and so on.
Likewise, we know it isn't the air, because if it was, then objects of different density would be stopped by the air and fall the same. But instead, low density objects like a balloon stop almost straight away when you throw them into the air, and just basically drift with quite a low velocity. But a medicine ball basically acts as if the air isn't there.

No gravity needed and no gravity can be explained from this point.
If you think it can, then explain it.
Gravity is not directly involved in this.
All gravity is doing is making it so objects don't just float away.
It is inertia that is involved in this.
All objects (with mass) take a force to accelerate them. The force required is based upon the mass.

Again, there is no need for your magic air, and simple reality shows that it is not the air that is responsible.

Again, it is very simple, the medicine ball has mass. It takes a force to accelerate that mass. The person applies a force to the ball. As a reactionary force the ball applies a force to accelerate the person.


Anything else you need to know?
It's not gravity that's pushing that egg into the bottle.
And this also demonstrates that air pressure won't normally just push things down.
Notice how the egg doesn't just magically get pushed in normally?
Instead it requires a significant pressure gradient.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 24, 2021, 10:30:13 PM
Maybe this will help:
Quote from: sokarul
...
Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?


Quote from: sokarul link=Etopic=74250.msg2022893#msg2022893 date=1518300242
You should learn how to double jump. You know, like in video games. You jump and then jump in air to get s double jump. Since you can push off air and all.



Iím not a question of need, itís a question if itís possible.

Is it possible to jump off air like a rocket and medicine ball ďjumpĒ off air?


Anything else you need to know?
It's not gravity that's pushing that egg into the bottle.
You are trying to make a point but all you are doing is furthering my point. You canít explain why I canít jump off air. A 100 ton rocket can push off air but I canít? Makes no sense.
You can jump off air but in order to do so you need to compress it enough to allow you the resistant foundation in order to do it.
If you stood on a deflated air bed you would be using the ground and a thin membrane as your foundation for your feet.
Inflate the airbed and you now use the membrane and air as your foundation to lever off.

But we aren't talking about jumping off air from a standing start to upright jump, we are talking about throwing an object that already displace air and which is thrown at an angle or arc trajectory in one direction to create a resistant force equal to that throw by compressing the air in that throw by the amount of mass that is already displacing the atmosphere.

Absolutely no need for gravity and you have zero explanation for what is happening by using it.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 24, 2021, 10:36:35 PM

Again, the simple explanation is the person applies a force to the ball and the ball applies a force back.
No need to invoke your magic air.
The reason a ball applies a force back is due to that ball having a resistance to its dense mass and your hands pushing on that ball and against that resistance (air pressure), is what propels you back a little.

No gravity needed and no gravity can be explained from this point.
If you think it can, then explain it.

The reason why you are propelled back when you throw a ball is because of Newton's third law which can be roughly outlined by the equation Fa = -Fb. This is also why rockets can propel themselves due to thrust (F = ṁeVe-ṁ0V0 + (pe - p0)Ae)

Maybe this will help:
Quote from: sokarul
...
Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?


Quote from: sokarul link=Etopic=74250.msg2022893#msg2022893 date=1518300242
You should learn how to double jump. You know, like in video games. You jump and then jump in air to get s double jump. Since you can push off air and all.



Iím not a question of need, itís a question if itís possible.

Is it possible to jump off air like a rocket and medicine ball ďjumpĒ off air?


Anything else you need to know?
It's not gravity that's pushing that egg into the bottle.

It is gravity that's pushing the egg into the bottle. Gravity is a force. Gravity pulls anything with mass (Fg = Gm1m2/r2). The air is rushing past the egg, making it vibrate, and then it gets pushed into the bottle because the pressure is so intense. Even if there are more causes than gravity for something to fall, like this case, the air pressure helps it fall into the bottle, gravity is still acting on it as eggs have mass.
Push or pull?
You can't have it both ways for your gravity.

Let's make this clear.
If gravity was the cause of the egg being pulled into the bottle, then why isn't it pulled into the bottle straight away?


Let me explain what really happens and why the egg vibrates.

It's because the pressure inside the bottle is lowered by expanding the air out of it which pushes past the egg and rattles it on it's way past to take its place into the atmosphere and add to the egg to create that leverage to push the egg into the bottle.

Have a serious think about it.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 24, 2021, 10:40:18 PM
The reason a ball applies a force back is due to that ball having a resistance to its dense mass
And that resistance is called inertia.

Call it what you want but the resistance is entirely due to air/atm pressure and the imbalance of it by applying a force/energy to a mass that is already displacing it.

The word, inertia has no real meaning.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 25, 2021, 02:36:43 AM
Call it what you want but the resistance is entirely due to air
Again, PURE BS!
Stop just repeating the same BS and instead deal with the refutations of that.

Again, if it was the air, then you have 2 options, 1 is that the density of the object doesn't matter at all and only the volume does.
So any object of the same volume would have the same resistance.
The second, especially with your delusional fantasy of the air filling everything, is that a less dense object has more air in it and thus more air is moved by moving the object and thus it would provide a greater resitance.

But neither of those is the case.
Instead, in direct contrast, directly contradicting your nonsense, the resistance is proportional to mass, at least for a sufficiently dense object.
That shows that it is not the air.

Without mass, inertia has no meaning.
Without air, it still makes perfect sense.
With air, at least your idea of it, it becomes pure nonsense with no connection to reality.

Now going to try to actually deal with those things which show your claim is pure BS, or are you just going to keep repeating the same pathetic, refuted claim?

You can jump off air but in order to do so you need to compress it enough to allow you the resistant foundation in order to do it.
So throwing a ball through the air with no chance to compress it enough clearly is not using the air as a "resistant foundation"

Absolutely no need for gravity and you have zero explanation for what is happening by using it.
Because gravity has basically nothing to do with it.
Again, it is INERTIA!

What we absolutely don't need is all your BS regarding the air, as that has no hope of explaining it.

Push or pull?
You can't have it both ways for your gravity.
Sure we can.
For fundamental forces like gravity it is pure semantics.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 07:33:39 AM
Call it what you want but the resistance is entirely due to air

Again, if it was the air, then you have 2 options, 1 is that the density of the object doesn't matter at all and only the volume does.
The density of the ball displaces the atmosphere and to be fair you cannot refute this. It's in your book of science. the only issue is in how that science book pushes an extra so called force that is called, (fictional) gravity.

As for the volume. The volume is only what the object holds of air or water.


Quote from: JackBlack
So any object of the same volume would have the same resistance.
No.
A dense medicine ball or an iron ball displaces a massive amount of air as opposed to an air filled ball which only displaces the air by the membrane/skin.


Quote from: JackBlack
But neither of those is the case.
Instead, in direct contrast, directly contradicting your nonsense, the resistance is proportional to mass, at least for a sufficiently dense object.
That shows that it is not the air.
It's pretty clear it's air.
What's not clear and never has been, is the gravity nonsense.
You can't explain what's happening, except say gravity supposedly works because mass attracts mass...but never explain why and how.


Quote from: JackBlack
Without mass, inertia has no meaning.
Inertia has no meaning anyway, other than a word used to describe a resistance to energetic force. So just called it, resistance.


Quote from: JackBlack
Without air, it still makes perfect sense.
Without air or in your vacuum as you're implying, there is nothing. Nothing can work or exist.

Quote from: JackBlack
With air, at least your idea of it, it becomes pure nonsense with no connection to reality.
It makes perfect sense. Gravity is absolutely senseless.

Quote from: JackBlack
You can jump off air but in order to do so you need to compress it enough to allow you the resistant foundation in order to do it.
So throwing a ball through the air with no chance to compress it enough clearly is not using the air as a "resistant foundation"

The air is already compressed by the dense mass of the ball displacing it. Once that ball is thrown it's an atmospheric crash bang wallop into that lower pressure left behind by that medicine ball along with the compression of the air directly in it's trajectory. It all crashes IMMEDIATELY back onto the person in terms of a decompressive force, pushing that person back a little, or a lot, depending on the actual mass and energy applied to it in the throwing.
Absolutely no gravity involved, which you cannot explain...at all.


Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 25, 2021, 07:38:51 AM
Quote from: JackBlack
So any object of the same volume would have the same resistance.
No.
A dense medicine ball or an iron ball displaces a massive amount of air as opposed to an air filled ball which only displaces the air by the membrane/skin.

Two objects with the same volume displace the same volume. The contents of the objects don't matter in the slightest. If you drop an iron ball and a stone ball of the same size in a bathtub, both will displace the same amount of water.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Shifter on January 25, 2021, 07:48:26 AM
Okay I got 3 balls to drop on the bath tub. All the size of a bowling ball

One is made of foam
One is made of iron
One is made from the core of a neutron star

Which displaces the most water?

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 07:48:51 AM
Two objects with the same volume displace the same volume.
I'd like you to give me a brief explanation of what you mean by this, just so I know you're on the same wavelength.

Quote from: JJA
The contents of the objects don't matter in the slightest.
The contents of the objects can be dense matter and atmospheric/water volume. Of course it matters.
Quote from: JJA

 If you drop an iron ball and a stone ball of the same size in a bathtub, both will displace the same amount of water.
That actually depends on whether both have the same porosity or one holds more atmosphere or denser mass than the other.

If you drop an iron ball in the bath and an equal sized sponge ball into that bath, would they both displace the same amount of water?

If not, then you're on your way to understanding porosity and absorption of atmosphere.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 07:51:06 AM
Okay I got 3 balls to drop on the bath tub. All the size of a bowling ball

One is made of foam
One is made of iron
One is made from the core of a neutron star

Which displaces the most water?
If I believed in neutron stars then I could maybe answer it, no problem.

Let's change the neutron star ball to a lead ball.
The answer would be, lead.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:15:23 AM
Two objects with the same volume displace the same volume.
I'd like you to give me a brief explanation of what you mean by this, just so I know you're on the same wavelength.

If I have a ball 1 meter in diameter, it displaces the same volume as another ball 1 meter in diameter. 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:20:19 AM
Okay I got 3 balls to drop on the bath tub. All the size of a bowling ball

One is made of foam
One is made of iron
One is made from the core of a neutron star

Which displaces the most water?

Nice trolling, but not particularly creative. Couldn't think of a black hole or a supernova to use as examples? Or a partially phased dragon transiting from the prime material plane? What's his volume when activating the 3rd runestone?  :P

We are talking about displacing volume.

The foam ball displaces a tiny volume of water and a larger volume of air.  The volume of these combined is the same volume of displaced water from the iron and stone balls.

Which weighs more, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?

Which has the larger volume, a 1 meter sphere or a 1 meter sphere?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 08:20:35 AM
Two objects with the same volume displace the same volume.
I'd like you to give me a brief explanation of what you mean by this, just so I know you're on the same wavelength.

If I have a ball 1 meter in diameter, it displaces the same volume as another ball 1 meter in diameter.
What do you mean by displacing volume?
Give me an example.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:35:06 AM
Two objects with the same volume displace the same volume.
I'd like you to give me a brief explanation of what you mean by this, just so I know you're on the same wavelength.

If I have a ball 1 meter in diameter, it displaces the same volume as another ball 1 meter in diameter.
What do you mean by displacing volume?
Give me an example.

If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.  That is how displacing works.  Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: itsanoblatespheroid on January 25, 2021, 08:36:29 AM

Again, the simple explanation is the person applies a force to the ball and the ball applies a force back.
No need to invoke your magic air.
The reason a ball applies a force back is due to that ball having a resistance to its dense mass and your hands pushing on that ball and against that resistance (air pressure), is what propels you back a little.

No gravity needed and no gravity can be explained from this point.
If you think it can, then explain it.

The reason why you are propelled back when you throw a ball is because of Newton's third law which can be roughly outlined by the equation Fa = -Fb. This is also why rockets can propel themselves due to thrust (F = ṁeVe-ṁ0V0 + (pe - p0)Ae)

Maybe this will help:
Quote from: sokarul
...
Why can't I use my feet to compress air and jump off of the air?


Quote from: sokarul link=Etopic=74250.msg2022893#msg2022893 date=1518300242
You should learn how to double jump. You know, like in video games. You jump and then jump in air to get s double jump. Since you can push off air and all.



Iím not a question of need, itís a question if itís possible.

Is it possible to jump off air like a rocket and medicine ball ďjumpĒ off air?


Anything else you need to know?
It's not gravity that's pushing that egg into the bottle.

It is gravity that's pushing the egg into the bottle. Gravity is a force. Gravity pulls anything with mass (Fg = Gm1m2/r2). The air is rushing past the egg, making it vibrate, and then it gets pushed into the bottle because the pressure is so intense. Even if there are more causes than gravity for something to fall, like this case, the air pressure helps it fall into the bottle, gravity is still acting on it as eggs have mass.
Push or pull?
You can't have it both ways for your gravity.

Let's make this clear.
If gravity was the cause of the egg being pulled into the bottle, then why isn't it pulled into the bottle straight away?


Let me explain what really happens and why the egg vibrates.

It's because the pressure inside the bottle is lowered by expanding the air out of it which pushes past the egg and rattles it on it's way past to take its place into the atmosphere and add to the egg to create that leverage to push the egg into the bottle.

Have a serious think about it.

The reason why gravity doesn't force the egg into the bottle is that the bottle's opening's diameter is smaller than the diameter of the egg. The air pressure helps gravity push the egg in, and because the air is dying to get out of the bottle, it forces the entire egg into it.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 08:41:24 AM
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.

 That is how displacing works.
 Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Shifter on January 25, 2021, 08:48:22 AM
Okay I got 3 balls to drop on the bath tub. All the size of a bowling ball

One is made of foam
One is made of iron
One is made from the core of a neutron star

Which displaces the most water?

Nice trolling, but not particularly creative. Couldn't think of a black hole or a supernova to use as examples? Or a partially phased dragon transiting from the prime material plane? What's his volume when activating the 3rd runestone?  :P

We are talking about displacing volume.

The foam ball displaces a tiny volume of water and a larger volume of air.  The volume of these combined is the same volume of displaced water from the iron and stone balls.

Which weighs more, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?

Which has the larger volume, a 1 meter sphere or a 1 meter sphere?

I was going to say the neutron star displaces more because it's so hot it vaporises everything around it :P or you might find that the neutron star ball doesn't drop into the bath but the bath drops to the neutron star because the neutron star ball weighing many trillions of tonnes would have its own gravitational field!

When people ask the question about bricks or feathers and then add which falls faster or lands quicker the answer is bricks

Feathers have less air resistance and will just blow around :P

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:52:33 AM
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.

 That is how displacing works.
 Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.

What do you think was in the glass before the water went in?  That's atmosphere.  It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way. 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 25, 2021, 08:54:47 AM
Okay I got 3 balls to drop on the bath tub. All the size of a bowling ball

One is made of foam
One is made of iron
One is made from the core of a neutron star

Which displaces the most water?

Nice trolling, but not particularly creative. Couldn't think of a black hole or a supernova to use as examples? Or a partially phased dragon transiting from the prime material plane? What's his volume when activating the 3rd runestone?  :P

We are talking about displacing volume.

The foam ball displaces a tiny volume of water and a larger volume of air.  The volume of these combined is the same volume of displaced water from the iron and stone balls.

Which weighs more, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?

Which has the larger volume, a 1 meter sphere or a 1 meter sphere?

I was going to say the neutron star displaces more because it's so hot it vaporises everything around it :P or you might find that the neutron star ball doesn't drop into the bath but the bath drops to the neutron star because the neutron star ball weighing many trillions of tonnes would have its own gravitational field!

When people ask the question about bricks or feathers and then add which falls faster or lands quicker the answer is bricks

Feathers have less air resistance and will just blow around :P

Yes... people do answer that question when it's asked.  I didn't ask that question though.  But... good job answering your own questions, I guess?

A 1 meter sphere displaces the same volume as a 1 meter sphere.  Regardless of what you try and change the question into. :)
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 25, 2021, 12:52:37 PM
Again, stop talking about gravity, it shows you have no clue what you are talking about, or that you are just spouting garbage to hate on it.

Gravity has no part in a discussion of action-reaction, unless one of those is gravity.

The density of the ball displaces the atmosphere and to be fair you cannot refute this.
I can, and have.
The VOLUME of the ball displaces the atmosphere. Not the density.
The air doesn't magically squeeze in between the atoms/molecules in the structure.

Quote from: JackBlack
So any object of the same volume would have the same resistance.
No.
A dense medicine ball or an iron ball displaces a massive amount of air
We are not talking about how much you want to pretend it displaces of the air when it just sits there.
We are talking about how much it displaces when it is moved.
And with that, either they displace the same amount due to their same volume, or the lighter object displaces more because you are also displacing the magic air trapped inside.

Now stop ignoring what is said and try honestly responding to it for once.

It's pretty clear it's air.
Repeating the same lie will not make it true.
If it is the air, you need to explain why it does the exact opposite of what you would expect.

You can't explain what's happening
But I have, it is really quite easy.
The ball has mass
This means it resists changes in motion.
This means to accelerate it you need to apply a force to it.
Applying this force will result in a reactionary force which accelerates you.


There is no need for any of your magic air BS.
And note that gravity is not involved in this case.

Quote from: JackBlack
Without mass, inertia has no meaning.
Inertia has no meaning anyway, other than a word used to describe a resistance to energetic force.
i.e. inertia. So inertia has no meaning, other than a word used to describe inertia.
It is a resistance to change in motion.
It is not merely "resistance".


Without air or in your vacuum as you're implying, there is nothing.
No, there is still something.
Removing the air doesn't mean removing everything.
Try again.

It makes perfect sense.
Then why am I am able to easily how it would produce results which directly contradict what is observed in reality?
While all you are capable of doing is repeating the same pathetic lies asserting that it makes sense and the same lies that gravity is nonsene, without being able to refute what I have presented nor being able to show anything wrong with gravity; and all "attempts" to do so result in you presenting a complete strawman where you often change the topic?

That sure makes it seem like your nonsense is pure nonsense with no connection to reality.

The air is already compressed by the dense mass of the ball displacing it.
And thus it should also be by your feet.
You have contradicted yourself once again.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 09:11:19 PM
The reason why gravity doesn't force the egg into the bottle is that the bottle's opening's diameter is smaller than the diameter of the egg. The air pressure helps gravity push the egg in, and because the air is dying to get out of the bottle, it forces the entire egg into it.
You keep to that. One day you might decide to think on it....maybe.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 09:12:37 PM
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.

 That is how displacing works.
 Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.

What do you think was in the glass before the water went in?  That's atmosphere.  It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 25, 2021, 09:15:35 PM
Again, stop talking about gravity, it shows you have no clue what you are talking about, or that you are just spouting garbage to hate on it.

Gravity has no part in a discussion of action-reaction, unless one of those is gravity.


Take a look at the topic title.
You can't answer it and this is why you're acting like you are.
You know gravity has nothing to back it up, because it is a nothing. It's just a word to describe a fantasy and to add to the reality of atmospheric pressure being the reason things are in resistance.

You can't explain it other than to appeal to it, just because.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 25, 2021, 11:26:36 PM
Take a look at the topic title.
Or take a look at what you were actually talking about.

Gravity has no place in the explanation, not because it is fictional like you continually falsely claim, but simply because it isn't involved.

You can't explain it other than to appeal to it, just because.
That would still be you, with your inability to explain why observed reality spits in the face of your delusional nonsense.

Again, if it was the air that was causing the resistance, a lower density object would either have the same or greater resistance, as the motion displaces the same amount of air, or more air if you want to appeal to the air magically trapped inside.

But if you want to go back to what the start of the thread was about, then yes, air pressure does get involved.
The pressure gradient of the atmosphere (you know, that thing you fled the other thread over because you couldn't explain it without appealing to gravity), which is a direct consequence of gravity, causes the lower density flame to rise.
No gravity means no pressure gradient.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on January 25, 2021, 11:37:07 PM
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.

 That is how displacing works.
 Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.

What do you think was in the glass before the water went in?  That's atmosphere.  It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

People grasp it, they just reject it as unfortunately for you, they don't see it conforming to the reality around them.  The bigger question is why after years and years and years of silly arguing on an internet forum, you are no closer to getting anywhere with anyone?  Your ideas are simplistic (except for all the strange convolutions you add when cornered).  If they were broadly true, it would literally take an afternoon and a couple hundred dollars to absolutely, conclusively demonstrate in a way that no one could argue with.   Why not do that?  It would be ~so~ easy, do you not do it because you are unable to, or is it because you know deep down that any attempt at demonstration would result in abject failure?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 26, 2021, 12:33:48 AM
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?
People grasp it, they just reject it
No, we (or at least I) grasp it. We just realise his claims about it are pure nonsense.
He is the one who fails to grasp atmospheric pressure.

For example, I grasp that it applies a force based upon area and pressure.
I grasp that this means that without a pressure gradient it applies no net force.
I grasp that with a pressure gradient it applies a net force from high to low pressure.
I grasp that this means in the atmosphere, with a vertical pressure gradient with pressure greatest at the bottom, that the atmosphere pushes objects upwards (commonly known as buoyancy).

Instead of this, he completely rejects that idea and instead thinks the atmosphere magically pushes objects down for no reason at all, except when it magically decides to push them up.

Likewise I grasp that in order for air to resist motion, a pressure gradient needs to be established.
I grasp that the open atmosphere won't simply just push on the object, but also flow around it.
I grasp that that means in the open atmosphere a small ball will have quite a small resistance from the air unless it is travelling at a very high velocity.
I also grasp that this means it will be based upon the size and shape of the object and have nothing at all to do with mass.

He again rejects that and instead claims it magically resists based upon the mass of the object, with quite a significant force.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on January 26, 2021, 12:49:28 AM
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?
People grasp it, they just reject it
No, we (or at least I) grasp it. We just realise his claims about it are pure nonsense.

Confused, Isn't that what I just said?

Quote
He is the one who fails to grasp atmospheric pressure.

Clearly.  In my opinion he is not really arguing with others here, he is just arguing with himself.  He has built up a strange fantasy world that he thinks people believe in, and argues against that.  He would do well in trying to understand basic concepts they way they used, but I am not sure he is actually capable of comprehending them, his mind is quite closed to outside information. 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 26, 2021, 01:21:14 AM
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?
People grasp it, they just reject it
No, we (or at least I) grasp it. We just realise his claims about it are pure nonsense.
Confused, Isn't that what I just said?
I may have misunderstood.

I interpreted it more akin to his denpressure. I grasp it, and reject it as BS.
As opposed to air pressure, where I grasp it, and realise that it shows he is wrong and that he doesn't grasp it.

I don't reject air pressure, just his pure nonsense.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 01:24:59 AM


Gravity has no place in the explanation
.
Of course it doesn't. No one can explain it...not even you.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on January 26, 2021, 02:01:47 AM
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?
People grasp it, they just reject it
No, we (or at least I) grasp it. We just realise his claims about it are pure nonsense.
Confused, Isn't that what I just said?
I may have misunderstood.

I interpreted it more akin to his denpressure. I grasp it, and reject it as BS.
As opposed to air pressure, where I grasp it, and realise that it shows he is wrong and that he doesn't grasp it.

I don't reject air pressure, just his pure nonsense.

I guess I was not completely clear that I was referring to his conception of 'atmospheric pressure' that people grasp but reject, rather than the concept of air pressure in general. 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 03:13:47 AM
The silly part is, you know you can push the air out of a strongly built rubber cup whilst it is placed on a surface.
You know you will have an absolute struggle trying to lever that  rubber cup off that surface.

It's blatantly obvious that gravity is not at play because it's blatantly obvious that pushing out the air in that cup has resulted in it being clamped to a surface.

So why is it clamped to that surface?

It's clamped to that surface because the energy/force that a person placed upon that cup, not only pushed out a lot air from in it, it allowed that air to take its place against it on the outside, added to the pressure of the atmosphere and leaving fat too little of it inside the cup to equally push back. An imbalance.

To give anyone a better insight into why this is the case, you only have to think of this cup under water and placing it against a surface under that water then pushing out as much water as you can.
The cup will stay clamped on that surface.
Why?
Because the water is pushed out, leaving little of it left in to push up against what is on top of the cup, including the added water pushed out that takes its place in that water, just like it does in atmosphere in the above scenario..

The imbalance means the cup cannot return to its original shape, until the water is added back into it, because it's being crushed or held in a crushed position of the force that created that crush in the first place.

Absolutely none of this requires fictional gravity and it shows how displacement creates return pressure back to the object, no matter what it is.
I don't expect globalists to bother with this but I'd hope thinkers who want to see past this gravity nonsense, will.


I hope people are sat at home pondering what I'm saying, so they can see things for themselves.



Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 26, 2021, 04:30:22 AM
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.

 That is how displacing works.
 Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.

What do you think was in the glass before the water went in?  That's atmosphere.  It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

I think you have me confused with someone else, where have I been arguing about atmospheric pressure?  Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Shifter on January 26, 2021, 05:24:15 AM
Okay. Fun question

You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.

You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.

Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 26, 2021, 06:53:43 AM
Okay. Fun question

You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.

You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.

Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?

The lead ball will spill more water because the Sodium Polyacrylate is absorbent.

But not by much as it takes time for the water to absorb into the Sodium Polyacrylate, so it will displace the majority of it's volume immediately when you drop it in, but absorb a little of the water too.  So you might get a few more drops of water from the led ball's displacement.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 08:05:26 AM
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.

 That is how displacing works.
 Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.

What do you think was in the glass before the water went in?  That's atmosphere.  It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

I think you have me confused with someone else, where have I been arguing about atmospheric pressure?  Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
No, they don't.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 08:07:10 AM
Okay. Fun question

You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.

You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.

Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?
The lead.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 08:10:18 AM
Okay. Fun question

You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.

You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.

Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?

The lead ball will spill more water because the Sodium Polyacrylate is absorbent.

But not by much as it takes time for the water to absorb into the Sodium Polyacrylate, so it will displace the majority of it's volume immediately when you drop it in, but absorb a little of the water too.  So you might get a few more drops of water from the led ball's displacement.
You'd get quite a bit more, not a few drops more.
The lead ball displaces it's own dense mass of that water. Very little porosity.
The sodium will not displace it it will absorb it so very little of its dense make up will displace the water.


Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 26, 2021, 08:13:55 AM
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.

 That is how displacing works.
 Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.

What do you think was in the glass before the water went in?  That's atmosphere.  It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

I think you have me confused with someone else, where have I been arguing about atmospheric pressure?  Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
No, they don't.

Please explain how the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube is different  from the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube. ::)
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 08:15:57 AM
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.

 That is how displacing works.
 Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.

What do you think was in the glass before the water went in?  That's atmosphere.  It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

I think you have me confused with someone else, where have I been arguing about atmospheric pressure?  Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
No, they don't.

Please explain how the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube is different  from the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube. ::)
They aren't. They're both just a cube.
You'll need to come back with what the cubes are made of.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 26, 2021, 08:18:01 AM
Okay. Fun question

You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.

You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.

Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?

The lead ball will spill more water because the Sodium Polyacrylate is absorbent.

But not by much as it takes time for the water to absorb into the Sodium Polyacrylate, so it will displace the majority of it's volume immediately when you drop it in, but absorb a little of the water too.  So you might get a few more drops of water from the led ball's displacement.
You'd get quite a bit more, not a few drops more.
The lead ball displaces it's own dense mass of that water. Very little porosity.
The sodium will not displace it it will absorb it so very little of its dense make up will displace the water.

Why don't you try this experiment for yourself. None of these things are hard to find, although you likely want to use another metal than led to play with.  Be sure to take lots of pictures. :)
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 26, 2021, 08:19:06 AM
If I drop a 1 meter stone cube into a pool, it displaces exactly 1 cubic meter of water.

 That is how displacing works.
 Where the stone sits at the bottom used to contain 1 cubic meter of water, which is now occupied by 1 cubic meter of stone. If I have an empty glass and pour it full of water, the air in the glass is displaced by the water. It's no longer in the glass because the water is there instead.
And yet you can't seem to grasp the displacement of atmosphere. How odd.

What do you think was in the glass before the water went in?  That's atmosphere.  It gets displaced just like any other matter when something else shoves it out of the way.
So why can't you grasp atmospheric pressure?

I think you have me confused with someone else, where have I been arguing about atmospheric pressure?  Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
No, they don't.

Please explain how the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube is different  from the volume of a 1 cubic meter cube. ::)
They aren't. They're both just a cube.
You'll need to come back with what the cubes are made of.

What makes you think the volume of a cube depends on what is inside it? They take up the exact same space. That is how cubes work.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 08:20:23 AM
Okay. Fun question

You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.

You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.

Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?

The lead ball will spill more water because the Sodium Polyacrylate is absorbent.

But not by much as it takes time for the water to absorb into the Sodium Polyacrylate, so it will displace the majority of it's volume immediately when you drop it in, but absorb a little of the water too.  So you might get a few more drops of water from the led ball's displacement.
You'd get quite a bit more, not a few drops more.
The lead ball displaces it's own dense mass of that water. Very little porosity.
The sodium will not displace it it will absorb it so very little of its dense make up will displace the water.

Why don't you try this experiment for yourself. None of these things are hard to find, although you likely want to use another metal than led to play with.  Be sure to take lots of pictures. :)
You're becoming far too petty I'm going to have to cut down on replies to you. I'll stick to the relevant one's. I hope you don't mind.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 08:23:47 AM


What makes you think the volume of a cube depends on what is inside it? They take up the exact same space. That is how cubes work.
The volume is what the cube holds within it's mass, in terms of available space, whether it's inside the cube amid skinned walls and/or in the actual skinned wall itself.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 26, 2021, 08:45:35 AM
Okay. Fun question

You have a bath filled to the brim. A grain of sand will tip water out.

You have 2 balls (no not those kind). One is made of lead. The other is made of Sodium Polyacrylate. Both same size.

Which ball when put in the bath would spill more water out of the bath?

The lead ball will spill more water because the Sodium Polyacrylate is absorbent.

But not by much as it takes time for the water to absorb into the Sodium Polyacrylate, so it will displace the majority of it's volume immediately when you drop it in, but absorb a little of the water too.  So you might get a few more drops of water from the led ball's displacement.
You'd get quite a bit more, not a few drops more.
The lead ball displaces it's own dense mass of that water. Very little porosity.
The sodium will not displace it it will absorb it so very little of its dense make up will displace the water.

Why don't you try this experiment for yourself. None of these things are hard to find, although you likely want to use another metal than led to play with.  Be sure to take lots of pictures. :)
You're becoming far too petty I'm going to have to cut down on replies to you. I'll stick to the relevant one's. I hope you don't mind.

Since you avoid answering pretty much any question anyone poses to you, I don't see how that makes much difference.

Don't demand people cater to all your whims and conditions you make up and think you will get a free pass when asked to do even a minimal amount of work yourself.

So... going to do the experiment?  :P
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 26, 2021, 08:47:01 AM


What makes you think the volume of a cube depends on what is inside it? They take up the exact same space. That is how cubes work.
The volume is what the cube holds within it's mass, in terms of available space, whether it's inside the cube amid skinned walls and/or in the actual skinned wall itself.

Two objects with the same volume have the same volume, no matter what is inside them.  Volume and mass are completely different properties, you can change one without changing the other.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 26, 2021, 12:51:45 PM
Gravity has no place in the explanation
Of course it doesn't. No one can explain it...not even you.
And there you go ignoring everything that shows you are wrong yet again.
When will you grow up?

Once more, gravity has no part in the explanation because it simply is not involved.
All that is needed is action-reaction.
This is not an issue for gravity. Just like gravity not being involved in explaining how paints dry doesn't mean there is some problem for gravity.

And again, I CAN EXPLAIN IT!
As I have.
The person who can't explain it is you.

Once more, person pushes against ball, with the mass and thus inertia of the ball providing resistance to that force and subsequent acceleration causing the ball to push back, and this "push back" accelerates the person.
Conversely if you replace the ball with an object of low mass, but the same volume (which according to your delusional nonsense means that when you move it you move more air), it has significantly less resistance, due to its much lower mass.

Entirely consistent with reality and my explanation, but directly contradicting your fantasy and your "explanation".

The silly part is, you know you can push the air out of a strongly built rubber cup whilst it is placed on a surface.
You know you will have an absolute struggle trying to lever that  rubber cup off that surface.
Yes, because we understand how air pressure actually acts.
The partial vacuum created when you try to pull the rubber cup off that surface creates a tremendous pressure differential which results in a massive force being applied.
We understand that without the air pressure, that does not work, yet things still fall.
We also understand that without a seal and thus without that partial vacuum and pressure gradient, it isn't difficult at all.
This also means that we understand that if you break the seal by applying enough force to pull the object off the surface, it just lets go and there is then no significant force required to pull it.

You are clearly trying to compare this to a heavy object, that but works nothing like air pressure.
The object is heavy without any seal. It is even heavy in mid-air, with no surface for it to be clamped against.
It is blatantly obvious that air pressure is not at play because it is blatantly obvious that there is no significant pressure gradient acting on the object (and the insignificant pressure gradient that is acting on the object is acting in the wrong direction).

Again, your delusional nonsense has no connection to reality.
Stop trying to equate fundamentally different situations.

Again, gravity not being at play in explaining how paint dries is not a problem for gravity.
Stop trying to pretend gravity should be able to explain everything and that anything it isn't involved in magically disproves it.

There is no need for your delusional nonsense, and your delusional nonsense cannot explain it.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 10:21:00 PM


What makes you think the volume of a cube depends on what is inside it? They take up the exact same space. That is how cubes work.
The volume is what the cube holds within it's mass, in terms of available space, whether it's inside the cube amid skinned walls and/or in the actual skinned wall itself.

Two objects with the same volume have the same volume, no matter what is inside them.  Volume and mass are completely different properties, you can change one without changing the other.
Of course two objects with the same volume have the same volume. What in the hell are you getting at?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 26, 2021, 10:21:59 PM


There is no need for your delusional nonsense, and your delusional nonsense cannot explain it.
Explain what?
It's you that cannot explain gravity.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 27, 2021, 12:01:17 AM
There is no need for your delusional nonsense, and your delusional nonsense cannot explain it.
Explain what?
So many things it isn't funny.
The key part for this thread was why the medicine with a much larger mass than a balloon has a much larger resistance to a change in motion, even though that change in motion causes less air to move than the balloon.

You know, the thing inertia explains just fine.

But also related to this thread, why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere which pushes everything upwards in a phenomenon known as buoyancy.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 27, 2021, 12:06:19 AM
There is no need for your delusional nonsense, and your delusional nonsense cannot explain it.
Explain what?
So many things it isn't funny.
The key part for this thread was why the medicine with a much larger mass than a balloon has a much larger resistance to a change in motion, even though that change in motion causes less air to move than the balloon.

You know, the thing inertia explains just fine.

But also related to this thread, why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere which pushes everything upwards in a phenomenon known as buoyancy.
Nothing of what you say here makes sense.

What exactly are you talking about?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 27, 2021, 01:20:26 AM
There is no need for your delusional nonsense, and your delusional nonsense cannot explain it.
Explain what?
So many things it isn't funny.
The key part for this thread was why the medicine with a much larger mass than a balloon has a much larger resistance to a change in motion, even though that change in motion causes less air to move than the balloon.

You know, the thing inertia explains just fine.

But also related to this thread, why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere which pushes everything upwards in a phenomenon known as buoyancy.
Nothing of what you say here makes sense.
Is that why you are unable to show a single fault with it?

Perhaps if you stopped ignoring everything that was said it would make more sense to you.

It has been explained quite a few times.
Again, in reality (you know, that thing you hate because it doesn't match your delusional fantasy) the greater mass results in greater resistance.
This shows it isn't the air that is responsible.

Again, if it was the air, the mass should be irrelevant.
Instead it should be based upon how much air is moved when you move the object.
And looking at the air around the object, the same amount is moved regardless of the mass. That means a light weight balloon should have the same resistance as a dense medicine ball due to the air around it.
And with that all that is left would be the air inside the object. And if the nonsense you spout is true (and in this case even in reality), the lower density object (the balloon) has more air inside it, and that means more air is moved when moving it. That means that the lower density object would have greater resistance.

Notice how reality doesn't match your fantasy and that you are the one unable to explain reality?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 27, 2021, 03:58:04 AM


Again, if it was the air, the mass should be irrelevant.
Instead it should be based upon how much air is moved when you move the object.
And looking at the air around the object, the same amount is moved regardless of the mass.

You see, this is where you either get mixed up or are deliberately bypassing what's been said.

Seeing as you are using the above, I'll explain.
The mass is massively relevant and so is the volume of that mass because it's the volume that dictates how much of that actual mass is displacing the actual atmosphere.
You see, your idea that a medicine ball and a thin skinned football of the same size displace the same amount of air, is nonsense.

You know this.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 27, 2021, 05:14:02 AM


What makes you think the volume of a cube depends on what is inside it? They take up the exact same space. That is how cubes work.
The volume is what the cube holds within it's mass, in terms of available space, whether it's inside the cube amid skinned walls and/or in the actual skinned wall itself.

Two objects with the same volume have the same volume, no matter what is inside them.  Volume and mass are completely different properties, you can change one without changing the other.
Of course two objects with the same volume have the same volume. What in the hell are you getting at?

I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume.  You have been disagreeing with me about this the whole time, in case you forgot. You said this...

Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
No, they don't.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 27, 2021, 12:33:23 PM
Again, if it was the air, the mass should be irrelevant.
Instead it should be based upon how much air is moved when you move the object.
And looking at the air around the object, the same amount is moved regardless of the mass.
You see, this is where you either get mixed up or are deliberately bypassing what's been said.
You mean this is where YOU either get mixed up or are deliberately misrepresenting what has been said so you can pretend your delusional fantasy has a chance at matching reality.

You see, your idea that a medicine ball and a thin skinned football of the same size displace the same amount of air, is nonsense.
But I didn't say that.
I said that when you move a solid object like a medicine ball and a hollow object filled with air like a football (I used a balloon), assuming they have the same volume, you display more air by moving the hollow object.


You know this.
So stop playing dumb.
Your nonsense clearly does not match reality.
It predicts the exact opposite of what is observed in reality.
Your delusional fantasy predicts that lighter objects with the same volume as a much heavier object should be harder to move, but reality shows they are easier.

The only way out would be to claim the air inside is merely part of the object, but that still contradicts reality, as then you just have the air around the objects providing the resistance and thus they should resist the same.

And of course, you have no explanation at all for why the air should resist motion.

You are aware that is based upon the very concept you are rejecting?
Air pressure is a result of inertia. There is no reason for the mass of the air to resist motion but the ball to magically not.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 27, 2021, 09:27:23 PM
I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume.  You have been disagreeing with me about this the whole time, in case you forgot. You said this...


Have a word with yourself and see what you're saying.
How can I disagree with it?
You are saying "I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume."
You answered your own question and I have no reason to deny this.

When you start to understand what you're talking about in terms of what I'm on about, that's when you have something.
Up to now you have nothing.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 27, 2021, 09:31:09 PM
You see, your idea that a medicine ball and a thin skinned football of the same size displace the same amount of air, is nonsense.
But I didn't say that.
I said that when you move a solid object like a medicine ball and a hollow object filled with air like a football (I used a balloon), assuming they have the same volume, you display more air by moving the hollow object.
How can you displace more air with the hollow object when that object is made up mostly, of air?
The solid object is made up mostly of dense mass that literally displaces air.
The air filled ball/balloon holds the volume of air.

Think about it.
 I won't hold my breath.


Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 12:42:38 AM
How can you displace more air with the hollow object when that object is made up mostly, of air?
Because when you move that object you move (i.e. DISPLACE) that air inside the object as well.

That means you displace more air by moving the hollow object than the solid object.

Think about it.
Follow your own advice and actually try thinking

You are saying "I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume."
You answered your own question and I have no reason to deny this.
But you do, all the time.
You want to claim that a higher density object magically has more volume than an equal volume, low density object.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 01:07:33 AM
How can you displace more air with the hollow object when that object is made up mostly, of air?
Because when you move that object you move (i.e. DISPLACE) that air inside the object as well.

No you're not. You don't displace air with air. You displace air with a dense mass.
I knew you wouldn't get it.
All this time.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 01:10:20 AM
How can you displace more air with the hollow object when that object is made up mostly, of air?
Because when you move that object you move (i.e. DISPLACE) that air inside the object as well.
No you're not.
So the air inside it magically stays put?
When you move a balloon, no matter how far you move it, all the air inside it magically stays in the same place as it was while only the balloon itself moves?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 01:35:07 AM

So the air inside it magically stays put?
When you move a balloon, no matter how far you move it, all the air inside it magically stays in the same place as it was while only the balloon itself moves?
The air inside will be moved if you move the balloon but it's only moving against itself. There's no object displacing it. except for the skin of the balloon itself.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 01:58:33 AM

So the air inside it magically stays put?
When you move a balloon, no matter how far you move it, all the air inside it magically stays in the same place as it was while only the balloon itself moves?
The air inside will be moved if you move the balloon
And with that you confirm I am correct.
More air is moved by the hollow object.
That means if your delusional fantasy was correct it would have a greater resistance, not a lesser resistance.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 02:17:31 AM

So the air inside it magically stays put?
When you move a balloon, no matter how far you move it, all the air inside it magically stays in the same place as it was while only the balloon itself moves?
The air inside will be moved if you move the balloon
And with that you confirm I am correct.
More air is moved by the hollow object.

You're not correct, at all.
More air is not moved by a hollow object than a dense one.
The hollow one only displaces air by it's mass make up and the rest is volume, made up of the air itself.
The dense object displaces that air from itself, much more whilst leaving much less volume within.

The more dense object always displaces more air.

If you hold an air ball and throw it, very little air takes up the space where the ball left your throw, because only the skin is displacing it and that's all that's crashing back into that lower pressure void.

The medicine ball is displacing a lot of atmosphere, as is. Once you throw it you leave a massive low pressure that is filled by the compressed atmosphere around that ball which crashes into itself and opposite the throw. along with the compressed air from that throw directly into the atmosphere in front.

Action equals energy/force against atmospheric decompression around the object and atmospheric compression by movement of that object.



Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 02:48:38 AM

So the air inside it magically stays put?
When you move a balloon, no matter how far you move it, all the air inside it magically stays in the same place as it was while only the balloon itself moves?
The air inside will be moved if you move the balloon
And with that you confirm I am correct.
More air is moved by the hollow object.

You're not correct, at all.
I sure seem to be.
You have now admitted that more air is moved by a hollow object than a dense one, because the hollow is moving all the air inside it.

But because you have realised you have shot yourself in the foot you now just directly contradict yourself. Truly pathetic.

Remember, we aren't talking about air that is displaced merely by existing which you foolishly claim magically causes weight, but the air that is displayed when the object moves.

Both displace the same amount due to the outside surface moving the air around it.
But the hollow one also moves the air inside it.

Again, according to your delusional nonsense the hollow object should resist more, in direct defiance of observed reality.

The best you can hope to achieve is by claiming the air inside doesn't matter. But that then means they move the same amount of air when you move them and thus they resist the same, but that still doesn't match reality.

So either way, your nonsense is DOA.

And that is before we even get to why the air should resist motion in the first place, which will just lead us straight back to inertia and no reason for it to magically only apply to air and not to the ball itself.

And the more pathetic thing is that you are then trying to use this to argue against rockets working, which literally are pushing away air (i.e. the exhaust gas).

If you hold an air ball and throw it, very little air takes up the space where the ball left your throw
And that applies for both. You move the object and the air needs to move to fill the void.
Again, if that was the determining factor they would resist the same.

Action equals energy/force against atmospheric decompression around the object and atmospheric compression by movement of that object.
No, action and reaction is simply you applying a force to accelerate the MASS of the ball, and it resisting that change in motion due to inertia and thus applying a force back on you.

No need for your delusional air BS, and as repeatedly shown, your delusional air BS has no chance of matching reality.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 03:21:20 AM

So the air inside it magically stays put?
When you move a balloon, no matter how far you move it, all the air inside it magically stays in the same place as it was while only the balloon itself moves?
The air inside will be moved if you move the balloon
And with that you confirm I am correct.
More air is moved by the hollow object.

You're not correct, at all.
I sure seem to be.
You have now admitted that more air is moved by a hollow object than a dense one, because the hollow is moving all the air inside it.

But because you have realised you have shot yourself in the foot you now just directly contradict yourself. Truly pathetic.

Remember, we aren't talking about air that is displaced merely by existing which you foolishly claim magically causes weight, but the air that is displayed when the object moves.

Both displace the same amount due to the outside surface moving the air around it.
But the hollow one also moves the air inside it.

Again, according to your delusional nonsense the hollow object should resist more, in direct defiance of observed reality.

The best you can hope to achieve is by claiming the air inside doesn't matter. But that then means they move the same amount of air when you move them and thus they resist the same, but that still doesn't match reality.

So either way, your nonsense is DOA.

And that is before we even get to why the air should resist motion in the first place, which will just lead us straight back to inertia and no reason for it to magically only apply to air and not to the ball itself.

And the more pathetic thing is that you are then trying to use this to argue against rockets working, which literally are pushing away air (i.e. the exhaust gas).

If you hold an air ball and throw it, very little air takes up the space where the ball left your throw
And that applies for both. You move the object and the air needs to move to fill the void.
Again, if that was the determining factor they would resist the same.

Action equals energy/force against atmospheric decompression around the object and atmospheric compression by movement of that object.
No, action and reaction is simply you applying a force to accelerate the MASS of the ball, and it resisting that change in motion due to inertia and thus applying a force back on you.

No need for your delusional air BS, and as repeatedly shown, your delusional air BS has no chance of matching reality.
Carry on Mr twister. You have nothing and think twisting what is gains you the upper hand. Not with me it doesn't.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 28, 2021, 04:49:07 AM
I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume.  You have been disagreeing with me about this the whole time, in case you forgot. You said this...


Have a word with yourself and see what you're saying.
How can I disagree with it?
You are saying "I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume."
You answered your own question and I have no reason to deny this.

When you start to understand what you're talking about in terms of what I'm on about, that's when you have something.
Up to now you have nothing.

I find it ironic how desperate you are to avoid what you have said, to the point where you keep deleting your own quotes from replies to avoid having to deal with them.

Lets remind you, again of what you claimed and try not to avoid and dodge the question this time.

Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
No, they don't.

So once more. Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 07:42:32 AM
I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume.  You have been disagreeing with me about this the whole time, in case you forgot. You said this...


Have a word with yourself and see what you're saying.
How can I disagree with it?
You are saying "I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume."
You answered your own question and I have no reason to deny this.

When you start to understand what you're talking about in terms of what I'm on about, that's when you have something.
Up to now you have nothing.

I find it ironic how desperate you are to avoid what you have said, to the point where you keep deleting your own quotes from replies to avoid having to deal with them.

Lets remind you, again of what you claimed and try not to avoid and dodge the question this time.

Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
No, they don't.

So once more. Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?
No they don't. Didn't you get it the first time?

You seriously need to pay attention to what you type. I'll be patient and give you time.
Maybe someone who has been paying attention will get it.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 28, 2021, 08:13:30 AM
I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume.  You have been disagreeing with me about this the whole time, in case you forgot. You said this...


Have a word with yourself and see what you're saying.
How can I disagree with it?
You are saying "I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume."
You answered your own question and I have no reason to deny this.

When you start to understand what you're talking about in terms of what I'm on about, that's when you have something.
Up to now you have nothing.

I find it ironic how desperate you are to avoid what you have said, to the point where you keep deleting your own quotes from replies to avoid having to deal with them.

Lets remind you, again of what you claimed and try not to avoid and dodge the question this time.

Do you at least agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone take up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  They displace the same amount, 1 cubic meter.
No, they don't.

So once more. Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?
No they don't. Didn't you get it the first time?

You seriously need to pay attention to what you type. I'll be patient and give you time.
Maybe someone who has been paying attention will get it.

Oh I see, you can only read questions in bold and colored.  How about you answer the question I actually asked?

So once more. Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?

Can you answer the question now? Please actually read it, thanks.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 08:55:59 AM


Oh I see, you can only read questions in bold and colored.  How about you answer the question I actually asked?

So once more. Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?

Can you answer the question now? Please actually read it, thanks.
I already answered no, so how come you can't get it?

Let's see if you're sensible enough to understand where you went wrong.

Here's  massive hint. See if it marries up to the above.

Quote from: JJA

I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume.  You have been disagreeing with me about this the whole time, in case you forgot. You said this...
See any change? Do you see how you can't even grasp what you're talking about?

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 08:57:01 AM

Air pressure is a result of inertia.
How about you explain what this means.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 28, 2021, 09:06:46 AM


Oh I see, you can only read questions in bold and colored.  How about you answer the question I actually asked?

So once more. Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?

Can you answer the question now? Please actually read it, thanks.
I already answered no, so how come you can't get it?

Let's see if you're sensible enough to understand where you went wrong.

Here's  massive hint. See if it marries up to the above.

Quote from: JJA

I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume.  You have been disagreeing with me about this the whole time, in case you forgot. You said this...
See any change? Do you see how you can't even grasp what you're talking about?

All you did was dodge answering my question while claiming you already did. Standard FE deflection tactic.

Why can't you answer this? Don't claim you did, don't change my question, don't deflect or avoid or hide from it. Just answer yes or no.

Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 09:30:05 AM


Oh I see, you can only read questions in bold and colored.  How about you answer the question I actually asked?

So once more. Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?

Can you answer the question now? Please actually read it, thanks.
I already answered no, so how come you can't get it?

Let's see if you're sensible enough to understand where you went wrong.

Here's  massive hint. See if it marries up to the above.

Quote from: JJA

I'm trying to get you to agree that two objects with the same volume have the same volume.  You have been disagreeing with me about this the whole time, in case you forgot. You said this...
See any change? Do you see how you can't even grasp what you're talking about?

All you did was dodge answering my question while claiming you already did. Standard FE deflection tactic.

Why can't you answer this? Don't claim you did, don't change my question, don't deflect or avoid or hide from it. Just answer yes or no.

Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?
I never did agree and now I'm worrying about what or who I'm dealing with...seriously.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 12:00:12 PM

So the air inside it magically stays put?
When you move a balloon, no matter how far you move it, all the air inside it magically stays in the same place as it was while only the balloon itself moves?
The air inside will be moved if you move the balloon
And with that you confirm I am correct.
More air is moved by the hollow object.

You're not correct, at all.
I sure seem to be.
You have now admitted that more air is moved by a hollow object than a dense one, because the hollow is moving all the air inside it.

But because you have realised you have shot yourself in the foot you now just directly contradict yourself. Truly pathetic.

Remember, we aren't talking about air that is displaced merely by existing which you foolishly claim magically causes weight, but the air that is displayed when the object moves.

Both displace the same amount due to the outside surface moving the air around it.
But the hollow one also moves the air inside it.

Again, according to your delusional nonsense the hollow object should resist more, in direct defiance of observed reality.

The best you can hope to achieve is by claiming the air inside doesn't matter. But that then means they move the same amount of air when you move them and thus they resist the same, but that still doesn't match reality.

So either way, your nonsense is DOA.

And that is before we even get to why the air should resist motion in the first place, which will just lead us straight back to inertia and no reason for it to magically only apply to air and not to the ball itself.

And the more pathetic thing is that you are then trying to use this to argue against rockets working, which literally are pushing away air (i.e. the exhaust gas).

If you hold an air ball and throw it, very little air takes up the space where the ball left your throw
And that applies for both. You move the object and the air needs to move to fill the void.
Again, if that was the determining factor they would resist the same.

Action equals energy/force against atmospheric decompression around the object and atmospheric compression by movement of that object.
No, action and reaction is simply you applying a force to accelerate the MASS of the ball, and it resisting that change in motion due to inertia and thus applying a force back on you.

No need for your delusional air BS, and as repeatedly shown, your delusional air BS has no chance of matching reality.
Carry on Mr twister. You have nothing and think twisting what is gains you the upper hand. Not with me it doesn't.
If I have nothing, why have I been able to refute you yet again.

Once more, we observe in reality simple inertia, and action-reaction pairs.
Any object with mass takes a force to accelerate it. As such, if you try, by applying a force to it, it will resist and apply a force back to you.

So when you accelerate a light object like a balloon and a heavy object like a medicine ball, the medicine ball has more resistance and thus pushes you back more.
This matches what is observed in reality.

Meanwhile, your delusional nonsense fails.

Ignoring any air trapped inside the object, when you move 2 objects of the same volume (and no, I don't mean your nonsense idea of volume), then they displace the same amount of air, with the same amount of air needing to flow around them and fill the void they leave behind. That would mean they have the same resistance if your nonsense was correct.

If you include the air trapped inside, then the lower density/hollow object has more air inside that needs to be moved and thus you would displace more air by moving it, meaning a lighter object should have more resistance.

So your nonsense simply doesn't match reality. So instead you need to try to twist reality to pretend a denser object magically displaces more air when you move it, which makes no sense at all.

Sorry, but back in reality, it is mass, not the air, which is creating resistance here.

No they don't. Didn't you get it the first time?
The problem is that you keep contradicting yourself.
You claim that you know that 2 objects with the same volume occupy the same volume/have the same volume. But then you claim that 2 objects with the same volume don't occupy the same volume/don't have the same volume.

Air pressure is a result of inertia.
How about you explain what this means.
Air pressure is a result of collision with air molecules resulting in these molecules changing direction.
A force is applied over a period of time to accelerate the molecules.
Without inertia, there would be no air pressure.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 09:32:39 PM

If I have nothing, why have I been able to refute you yet again.

Copy and paste in abundance does not give you any credence against me. You cannot refute what I'm saying because you never grasp it for whatever reasons you have.
One thing you cannot do and that is, back up the gravity nonsense, other than to say " it is, it is" and then saying " because, inertia"...

It's a nonsense and you know it.
You argue against air pressure by using the nonsense of gravity and inertia just because that's what the books tell you and you absolutely have no clue as to what any of it means.

Sooooooo....noooooo....you are not even a gnats step in any direction as to refuting anything I say. It's just copy/paste from you.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 10:28:12 PM
Copy and paste in abundance does not give you any credence against me. You cannot refute what I'm saying because you never grasp it for whatever reasons you have.
I don't just copy and paste. I repeatedly explain why you are wrong.
Meanwhile, your continued dismissal does nothing to magically make you correct.

Again, I HAVE refuted what you are saying.
And all you have to counter it is to insult me and say I'm wrong, and ignoring what I have said.
You cannot explain why you think I am wrong, other than that I am showing you are wrong.

Again, I have clearly shown that the best you can hope to achieve with your nonsense is have all objects of the same size have the same resistance. You cannot explain why a denser object has more resistance.

But mainstream science explains it trivially.

gravity
Like I said, what we are discussing now is simply inertia and action-reaction pairs.
Gravity is not part of it.
Continually bringing it up shows you either have no idea what you are talking about or you are intentionally lying.

You argue against air pressure by using the nonsense of gravity and inertia
No, I argue against your delusional nonsense using air pressure, with how air pressure actually works, which is nothing like what you pretend.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 28, 2021, 10:50:43 PM

I don't just copy and paste. I repeatedly explain why you are wrong.

The reason why I have to keep deleting most of your stuff is because you are incapable of dealing with one thing at a time and think copy and pasting large sections of the same thing is you gaining traction. You're gaining nothing and wasting your own time, even though you actually seem to enjoy doing it, it seems.

Let me know when you can deal with one thing.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 28, 2021, 11:55:38 PM
I don't just copy and paste. I repeatedly explain why you are wrong.
The reason why I have to keep deleting most of your stuff
Is because you have no rational refutation.
So instead of honestly engaging and explaining what is wrong with what I have said you need to ignore it to pretend you haven't been refuted yet again.

you are incapable of dealing with one thing at a time
No, that would be you.
You were incapable of sticking to just a single topic. You pretended to, but then as soon as you couldn't answer, you wanted to change topic.
You do this because you need to have a bunch of different topics to switch between so you can pretend you haven't been shown to be wrong on all of them.

You don't like it when I address everything, because then you don't have another topic to switch to. So instead you just jump to your pathetic insults.

Let me know when you can deal with one thing.
You were already given that chance, and you threw it away.
So when you are ready to start dealing with something, go ahead.
Until then I will just keep on calling out all your BS.


Again, we know from reality that the more massive an object is the more it resists being accelerated.
We know that this even applies for 2 objects of the same size.
We also know that in terms of the air outside the object, they move the same amount when you move the object.
We know that moving a hollow object results in moving the air outside the object, and the air inside.
So moving a hollow object (and in your fantasy word a low density object) displaces a lot more air than moving a dense, solid object.
So this means we know if it was air resistance or the like, the hollow/low density object would have equal or greater resistance than the dense object.
This directly defies what is observed in reality.

This shows your nonsense is wrong.

When we do have things based upon pressure, like a plunger, it doesn't matter what the plunger is made of, other than it being able to have an air-tight seal. It still applies the same force.
Likewise, with a syringe or the like, the material is irrelevant.
The force is simply the product of the pressure gradient and the area.

So it is quite clear your nonsense has no chance of matching reality.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 29, 2021, 12:07:20 AM
I don't just copy and paste. I repeatedly explain why you are wrong.
The reason why I have to keep deleting most of your stuff
Is because you have no rational refutation.
So instead of honestly engaging and explaining what is wrong with what I have said you need to ignore it to pretend you haven't been refuted yet again.

you are incapable of dealing with one thing at a time
No, that would be you.
You were incapable of sticking to just a single topic. You pretended to, but then as soon as you couldn't answer, you wanted to change topic.
You do this because you need to have a bunch of different topics to switch between so you can pretend you haven't been shown to be wrong on all of them.

You don't like it when I address everything, because then you don't have another topic to switch to. So instead you just jump to your pathetic insults.

Let me know when you can deal with one thing.
You were already given that chance, and you threw it away.
So when you are ready to start dealing with something, go ahead.
Until then I will just keep on calling out all your BS.


Again, we know from reality that the more massive an object is the more it resists being accelerated.
We know that this even applies for 2 objects of the same size.
We also know that in terms of the air outside the object, they move the same amount when you move the object.
We know that moving a hollow object results in moving the air outside the object, and the air inside.
So moving a hollow object (and in your fantasy word a low density object) displaces a lot more air than moving a dense, solid object.
So this means we know if it was air resistance or the like, the hollow/low density object would have equal or greater resistance than the dense object.
This directly defies what is observed in reality.

This shows your nonsense is wrong.

When we do have things based upon pressure, like a plunger, it doesn't matter what the plunger is made of, other than it being able to have an air-tight seal. It still applies the same force.
Likewise, with a syringe or the like, the material is irrelevant.
The force is simply the product of the pressure gradient and the area.

So it is quite clear your nonsense has no chance of matching reality.
This is what I'm talking about.
Look at the state of this.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 29, 2021, 12:16:26 AM
I don't just copy and paste. I repeatedly explain why you are wrong.
The reason why I have to keep deleting most of your stuff
Is because you have no rational refutation.
So instead of honestly engaging and explaining what is wrong with what I have said you need to ignore it to pretend you haven't been refuted yet again.

you are incapable of dealing with one thing at a time
No, that would be you.
You were incapable of sticking to just a single topic. You pretended to, but then as soon as you couldn't answer, you wanted to change topic.
You do this because you need to have a bunch of different topics to switch between so you can pretend you haven't been shown to be wrong on all of them.

You don't like it when I address everything, because then you don't have another topic to switch to. So instead you just jump to your pathetic insults.

Let me know when you can deal with one thing.
You were already given that chance, and you threw it away.
So when you are ready to start dealing with something, go ahead.
Until then I will just keep on calling out all your BS.


Again, we know from reality that the more massive an object is the more it resists being accelerated.
We know that this even applies for 2 objects of the same size.
We also know that in terms of the air outside the object, they move the same amount when you move the object.
We know that moving a hollow object results in moving the air outside the object, and the air inside.
So moving a hollow object (and in your fantasy word a low density object) displaces a lot more air than moving a dense, solid object.
So this means we know if it was air resistance or the like, the hollow/low density object would have equal or greater resistance than the dense object.
This directly defies what is observed in reality.

This shows your nonsense is wrong.

When we do have things based upon pressure, like a plunger, it doesn't matter what the plunger is made of, other than it being able to have an air-tight seal. It still applies the same force.
Likewise, with a syringe or the like, the material is irrelevant.
The force is simply the product of the pressure gradient and the area.

So it is quite clear your nonsense has no chance of matching reality.
This is what I'm talking about.
Look at the state of this.
Yes, clearly pointing out why you are wrong.
And how do you respond?
Using whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend you aren't wrong.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 29, 2021, 06:47:16 AM

Yes, clearly pointing out why you are wrong.
And how do you respond?
Using whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend you aren't wrong.
You're not pointing out where I'm wrong, you're pointing out that you are right on something that you have absolutely no clue about.
This is the major issue with you.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 29, 2021, 07:57:28 AM
Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?
I never did agree and now I'm worrying about what or who I'm dealing with...seriously.

So now you don't agree with that? Which is it, do objects of the same volume have the same volume or not? You have changed your answer back and forth several times now. Just answer the question I asked, yes or no.

Does a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 29, 2021, 08:39:32 AM
Do you now agree that a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?
I never did agree and now I'm worrying about what or who I'm dealing with...seriously.

So now you don't agree with that?
I never agreed with it at any time. Wake up.

Quote from: JJA
Which is it, do objects of the same volume have the same volume or not?

Yes they do.

Quote from: JJA
You have changed your answer back and forth several times now. Just answer the question I asked, yes or no.

I have never changed it. It's you that can't marry up what I am saying.
Put your brain into gear and look at what you are saying.

Can anyone help this person out?

Quote from: JJA
Does a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?
No.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 29, 2021, 09:32:05 AM
Quote from: JJA
Which is it, do objects of the same volume have the same volume or not?

Yes they do.

You say yes here.

Quote from: JJA
Does a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?
No.

You say no here.

Quote from: JJA
You have changed your answer back and forth several times now. Just answer the question I asked, yes or no.

I have never changed it. It's you that can't marry up what I am saying.

You change your answer depending on how the question is asked. I'm beginning to think you have no idea what volume is.

One cubic meter is the same as one cubic meter.  That's what volume is, a measurement of space.

You are getting it mixed up with density which might explain your confusion about pressure and displacement and other simple concepts.

You still haven't explained how 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone can have different volumes when they are the exact same size.

Does a 1 inch bar of stone and a 1 inch bar of lead have different lengths?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on January 29, 2021, 10:40:28 AM
You're right, he doesn't know what volume is. This might help decipher, a Rosetta Stone, if you will; A translation of terms as defined by one person who made them up to conform to a theory that is shared by only one person:

"Density"....The structure of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure to create a scale reading. (Denpressure)
"Mass" .....The amount of material that makes up an object. (see above).
...

"Weight" ....A man made scale measurement that gives a reading of the compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure.

"Volume",...The amount of porosity in any object.

"Speed" ....The ability to go a distance in a certain time in any direction. (ie mph)

"Velocity" ..... The speed of something in one direction, only.

"Acceleration" .....The continuous build up of movement.

...
"Force" ..... Any energy push in any direction
"Pressure" .....I think pressure can be lumped in with force. there's actually no difference to what they both mean in the grand scheme of things.
...

"Pressure gradient" ........ The difference in energy force that goes from low to high or high to low.

"Power"....  Energy push.

"Energy"......Vibration and friction, which basically are the same thing.

"Inertia" ..... Something that cannot be explained as anything, to be fair.

Use this as a reference because this is on my terms not on the terms of someone who wants to dictate my theory and ways.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 29, 2021, 12:53:23 PM
You're not pointing out where I'm wrong
But I have, repeatedly.
Again, you claim that it is based upon displacing air, and displacing more air means the air resists more.
But the hollow object displaces more air and has less resistance.

The major issue is you refusing to accept you are wrong and refusing to honestly and rationally engage in any discussion.

Can anyone help this person out?
Yes, the amount of space something takes up is its volume.

You are saying 2 objects with the same volume do not have the same volume.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 30, 2021, 02:33:21 AM
Quote from: JJA
Which is it, do objects of the same volume have the same volume or not?

Yes they do.

You say yes here.

Quote from: JJA
Does a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?
No.

You say no here.

Quote from: JJA
You have changed your answer back and forth several times now. Just answer the question I asked, yes or no.

I have never changed it. It's you that can't marry up what I am saying.

You change your answer depending on how the question is asked. I'm beginning to think you have no idea what volume is.

One cubic meter is the same as one cubic meter.  That's what volume is, a measurement of space.

You are getting it mixed up with density which might explain your confusion about pressure and displacement and other simple concepts.

You still haven't explained how 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone can have different volumes when they are the exact same size.

Does a 1 inch bar of stone and a 1 inch bar of lead have different lengths?
Read it all carefully and ask your friends.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 30, 2021, 02:38:23 AM
You're not pointing out where I'm wrong
But I have, repeatedly.
No you have not...not one bit. You twist things to suit yourself and that's fine but wasting your own time to try and make me accept them is an ongoing thing with you.

Once you actually try and play it fair and honestly, I'll engage properly.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 30, 2021, 12:43:16 PM
Read it all carefully and ask your friends.
Follow your own advice.
"Amount of space" is volume.
He is asking if 2 objects which have the same volume (they take up the same amount of space) have the same volume.
And you are saying no, while contradicting yourself and saying that 2 objects with the same volume have the same volume.


You're not pointing out where I'm wrong
But I have, repeatedly.
No you have not
Again, ignoring reality will not change it.
I have clearly explained how we know that with your delusional nonsense, we would expect a lower density object to have an equal or greater resistance to motion.
You have been unable to refute that other than by repeatedly ignoring it.

Grow up.
Once you actually try and play it fair and honestly, I'll engage properly.
Follow your own advice. For the entire time you have been on these fora I don't think I have ever seen you be fair and honest, or engage properly.
So do you really mean once I just start accepting whatever nonsense you say even if it contradicts other things you say or makes no sense at all then you will "engage". i.e. you wont engage when you are shown to be wrong?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 30, 2021, 03:05:12 PM
Read it all carefully and ask your friends.
Follow your own advice.
"Amount of space" is volume.
He is asking if 2 objects which have the same volume (they take up the same amount of space) have the same volume.
And you are saying no, while contradicting yourself and saying that 2 objects with the same volume have the same volume.


You're not pointing out where I'm wrong
But I have, repeatedly.
No you have not
Again, ignoring reality will not change it.
I have clearly explained how we know that with your delusional nonsense, we would expect a lower density object to have an equal or greater resistance to motion.
You have been unable to refute that other than by repeatedly ignoring it.

Grow up.
Once you actually try and play it fair and honestly, I'll engage properly.
Follow your own advice. For the entire time you have been on these fora I don't think I have ever seen you be fair and honest, or engage properly.
So do you really mean once I just start accepting whatever nonsense you say even if it contradicts other things you say or makes no sense at all then you will "engage". i.e. you wont engage when you are shown to be wrong?
Read what he said and absorb it all if you want to argue for him.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 30, 2021, 03:28:23 PM
Quote from: JJA
Which is it, do objects of the same volume have the same volume or not?

Yes they do.

You say yes here.

Quote from: JJA
Does a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?
No.

You say no here.

Quote from: JJA
You have changed your answer back and forth several times now. Just answer the question I asked, yes or no.

I have never changed it. It's you that can't marry up what I am saying.

You change your answer depending on how the question is asked. I'm beginning to think you have no idea what volume is.

One cubic meter is the same as one cubic meter.  That's what volume is, a measurement of space.

You are getting it mixed up with density which might explain your confusion about pressure and displacement and other simple concepts.

You still haven't explained how 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone can have different volumes when they are the exact same size.

Does a 1 inch bar of stone and a 1 inch bar of lead have different lengths?
Read it all carefully and ask your friends.

That's not an explanation, that's avoiding the question.

How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 30, 2021, 03:34:49 PM
Read what he said and absorb it all if you want to argue for him.
I did. Perhaps you should try.
A cube with a side length of 1 m occupies a space, i.e. volume of 1 m^3.
So if 2 objects occupy the same amount of space, they have the same volume.


Them having the same volume means that if there is no air trapped inside them, then they displace the same volume of air when they move.
It also means if there is air trapped inside, they displace MORE air when they move.

So again, if displacement of air is causing their resistance to motion, the lower density object should resist more according to you. In reality, it resists less.
This shows your nonsense is wrong.

And again, you have no basis for why the air should magically resist motion while nothing else should.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 31, 2021, 01:52:16 AM

How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
Let me put this to you.
How does a 1 cubic metre sponge and 1 cubic metre of stone have different volumes. Answer this correctly and you won't need to ask the questions you do.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 31, 2021, 02:00:39 AM

A cube with a side length of 1 m occupies a space, i.e. volume of 1 m^3.
So if 2 objects occupy the same amount of space, they have the same volume.
2 of the exact same objects or different objects? Be specific Mr twister.
Quote from: JackBlack

Them having the same volume means that if there is no air trapped inside them, then they displace the same volume of air when they move.
If there's no air trapped inside then there is no volume in the objects.


Quote from: JackBlack

It also means if there is air trapped inside, they displace MORE air when they move.
No, they don't.

Quote from: JackBlack

So again, if displacement of air is causing their resistance to motion, the lower density object should resist more according to you. In reality, it resists less.
The higher density resists more. Stop twisting it gets you nowhere.

Quote from: JackBlack

This shows your nonsense is wrong.
It actually doesn't. It just shows that you are trying to twist things to suit your own agenda.
Quote from: JackBlack

And again, you have no basis for why the air should magically resist motion while nothing else should.
I have plenty of basis. I've given you it. The beauty of it is, even your books tell you about air resistance.
The problem is, it's massively skewed with a fictional other force called gravity which is only really used because it keeps alive the fictional space stuff and all the little shenanigans of why water stays on a spinning ball...and us....etc.

Pure utter nonsense but indoctrination is super strong.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 31, 2021, 02:11:21 AM
How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
Let me put this to you.
How does a 1 cubic metre sponge and 1 cubic metre of stone have different volumes.
He is clearly talking about a continuous objects, not those with a bunch of holes in it.
Try again.
A cube with a side length of 1 m occupies a space, i.e. volume of 1 m^3.
So if 2 objects occupy the same amount of space, they have the same volume.
2 of the exact same objects or different objects? Be specific Mr twister.
The only one twisting here is you, trying to pretend the amount of space an object occupies magically is different to its volume.

If there's no air trapped inside then there is no volume in the objects.
Instead you just have the volume OF the object.

Quote from: JackBlack

It also means if there is air trapped inside, they displace MORE air when they move.
No, they don't.
You have already admitted that they do.
They need to displace the air around it as well the air inside it.
That means they displace more.

Quote from: JackBlack

So again, if displacement of air is causing their resistance to motion, the lower density object should resist more according to you. In reality, it resists less.
The higher density resists more. Stop twisting it gets you nowhere.
You are the one continually twisting it.
I know that in reality the higher density object resists more, because it has a greater mass.
The problem for you is that your delusional garbage indicates the exact opposite.

Quote from: JackBlack

This shows your nonsense is wrong.
It actually doesn't.
Yes, it does.
Unless you can explain how displacing less air causes a greater resistance, it shows that your claims are pure garbage with no connection to reality.

Quote from: JackBlack

And again, you have no basis for why the air should magically resist motion while nothing else should.
I have plenty of basis. I've given you it.
Where?


The beauty of it is, even your books tell you about air resistance.
No, it doesn't.
Our books do not tell us that air is magic.
Air is just another fluid.
It resists due to INERTIA, that thing you hate.

The problem is, it's massively skewed with a fictional other force called gravity
And again you show you have no idea what you are talking about.
Again, it is inertia, not gravity.
The fundamental reason air resists an object moving through it is because it has inertia.

Pure utter nonsense but indoctrination is super strong.
Yes, that does seem to be all you have, pure utter nonsense, but you have been so indoctrinated you will not see past it.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 31, 2021, 02:39:56 AM
How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
Let me put this to you.
How does a 1 cubic metre sponge and 1 cubic metre of stone have different volumes.
He is clearly talking about a continuous objects, not those with a bunch of holes in it.
Try again.

You need to try again and understand.
What do you mean by, continuous?

Understand that everything has porosity.

What I'm saying is right, so how about you explain this continuous.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on January 31, 2021, 05:56:11 AM

How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
Let me put this to you.
How does a 1 cubic metre sponge and 1 cubic metre of stone have different volumes. Answer this correctly and you won't need to ask the questions you do.

An object with holes in it like a sponge is not the same as something solid like stone or metal. You might as well ask if a cube and a hollow cube have the same volume or not.

I did not say porous stone, I did not say stone with holes in it. I did not say a hollow stone block.

A sponge and stone would have the same volume if I compressed enough sponges until there were no more holes in it.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 31, 2021, 06:29:23 AM
An object with holes in it like a sponge is not the same as something solid like stone or metal.

Correct they aren't the same, so why try and tell me that they have the same volume?
Quote from: JJA
You might as well ask if a cube and a hollow cube have the same volume or not.

A cube?  You mean a cube with more mass than the hollow cube?
If so, they don't have the same volume.

Quote from: JJA
I did not say porous stone, I did not say stone with holes in it. I did not say a hollow stone block.
It doesn't matter what you say, The stone is porous and has volume.


Quote from: JJA
A sponge and stone would have the same volume if I compressed enough sponges until there were no more holes in it.
But we aren't talking about compressing enough sponges.
Twisting it to fit only confuses you.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on January 31, 2021, 12:35:55 PM
How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
Let me put this to you.
How does a 1 cubic metre sponge and 1 cubic metre of stone have different volumes.
He is clearly talking about a continuous objects, not those with a bunch of holes in it.
Try again.

You need to try again and understand.
You are the one who needs to understand.
2 objects, with the same volume, occupy the same volume.

What do you mean by, continuous?
The structure is approximately close packed so there are no large voids in it.

Understand that everything has porosity.
And you understand that for the vast majority of things, that porosity is irrelevant as pretty much nothing will fit inside it.
You need to understand that you can't just magically compress a molecule of nitrogen or oxygen or the like and have it fit inside the tiny void inside the crystal structure of solid steel or aluminium.

What I'm saying is right
What you are saying is pure garbage and self contradictory.

Again, if you want to appeal to that porosity and claim that these objects magically contain more air, then that means these lower density objects resist motion more.
But that is the exact opposite of what is observed.

If you want to ignore all the air trapped inside then you end up with the 2 objects having the same resistance.

And you still have no explanation for that resistance in the first place. Remember, the mainstream justification for air pressure existing in the first place is due to inertia, which is the very thing you are rejecting to pretend your BS makes sense.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on January 31, 2021, 10:05:42 PM
You are the one who needs to understand.
2 objects, with the same volume, occupy the same volume.
You mean two objects with the same volume that displace the same amount of atmosphere?
If you're saying that, then, of course. I've already stated that.

Quote from: JackBlack

What do you mean by, continuous?
The structure is approximately close packed so there are no large voids in it.
Large voids or small voids. It doesn't matter. Porosity is porosity.


Quote from: JackBlack

Understand that everything has porosity.
And you understand that for the vast majority of things, that porosity is irrelevant as pretty much nothing will fit inside it.
Porosity is the atmospheric filled gaps.
As long as there are gaps you can always make something denser and equally make the object less dense, depending on how you apply different energetic pressures.


Quote from: JackBlack

You need to understand that you can't just magically compress a molecule of nitrogen or oxygen or the like and have it fit inside the tiny void inside the crystal structure of solid steel or aluminium.

Whatever gets trapped in the void, is what it is.

Quote from: JackBlack

What I'm saying is right
What you are saying is pure garbage and self contradictory.

Nope.

Quote from: JackBlack
Again, if you want to appeal to that porosity and claim that these objects magically contain more air, then that means these lower density objects resist motion more.

But that is the exact opposite of what is observed.
Resist motion?
Explain.

Quote from: JackBlack

If you want to ignore all the air trapped inside then you end up with the 2 objects having the same resistance.
Of course. But then again if I ignore all the people inside two planes I have two empty (of people) planes.

Basically, what are you getting at?


Quote from: JackBlack

And you still have no explanation for that resistance in the first place.
I have, you just spent hundreds of posts denying it.

Resistance is the leverage used by any dense object to repel a force applied to that object.


Quote from: JackBlack

 Remember, the mainstream justification for air pressure existing in the first place is due to inertia

, which is the very thing you are rejecting to pretend your BS makes sense.
Inertia has no meaning, unless you simply call it, resistance or leverage or at least use it in that context.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 01, 2021, 01:47:12 AM
You are the one who needs to understand.
2 objects, with the same volume, occupy the same volume.
You mean two objects with the same volume that displace the same amount of atmosphere?
If you're saying that, then, of course. I've already stated that.
If you mean actual atmosphere, then yes. If you mean your fantasy where every object is full of atmosphere, then no.

Large voids or small voids. It doesn't matter. Porosity is porosity.
It does matter.
If the voids are large enough, water and air can go in.
If they are small enough, they can't.


Porosity is the atmospheric filled gaps.
In that case, not every object is pourous.

As long as there are gaps you can always make something denser
Sure, you can collapse it into a neutron star, or a black hole. But for everyday stuff, YOU CAN'T!
There is a limit to how much you can compress an object.
Likewise, with no pressure at all, there is still a minimum density to the solid. If you try to pull it apart, there is a limit before it loses cohesion and falls apart.
This is seen as tensile failures.

The only thing you can decompress like that is gas, which has large voids between the molecules.

Quote from: JackBlack

You need to understand that you can't just magically compress a molecule of nitrogen or oxygen or the like and have it fit inside the tiny void inside the crystal structure of solid steel or aluminium.
Whatever gets trapped in the void, is what it is.
And the point you are ignoring is that there is nothing in those voids.

Quote from: JackBlack
What you are saying is pure garbage and self contradictory.
Nope.
Then explain how displacing less atmosphere causes it to resist a change in motion more.


Quote from: JackBlack
Again, if you want to appeal to that porosity and claim that these objects magically contain more air, then that means these lower density objects resist motion more.
But that is the exact opposite of what is observed.
Resist motion?
Explain.
[/quote]
Stop playing dumb. You know exactly what is meant. It resists being accelerated. A force needs to be applied to accelerate it.

And that is another massive problem for your nonsense. It should be a force is needed to move it through the air, like how air resistance actually works. But as well as that, there is an entirely separate force required to accelerate it.


Quote from: JackBlack

If you want to ignore all the air trapped inside then you end up with the 2 objects having the same resistance.
Of course. But then again if I ignore all the people inside two planes I have two empty (of people) planes.
Basically, what are you getting at?
That even in the best case scenario for you, your garbage still fails massively.

Quote from: JackBlack

And you still have no explanation for that resistance in the first place.
I have, you just spent hundreds of posts denying it.
No, you haven't.
If you did, you would have provided it here.

Resistance is the leverage used by any dense object to repel a force applied to that object.
And just what is this supposed to be?
An attempt at a definition?
Because it certainly isn't an explanation.

Quote from: JackBlack

 Remember, the mainstream justification for air pressure existing in the first place is due to inertia, which is the very thing you are rejecting to pretend your BS makes sense.
Inertia has no meaning, unless you simply call it, resistance or leverage or at least use it in that context.
I have already explained how it has meaning.
It is not simply resistance. It is resistance to an acceleration, i.e. a change in motion.
It is a specific type of resistance.
It is something inherent to all matter.
And as soon as you accept it, it means accepting all your claims about air are pure BS.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 01, 2021, 04:13:49 AM
Large voids or small voids. It doesn't matter. Porosity is porosity.
It does matter.
If the voids are large enough, water and air can go in.
If they are small enough, they can't.


Large or small they are already filled.
The only reason water or atmosphere don't get into smaller holes is because those holes are already filled with atmosphere or water, depending on the exposure to whatever pressure, be it atmospheric or water..
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 01, 2021, 12:19:29 PM
Large voids or small voids. It doesn't matter. Porosity is porosity.
It does matter.
If the voids are large enough, water and air can go in.
If they are small enough, they can't.
Large or small they are already filled.
Repeating the same lies wont help you.
When they are small enough, such as in the crystal structure of steel and aluminium, they are empty. Air cannot fit.

One way to easily see this is in the ability of a substance to form am airtight container.
If you try to use a sponge, it wont work. The air and water go straight through it.
But if you try to use steel, it works just fine. If steel really was so porous it would just let the air through.

You simply cannot compress air enough (without turning it into neutron matter which takes tremendous force) to make it fit.


And again, none of that helps you with the key part of this thread.
You are claiming that air is the magical cause of inertia.
But if that was the case, displacing more air should cause more resistance. If your delusional nonsense is correct you displace more air when moving a lower density object, meaning it should resist more.
But in reality it resists less.
That is what you need to address.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 01, 2021, 09:00:47 PM
Large voids or small voids. It doesn't matter. Porosity is porosity.
It does matter.
If the voids are large enough, water and air can go in.
If they are small enough, they can't.
Large or small they are already filled.
Repeating the same lies wont help you.
When they are small enough, such as in the crystal structure of steel and aluminium, they are empty. Air cannot fit.

One way to easily see this is in the ability of a substance to form am airtight container.
If you try to use a sponge, it wont work. The air and water go straight through it.
But if you try to use steel, it works just fine. If steel really was so porous it would just let the air through.


The air is already through and in. You're not understanding what I'm saying, as usual.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 01, 2021, 09:31:43 PM
The air is already through and in. You're not understanding what I'm saying, as usual.
Me not accepting your BS, and clearly explaining why it is wrong doens't mean I'm not understanding.

Now stop with the pathetic deflection and address the actual issue.

According to your nonsense, when you move 2 objects of which occupy the same amount of space, moving the lower density object causes you to move more air, as you move the air around it as well as the air inside it.
So if the air is what is causing the resistance to motion, moving this larger amount of air means you should have more resistance.
But in reality, you have less.


And the other key point, why should the air resist it at all if it doesn't have inertia?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 01, 2021, 10:00:32 PM
The air is already through and in. You're not understanding what I'm saying, as usual.
Me not accepting your BS, and clearly explaining why it is wrong doens't mean I'm not understanding.

Now stop with the pathetic deflection and address the actual issue.

According to your nonsense, when you move 2 objects of which occupy the same amount of space, moving the lower density object causes you to move more air, as you move the air around it as well as the air inside it.

The objects are not occupying the same space. Get your head around it.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 02, 2021, 01:26:50 AM
The air is already through and in. You're not understanding what I'm saying, as usual.
Me not accepting your BS, and clearly explaining why it is wrong doens't mean I'm not understanding.

Now stop with the pathetic deflection and address the actual issue.

According to your nonsense, when you move 2 objects of which occupy the same amount of space, moving the lower density object causes you to move more air, as you move the air around it as well as the air inside it.

The objects are not occupying the same space. Get your head around it.
Again, stop with the semantic BS and address the actual issue.
Moving the object moves the air around it and the air you claim is inside it.
That means the lower density moves more air and thus should resist according to your nonesnse.

And again, without inertia there is no reason for the air to resist at all.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 02, 2021, 07:28:30 AM
The air is already through and in. You're not understanding what I'm saying, as usual.
Me not accepting your BS, and clearly explaining why it is wrong doens't mean I'm not understanding.

Now stop with the pathetic deflection and address the actual issue.

According to your nonsense, when you move 2 objects of which occupy the same amount of space, moving the lower density object causes you to move more air, as you move the air around it as well as the air inside it.

The objects are not occupying the same space. Get your head around it.
Again, stop with the semantic BS and address the actual issue.
Moving the object moves the air around it and the air you claim is inside it.
That means the lower density moves more air and thus should resist according to your nonesnse.

And again, without inertia there is no reason for the air to resist at all.
Get this into your head and try and deal with it, only.
Spewing nonsense and mass wording just frustrates you.

Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space. Hopefully you can agree to this without twisting it.


I'll await your answer before I move on.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 02, 2021, 07:53:02 AM

Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.

I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.   

:)
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 02, 2021, 08:52:20 AM

Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.

I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.   

:)
Well let's deal with it.
If you see 2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?



Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 02, 2021, 08:56:37 AM

Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.

I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.   

:)
Well let's deal with it.
If you see 2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?

If I put each in a container of water, they would each displace the same amount of water. So I presume they each are displacing the same amount of air in the atmosphere as well, no?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 02, 2021, 09:25:33 AM

Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.

I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.   

:)
Well let's deal with it.
If you see 2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?

If I put each in a container of water, they would each displace the same amount of water. So I presume they each are displacing the same amount of air in the atmosphere as well, no?
No they wouldn't.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 02, 2021, 12:18:50 PM
Get this into your head and try and deal with it, only.
Spewing nonsense and mass wording just frustrates you.
Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space. Hopefully you can agree to this without twisting it.
I'll await your answer before I move on.
Again, stop with the semantic BS and deflection.

Deal with the issue raised, and then you can move on.

Explain how displacing more air causes less resistance.
But also how displacing more air causes more resistance.
That is what you need.

The lower density, when moved, displaces more air according to your nonsense, as it displaces the air around it as well as the air inside it.
You need to explain how this causes less resistance, when larger objects which displace more air, have a greater resistance.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 02, 2021, 12:21:58 PM

Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.

I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.   

:)
Well let's deal with it.
If you see 2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?

If I put each in a container of water, they would each displace the same amount of water. So I presume they each are displacing the same amount of air in the atmosphere as well, no?
No they wouldn't.

So you're saying they wouldn't displace the same amount of water and they wouldn't displace the same amount of air in the atmosphere? If so, how come?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 02, 2021, 01:10:05 PM

Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.

I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.   

:)
Well let's deal with it.
If you see 2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?

Is the hollow box metal sealed or open to the surroundings?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 02, 2021, 01:25:53 PM
So you're saying they wouldn't displace the same amount of water and they wouldn't displace the same amount of air in the atmosphere? If so, how come?
I think he is saying it would displace the same amount of water, but not the same amount of air, because he is saying the air inside doesn't count as displaced.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on February 02, 2021, 04:11:55 PM

Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.

I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.   

:)
Well let's deal with it.
If you see 2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?

If I put each in a container of water, they would each displace the same amount of water. So I presume they each are displacing the same amount of air in the atmosphere as well, no?
No they wouldn't.
Yes they would.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 02, 2021, 10:13:29 PM

Yes they would.
No they would not.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 02, 2021, 10:18:37 PM

Yes they would.
No they would not.

If they each displace an equal amount of water when submerged in a container why wouldn't they each displace an equal amount of air in the atmosphere?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 02, 2021, 10:21:22 PM

Yes they would.
No they would not.

If they each displace an equal amount of water when submerged in a container why wouldn't they each displace an equal amount of air in the atmosphere?
They wouldn't displace an equal amount  of water on their own, in the scenario I gave.

The reason for this is down to them not equally displacing atmosphere.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 02, 2021, 11:52:48 PM

Yes they would.
No they would not.

If they each displace an equal amount of water when submerged in a container why wouldn't they each displace an equal amount of air in the atmosphere?
They wouldn't displace an equal amount  of water on their own, in the scenario I gave.

The reason for this is down to them not equally displacing atmosphere.

Just to make sure we're specifically talking the same scenario:

"2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?"

- Two painted cubes, (I guess "painted" as in "airtight"?)
- Both are visually the same size. (And if measured, the same size, right?)
- One is solid, one is hollow

1) I have a container of water larger than a cube.
2) I submerge the solid cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X
3) I submerge the hollow cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X, the same as the solid cube

You're saying, "No, they would not measure the same displacement"? If so, why?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 03, 2021, 02:43:29 AM

Yes they would.
No they would not.

If they each displace an equal amount of water when submerged in a container why wouldn't they each displace an equal amount of air in the atmosphere?
They wouldn't displace an equal amount  of water on their own, in the scenario I gave.

The reason for this is down to them not equally displacing atmosphere.

Just to make sure we're specifically talking the same scenario:

"2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?"

- Two painted cubes, (I guess "painted" as in "airtight"?)
- Both are visually the same size. (And if measured, the same size, right?)
- One is solid, one is hollow

1) I have a container of water larger than a cube.
2) I submerge the solid cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X
3) I submerge the hollow cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X, the same as the solid cube

You're saying, "No, they would not measure the same displacement"? If so, why?
Because the solid cube has little saturation of air inside its dense makeup and so takes up and compresses a lot of air due to its dense mass resistance against it and using water as a foundation, it is pushed down with the water being unable to counteract that push down by squeezing it back up against that atmospheric push against dense mass of the cube.

The hollow cube has massive saturation of air  which means much less resistance to atmosphere around its exterior skin due to resistance of atmosphere trapped inside of it.
It means the atmosphere pushes back against the cube which uses the water as a foundation and the water can resist that push, leaving the cube to be buoyant.
Basically the crush down cannot overcome the crush up with the hollow cube.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on February 03, 2021, 04:57:53 AM
No they wouldn't.
Yes they would.
No they would not.
Yes they would so.



Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 03, 2021, 05:22:26 AM

Yes they would.
No they would not.

If they each displace an equal amount of water when submerged in a container why wouldn't they each displace an equal amount of air in the atmosphere?
They wouldn't displace an equal amount  of water on their own, in the scenario I gave.

The reason for this is down to them not equally displacing atmosphere.

Just to make sure we're specifically talking the same scenario:

"2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?"

- Two painted cubes, (I guess "painted" as in "airtight"?)
- Both are visually the same size. (And if measured, the same size, right?)
- One is solid, one is hollow

1) I have a container of water larger than a cube.
2) I submerge the solid cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X
3) I submerge the hollow cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X, the same as the solid cube

You're saying, "No, they would not measure the same displacement"? If so, why?
Because the solid cube has little saturation of air inside its dense makeup and so takes up and compresses a lot of air due to its dense mass resistance against it and using water as a foundation, it is pushed down with the water being unable to counteract that push down by squeezing it back up against that atmospheric push against dense mass of the cube.

The hollow cube has massive saturation of air  which means much less resistance to atmosphere around its exterior skin due to resistance of atmosphere trapped inside of it.
It means the atmosphere pushes back against the cube which uses the water as a foundation and the water can resist that push, leaving the cube to be buoyant.
Basically the crush down cannot overcome the crush up with the hollow cube.

A sealed, hollow steel 10 cm cube will not float in water if the walls are more than 0.45 cm thick. 

With walls any thicker than this, the hollow and solid cube will displace exactly the same volume of water when immersed. 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 03, 2021, 10:51:38 AM

Yes they would.
No they would not.

If they each displace an equal amount of water when submerged in a container why wouldn't they each displace an equal amount of air in the atmosphere?
They wouldn't displace an equal amount  of water on their own, in the scenario I gave.

The reason for this is down to them not equally displacing atmosphere.

Just to make sure we're specifically talking the same scenario:

"2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?"

- Two painted cubes, (I guess "painted" as in "airtight"?)
- Both are visually the same size. (And if measured, the same size, right?)
- One is solid, one is hollow

1) I have a container of water larger than a cube.
2) I submerge the solid cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X
3) I submerge the hollow cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X, the same as the solid cube

You're saying, "No, they would not measure the same displacement"? If so, why?
Because the solid cube has little saturation of air inside its dense makeup and so takes up and compresses a lot of air due to its dense mass resistance against it and using water as a foundation, it is pushed down with the water being unable to counteract that push down by squeezing it back up against that atmospheric push against dense mass of the cube.

The hollow cube has massive saturation of air  which means much less resistance to atmosphere around its exterior skin due to resistance of atmosphere trapped inside of it.
It means the atmosphere pushes back against the cube which uses the water as a foundation and the water can resist that push, leaving the cube to be buoyant.
Basically the crush down cannot overcome the crush up with the hollow cube.

Ok, hmmm. A lot of words. I'm not sure what they mean by how you have strung them together. Buoyancy has nothing to do with the question. I don't care if one sinks and one floats. They are both submerged by whatever means. Period. Both displace water based upon their shape and size.  I'm simply asking about the volume of the cubes. The question is, do they both displace the same amount of water being that they are the same measurable size and airtight?

So, are you saying that they don't displace the same amount? Simple yes/no.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 03, 2021, 01:39:57 PM
The hollow cube has massive saturation of air
Only if it was constructed in air.
It is quite possible to construct it in a very low pressure environment (i.e. vacuum), so it has negligible air inside.

Remember, displaced air is not the same as mass.


Now again, stop deflecting and deal with the massive flaw in your nonsense.

Again, a low density object will displace more air when it is moved according to your nonsense (as it displaces the air inside and outside).
This should make it resist more.
Why does it resist less?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 12:39:49 AM

Yes they would.
No they would not.

If they each displace an equal amount of water when submerged in a container why wouldn't they each displace an equal amount of air in the atmosphere?
They wouldn't displace an equal amount  of water on their own, in the scenario I gave.

The reason for this is down to them not equally displacing atmosphere.

Just to make sure we're specifically talking the same scenario:

"2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?"

- Two painted cubes, (I guess "painted" as in "airtight"?)
- Both are visually the same size. (And if measured, the same size, right?)
- One is solid, one is hollow

1) I have a container of water larger than a cube.
2) I submerge the solid cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X
3) I submerge the hollow cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X, the same as the solid cube

You're saying, "No, they would not measure the same displacement"? If so, why?
Because the solid cube has little saturation of air inside its dense makeup and so takes up and compresses a lot of air due to its dense mass resistance against it and using water as a foundation, it is pushed down with the water being unable to counteract that push down by squeezing it back up against that atmospheric push against dense mass of the cube.

The hollow cube has massive saturation of air  which means much less resistance to atmosphere around its exterior skin due to resistance of atmosphere trapped inside of it.
It means the atmosphere pushes back against the cube which uses the water as a foundation and the water can resist that push, leaving the cube to be buoyant.
Basically the crush down cannot overcome the crush up with the hollow cube.

A sealed, hollow steel 10 cm cube will not float in water if the walls are more than 0.45 cm thick. 

With walls any thicker than this, the hollow and solid cube will displace exactly the same volume of water when immersed.
10cm is a lot of dense mass.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 12:41:20 AM


Ok, hmmm. A lot of words. I'm not sure what they mean by how you have strung them together. Buoyancy has nothing to do with the question. I don't care if one sinks and one floats. They are both submerged by whatever means. Period. Both displace water based upon their shape and size.  I'm simply asking about the volume of the cubes. The question is, do they both displace the same amount of water being that they are the same measurable size and airtight?

So, are you saying that they don't displace the same amount? Simple yes/no.
Now you're playing on words.

How about you give me a scenario and do not miss anything out.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 12:42:28 AM
The hollow cube has massive saturation of air
Only if it was constructed in air.
It is quite possible to construct it in a very low pressure environment (i.e. vacuum), so it has negligible air inside.

Remember, displaced air is not the same as mass.


Now again, stop deflecting and deal with the massive flaw in your nonsense.

Again, a low density object will displace more air when it is moved according to your nonsense (as it displaces the air inside and outside).
This should make it resist more.
Why does it resist less?
You're just not getting it...or you are but are pretending not to.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 04, 2021, 12:44:32 AM
The hollow cube has massive saturation of air
Only if it was constructed in air.
It is quite possible to construct it in a very low pressure environment (i.e. vacuum), so it has negligible air inside.

Remember, displaced air is not the same as mass.


Now again, stop deflecting and deal with the massive flaw in your nonsense.

Again, a low density object will displace more air when it is moved according to your nonsense (as it displaces the air inside and outside).
This should make it resist more.
Why does it resist less?
You're just not getting it...or you are but are pretending not to.
Due to your complete inability to refute what I have said, nor answer my extremely simple questions, I quite clearly am.

So can you explain why a denser object which displaces less air when it moves (or equal if we ignore your nonsense) resists more?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 04, 2021, 12:54:23 AM


Ok, hmmm. A lot of words. I'm not sure what they mean by how you have strung them together. Buoyancy has nothing to do with the question. I don't care if one sinks and one floats. They are both submerged by whatever means. Period. Both displace water based upon their shape and size.  I'm simply asking about the volume of the cubes. The question is, do they both displace the same amount of water being that they are the same measurable size and airtight?

So, are you saying that they don't displace the same amount? Simple yes/no.
Now you're playing on words.

How about you give me a scenario and do not miss anything out.

I already gave you the exact scenario. Do they both displace the same amount? Sinking, floating, buoyancy, donít care. Iím talking just volume. Do the same sized airtight cubes, one hollow, one solid, displace the same amount when submerged in a container of water? Simple as that.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 12:56:15 AM
The hollow cube has massive saturation of air
Only if it was constructed in air.
It is quite possible to construct it in a very low pressure environment (i.e. vacuum), so it has negligible air inside.

Remember, displaced air is not the same as mass.


Now again, stop deflecting and deal with the massive flaw in your nonsense.

Again, a low density object will displace more air when it is moved according to your nonsense (as it displaces the air inside and outside).
This should make it resist more.
Why does it resist less?
You're just not getting it...or you are but are pretending not to.
Due to your complete inability to refute what I have said, nor answer my extremely simple questions, I quite clearly am.

So can you explain why a denser object which displaces less air when it moves (or equal if we ignore your nonsense) resists more?
Twisting is wasting your own time.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 12:57:12 AM


Ok, hmmm. A lot of words. I'm not sure what they mean by how you have strung them together. Buoyancy has nothing to do with the question. I don't care if one sinks and one floats. They are both submerged by whatever means. Period. Both displace water based upon their shape and size.  I'm simply asking about the volume of the cubes. The question is, do they both displace the same amount of water being that they are the same measurable size and airtight?

So, are you saying that they don't displace the same amount? Simple yes/no.
Now you're playing on words.

How about you give me a scenario and do not miss anything out.

I already gave you the exact scenario. Do they both displace the same amount? Sinking, floating, buoyancy, donít care. Iím talking just volume. Do the same sized airtight cubes, one hollow, one solid, displace the same amount when submerged in a container of water? Simple as that.
Understand volume from my side before you carry on.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 04, 2021, 01:05:08 AM


Ok, hmmm. A lot of words. I'm not sure what they mean by how you have strung them together. Buoyancy has nothing to do with the question. I don't care if one sinks and one floats. They are both submerged by whatever means. Period. Both displace water based upon their shape and size.  I'm simply asking about the volume of the cubes. The question is, do they both displace the same amount of water being that they are the same measurable size and airtight?

So, are you saying that they don't displace the same amount? Simple yes/no.
Now you're playing on words.

How about you give me a scenario and do not miss anything out.

I already gave you the exact scenario. Do they both displace the same amount? Sinking, floating, buoyancy, donít care. Iím talking just volume. Do the same sized airtight cubes, one hollow, one solid, displace the same amount when submerged in a container of water? Simple as that.
Understand volume from my side before you carry on.

I do. It has to do with porosity. But the question is both cubes are the same size, airtight, one hollow, one solid, do they displace the same amount? If you say they donít based upon some porosity difference, how so? Both are airtight. Therefore porosity is the same, right?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 04, 2021, 01:05:19 AM
The hollow cube has massive saturation of air
Only if it was constructed in air.
It is quite possible to construct it in a very low pressure environment (i.e. vacuum), so it has negligible air inside.

Remember, displaced air is not the same as mass.


Now again, stop deflecting and deal with the massive flaw in your nonsense.

Again, a low density object will displace more air when it is moved according to your nonsense (as it displaces the air inside and outside).
This should make it resist more.
Why does it resist less?
You're just not getting it...or you are but are pretending not to.
Due to your complete inability to refute what I have said, nor answer my extremely simple questions, I quite clearly am.

So can you explain why a denser object which displaces less air when it moves (or equal if we ignore your nonsense) resists more?
Twisting is wasting your own time.
So perhaps you can stop twisting and start actually dealing with the issue.
If you want to pretend that a more dense object displaces (i.e. MOVES) more air when it moves, go ahead. But remember, on the outside it is the same. All you have to establish a difference is the inside, and as the lower density you claim has air inside it, moving the lower density object will move that air as well.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 01:25:50 AM


I do. It has to do with porosity. But the question is both cubes are the same size, airtight, one hollow, one solid, do they displace the same amount? If you say they donít based upon some porosity difference, how so? Both are airtight. Therefore porosity is the same, right?
Answer this question.

If you were to have two cubes exactly the same size...one is a sponge with larger holes in it all the way through and the other has tiny holes in it al the way through.

If both were dropped into water, which one would displace the most?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 01:26:32 AM

So perhaps you can stop twisting and start actually dealing with the issue.

Come back to me when you have something to offer.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 04, 2021, 01:32:52 AM
Come back to me when you have something to offer.
I have already offered it and you just keep on running away.

Again, how does displacing more air result in less resistance?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 01:46:04 AM
Come back to me when you have something to offer.
I have already offered it and you just keep on running away.

Again, how does displacing more air result in less resistance?
Take notice of the last post.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 02:23:00 AM

Yes they would.
No they would not.

If they each displace an equal amount of water when submerged in a container why wouldn't they each displace an equal amount of air in the atmosphere?
They wouldn't displace an equal amount  of water on their own, in the scenario I gave.

The reason for this is down to them not equally displacing atmosphere.

Just to make sure we're specifically talking the same scenario:

"2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?"

- Two painted cubes, (I guess "painted" as in "airtight"?)
- Both are visually the same size. (And if measured, the same size, right?)
- One is solid, one is hollow

1) I have a container of water larger than a cube.
2) I submerge the solid cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X
3) I submerge the hollow cube into the container, measure the displacement. It equals X, the same as the solid cube

You're saying, "No, they would not measure the same displacement"? If so, why?
Because the solid cube has little saturation of air inside its dense makeup and so takes up and compresses a lot of air due to its dense mass resistance against it and using water as a foundation, it is pushed down with the water being unable to counteract that push down by squeezing it back up against that atmospheric push against dense mass of the cube.

The hollow cube has massive saturation of air  which means much less resistance to atmosphere around its exterior skin due to resistance of atmosphere trapped inside of it.
It means the atmosphere pushes back against the cube which uses the water as a foundation and the water can resist that push, leaving the cube to be buoyant.
Basically the crush down cannot overcome the crush up with the hollow cube.

A sealed, hollow steel 10 cm cube will not float in water if the walls are more than 0.45 cm thick. 

With walls any thicker than this, the hollow and solid cube will displace exactly the same volume of water when immersed.
10cm is a lot of dense mass.

The solid block would mass at around 8 kg.  The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg. 

Despite have differing masses, both would displace the exact same amount of fluid, 1 L, when submerged. 


Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 02:37:23 AM


The solid block would mass at around 8 kg.  The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg. 

Despite have differing masses, both would displace the exact same amount of fluid, 1 L, when submerged.
Wrong.

Let me explain why. Use your brain.

A container ship ready to load will displace a lot less water that the same ship when loaded with containers.
Why?
Because you've added more mass against the atmosphere by pushing out the atmosphere from the empty ship and made it more difficult for the water to resist that push.

Now think about this with your hollow and solid block.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 04, 2021, 03:26:26 AM
Come back to me when you have something to offer.
I have already offered it and you just keep on running away.

Again, how does displacing more air result in less resistance?
Take notice of the last post.
Why?
We aren't talking about sponges.
We are talking about air tight objects.
They move the same air on the outside when you move them, and the only distinction would be any air trapped inside.

Now again, HOW DOES DISPLACING MORE AIR CAUSE LESS RESISTANCE?

A container ship ready to load will displace a lot less water that the same ship when loaded with containers.
Why?
Because it isn't submerged.
This is because it is too light.
As you increase the weight, you need to displace more water (or higher density fluid) to have the same buoyant force. But eventually you reach a point where the water isn't dense enough and the ship sinks, displacing the same volume.

There is no need for your magic atmosphere which you have repeatedly failed to defend and fled from threads destroying your nonsense.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 03:27:48 AM


The solid block would mass at around 8 kg.  The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg. 

Despite have differing masses, both would displace the exact same amount of fluid, 1 L, when submerged.
Wrong.


You are entitled to believe whatever you want.  Maybe in your imagination fairies are dancing through the atmosphere dropping pixie dust on objects to make them float.  So be it but who cares really.

The fact is that a cube of steel with side length 10 cm will weigh about 8 kg and when dropped in a vessel of water, will sink to bottom, and the measured displacement in the vessel will be 1 L. 

If a sealed, but hollow steel cube of the same size, and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm is also dropped in water, despite its total weight being only slightly greater than 1 kg, will also sink to the bottom of the and create a measured displacement of 1 L. 

This is just the way things are.  Deal with it or pretend whatever you want, but it won't change anything one way or another.

Sorry.   
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 04:11:26 AM


The solid block would mass at around 8 kg.  The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg. 

Despite have differing masses, both would displace the exact same amount of fluid, 1 L, when submerged.

Wrong.


The fact is that a cube of steel with side length 10 cm will weigh about 8 kg and when dropped in a vessel of water, will sink to bottom, and the measured displacement in the vessel will be 1 L. 

If a sealed, but hollow steel cube of the same size, and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm is also dropped in water, despite its total weight being only slightly greater than 1 kg, will also sink to the bottom of the and create a measured displacement of 1 L. 

This is just the way things are.  Deal with it or pretend whatever you want, but it won't change anything one way or another.

Sorry.
You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 04:33:12 AM


The solid block would mass at around 8 kg.  The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg. 

Despite have differing masses, both would displace the exact same amount of fluid, 1 L, when submerged.

Wrong.


The fact is that a cube of steel with side length 10 cm will weigh about 8 kg and when dropped in a vessel of water, will sink to bottom, and the measured displacement in the vessel will be 1 L. 

If a sealed, but hollow steel cube of the same size, and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm is also dropped in water, despite its total weight being only slightly greater than 1 kg, will also sink to the bottom of the and create a measured displacement of 1 L. 

This is just the way things are.  Deal with it or pretend whatever you want, but it won't change anything one way or another.

Sorry.
You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.

I don't have an argument, I have a statement of facts.

1.  A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2.  A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3.  Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4.  Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.

Argue your fairies on a shipping barge all you want, maybe tell us more about the candy canes and sugar drops they are transporting? 

Regardless though, the facts above won't change.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: MicroBeta on February 04, 2021, 05:08:52 AM
Flat Earth is coming to schools???
Yeah free fall object has to do with flat earth + Downwards Universal Deceleration. 👌
Gravity is the most studied subject in history of physics.  There is literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed published data. 

Your inability to understand that hot air will rise regardless of what causes objects to fall changes none of peer reviewed data.  AAMOF, the very fact that hot air rises is not evidence for or against gravity and not evidence for or against universal acceleration.

Mike
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on February 04, 2021, 07:14:41 AM
Twisting is wasting your own time.

Is twisting your new replacement word for lying?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 07:23:35 AM


The solid block would mass at around 8 kg.  The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg. 

Despite have differing masses, both would displace the exact same amount of fluid, 1 L, when submerged.

Wrong.


The fact is that a cube of steel with side length 10 cm will weigh about 8 kg and when dropped in a vessel of water, will sink to bottom, and the measured displacement in the vessel will be 1 L. 

If a sealed, but hollow steel cube of the same size, and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm is also dropped in water, despite its total weight being only slightly greater than 1 kg, will also sink to the bottom of the and create a measured displacement of 1 L. 

This is just the way things are.  Deal with it or pretend whatever you want, but it won't change anything one way or another.

Sorry.
You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.

I don't have an argument, I have a statement of facts.

1.  A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2.  A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3.  Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4.  Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.

Argue your fairies on a shipping barge all you want, maybe tell us more about the candy canes and sugar drops they are transporting? 

Regardless though, the facts above won't change.
You're 100% wrong but you'll never see it because you don't want to see it.

I'll leave you a little something to ponder. No need to reply to me. Just think of both of those cubes and water pressure.



Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 07:24:14 AM
Twisting is wasting your own time.

Is twisting your new replacement word for lying?
It depends on how you want to look at it.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 08:13:05 AM
You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.

I don't have an argument, I have a statement of facts.

1.  A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2.  A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3.  Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4.  Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.

Argue your fairies on a shipping barge all you want, maybe tell us more about the candy canes and sugar drops they are transporting? 

Regardless though, the facts above won't change.
You're 100% wrong but you'll never see it because you don't want to see it.

You of course are entitled to that opinion.  I don't think anyone really cares, and your complete obliviousness to reality doesn't make you look any sillier to anyone than you are already seen, that ship sailed long ago (MagicTunnel Vision!!!).  So it doesnt really matter.  I'm just giving you some facts, letting you know how things are in the real world, not the one full of fanciful fairies and magical pixie dust that you imagine.  No worries to me though if you prefer to live in your imagination. 

I'll leave you a little something to ponder. No need to reply to me. Just think of both of those cubes and water pressure.

Water pressure?  Tell me more!!!  Do we get to hear about the Water Fairies now?  Do they have their own magic pixie dust too?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 08:23:14 AM

You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.

I don't have an argument, I have a statement of facts.

1.  A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2.  A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3.  Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4.  Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.

Argue your fairies on a shipping barge all you want, maybe tell us more about the candy canes and sugar drops they are transporting? 

Regardless though, the facts above won't change.
You're 100% wrong but you'll never see it because you don't want to see it.

You of course are entitled to that opinion.  I don't think anyone really cares, and your complete obliviousness to reality doesn't make you look any sillier to anyone that you are already seen, that ship sailed long ago (MagicTunnel Vision!!!).  So it doesnt really matter.  I'm just giving you some facts, letting you know how things are in the real world, not the one full of fanciful fairies and magical pixie dust that you imagine.  No worries to me though if you prefer to live in your imagination. 

I'll leave you a little something to ponder. No need to reply to me. Just think of both of those cubes and water pressure.

Water pressure?  Tell me more!!!  Do we get to hear about the Water Fairies now?  Do they have their own magic pixie dust too?
Come back when you can actually type normally.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 09:22:48 AM

You didn't answer the shipping question.
You killed your own argument.

I don't have an argument, I have a statement of facts.

1.  A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2.  A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3.  Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4.  Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.

Argue your fairies on a shipping barge all you want, maybe tell us more about the candy canes and sugar drops they are transporting? 

Regardless though, the facts above won't change.
You're 100% wrong but you'll never see it because you don't want to see it.

You of course are entitled to that opinion.  I don't think anyone really cares, and your complete obliviousness to reality doesn't make you look any sillier to anyone that you are already seen, that ship sailed long ago (MagicTunnel Vision!!!).  So it doesnt really matter.  I'm just giving you some facts, letting you know how things are in the real world, not the one full of fanciful fairies and magical pixie dust that you imagine.  No worries to me though if you prefer to live in your imagination. 

I'll leave you a little something to ponder. No need to reply to me. Just think of both of those cubes and water pressure.

Water pressure?  Tell me more!!!  Do we get to hear about the Water Fairies now?  Do they have their own magic pixie dust too?
Come back when you can actually type normally.

Okay, if you don't want to talk about it, its fine by me.  No need for any excuses. 

Keep in mind I am always pleased and amused to listen to your stories if you change your mind!
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2021, 09:30:23 AM


Okay, if you don't want to talk about it, its fine by me.  No need for any excuses. 

Keep in mind I am always pleased and amused to listen to your stories if you change your mind!
No problem. Just sit back and read on and come in when you feel you can actually type something worthwhile.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 04, 2021, 09:45:55 AM


Okay, if you don't want to talk about it, its fine by me.  No need for any excuses. 

Keep in mind I am always pleased and amused to listen to your stories if you change your mind!
No problem. Just sit back and read on and come in when you feel you can actually type something worthwhile.

Lol.  We are on a backwater, outdated messaging board bickering over lines, triangles, and magic pixie dust. 

Nothing here is really that worthwhile.  Don't delude yourself on the importance of this discussion. 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 04, 2021, 01:09:43 PM
You didn't answer the shipping question.
Because it is just a pathetic distraction from you to pretend you are not wrong.

Again, when the objects are not fully submerged it is quite apparent that they won't displace the same amount of water. But when they are, they do.

You're 100% wrong but you'll never see it because you don't want to see it.
You sure do love projecting your own inadequacies don't you?

Pretty much everyone can realise (at least if they bother thinking about it) that all your claims about your magical air are pure nonsense with no connection to reality at all.
You just refuse to see it because you don't want to, because you hate the globe so much you will do whatever you can to dismiss it and things associated with it.


For example, any sane person can see that in reality, 2 objects of the same size (e.g. 2 balls with diameter of 20 cm), will resist changes in motion by different amounts, i.e. it will require a different force to accelerate them. They can see that the denser (i.e. more massive) object resists more.
This shows them that it is not merely the result of air pressure like you claim.
If it was, then the 2 balls should resist the same amount. The only thing that would change that is if there is any air inside the object, which you claim the lower density object has. But that simply means the lighter object is displacing more air and should resist more, not less.

And we know this last part in 2 ways, one is that it is simply nonsense to think that less air (eventually resulting in no air) would produce more resistance. The other is that by using a larger object, which displaces more air, we get more resistance, so if displacing less air caused more resistance you would have a massive contradiction.

Meanwhile, the simple idea of inertia actually makes sense and matches what is observed.
Attempting to accelerate any mass will result it in resisting, simply because of its mass.
If you were to take 2 such objects and join them together, the mass would increase and so would the amount of resistance, with them being proportional to each other, exactly as observed.

And even worse applies for your nonsensical attempt at replacing gravity, where you can't even explain what causes a pressure gradient in the atmosphere to exist in the first place, nor why this pressure gradient typically applies a force in the wrong direction, nor how this force is magically applied to each bit of mass to establish a pressure gradient, rather than simply being applied at the top and crushing everything.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 04, 2021, 09:16:52 PM

The solid block would mass at around 8 kg.  The sealed hollow box with 4.5 mm sides would weigh about 1 kg.
Said the scientist who never played stink finger.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 12:07:11 AM
You didn't answer the shipping question.
Because it is just a pathetic distraction from you to pretend you are not wrong.

Again, when the objects are not fully submerged it is quite apparent that they won't displace the same amount of water. But when they are, they do.

No they do not.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 05, 2021, 12:40:57 AM
You didn't answer the shipping question.
Because it is just a pathetic distraction from you to pretend you are not wrong.

Again, when the objects are not fully submerged it is quite apparent that they won't displace the same amount of water. But when they are, they do.

No they do not.
Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.

And again, you ignore the bigger issue, the fact that the resistance to a change in motion is not dependent upon the amount of air displaced on moving.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 01:23:54 AM

Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.


It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 05, 2021, 01:46:19 AM

Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.


It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.

Take two identical empty 16 oz screw top plastic Coke bottles. Fill one with water (or leave the Coke in it) or sand or buckshot, whatever. Take the other one, leave it empty and screw the top back on. Fill up some container with water and fully submerge each in the container. Measure the displacement of each. I just want to be clear - You're saying one will displace more water in the container than the other?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 02:09:36 AM

Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.


It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.

Take two identical empty 16 oz screw top plastic Coke bottles. Fill one with water (or leave the Coke in it) or sand or buckshot, whatever. Take the other one, leave it empty and screw the top back on. Fill up some container with water and fully submerge each in the container. Measure the displacement of each. I just want to be clear - You're saying one will displace more water in the container than the other?
Let me make this clear.

First of all the water displacement in that scenario would be almost identical. Almost. To the eye and to the scale it will likely show little to no discrepancy.

But let's not side step this.

Tell me what would happen if both bottles were in a huge tank or deep sea and they were both dragged down.
Explain what happens and we'll go from there.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 05, 2021, 02:41:14 AM
Sceptimatic: 



1.  A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2.  A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3.  Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4.  Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.

You're 100% wrong


Also Sceptimatic: 


Take two identical empty 16 oz screw top plastic Coke bottles. Fill one with water (or leave the Coke in it) or sand or buckshot, whatever. Take the other one, leave it empty and screw the top back on. Fill up some container with water and fully submerge each in the container. Measure the displacement of each. I just want to be clear - You're saying one will displace more water in the container than the other?

the water displacement in that scenario would be almost identical.



 :D :D :D
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 05, 2021, 05:40:10 AM
Sceptimatic: 



1.  A solid cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm masses at around 8 kg
2.  A hollow, sealed cube of steel with an edge length of 10 cm and a wall thickness of 4.5 mm masses at slightly over 1 kg
3.  Both would sink in a vessel of water.
4.  Both would displace 1 L of water in that vessel.

You're 100% wrong


Also Sceptimatic: 


Take two identical empty 16 oz screw top plastic Coke bottles. Fill one with water (or leave the Coke in it) or sand or buckshot, whatever. Take the other one, leave it empty and screw the top back on. Fill up some container with water and fully submerge each in the container. Measure the displacement of each. I just want to be clear - You're saying one will displace more water in the container than the other?

the water displacement in that scenario would be almost identical.



 :D :D :D
Maybe pay attention to depths and what I'm saying. It might help you understand.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 05, 2021, 10:37:57 AM

Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.


It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.

Take two identical empty 16 oz screw top plastic Coke bottles. Fill one with water (or leave the Coke in it) or sand or buckshot, whatever. Take the other one, leave it empty and screw the top back on. Fill up some container with water and fully submerge each in the container. Measure the displacement of each. I just want to be clear - You're saying one will displace more water in the container than the other?
Let me make this clear.

First of all the water displacement in that scenario would be almost identical. Almost. To the eye and to the scale it will likely show little to no discrepancy.

But let's not side step this.

Tell me what would happen if both bottles were in a huge tank or deep sea and they were both dragged down.
Explain what happens and we'll go from there.

So the volume is the same, measured as such. Submerged in a tank on my kitchen counter the measured displacement wouldn't show little discrepancy, it would show no discrepancy. The measured volume would be the same. We got that cleared up.

Yes, I know what you're getting at, submerge them deep and the higher depth pressure will crush the weak empty plastic bottle over the one that's filled with stuff, thereby compressing it and perhaps making it of smaller volume. But that's really neither here no there. We're talking about just on the surface of earth with normal pressure. And if I took the steel cubes, one solid, one not, and submerged them deep in the ocean, it would take a ton of pressure to crush the hollow one and a mega ton of pressure to crush the solid one. Probably what submarine engineers/designers calculate the shit out of to make sure their vessels don't get crushed at depth. There's a mountain of data out there on how that stuff works.

The point is, on earth, the displacement is the same in the coke bottle experiment and therefore the volume is the same having nothing to do with density/porosity. Same as if I submerged the steel cubes in the container on my kitchen counter they would measurably displace the same amount, thereby measured as the same volume.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 05, 2021, 12:35:24 PM
Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.
It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.
It is a fact, because just below the surface of the water the change in pressure is insignificant, and would not impact the size of the cube by any measurable amount, and would effect both cubes.

Stop trying to completely change the situation so one of the cubes is crushed. It just shows how pathetic and indefensible your position is.

The simple fact is unless you actually crush the hollow cube, the displacement of water by the 2 cubes would be practically identical and would come down to manufacturing tolerances. It cannot explain the variation in the mass of the cubes nor in their resistance to changes motion.

Again, for the actual key part of the topic you continually run from, if you were to accelerate these objects and have them move through the air they would displace the same amount of air external to the cube.
The only difference in displacement of air is the air inside the hollow cube, which means the lower density and thus lighter object displaces more air when you move it. That means according to your nonsense it should resist changes in motion MORE, not less. But in reality, we observe the exact opposite.

Yet again, your nonsense is wrong.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 06, 2021, 03:10:23 AM

Yes, I know what you're getting at, submerge them deep and the higher depth pressure will crush the weak empty plastic bottle over the one that's filled with stuff, thereby compressing it and perhaps making it of smaller volume. But that's really neither here no there.
It is massively important.
It not only shows atmospheric pressure is the reason it also shows there's no extra force that we are told is supposed gravity.



Quote from: Stash

We're talking about just on the surface of earth with normal pressure.
Yep and you need to take that in mind when you talk about solid and hollow and submerging using force to displace. Force other than just atmospheric with objects with more volume having to have extra applied pressure to displace that water.
Think on it.


Quote from: Stash
And if I took the steel cubes, one solid, one not, and submerged them deep in the ocean, it would take a ton of pressure to crush the hollow one and a mega ton of pressure to crush the solid one.

Yep, it's all about the pressures applied.

Quote from: Stash
Probably what submarine engineers/designers calculate the shit out of to make sure their vessels don't get crushed at depth. There's a mountain of data out there on how that stuff works.

Of course but they do not use gravity as any calculation. They simply use atmospheric and water pressures against the shell of the sub.

Quote from: Stash
The point is, on earth, the displacement is the same in the coke bottle experiment and therefore the volume is the same having nothing to do with density/porosity.
[/quote
No. The displacement is only similar if you apply extra pressure to the empty coke bottle, otherwise the coke bottle in itself does not displace much water.


Quote from: Stash
Same as if I submerged the steel cubes in the container on my kitchen counter they would measurably displace the same amount, thereby measured as the same volume.
Only if they sink to the bottom where there is a foundation which stops the hollow one from being massively crushed and therefore, like I said, the displacement appears to be the same but will, even in this case, be minutely different, yet likely undetectable in that shallow tank.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 06, 2021, 03:11:14 AM
Care to provide any evidence of that?
Because it is a fairly well substantiated fact.
It's not a fact, at all and you should know this if you took the time.
It is a fact, because just below the surface of the water the change in pressure is insignificant, and would not impact the size of the cube by any measurable amount, and would effect both cubes.

Stop trying to completely change the situation so one of the cubes is crushed. It just shows how pathetic and indefensible your position is.

The simple fact is unless you actually crush the hollow cube, the displacement of water by the 2 cubes would be practically identical and would come down to manufacturing tolerances. It cannot explain the variation in the mass of the cubes nor in their resistance to changes motion.

Again, for the actual key part of the topic you continually run from, if you were to accelerate these objects and have them move through the air they would displace the same amount of air external to the cube.
The only difference in displacement of air is the air inside the hollow cube, which means the lower density and thus lighter object displaces more air when you move it. That means according to your nonsense it should resist changes in motion MORE, not less. But in reality, we observe the exact opposite.

Yet again, your nonsense is wrong.
Come back when you're less angry.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 06, 2021, 01:09:34 PM
It is massively important.
No, it isn't.
It is you trying to deflect from the issue at hand to pretend to have a point and pretend to be correct.

It is clear that at atmospheric pressure the displace the same volume.
That means when you move them, they will displace the same amount of air around them.
This means the hollow object will displace more air as it displaces the air outside and inside and thus should have a much greater resistance.
This directly contradicts observed reality and shows your garbage to be wrong.

This is what you continually refuse to address.

Of course but they do not use gravity as any calculation.
Yes, they do.
They use the density of water along with gravity to determine the pressure at any depth. Atmospheric pressure does not factor into it, because it cannot explain things like pressure gradients in water.

will, even in this case, be minutely different, yet likely undetectable in that shallow tank.
Which means it cannot explain the difference in resistance to changes in motion, and thus your nonsense is garbage which does not explain reality.

Come back when you're less angry.
How about you leave and come back when you can defend your garbage and answer simple questions rather than continually avoid them and insult and dismiss people.

Dismissing me as angry just further shows how pathetic your position is and how incapable of defending it you are.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Smoke Machine on February 06, 2021, 10:55:08 PM
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry?  ???

Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 07, 2021, 03:00:22 AM


Dismissing me as angry just further shows how pathetic your position is and how incapable of defending it you are.
You continually twist what I say and you also don't grasp what I'm saying. You think you do but you don't. That is clear in your answers.
Shape up and stop the anger.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 07, 2021, 03:01:56 AM
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry?  ???

Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.

Tell me how you use it and then tell me way it works.
I'm sure you can do this....right?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on February 07, 2021, 03:55:11 AM
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry?  ???

Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.

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

You might want to try something easier, like understanding why an equation with an exponent makes a curve.  Start with the basics, work your way up from there.

You can only lead a horse to water after all.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 07, 2021, 05:50:13 AM
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry?  ???

Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.

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

You might want to try something easier, like understanding why an equation with an exponent makes a curve.  Start with the basics, work your way up from there.

You can only lead a horse to water after all.
I don't need to. I simply need to know what a straight sight is or a straight line or a level sight or a level line.
I have no need to play with equations until there's a need to play with equations.
This is not one of them from my point of view.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on February 07, 2021, 07:23:58 AM
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry?  ???

Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.

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

You might want to try something easier, like understanding why an equation with an exponent makes a curve.  Start with the basics, work your way up from there.

You can only lead a horse to water after all.
I don't need to. I simply need to know what a straight sight is or a straight line or a level sight or a level line.
I have no need to play with equations until there's a need to play with equations.
This is not one of them from my point of view.

You won't get very far in understanding the world you live on if you ignore equations and math because you don't think you need them.

Time and time again you have shown yourself completely unwilling to learn or understand any concept presented to you.  You only ask for things to be explained so you can just deny them.

We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 07, 2021, 12:34:34 PM
Dismissing me as angry just further shows how pathetic your position is and how incapable of defending it you are.
You continually twist what I say and you also don't grasp what I'm saying. You think you do but you don't. That is clear in your answers.
Shape up and stop the anger.
No, I don't. Instead I clearly explain why your nonsense is just that, nonsense.
Your complete inability to actually respond to what has been said shows that.

Shape up and stop the insults and deflection.

You have already admitted that the difference in outside volume is negligible and only under quite high pressure.
This means that they both move the same amount of air around the object.
That means any significant change in the air displaced will come from the air trapped inside.

This means a hollow/low density object displaces MORE air.
This means it should have a greater resistance to change in motion.
But back in reality, it has less resistance.
This means your nonsense is wrong.
The air does not explain why objects resist acceleration.

This is what you need to address.
But this is what you can't address other than by admitting you are wrong, so you continue to deflect and insult.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 07, 2021, 09:33:17 PM
You won't get very far in understanding the world you live on if you ignore equations and math because you don't think you need them.
I'll use calculations when I require them for real things, not for fictional stories.

Quote from: JJA

Time and time again you have shown yourself completely unwilling to learn or understand any concept presented to you.  You only ask for things to be explained so you can just deny them.
I'm more than willing to learn but reality is what is foremost in my mind.
When I want to read fiction I'll be sure to peruse the global fiction of the library.

Quote from: JJA

We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 07, 2021, 09:34:09 PM
Dismissing me as angry just further shows how pathetic your position is and how incapable of defending it you are.
You continually twist what I say and you also don't grasp what I'm saying. You think you do but you don't. That is clear in your answers.
Shape up and stop the anger.
No, I don't. Instead I clearly explain why your nonsense is just that, nonsense.
Your complete inability to actually respond to what has been said shows that.

Shape up and stop the insults and deflection.

You have a nerve.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 08, 2021, 12:21:41 AM

Quote from: JJA

We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.

Lol.  Yes, NO ONE has ever explained a common tool used by people all around the world to perform meaningful work. 

No one.  They are complete mysteries.

Maybe you can explain how they magically work?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 12:27:55 AM

Quote from: JJA

We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.

Lol.  Yes, NO ONE has ever explained a common tool used by people all around the world to perform meaningful work. 

No one.  They are complete mysteries.

Maybe you can explain how they magically work?
This is generally all I ever see. Just typed words that show nothing.
You have absolutely no idea what this gravimeter does and why. You cannot explain it.

If you think you can then explain how it works and what it's actually doing to show gravity.

I won't hold my breath, just the same as I haven't when I put it out earlier on and nobody has answered.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 08, 2021, 12:48:54 AM

Quote from: JJA

We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.

Lol.  Yes, NO ONE has ever explained a common tool used by people all around the world to perform meaningful work. 

No one.  They are complete mysteries.

Maybe you can explain how they magically work?
This is generally all I ever see. Just typed words that show nothing.
You have absolutely no idea what this gravimeter does and why. You cannot explain it.

If you think you can then explain how it works and what it's actually doing to show gravity.

I won't hold my breath, just the same as I haven't when I put it out earlier on and nobody has answered.

Yes, please dont hold your breathe.   I simply don't care enough to explain it to you.  It really doesn't matter one bit to me whether you understand how a gravimeter works or not.

If you were actually interested, you could easily find out exactly how they work and what they show.  You could find out how they are used in the world, who uses them, and what they use them for.  Why is a gravimeter a useful tool?

That is, you could if you were actually interested.  I think I won't hold my breath either though, okay?

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 08, 2021, 12:55:32 AM
I'm more than willing to learn but reality is what is foremost in my mind.
And all the ways you can try to dismiss or deny that reality?

This is generally all I ever see. Just typed words that show nothing.
You have absolutely no idea what this gravimeter does and why. You cannot explain it.
You mean that is all you ever show. You have absolutely no idea how any of your garbage works or why. You cannot explain any of it. So you continue with pathetic deflections.

If you think you can then explain how it works and what it's actually doing to show gravity.
Stop with the pathetic deflections and start defending your garbage or admit it is wrong.

If you think that a low density or hollow object displacing more air magically makes it resist less, explain how; otherwise, admit your air nonsense does not explain inertia (i.e. an objects resistance to change in motion).
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on February 08, 2021, 04:31:38 AM
You won't get very far in understanding the world you live on if you ignore equations and math because you don't think you need them.
I'll use calculations when I require them for real things, not for fictional stories.

Yes, we all know you deny reality.  Nothing new here.  You won't do any experiments, or try any math if you already 'know' the answer.

It's why you are wrong on nearly everything you say.

Quote from: JJA

Time and time again you have shown yourself completely unwilling to learn or understand any concept presented to you.  You only ask for things to be explained so you can just deny them.
I'm more than willing to learn but reality is what is foremost in my mind.
When I want to read fiction I'll be sure to peruse the global fiction of the library.

No, you are not willing to learn.  You flat out refuse to do any experiments or look at math if you think it might prove you wrong.  It's pure denial.

Quote from: JJA

We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.

You are free to look up how they work yourself.  Watch some YouTube videos.  Read some wikis.  Have you tried?  If you don't understand how they work, ask some specific questions on where you got confused when trying to learn about them on your own.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 04:37:21 AM

Quote from: JJA

We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.

Lol.  Yes, NO ONE has ever explained a common tool used by people all around the world to perform meaningful work. 

No one.  They are complete mysteries.

Maybe you can explain how they magically work?
This is generally all I ever see. Just typed words that show nothing.
You have absolutely no idea what this gravimeter does and why. You cannot explain it.

If you think you can then explain how it works and what it's actually doing to show gravity.

I won't hold my breath, just the same as I haven't when I put it out earlier on and nobody has answered.

Yes, please dont hold your breathe.   I simply don't care enough to explain it to you.  It really doesn't matter one bit to me whether you understand how a gravimeter works or not.

If you were actually interested, you could easily find out exactly how they work and what they show.  You could find out how they are used in the world, who uses them, and what they use them for.  Why is a gravimeter a useful tool?

That is, you could if you were actually interested.  I think I won't hold my breath either though, okay?
Thanks for confirming you have no clue how one works and why it would work.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 04:39:40 AM

If you think that a low density or hollow object displacing more air magically makes it resist less, explain how; otherwise, admit your air nonsense does not explain inertia (i.e. an objects resistance to change in motion).
I didn't say it displaced more air. Pay more attention and try not to twist. All you're doing is winding yourself up, not me.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 04:44:00 AM
People have in previous discussions tried to explain gravimeters to you, but as it involves gravity you are unable to understand.

Here are a couple of your previous responses :-

The instruments do, indeed exist. That's not my issue.
It's what they exist to actually show and they could be showing atmospheric changes over land, in dips, mounds, valleys...you name it, all cast off as gravity changes.

Nobody knows how they work from this side because nobody has one to understand it, so it's merely accepted to do what they say it does.

It doesn't matter what bullshit is pushed by mainstream supposed scientists. it's swallowed up with gusto by people who have no frigging clue what they're on about but cite it all anyway because they think it makes them look smart.

The superconducting gravimeter achieves sensitivities of one nanogal,  :P approximately one thousandth of one billionth (10−12) of the Earth surface gravity.  ::) In a demonstration of the sensitivity of the superconducting gravimeter, Virtanen (2006), describes how an instrument at Metsšhovi, Finland, detected the gradual increase in surface gravity as workmen cleared snow from its laboratory roof.

Seriously folks, what chance do we have when people believe this utter puke?

So it would seem to be a waste of effort to try and explain gravimeters to someone with as much dense mass as yourself.
You can't explain it. You're just parroting a story.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 04:46:05 AM
You won't get very far in understanding the world you live on if you ignore equations and math because you don't think you need them.
I'll use calculations when I require them for real things, not for fictional stories.

Yes, we all know you deny reality.  Nothing new here.  You won't do any experiments, or try any math if you already 'know' the answer.

It's why you are wrong on nearly everything you say.

Quote from: JJA

Time and time again you have shown yourself completely unwilling to learn or understand any concept presented to you.  You only ask for things to be explained so you can just deny them.
I'm more than willing to learn but reality is what is foremost in my mind.
When I want to read fiction I'll be sure to peruse the global fiction of the library.

No, you are not willing to learn.  You flat out refuse to do any experiments or look at math if you think it might prove you wrong.  It's pure denial.

Quote from: JJA

We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.

You are free to look up how they work yourself.  Watch some YouTube videos.  Read some wikis.  Have you tried?  If you don't understand how they work, ask some specific questions on where you got confused when trying to learn about them on your own.
Another one that can't explain. You're not alone....nobody can. Why?............Because a so called gravimeter does not work for fictional gravity.

People are obviously free to believe this utter utter utter gravity nonsense, of course.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 08, 2021, 05:30:58 AM

Quote from: JJA

We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.

Lol.  Yes, NO ONE has ever explained a common tool used by people all around the world to perform meaningful work. 

No one.  They are complete mysteries.

Maybe you can explain how they magically work?
This is generally all I ever see. Just typed words that show nothing.
You have absolutely no idea what this gravimeter does and why. You cannot explain it.

If you think you can then explain how it works and what it's actually doing to show gravity.

I won't hold my breath, just the same as I haven't when I put it out earlier on and nobody has answered.

Yes, please dont hold your breathe.   I simply don't care enough to explain it to you.  It really doesn't matter one bit to me whether you understand how a gravimeter works or not.

If you were actually interested, you could easily find out exactly how they work and what they show.  You could find out how they are used in the world, who uses them, and what they use them for.  Why is a gravimeter a useful tool?

That is, you could if you were actually interested.  I think I won't hold my breath either though, okay?
Thanks for confirming you have no clue how one works and why it would work.

Stomp your feet as much as you like, and throw whatever little tantrum you need to.

If you calm down and want to find out what a gravimeter is, how it works, and what it is useful for, the information will still be right there for you.

If it is too difficult for you to understand, there is lots of knowledge out there, and I'm sure many people (myself included) would be happy to help if you ask nicely.  :) 

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 05:49:18 AM

Quote from: JJA

We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.

Lol.  Yes, NO ONE has ever explained a common tool used by people all around the world to perform meaningful work. 

No one.  They are complete mysteries.

Maybe you can explain how they magically work?
This is generally all I ever see. Just typed words that show nothing.
You have absolutely no idea what this gravimeter does and why. You cannot explain it.

If you think you can then explain how it works and what it's actually doing to show gravity.

I won't hold my breath, just the same as I haven't when I put it out earlier on and nobody has answered.

Yes, please dont hold your breathe.   I simply don't care enough to explain it to you.  It really doesn't matter one bit to me whether you understand how a gravimeter works or not.

If you were actually interested, you could easily find out exactly how they work and what they show.  You could find out how they are used in the world, who uses them, and what they use them for.  Why is a gravimeter a useful tool?

That is, you could if you were actually interested.  I think I won't hold my breath either though, okay?
Thanks for confirming you have no clue how one works and why it would work.

Stomp your feet as much as you like, and throw whatever little tantrum you need to.

If you calm down and want to find out what a gravimeter is, how it works, and what it is useful for, the information will still be right there for you.

If it is too difficult for you to understand, there is lots of knowledge out there, and I'm sure many people (myself included) would be happy to help if you ask nicely.  :)
No need, I'm more than happy with my thoughts and the fact you have no clue what gravity is.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 08, 2021, 06:03:58 AM

Quote from: JJA

We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.

Lol.  Yes, NO ONE has ever explained a common tool used by people all around the world to perform meaningful work. 

No one.  They are complete mysteries.

Maybe you can explain how they magically work?
This is generally all I ever see. Just typed words that show nothing.
You have absolutely no idea what this gravimeter does and why. You cannot explain it.

If you think you can then explain how it works and what it's actually doing to show gravity.

I won't hold my breath, just the same as I haven't when I put it out earlier on and nobody has answered.

Yes, please dont hold your breathe.   I simply don't care enough to explain it to you.  It really doesn't matter one bit to me whether you understand how a gravimeter works or not.

If you were actually interested, you could easily find out exactly how they work and what they show.  You could find out how they are used in the world, who uses them, and what they use them for.  Why is a gravimeter a useful tool?

That is, you could if you were actually interested.  I think I won't hold my breath either though, okay?
Thanks for confirming you have no clue how one works and why it would work.

Stomp your feet as much as you like, and throw whatever little tantrum you need to.

If you calm down and want to find out what a gravimeter is, how it works, and what it is useful for, the information will still be right there for you.

If it is too difficult for you to understand, there is lots of knowledge out there, and I'm sure many people (myself included) would be happy to help if you ask nicely.  :)
No need, I'm more than happy with my thoughts and the fact you have no clue what gravity is.

Okay, if you would rather sit around smiling dimly and lost in your own thoughts and opinions instead of trying to know more about the world around us, I certainly cant stop you.  Good luck with it, I hope though the next five years go better in communicating you thoughts and ideas than the last five.   

Just saying though - 2021 is not off to a good start for you in this regard. 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on February 08, 2021, 09:51:13 AM
You won't get very far in understanding the world you live on if you ignore equations and math because you don't think you need them.
I'll use calculations when I require them for real things, not for fictional stories.

Yes, we all know you deny reality.  Nothing new here.  You won't do any experiments, or try any math if you already 'know' the answer.

It's why you are wrong on nearly everything you say.

Quote from: JJA

Time and time again you have shown yourself completely unwilling to learn or understand any concept presented to you.  You only ask for things to be explained so you can just deny them.
I'm more than willing to learn but reality is what is foremost in my mind.
When I want to read fiction I'll be sure to peruse the global fiction of the library.

No, you are not willing to learn.  You flat out refuse to do any experiments or look at math if you think it might prove you wrong.  It's pure denial.

Quote from: JJA

We all know if gravimeters are explained to you, you will fail to understand it and simply make up your own explanation instead. It's pointless.
Because you don't have a clue how they work so you put stuff like this.
I understand. Nobody's ever explained how they work and why.

You are free to look up how they work yourself.  Watch some YouTube videos.  Read some wikis.  Have you tried?  If you don't understand how they work, ask some specific questions on where you got confused when trying to learn about them on your own.
Another one that can't explain. You're not alone....nobody can. Why?............Because a so called gravimeter does not work for fictional gravity.

People are obviously free to believe this utter utter utter gravity nonsense, of course.

I can explain it, you can't understand it.  That's the problem.

You have the entire internet to research this, if you are unable to figure out how a gravimeter works, nobody here can explain it to you.

Why do you keep asking people to explain things that you clearly have no interest in believing?  So you can just call everything said to you nonsense?  We all know you won't accept anything we tell you, your mind is completely closed to learning.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 09:53:09 AM
Good luck with it

Cheers.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 09:57:59 AM
I can explain it, you can't understand it.  That's the problem.

Yeah, of course you can.
Quote from: JJA
You have the entire internet to research this, if you are unable to figure out how a gravimeter works, nobody here can explain it to you.
Course you have the entire internet. This is why you pretend you know. The reality is, you don't know.


Quote from: JJA
Why do you keep asking people to explain things that you clearly have no interest in believing?
I have every interest in believing...but to do so, I need proof. I have zero as it stands, from you or any other globalist.

Quote from: JJA
  So you can just call everything said to you nonsense?
Only if I think it is nonsense.

Quote from: JJA
We all know you won't accept anything we tell you, your mind is completely closed to learning.
Subscribing to lies and misinfo is not learning.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on February 08, 2021, 11:21:38 AM
I can explain it, you can't understand it.  That's the problem.

Yeah, of course you can.
Quote from: JJA
You have the entire internet to research this, if you are unable to figure out how a gravimeter works, nobody here can explain it to you.
Course you have the entire internet. This is why you pretend you know. The reality is, you don't know.

If you honestly wanted to know how gravimeters work, you could go read about them and learn.

But you don't do that and just beg people here to explain how they work instead, and everyone knows it will go over your head.

Why so lazy?  Do your own research.  Come back when you understand how they function.

Quote from: JJA
Why do you keep asking people to explain things that you clearly have no interest in believing?
I have every interest in believing...but to do so, I need proof. I have zero as it stands, from you or any other globalist.

This is your problem, not gravity or us or science. You can't understand it, so you choose to believe it's nonsense.

That is your problem, not anyone elses.

Quote from: JJA
  So you can just call everything said to you nonsense?
Only if I think it is nonsense.

You think everything is nonsense, that's the problem. You don't think it's, odd that literally everything you are told here you see as nonsense? Maybe the problem isn't with what you are being told, but your inability to understand it.

Quote from: JJA
We all know you won't accept anything we tell you, your mind is completely closed to learning.
Subscribing to lies and misinfo is not learning.

There you go again, blanket denial of literally everything.  No reasons other than you don't understand it, so you call it lies.

If you truly think the entire world is lying to you... nothing anyone says here is going to help.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 08, 2021, 01:02:34 PM
If you think that a low density or hollow object displacing more air magically makes it resist less, explain how; otherwise, admit your air nonsense does not explain inertia (i.e. an objects resistance to change in motion).
I didn't say it displaced more air. Pay more attention and try not to twist. All you're doing is winding yourself up, not me.
Yes, you keep avoiding that conclusion, because you want to pretend you aren't wrong, but you have admitted that the amount of water displaced is negligibly different and logic dictates that the exact same applies to the air around the object when you move it, and you have admitted that you need to move the air inside the object when you move it.

So it is a simple fact that you displace more air by moving a hollow object than you do by moving a solid object of the same exterior volume.

So stop twisting it, accept this fact and explain how that causes a lesser resistance.
Because all you are doing is deflecting your complete and utter failure to explain reality.

Another one that can't explain.
The one who can't explain here, is YOU!
Now stop with the pathetic deflection and either explain how displacing less air causes more resistance or admit you have no ability to explain observed inertia.

I have every interest in believing...but to do so, I need proof. I have zero as it stands, from you or any other globalist.
Stop lying. You have no interest in accepting reality.
You have been proven wrong repeatedly and you just ignore that proof so you continue to pretend your rejection of reality and promotion of your delusional fantasy is justified.

If you truly had an interest in believing you would accept that inertia is based upon mass, not the amount of air displaced. You would accept that your denspresure nonsenses is incapable of explaining why things fall, and so on.
But instead you continually reject all that because you do not give a damn about reality at all, as you hate it.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sokarul on February 08, 2021, 01:45:46 PM
Here is what happens if you put a scale in partial vacuum. Please note, these videos make sceptitank cry.





1234
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 08:53:09 PM


If you honestly wanted to know how gravimeters work, you could go read about them and learn.

But you don't do that and just beg people here to explain how they work instead, and everyone knows it will go over your head.

Why so lazy?  Do your own research.  Come back when you understand how they function.

I'm not begging you people for anything.
I'm merely saying that you lot have no clue about gravimeters and what they supposedly do. You only know what you read about and accept it as truth.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 08:56:12 PM

Stop lying.
Lying about what?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 08, 2021, 10:52:00 PM
Stop lying.
Lying about what?
About so many things it isn't funny, including those I clearly explained in the section of my post you have dishonestly ignored.

Now again, stop with the pathetic deflection and explain how displacing more air results in less resistance. If you can't, admit your garbage cannot explain inertia.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 11:00:16 PM
Stop lying.
Lying about what?
About so many things it isn't funny, including those I clearly explained in the section of my post you have dishonestly ignored.

Stop filling half a topic with copy and paste and you may get a bit better correspondence.
Coming out with the garbage you do just makes me pick a relevance or merely something to pick out and throw back.

You're the cause of your own issues.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 08, 2021, 11:03:44 PM
you may get a bit better correspondence.
Start actually addressing the issues raised and you may get a bit better correspondence.

Again, you have effectively admitting that moving a lighter object of the exterior volume as another object displaces more air.
As such, in order for your garbage to have any hope of explaining reality you need to explain how displacing more air causes less resistance.

If you can't explain that paradox then the only honest and rational thing for you to do is admit that your garbage does not explain inertia.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 08, 2021, 11:19:47 PM
you may get a bit better correspondence.
Start actually addressing the issues raised and you may get a bit better correspondence.


If that's your final offer then you carry on with your nonsense and don't be shocked when your replies are the same.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 09, 2021, 01:17:26 AM
you carry on with your nonsense
The only one spouting nonsense here is you. Now stop with the pathetic deflection and insults and start either defending your nonsense, or admit it is wrong.

Once more, you have accepted that there is no significant difference in the exterior volume of the object. You did this by admitting the amount of water displaced is negligible.
This means for the air outside the object, there is no significant difference in the amount of air displaced by moving/accelerating the object.
This means the sole difference in amount of air displaced will come from the air inside the object, and a hollow object with air inside demands that more air is displaced when you move the object, and you even admitted this.

This means that according to your nonsense by displacing more air, you get less resistance. That is the nonsense you need to justify (and then justify the exact contradiction due to larger objects).

So either justify that, or admit you are wrong and that your air BS cannot explain inertia.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2021, 03:39:12 AM

The only one spouting nonsense here is you.
Then don't bother with me. Blank me.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 09, 2021, 08:12:54 AM
Here is what happens if you put a scale in partial vacuum. Please note, these videos make sceptitank cry.





1234

Ouch! 

How did he handle this?  Ignore it or bring in scale fairies?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sokarul on February 09, 2021, 08:17:35 AM
Here is what happens if you put a scale in partial vacuum. Please note, these videos make sceptitank cry.





1234

Ouch! 

How did he handle this?  Ignore it or bring in scale fairies?

He wanted me to perform the experiment again with an unpowered food scale. Since I didnít he said everything was invalid.

I already had to use two different materials as weights because of him.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 09, 2021, 08:26:59 AM
Here is what happens if you put a scale in partial vacuum. Please note, these videos make sceptitank cry.





1234

Ouch! 

How did he handle this?  Ignore it or bring in scale fairies?

He wanted me to perform the experiment again with an unpowered food scale. Since I didnít he said everything was invalid.

I already had to use two different materials as weights because of him.

Ah yes, of course.

If you donít control for the digital scale fairies the experiment is worthless. 

Makes total sense. 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 09, 2021, 12:07:34 PM
The only one spouting nonsense here is you.
Then don't bother with me. Blank me.
Again, I care about the truth and thus will object to your nonsense.
If you want me to stop then either stop spouting nonsense or justify it.

I have repeatedly explained why your nonsense is wrong, and you just continue to ignore it because you want to pretend it is correct to pretend all of science is wrong.

Once more, you have accepted that there is no significant difference in the exterior volume of the object. You did this by admitting the amount of water displaced is negligible.
This means for the air outside the object, there is no significant difference in the amount of air displaced by moving/accelerating the object.
This means the sole difference in amount of air displaced will come from the air inside the object, and a hollow object with air inside demands that more air is displaced when you move the object, and you even admitted this.

This means that according to your nonsense by displacing more air, you get less resistance. That is the nonsense you need to justify (and then justify the exact contradiction due to larger objects).

Conversely, inertia, where it requires a force to accelerate a mass with that force proportional to the mass, works just fine.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on February 09, 2021, 04:21:34 PM


If you honestly wanted to know how gravimeters work, you could go read about them and learn.

But you don't do that and just beg people here to explain how they work instead, and everyone knows it will go over your head.

Why so lazy?  Do your own research.  Come back when you understand how they function.

I'm not begging you people for anything.
I'm merely saying that you lot have no clue about gravimeters and what they supposedly do. You only know what you read about and accept it as truth.

No, you keep asking for people to explain it to you, then you just can't understand it and tell everyone they aren't making any sense.

Why don't YOU explain how gravimeters function?  If you actually understand it as you claim.  Lets hear it.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 09, 2021, 05:56:26 PM
Here is what happens if you put a scale in partial vacuum. Please note, these videos make sceptitank cry.





1234

Ouch! 

How did he handle this?  Ignore it or bring in scale fairies?

He wanted me to perform the experiment again with an unpowered food scale. Since I didnít he said everything was invalid.

I already had to use two different materials as weights because of him.

Ah yes, of course.

If you donít control for the digital scale fairies the experiment is worthless. 

Makes total sense.

Here's some more gravity exists fun to go along with vacuum experiments, some centripedal spinning:

(https://i.imgur.com/8AsyGuv.gif)
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2021, 09:22:06 PM

If you want me to stop then either stop spouting nonsense or justify it.

I'm not bothered whether you stop or not. I'm just saying....if you want to play honestly then half a topic of copy/paste isn't helpful to you, with me.
I'll just pick one bit. It's easy for me.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2021, 09:23:43 PM


If you honestly wanted to know how gravimeters work, you could go read about them and learn.

But you don't do that and just beg people here to explain how they work instead, and everyone knows it will go over your head.

Why so lazy?  Do your own research.  Come back when you understand how they function.

I'm not begging you people for anything.
I'm merely saying that you lot have no clue about gravimeters and what they supposedly do. You only know what you read about and accept it as truth.

No, you keep asking for people to explain it to you, then you just can't understand it and tell everyone they aren't making any sense.

Why don't YOU explain how gravimeters function?  If you actually understand it as you claim.  Lets hear it.
Why don't you people actually explain to show what you say, is real. Or just explain it from your point of view, instead of putting up silly equations to supposedly make up a reality that you cannot prove.

Honesty.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2021, 09:25:31 PM
Here is what happens if you put a scale in partial vacuum. Please note, these videos make sceptitank cry.





1234

Ouch! 

How did he handle this?  Ignore it or bring in scale fairies?

He wanted me to perform the experiment again with an unpowered food scale. Since I didnít he said everything was invalid.

I already had to use two different materials as weights because of him.

Ah yes, of course.

If you donít control for the digital scale fairies the experiment is worthless. 

Makes total sense.

Here's some more gravity exists fun to go along with vacuum experiments, some centripedal spinning:

(https://i.imgur.com/8AsyGuv.gif)
hat's not gravity.
The longer you people go, the weaker you lot get.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 09, 2021, 09:29:16 PM
Here is what happens if you put a scale in partial vacuum. Please note, these videos make sceptitank cry.





1234

Ouch! 

How did he handle this?  Ignore it or bring in scale fairies?

He wanted me to perform the experiment again with an unpowered food scale. Since I didnít he said everything was invalid.

I already had to use two different materials as weights because of him.

Ah yes, of course.

If you donít control for the digital scale fairies the experiment is worthless. 

Makes total sense.

Here's some more gravity exists fun to go along with vacuum experiments, some centripedal spinning:

(https://i.imgur.com/8AsyGuv.gif)
hat's not gravity.
The longer you people go, the weaker you lot get.

What is it then, denpressure?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2021, 10:42:54 PM


What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 09, 2021, 10:59:14 PM
Here is what happens if you put a scale in partial vacuum. Please note, these videos make sceptitank cry.





1234

Ouch! 

How did he handle this?  Ignore it or bring in scale fairies?

He wanted me to perform the experiment again with an unpowered food scale. Since I didnít he said everything was invalid.

I already had to use two different materials as weights because of him.

Ah yes, of course.

If you donít control for the digital scale fairies the experiment is worthless. 

Makes total sense.

Here's some more gravity exists fun to go along with vacuum experiments, some centripedal spinning:

(https://i.imgur.com/8AsyGuv.gif)

That is actually super cool.  The control pilots can have is really impressive. 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 09, 2021, 10:59:40 PM


What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.

In a sense, it's like artificial gravity. Just curious how denpressure explains it.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 09, 2021, 11:00:44 PM


What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.

I would love to hear how denpressure works in the plane example, will you regale us?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2021, 11:00:59 PM


What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.

In a sense, it's like artificial gravity. Just curious how denpressure explains it.
I will explain it but first you tell me what you mean by artificial gravity and how you know this is what it is?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2021, 11:01:44 PM


What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.

I would love to hear how denpressure works in the plane example, will you regale us?
Absolutely, just as soon as stash clears up this fictional gravity thing that can be artificial.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 09, 2021, 11:06:49 PM


What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.

In a sense, it's like artificial gravity. Just curious how denpressure explains it.
I will explain it but first you tell me what you mean by artificial gravity and how you know this is what it is?

Ok, how's this, it's like artificial denpressure. Now how does denpressure explain the phenomena?

Heres' the equation for centripetal force for reference, in a gravity based world:

(https://i.imgur.com/Hs6m3A6.png)
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2021, 11:08:03 PM


What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.

In a sense, it's like artificial gravity. Just curious how denpressure explains it.
I will explain it but first you tell me what you mean by artificial gravity and how you know this is what it is?

Ok, how's this, it's like artificial denpressure. Now how does denpressure explain the phenomena?

Heres' the equation for centripetal force for reference, in a gravity based world:

(https://i.imgur.com/Hs6m3A6.png)
Explain it to me, please.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 09, 2021, 11:18:25 PM


What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.

In a sense, it's like artificial gravity. Just curious how denpressure explains it.
I will explain it but first you tell me what you mean by artificial gravity and how you know this is what it is?

Ok, how's this, it's like artificial denpressure. Now how does denpressure explain the phenomena?

Heres' the equation for centripetal force for reference, in a gravity based world:

(https://i.imgur.com/Hs6m3A6.png)
Explain it to me, please.

Look it up. There's tons out there for you to review. I'm not doing your homework for you. The problem is I can't look up denpressure as nothing exists to address this otherwise I would and wouldn't have to ask. How does denpressure explain this force? Some sort of de-"stacking" business, with sponges? I have no idea.

In actuality, your initial response was wrong - The water in the bucket swinging on a rope thing would be centrifugal; moving away from a center. We're talking centripetal, moving toward the center. How does denpressure move to the center?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 09, 2021, 11:25:36 PM


What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.

In a sense, it's like artificial gravity. Just curious how denpressure explains it.
I will explain it but first you tell me what you mean by artificial gravity and how you know this is what it is?

Ok, how's this, it's like artificial denpressure. Now how does denpressure explain the phenomena?

Heres' the equation for centripetal force for reference, in a gravity based world:

(https://i.imgur.com/Hs6m3A6.png)
Explain it to me, please.

Look it up. There's tons out there for you to review. I'm not doing your homework for you. The problem is I can't look up denpressure as nothing exists to address this otherwise I would and wouldn't have to ask. How does denpressure explain this force? Some sort of de-"stacking" business, with sponges? I have no idea.

In actuality, your initial response was wrong - The water in the bucket swinging on a rope thing would be centrifugal; moving away from a center. We're talking centripetal, moving toward the center. How does denpressure move to the center?
Explain how its moving to the centre?

The only way I could see anything moving towards a centre is due to a vortex. You know, like something going down a plug hole.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 09, 2021, 11:57:22 PM


What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.

In a sense, it's like artificial gravity. Just curious how denpressure explains it.
I will explain it but first you tell me what you mean by artificial gravity and how you know this is what it is?

Ok, how's this, it's like artificial denpressure. Now how does denpressure explain the phenomena?

Heres' the equation for centripetal force for reference, in a gravity based world:

(https://i.imgur.com/Hs6m3A6.png)
Explain it to me, please.

Look it up. There's tons out there for you to review. I'm not doing your homework for you. The problem is I can't look up denpressure as nothing exists to address this otherwise I would and wouldn't have to ask. How does denpressure explain this force? Some sort of de-"stacking" business, with sponges? I have no idea.

In actuality, your initial response was wrong - The water in the bucket swinging on a rope thing would be centrifugal; moving away from a center. We're talking centripetal, moving toward the center. How does denpressure move to the center?
Explain how its moving to the centre?

Gravity. And dependent on your frame of reference. This is my interpretation, because it's kinda complicated - It involves actual physics, which is not necessarily my forte: As the liquid is being poured into the cup (the frame of reference) in a gravitationally downward vector toward a center mass as gravity does, the plane (not the frame of reference) is literally rotating around it. Others feel free to correct my interpretation.

The only way I could see anything moving towards a centre is due to a vortex. You know, like something going down a plug hole.

That's fine that that's the only way you can see it doing that, a vortex. But you're seeing it and it is not a vortex. And we can see it's not going down a plug-hole. So what does denpressure have to say about it?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 03:42:40 AM


What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.

In a sense, it's like artificial gravity. Just curious how denpressure explains it.
I will explain it but first you tell me what you mean by artificial gravity and how you know this is what it is?

Ok, how's this, it's like artificial denpressure. Now how does denpressure explain the phenomena?

Heres' the equation for centripetal force for reference, in a gravity based world:

(https://i.imgur.com/Hs6m3A6.png)
Explain it to me, please.

Look it up. There's tons out there for you to review. I'm not doing your homework for you. The problem is I can't look up denpressure as nothing exists to address this otherwise I would and wouldn't have to ask. How does denpressure explain this force? Some sort of de-"stacking" business, with sponges? I have no idea.

In actuality, your initial response was wrong - The water in the bucket swinging on a rope thing would be centrifugal; moving away from a center. We're talking centripetal, moving toward the center. How does denpressure move to the center?
Explain how its moving to the centre?

Gravity. And dependent on your frame of reference. This is my interpretation, because it's kinda complicated - It involves actual physics, which is not necessarily my forte: As the liquid is being poured into the cup (the frame of reference) in a gravitationally downward vector toward a center mass as gravity does, the plane (not the frame of reference) is literally rotating around it. Others feel free to correct my interpretation.

The only way I could see anything moving towards a centre is due to a vortex. You know, like something going down a plug hole.

That's fine that that's the only way you can see it doing that, a vortex. But you're seeing it and it is not a vortex. And we can see it's not going down a plug-hole. So what does denpressure have to say about it?
It can only be a vortex. The plane itself creates it, not the man holding a bottle over a cup.

Like I said, it's like swinging a bucket of water around, only the plane is the swinger.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on February 10, 2021, 04:06:33 AM


If you honestly wanted to know how gravimeters work, you could go read about them and learn.

But you don't do that and just beg people here to explain how they work instead, and everyone knows it will go over your head.

Why so lazy?  Do your own research.  Come back when you understand how they function.

I'm not begging you people for anything.
I'm merely saying that you lot have no clue about gravimeters and what they supposedly do. You only know what you read about and accept it as truth.

No, you keep asking for people to explain it to you, then you just can't understand it and tell everyone they aren't making any sense.

Why don't YOU explain how gravimeters function?  If you actually understand it as you claim.  Lets hear it.
Why don't you people actually explain to show what you say, is real. Or just explain it from your point of view, instead of putting up silly equations to supposedly make up a reality that you cannot prove.

Honesty.

Honestly? We don't explain it top you because you have a track record of simply ignoring it and not even trying to understand it.

See, you did it right there... people try and show you the math and you just call them silly and made up.

Why would anyone take the time to carefully explain something complex after you respond like that? Why bother taking you seriously?

The information is out there.  If you can't understand how a gravimeter works, and looking it up still leaves you confused... that's not anyone's problem but your own.  If you are unable or unwilling to learn things on your own, then any debate with you is just going to be throwing mild insults back and forth.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 10, 2021, 04:12:39 AM
if you want to play honestly then half a topic of copy/paste isn't helpful to you, with me.
You are the one not being honest. If you want to pick one bit, try picking the bit that is actually relevant to the topic rather than continually deflecting.

Once more, you have accepted that there is no significant difference in the exterior volume of the object. You did this by admitting the amount of water displaced is negligible.
This means for the air outside the object, there is no significant difference in the amount of air displaced by moving/accelerating the object.
This means the sole difference in amount of air displaced will come from the air inside the object, and a hollow object with air inside demands that more air is displaced when you move the object, and you even admitted this.

This means that according to your nonsense by displacing more air, you get less resistance. That is the nonsense you need to justify (and then justify the exact contradiction due to larger objects).

Conversely, inertia, where it requires a force to accelerate a mass with that force proportional to the mass, works just fine.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 10, 2021, 04:16:07 AM
What is it then, denpressure?
Like swinging a bucket around and the water stays in. Yes, it's denpressure.
How in the hell you can put that down to gravity...well, only you know.
You mean INERTIA!
Just how does your denspressure BS explain this?

Inertia explains it trivially.
The plane goes around in a circle such that the cup and water bottle are always away from the centre, with the cup further away. This requires an acceleration to have it continue in this circular path, as I had already shown to you before in another thread, and you simply ignored because you couldn't show any fault with it.
For the cup, this acceleration is provided by the plane it is sitting on. For the bottle it is by the hand. But the water doesn't have anything to accelerate it directly by any significant amount so it appears to fall.

Even something as simple as swinging a bucket around is explained trivially by inertia, but makes no sense with your nonsense.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 04:23:36 AM
Honestly? We don't explain it top you because you have a track record of simply ignoring it and not even trying to understand it.
I'd say you lot have a track record of playing games, so shall we argue that and you can tit for tat me and then we can have a dig over other stuff?
Or maybe you can explain what a gravimeter does from your own knowledge and use of one.....or, at least explain why you know it works as they tell you, without just saying " oh I just know it."

Quote from: JJA

Why would anyone take the time to carefully explain something complex after you respond like that? Why bother taking you seriously?

You don't have to respond to me. You choose to. Feel free to deck out when you're ready. I'm not holding you to ransom for any input.



Quote from: JJA

The information is out there.  If you can't understand how a gravimeter works, and looking it up still leaves you confused... that's not anyone's problem but your own.
I could look up all kinds of stuff to do with dinosaurs and galaxies and black holes and...well, you know. So am I supposed to just accept that as truth?


Quote from: JJA

  If you are unable or unwilling to learn things on your own, then any debate with you is just going to be throwing mild insults back and forth.
I'm more than willing to learn but I'd prefer to learn about the potentials for what our reality actually is.
I'm trying to do that and none of it involves a globe....as you know. It also doesn't involve gravity, as you know.

You are willing to absorb whatever you believe comes from authority. You'll argue black and blue that you believe it because you've done the calculations what were handed to you and will argue that those calculations fit in with what those in authority told you.


You know in your heart and mind that you are simply parroting.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 04:26:03 AM


Once more, you have accepted that there is no significant difference in the exterior volume of the object.
 
The exterior volume is the atmosphere.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 10, 2021, 04:28:33 AM
I'd say you lot have a track record of playing games
Because that is the kind of game you love to play. Projecting your own inadequacies onto others.

What we have a track record of is actually explaining things and providing logical arguments and/or evidence to justify our claims/refutations of yours. And that something you severely lack.

I'm more than willing to learn
Again, if that was the case you would have accepted your denpressure nonsense doesn't work to explain reality.
You would actually pay attention to and engage with the explanations that are provided.
Instead you just dismiss or ignore anything that shows you are wrong, even though you cannot show any problem with it.
That shows you are not willing to learn.

Even now, you still act like the globe cannot possibly be real, even though you have no actual argument against it.
Again, that shows you are not willing to learn.
If you were, you would at least accept the possibility that it could involve a globe.

Now again, can you explained observed inertia with your denp nonsense?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 10, 2021, 04:29:41 AM
The exterior volume is the atmosphere.
I was trying to use a word to clearly indicate I mean what post people think of as volume so you stop pretending the volume is different. The point is the amount of air around the object displaced is basically the same. You have admitted that with your comments regarding the displacement of water.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: jack44556677 on February 10, 2021, 05:29:06 AM
I think scepti is describing things in a more (w)holistic manner then you are familiar with.

I cannot say I fully understand what scepti's viewpoint is, but in regards to the "volume equals volume but also doesn't" misunderstanding - I think I can clear that up.

I think Scepti is saying that although the amount of the atmosphere displaced by any 2 objects with identical volume (and differing weight) is the same, the amount of atmosphere they move around as they move ( the amount of atmosphere they, newly, displace/move) is different - which is their proposed mechanism for the "equal opposite" demonstration on the skateboard/dolly.

If scepti (and others) is correct, then the recoil in a vacuum will always be nothing and there are intuitive/logical/rational musings/reasoning on why this might be the case.  But without demonstration / testing / validation it is merely speculation (and many demonstrations exist to, at least potentially, challenge this assertion)

The most important thing about this claim is that it can be relatively easily put to the test, and this question (unlike the vast majority of them on this site) can actually be answered instead of the profitless endless flapping of the gums.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Themightykabool on February 10, 2021, 06:15:09 AM
Calculus is a very real thing used to explain multidimensional math.
Its very useful in predicting things.
A very real a verifiably prediction of things that you cant seem to produce.
And all the while you insult its existence, you cant say one way or another why its wrong.
Meanwhil, in the other thread, you cant even grasp the concept of a triangle.
Three sides.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sokarul on February 10, 2021, 06:37:30 AM
.

Like I said, it's like swinging a bucket of water around, only the plane is the swinger.
The swinging bucket explanation requires inertia.

Inertia doesnít exist, remember?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on February 10, 2021, 10:40:34 AM
Honestly? We don't explain it top you because you have a track record of simply ignoring it and not even trying to understand it.
I'd say you lot have a track record of playing games, so shall we argue that and you can tit for tat me and then we can have a dig over other stuff?
Or maybe you can explain what a gravimeter does from your own knowledge and use of one.....or, at least explain why you know it works as they tell you, without just saying " oh I just know it."

I'd say I have a track record of actually performing experiments and showing my results. 

I also find it EXTREMELY ironic that you of all people are accusing others if saying "I just know it" when that's your ENTIRE argument here.

LOL.

Quote from: JJA

Why would anyone take the time to carefully explain something complex after you respond like that? Why bother taking you seriously?

You don't have to respond to me. You choose to. Feel free to deck out when you're ready. I'm not holding you to ransom for any input.

You just demand people explain things to you instead of looking them u0p.  If you're honestly curious you can learn this stuff yourself you know.

It's obvious you want people to explain things so you can just say they are wrong because "I just know it"

Quote from: JJA

The information is out there.  If you can't understand how a gravimeter works, and looking it up still leaves you confused... that's not anyone's problem but your own.
I could look up all kinds of stuff to do with dinosaurs and galaxies and black holes and...well, you know. So am I supposed to just accept that as truth?

See, you did it again.  If you don't accept any of this, why ask for it to be explained?  You already stated you simply reject it, so what god will it do?

Just a transparent attempt to make people explain concepts so you can say it's wrong because "I just know it"

How are you supposed to just accept is as truth?  You have to answer that one for yourself.

Quote from: JJA

  If you are unable or unwilling to learn things on your own, then any debate with you is just going to be throwing mild insults back and forth.
I'm more than willing to learn but I'd prefer to learn about the potentials for what our reality actually is.
I'm trying to do that and none of it involves a globe....as you know. It also doesn't involve gravity, as you know.

You are willing to absorb whatever you believe comes from authority. You'll argue black and blue that you believe it because you've done the calculations what were handed to you and will argue that those calculations fit in with what those in authority told you.


You know in your heart and mind that you are simply parroting.

No, you are clearly NOT interested in learning.  You just said above you disbelieve anything about dinosaurs and galaxies and black holes and gravity and the shape of the earth and pretty much the entirety of science. If it doesn't fit in whatever fantasyland you constructed inside your head, you reject it. For some reason you decided gravity isn't real, and that's that. No amount of explaining can fix that.

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

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 10, 2021, 11:50:45 AM
Quote
I could look up all kinds of stuff to do with dinosaurs and galaxies and black holes and...well, you know. So am I supposed to just accept that as truth?

Yes you could. Because all the information and evidence relating to dinosaurs and galaxies has been very well documented by a lot of different and independent sources and is freely available over the Internet.

Where on the other hand can we look up any information and evidence relating to your 'model' of the Earth?  Other than from what you say you have documented but which no one seems to be able to find and you won't point us to?  You call yourself a 'Flat Earth Scientist'.  The aim of science is to understand nature of the physical world and the Universe as a whole.  In your case you don't seem to know much at all about your Earth and you bluntly deny that anything beyond the atmosphere even exists so that counts the Universe as a whole out.  So how do you justify labelling yourself as a flat Earth 'scientist'?  When are you going to start doing some flat Earth 'science' so you can figure out some of even the most basic facts about whatever it is you believe?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 10, 2021, 11:53:09 AM
I think Scepti is saying that although the amount of the atmosphere displaced by any 2 objects with identical volume (and differing weight) is the same, the amount of atmosphere they move around as they move ( the amount of atmosphere they, newly, displace/move) is different - which is their proposed mechanism for the "equal opposite" demonstration on the skateboard/dolly.
What he is actually claiming is that a low density object actually displaces less air as the internal structure has loads of air in it, and that the amount of air displaced perfectly correlates to the mass/weight of the object.

The problem is that even if you accept that completely false assumption, it still doesn't explain inertia.
He has admitted that at least for a water tight object, they would displace the same (or negligibly different) amounts of water. So the air displaced by it moving on the outside of the 2 objects are the same, so the only air left is the air inside the object.
That means that the lighter object displaces more air when it moves.

If scepti (and others) is correct, then the recoil in a vacuum will always be nothing and there are intuitive/logical/rational musings/reasoning on why this might be the case.
Can you provide any of that?
Because I see no reason for inertia to magically not exist in a vacuum. We know it is not air resistance, as that acts in a fundamentally different way, where the resistance is based upon velocity and is 0 for a velocity of 0, and is highly dependent upon the shape of the object as that affects the aerodynamics, meanwhile inertia is not 0 when the velocity is 0 and doesn't depend on the aerodynamics of the object.

It also makes very little sense for an object to have no inertia as that would mean it could accelerate for no reason at all, and it violates the conservation of energy as it means you could accelerate an object with no energy input.

And you have the problem of those same kind of people rejecting the existence of a vacuum and instead claiming that there will always be some air and that allows it to act as if it was just a normal atmosphere.

and many demonstrations exist to, at least potentially, challenge this assertion
Do you mean Scepti's assertion?
Or mainstream science? If the latter, care to provide one?

The most important thing about this claim is that it can be relatively easily put to the test, and this question (unlike the vast majority of them on this site) can actually be answered instead of the profitless endless flapping of the gums.
And like all the other evidence that shows he is wrong, he would just dismiss it, even if you managed to get past the fundamental issues of if a vacuum can exist.
Here you go:

(Note, it is in slow motion).

Notice how the ball smashes into the crate? That is inertia.
If your claim is true and it being in a vacuum means there is no inertia, it should just reach the crate and stop, without denting the crate at all.
Likewise, the feathers should just stop rather than being bent and then bouncing back.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Smoke Machine on February 10, 2021, 07:16:16 PM
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry?  ???

Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.

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

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

A friend of mine who works in the mines, uses a gravimeter to identify mineral deposits under the ground. Mineral deposits cause a change in local gravity.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 09:09:40 PM


Now again, can you explained observed inertia with your denp nonsense?
What the hell is inertia?
Observed inertia?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 09:13:53 PM
The exterior volume is the atmosphere.
I was trying to use a word to clearly indicate I mean what post people think of as volume so you stop pretending the volume is different. The point is the amount of air around the object displaced is basically the same. You have admitted that with your comments regarding the displacement of water.
No I have not admitted to anything like it.
Here you go again, twisting.
Mr twister.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 09:16:44 PM
Calculus is a very real thing used to explain multidimensional math.
Its very useful in predicting things.
A very real a verifiably prediction of things that you cant seem to produce.
And all the while you insult its existence, you cant say one way or another why its wrong.
Meanwhil, in the other thread, you cant even grasp the concept of a triangle.
Three sides.
By all means make stuff up to suit yourself. It has absolutely no bearing on my thoughts.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 09:18:15 PM
.

Like I said, it's like swinging a bucket of water around, only the plane is the swinger.
The swinging bucket explanation requires inertia.

Inertia doesnít exist, remember?
It can exist if you want to be clear about it in a sense of, inertia is simply another word for, resistance.
Would this be fair enough?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 09:19:42 PM


And who handed you your knowledge? Oh right... "I just know it"
Who handed you, yours?
And also, what is knowledge?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 09:33:29 PM
Quote
I could look up all kinds of stuff to do with dinosaurs and galaxies and black holes and...well, you know. So am I supposed to just accept that as truth?

Yes you could. Because all the information and evidence relating to dinosaurs and galaxies has been very well documented by a lot of different and independent sources and is freely available over the Internet.
Harry Potter books have all been well documented.



Quote from: Solarwind
Where on the other hand can we look up any information and evidence relating to your 'model' of the Earth?
Probably on here over the years.

Quote from: Solarwind
Other than from what you say you have documented but which no one seems to be able to find and you won't point us to?  You call yourself a 'Flat Earth Scientist'.
It depends what you want to see. If you're looking for facts then I've stated time and time again I don't pass my model off as factual. I pass it off as a possibility.

Quote from: Solarwind
  The aim of science is to understand nature of the physical world and the Universe as a whole.
No. Science is the reality. The aim of a scientists is to figure out that reality.
We are arguing exactly that. Whether scientists have figured it all out. I don;t believe they have, in many cases, by what we're told.
Maybe it's deliberate or maybe they just don't know.

Quote from: Solarwind
  In your case you don't seem to know much at all about your Earth and you bluntly deny that anything beyond the atmosphere even exists so that counts the Universe as a whole out.
I know enough to convince myself to carry on tweaking it.
I may never know the reality. I'll likely not know the full reality.
What I will know is, gravity is nonsense and so is a spinning globe we walk upon.
The rest is up for scientific research.

Quote from: Solarwind
  So how do you justify labelling yourself as a flat Earth 'scientist'?
I thought it was easier than labelling myself as a flattish Earth with rough terrain and under a dome, scientist.

Quote from: Solarwind
  When are you going to start doing some flat Earth 'science' so you can figure out some of even the most basic facts about whatever it is you believe?
Already done.
Water level absolutely nails it in one.
The rest is just added in for spice.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 09:37:39 PM
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry?  ???

Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.

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

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

A friend of mine who works in the mines, uses a gravimeter to identify mineral deposits under the ground. Mineral deposits cause a change in local gravity.
You're not really saying anything, at all.
Just admit you have no clue.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 10, 2021, 11:02:40 PM
Now again, can you explained observed inertia with your denp nonsense?
What the hell is inertia?
Stop playing dumb and answer the question.
We have been over what inertia is countless times.
It is a resistance to change in motion, i.e. a resistance to acceleration.

Can your nonsense explain it?
If not, can you admit you can't?

The exterior volume is the atmosphere.
I was trying to use a word to clearly indicate I mean what post people think of as volume so you stop pretending the volume is different. The point is the amount of air around the object displaced is basically the same. You have admitted that with your comments regarding the displacement of water.
No I have not admitted to anything like it.
Yes, you have:
First of all the water displacement in that scenario would be almost identical. Almost. To the eye and to the scale it will likely show little to no discrepancy.

It can exist if you want to be clear about it in a sense of, inertia is simply another word for, resistance.
Would this be fair enough?
No, it isn't fair enough.
Inertia describes a specific type of resistance. It is not simply resistance, but resistance to a change in motion.

Quote from: Solarwind
  When are you going to start doing some flat Earth 'science' so you can figure out some of even the most basic facts about whatever it is you believe?
Already done.
Water level absolutely nails it in one.
The rest is just added in for spice.
You sure do love repeating the same lie.
Water level nails your coffin shut, showing clearly that Earth is not flat, such as by how an observer, above water level, can look out over a large body of water at another object, also well above water level, yet be unable to see the bottom of the object and the water obscures the view. Clearly showing the water is curved.

Just admit you have no clue.
Follow your own advice. Admit you have no clue and have no reason at all for thinking Earth is flat or isn't round, and that your nonsense has no chance of describing relaity.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: jack44556677 on February 10, 2021, 11:14:52 PM
@jackblack

Quote
What he is actually claiming is that a low density object actually displaces less air as the internal structure has loads of air in it, and that the amount of air displaced perfectly correlates to the mass/weight of the object.

They are saying both things.  The air isn't "exactly" displaced by anything but the encapsulated thin skin of the beach ball, as it is filled with the fluid it would otherwise displace (by volume) - semantically/technically/conceptually I think this is arguable - though moot.

The real crux of the claim is that the beach ball causes less imbalance in the fluid of the air which then causes the recoil effect.  The reason for this, as far as I can tell, in scepti's conception and most everyone else's - is the weight/matter of the object. Scepti's conceptions of density/weight and the equal-opposite recoil effect being atmospheric pressure effects (at least in part. I don't think it is anyone's claim that weight is caused purely or even chiefly by atmospheric pressure.) no doubt color/flavor that view in novel ways.

Quote
That means that the lighter object displaces more air when it moves.

I don't know what you are getting at / mean.   In your view, the lighter object displaces the same amount at rest and in motion, at any given instant (unless there is significant deformation).  I think scepti's view is the same, however the amount of air that is moved by both objects - purely externally mind you - is different because of their weights.  Scepti's conceptions on the cause of weight may differ greatly, but I don't think they are really waging war on inertia in the way you might imagine.

Quote
Can you provide any of that?

I'm definitely not the right person to do that, as I am not a proponent personally. That said, some of the reasonings I have seen described are

1. The ball and the observer (at rest or in motion together) are one "system"/"inertial frame".  In order for the ball to influence the motion of the observer, it MUST come from an external system.  This is by definition in the newtonian laws themselves - arguably.
2. Connected to #1, in order for the "ejected mass" to have any impact on the motion of the observer, the force from the thrown object must have influenced an object in an external system which then influenced the observer by proxy.

I am not saying that the reasonings or rationales are flawless, but they exist and are somewhat defensible.  All things are possible in discussion and imagination (not so much in reality, which is what the rigorous experimental validation in the scientific method is intended/required to determine)

Quote
And you have the problem of those same kind of people rejecting the existence of a vacuum and instead claiming that there will always be some air and that allows it to act as if it was just a normal atmosphere.

For many objects, that is true - they fall much the same in partial vacuum (the best we can do, and likely - can be achieved even in theory) and normal atmospheric conditions.   However, just because we can't get rid of absolutely every last bit of air in a vacuum chamber, doesn't mean we can't learn a lot about that air's influence by altering the amount!

Quote
Or mainstream science? If the latter, care to provide one?

I meant to my claim, which I think is a logical consequence of scepti's position as I currently understand it and so a part of "scepti's claim", that there ought to be no recoil in a vacuum if it is true that the recoil effect is purely caused by air.  I do not have a demonstration of recoil not existing in a vacuum, though there are some compelling arguments / reasonings from some in regards to chemical rockets along these lines.  Vapor pressure is important for combustion, and when all the air is gone - the vapor pressure needed for combustion isn't there.

I think a demonstration of recoil in a vacuum (not involving gas) would effectively refute that the recoil effect is purely caused by air and strongly suggest that chemical rockets, if designed properly for extremely low vacuum, do actually function without air.

I thought it would be trivial to find such a video demonstration, but alas.  Do you know of one?

Quote
And like all the other evidence that shows he is wrong, he would just dismiss it, even if you managed to get past the fundamental issues of if a vacuum can exist.

They certainly could dismiss anything, but I don't think that is what scepti is doing.  They are just using non-standard definitions and conceptions, and that is the root of the miscommunication from what I've seen.

Quote
If your claim is true and it being in a vacuum means there is no inertia, it should just reach the crate and stop, without denting the crate at all.
Likewise, the feathers should just stop rather than being bent and then bouncing back.

The claim about inertia is yours.  I expect it is based on misinterpretation of what scepti said, but in any case I think your perception of a "war against inertia" is only taking place in your head, and no one is making the claim that different objects don't have different weights (in fact, that is the presumptive reason for the recoil effect whether you think it is the third law or some sort of misunderstood air pressure / fluid dynamics effect - scepti's position isn't really intelligible without this common posit).
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 10, 2021, 11:15:07 PM
Now again, can you explained observed inertia with your denp nonsense?
What the hell is inertia?
Stop playing dumb and answer the question.
We have been over what inertia is countless times.
It is a resistance to change in motion, i.e. a resistance to acceleration.

Can your nonsense explain it?
If not, can you admit you can't?

Ok, so as long as we know inertia is just resistance.

So, what exactly do you want me to explain?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 11, 2021, 12:19:41 AM
Quote
I thought it was easier than labelling myself as a flattish Earth with rough terrain and under a dome, scientist.

OK Mr flat Earth scientist.  Tell me then.  What is this dome you keep on about made of then?  What is its diameter?  What is its thickness?  How old is it compared to the Earth?  Who made it?  Does it rotate or is it stationary?  Has anyone got any physical evidence that it even exists?

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 11, 2021, 02:12:08 AM
The real crux of the claim is that the beach ball causes less imbalance in the fluid of the air which then causes the recoil effect.  The reason for this, as far as I can tell, in scepti's conception and most everyone else's - is the weight/matter of the object.
No, Scepti specifically rejects the matter of the object and instead pretends it is just the air around it.
Most people accept that it is the matter of the object and the air is negligible unless it is a quite low density object.
Likewise, for the air, most people realise that the matter the object is made of doesn't matter, instead it is the shape and aerodynamics. The actual material only comes into it at the very surface where depending on the texture you can have the air stick to it or slide past it.

I don't think it is anyone's claim that weight is caused purely or even chiefly by atmospheric pressure.
That is pretty much Skepti's claim, that the object displaces air and that magically pushes back to push the object down. Except in the cases where it magically decides to push it up.

I don't know what you are getting at / mean.   In your view, the lighter object displaces the same amount at rest and in motion, at any given instant
I'm getting at the MOTION, so not in any instant.
i.e. if it is in one location, and you move it to another, you need to move the air around it, and in Scepti's world (and for a hollow, air filled object in reality), the air inside it.
This means you displace more air by moving a hollow object, and the best you could get is the same amount of air displaced.
This means the denser/heavier object is not displacing more air and thus has no reason to have a greater resistance according to Scepi.

I don't think they are really waging war on inertia in the way you might imagine.
Yes, he is, to try to claim you need air to push against.
This is so he can pretend that rockets couldn't possibly work in a vacuum (even though he claims that vacuums don't exist) to pretend that all of science is wrong and Earth is flat.


1. The ball and the observer (at rest or in motion together) are one "system"/"inertial frame".  In order for the ball to influence the motion of the observer, it MUST come from an external system.  This is by definition in the newtonian laws themselves - arguably.
That is no by definition in the Newtonian laws. That is pure nonsense with basically no connection to those laws, promoted by those who want to dismiss what they don't like from modern science.

The fact that you can isolate it into a ball and observer shows that they are 2 systems/objects.
This means that you can have 1 apply a force to the other and move both.

Any "system" can typically be broken down into multiple smaller "systems".
You can isolate the ball and the observer as 2 systems. You can further divide the ball into its various parts, all the way down to the atoms and even smaller parts.
You can also go the other way and combine small systems into a larger one, such as combing it into a system containing everything on Earth, or even the entire universe.

If that nonsense was correct, nothing would ever be able to move as you would always be able to combine the object being accelerated and the object applying the force into a single system.

What you need something external for is to accelerate the centre of mass of the system.
If you don't have any external force, the centre of the mass needs to remain moving at a constant rate (which can be 0).


2. Connected to #1, in order for the "ejected mass"
And thus still just as broken, and in fact, even helps to show how broken it is.
The fact that you can eject mass, shows #1 is pure nonsense.
Ejecting that mass requires applying a force to accelerate it and thus will result in a force being applied back to whatever object did the acceleration.

I am not saying that the reasonings or rationales are flawless, but they exist and are somewhat defensible.
They are indefensible, at least if you require defensible to be rational and honest and not just ignore the evidence available on a daily basis that shows it is wrong.

Quote
And you have the problem of those same kind of people rejecting the existence of a vacuum and instead claiming that there will always be some air and that allows it to act as if it was just a normal atmosphere.
For many objects, that is true - they fall much the same in partial vacuum (the best we can do, and likely - can be achieved even in theory) and normal atmospheric conditions.   However, just because we can't get rid of absolutely every last bit of air in a vacuum chamber, doesn't mean we can't learn a lot about that air's influence by altering the amount!
That is ignored by people like Skepti. They come up with all sorts of excuses for why changing the amount of air not affecting something not refuting the air being the cause.
Even ignoring the fact that things weigh more in a vacuum due to the lack of buoyant force as if it doesn't refute the idea that air causes weight.

I do not have a demonstration of recoil not existing in a vacuum, though there are some compelling arguments / reasonings from some in regards to chemical rockets along these lines.
Again, care to provide any? Because I am yet to hear of any compelling arguments or reasoning to show that. Instead I just see repeated assertions which cannot be defended in any way.

Vapor pressure is important for combustion
Which is an entirely separate argument to recoil.

I thought it would be trivial to find such a video demonstration, but alas.  Do you know of one?
I provided one showing inertia in a vacuum.

They certainly could dismiss anything, but I don't think that is what scepti is doing.
Then you should go look at the other threads, where he dismisses photographic evidence as fake merely because it shows he is wrong.
He then uses whatever excuse he can to either ignore or dismiss logical arguments which show he is wrong.

scepti's position isn't really intelligible without this common posit).
No need to add in a "without" qualifier.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 11, 2021, 02:13:53 AM
Now again, can you explained observed inertia with your denp nonsense?
What the hell is inertia?
Stop playing dumb and answer the question.
We have been over what inertia is countless times.
It is a resistance to change in motion, i.e. a resistance to acceleration.

Can your nonsense explain it?
If not, can you admit you can't?

Ok, so as long as we know inertia is just resistance.

So, what exactly do you want me to explain?
It is not JUST RESISTANCE!
It is resistance to change in motion.
Do you understand that?

What I want you to explain has been made abundantly clear, why the resistance to change in motion (i.e. inertia) is always proportional to the mass of the object and has nothing to do with how much air is displaced by moving it, why it has nothing to do with the area of the object which can have a pressure applied to it, nor the aerodynamics of the object, and can you provide a justification for why the air should cause resistance but the object itself?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 11, 2021, 03:51:14 AM
Quote
I thought it was easier than labelling myself as a flattish Earth with rough terrain and under a dome, scientist.

OK Mr flat Earth scientist.  Tell me then.  What is this dome you keep on about made of then?  What is its diameter?  What is its thickness?  How old is it compared to the Earth?  Who made it?  Does it rotate or is it stationary?  Has anyone got any physical evidence that it even exists?
Wrong topic.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 11, 2021, 03:56:23 AM
Now again, can you explained observed inertia with your denp nonsense?
What the hell is inertia?
Stop playing dumb and answer the question.
We have been over what inertia is countless times.
It is a resistance to change in motion, i.e. a resistance to acceleration.

Can your nonsense explain it?
If not, can you admit you can't?

Ok, so as long as we know inertia is just resistance.

So, what exactly do you want me to explain?
It is not JUST RESISTANCE!
It is resistance to change in motion.
Do you understand that?


Yep, it is a resistance to change in motion, meaning the object resists any energy that could make it alter its movement.
Simply, resistance.
If its not just resistance then feel free to tell me what inertia actually is.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 11, 2021, 04:44:48 AM
Quote
Wrong topic.

You mentioned the 'dome' so I am asking you to tell me more about this so-called dome. What is keeping this dome in place?  If not gravity (since you say it doesn't exist) then what?

Why is it that whenever you are asked for any specific details about anything you make claims about you immediately try to deflect it away? To use a phrase that you love to aim at others so much, why don't you simply admit you actually have no clue about anything you claim to believe in? 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 11, 2021, 05:48:56 AM
Quote
Wrong topic.

You mentioned the 'dome' so I am asking you to tell me more about this so-called dome. What is keeping this dome in place?  If not gravity (since you say it doesn't exist) then what?

Why is it that whenever you are asked for any specific details about anything you make claims about you immediately try to deflect it away? To use a phrase that you love to aim at others so much, why don't you simply admit you actually have no clue about anything you claim to believe in?
Why don't you?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on February 11, 2021, 05:51:31 AM


And who handed you your knowledge? Oh right... "I just know it"
Who handed you, yours?
And also, what is knowledge?

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

You seem to just make things up.  You just know it.  I see evidence, some others collect, some I collect.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 11, 2021, 05:53:10 AM


And who handed you your knowledge? Oh right... "I just know it"
Who handed you, yours?
And also, what is knowledge?

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

You seem to just make things up.  You just know it.  I see evidence, some others collect, some I collect.
What have you verified?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 11, 2021, 06:25:43 AM
Quote
It depends what you want to see. If you're looking for facts then I've stated time and time again I don't pass my model off as factual. I pass it off as a possibility.

Yeah right... That's why you keep going on time and time again about silly global nonsense is it?  Possibility my a**e.  You have already made your mind up about it all.  Trouble is when asked for details of whatever it is you believe in you can't come back with any.  All you ever say is it has already been explained elsewhere but you then can't give any details of where 'elsewhere' is either.  But anything other than what you believe in is dismissed as silly nonsense. 

I admit.. I don't know anything about this dome that you insist exists.  That's why I am asking you to tell me at least something about it.  What is it?, where did it come from, what is it made of?, how do you know it actually exists?

The sky looks like a big dome in that you can turn through 360 degrees in azimuth from N back to N again and there are 180 degrees of altitude from 0 to 90 and back to 0 again.  That produces the perception of a dome to you as an observer.  But it doesn't mean there actually is a dome.  As it says on brittania.com

'Celestial sphere, the apparent surface of the heavens, on which the stars seem to be fixed.'

You seem to be mis-understanding apparent with actual.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 11, 2021, 07:15:08 AM
Quote
It depends what you want to see. If you're looking for facts then I've stated time and time again I don't pass my model off as factual. I pass it off as a possibility.

Yeah right... That's why you keep going on time and time again about silly global nonsense is it?  Possibility my a**e.  You have already made your mind up about it all.  Trouble is when asked for details of whatever it is you believe in you can't come back with any.  All you ever say is it has already been explained elsewhere but you then can't give any details of where 'elsewhere' is either.  But anything other than what you believe in is dismissed as silly nonsense. 

I admit.. I don't know anything about this dome that you insist exists.  That's why I am asking you to tell me at least something about it.  What is it?, where did it come from, what is it made of?, how do you know it actually exists?

The sky looks like a big dome in that you can turn through 360 degrees in azimuth from N back to N again and there are 180 degrees of altitude from 0 to 90 and back to 0 again.  That produces the perception of a dome to you as an observer.  But it doesn't mean there actually is a dome.  As it says on brittania.com

'Celestial sphere, the apparent surface of the heavens, on which the stars seem to be fixed.'

You seem to be mis-understanding apparent with actual.
Pm me if you want to ask questions on it.....or set up a topic specific to you     with what you want from me.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 11, 2021, 07:15:28 AM
Quote
It depends what you want to see. If you're looking for facts then I've stated time and time again I don't pass my model off as factual. I pass it off as a possibility.

I admit.. I don't know anything about this dome that you insist exists.  That's why I am asking you to tell me at least something about it.  What is it?, where did it come from, what is it made of?, how do you know it actually exists?

The sky looks like a big dome in that you can turn through 360 degrees in azimuth from N back to N again and there are 180 degrees of altitude from 0 to 90 and back to 0 again.  That produces the perception of a dome to you as an observer.  But it doesn't mean there actually is a dome.

The dome is theoretical. 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 11, 2021, 08:41:03 AM
Quote
Pm me if you want to ask questions on it.....or set up a topic specific to you     with what you want from me.

I was specific about what I would like to know about this dome.  Or at least about what this dome is in your opinion.

Where did this dome come from? What is it made from?, Who or what made it?,Is it rotating or static? How big is it? What physical evidence is there that it exists?

No need to PM you about it.  These are open questions so neither of us has anything to hide from anyone else.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 11, 2021, 08:51:15 AM


I was specific about what I would like to know about this dome.  Or at least about what this dome is in your opinion.

Where did this dome come from? What is it made from?, Who or what made it?,Is it rotating or static? How big is it? What physical evidence is there that it exists?

No need to PM you about it.  These are open questions so neither of us has anything to hide from anyone else.
Pm me if you want to ask questions on it.....or set up a topic specific to you     with what you want from me.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 11, 2021, 09:37:27 AM
I'm just asking you some questions about this dome you believe exists.  I've been quite clear about what I am asking so either you won't or you can't answer them in the public domain.  Which one is it?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 11, 2021, 12:19:53 PM
Yep, it is a resistance to change in motion, meaning the object resists any energy that could make it alter its movement.
Simply, resistance.
If its not just resistance then feel free to tell me what inertia actually is.
Again, not simply resistance. A very specific kind of resistance. This is why it isn't simply called resistance but is called inertia. It is resistance to change in motion. That is only one of the multitude of different types of resistance.

Now, can you explain that?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JJA on February 11, 2021, 12:56:22 PM


And who handed you your knowledge? Oh right... "I just know it"
Who handed you, yours?
And also, what is knowledge?

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

You seem to just make things up.  You just know it.  I see evidence, some others collect, some I collect.
What have you verified?

Have you forgotten already?  I took pictures through a tube.   ::)
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Smoke Machine on February 11, 2021, 01:05:16 PM
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry?  ???

Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.

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

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

A friend of mine who works in the mines, uses a gravimeter to identify mineral deposits under the ground. Mineral deposits cause a change in local gravity.
You're not really saying anything, at all.
Just admit you have no clue.

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

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

I don't think you could handle an explanation which includes a full nomenclature of how a gravimeter is constructed and functions. But if you think you can, I'll deliver.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 11, 2021, 10:11:25 PM
Yep, it is a resistance to change in motion, meaning the object resists any energy that could make it alter its movement.
Simply, resistance.
If its not just resistance then feel free to tell me what inertia actually is.
Again, not simply resistance. A very specific kind of resistance. This is why it isn't simply called resistance but is called inertia. It is resistance to change in motion. That is only one of the multitude of different types of resistance.

Now, can you explain that?
Resistance is resistance no matter which way you try to dress it up into something else.
Now; like I said; if inertia is resistance then I'll go along with inertia.
Seems fair enough...right?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 11, 2021, 10:13:00 PM
Gravity doesn't exist? Ok. Well arn't I the fool? Whatever will I do with my gravimeter and all my books on gravimetry?  ???

Sceptimatic, did you say you were having a garage sale soon?
How about you briefly and simply explain how your gravimeter works then.

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

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

A friend of mine who works in the mines, uses a gravimeter to identify mineral deposits under the ground. Mineral deposits cause a change in local gravity.
You're not really saying anything, at all.
Just admit you have no clue.

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

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

I don't think you could handle an explanation which includes a full nomenclature of how a gravimeter is constructed and functions. But if you think you can, I'll deliver.
Explain as you deliver, just so I know that you understand what you're delivering and not just parroting.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: jack44556677 on February 12, 2021, 12:22:33 AM
@jackblack (part 1 of 2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
This means you displace more air by moving a hollow object

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From what I've seen, it isn't dismissal - it is reinterpretation. There is a critical difference it is important to recognize.  The position/argument is defensible despite your feelings, however - this in NO WAY indicates its accuracy or consistency with actual manifest reality.  Demonstration is required for that! QED.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: jack44556677 on February 12, 2021, 12:23:04 AM
@jackblack (part 2 of 2)

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
That is ignored by people like Skepti.

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

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

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

Quote
Again, care to provide any?

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

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

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

Quote
Which is an entirely separate argument to recoil.

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

Quote
I provided one showing inertia in a vacuum.

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

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

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

Quote
No need to add in a "without" qualifier.

Lol.

Why/how are you so certain that you have not misinterpreted scepti, as I have observed and conveyed, and that everything they are claiming is "indefensible"?  Is it because you have some prejudices/biases in regards to this subject (like that anyone who researches it, or considers it seriously, is deluded / crazy / lost / manipulated etc.)?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 12, 2021, 01:38:07 AM
I have to applaud jack44's logical mindset on this and the devil's advocate approach. It is a breath of fresh air.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 12, 2021, 01:56:00 AM
Resistance is resistance
But the type of resistance matters.
Resistance to transfer of heat is different to resistance to transfer of electrical energy, which is different to resistance to realtive motion, which is different to resistance to compression, which is different to resistance to tension, which is different to resistance to acceleration aka change in motion.

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

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

So can you explain that?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 12, 2021, 02:09:06 AM
Resistance is resistance
But the type of resistance matters.
Resistance to transfer of heat is different to resistance to transfer of electrical energy, which is different to resistance to realtive motion, which is different to resistance to compression, which is different to resistance to tension, which is different to resistance to acceleration aka change in motion.

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

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

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


Unless you want to give me an example of what you think is different about resistance to motion?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 12, 2021, 02:32:34 AM
What they are claiming REQUIRES the matter of the objects to differ, in order to create different pressure waves that cause the different recoils (claimed).
No, what they are claiming, that the air causes the resistances, does not require the matter to change.
It makes the matter irrelevant, other than the matter directly in contact with the air.

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

Quote
regardless of whether the air is negligible or fundamental doesn't change the importance, necessary and obvious impact of the differing weights of the objects
Yes, it does.
If it is the air which is causing it the mass (and thus weight) is entirely irrelavent.
The obvious and important impact of the mass shows it isn't the air.

Quote
scepti is recognizing both of those effects (the weight of the air above an object being weighed along with the object
No, he is rejecting the weight of the object and claiming the resistance comes entirely from the air.

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

Quote
It is a "trick" of sorts.
No, it isn't. It is merely a demonstration that it isn't the air magically causing the resistance.

Quote
however that does not negate its weight or preclude its obvious/demonstrable impact of that weight
Tell that to scepti who wants to dismiss that.

Quote
Scepti is not denying inertia or weight
Yes, he is. All so he can pretend that rockets can't work in a vacuum.

Quote
Actually the claim of the "rocket hoax / deniers" is a little more profound than that
Not really. They might try to dress it up to be more profound, but at its heart, it is that.
Appealing to a wall is just replacing the air with something else but it is the same principle.


Quote
without the resistance/pressure/"reaction" that the floor provides (and in turn provides to every layer above it, until that resistance is utilized by the swimmer) there is reason to suspect that "swimming" won't work anymore.
Not if you have a basic understanding of physics, including if you carry out the experiments to determine that yourself.

Quote
this is not the exercise of someone who feels/pretends all of science is wrong.
Yes it is, with how much he rejects and how much science he claims isn't actually science.

Quote
You seem to be under the mistaken impression (lamentably common) that all of science must be wrong in order for humanity to be incorrect about the shape of the earth (or anything else, for that matter).
No, I have just seen how much Scepti rejects, and I haven't seen him accept a single thing from science.

Quote
mock and deride their ancestors for believing in such primitive things under the guise of science
You mean under the guise of their religion.

Quote
The position/argument is defensible despite your feelings
Then defend it.
Also, my feelings have nothing to do with it. The evidence including from daily experience does.

Quote
this in NO WAY indicates its accuracy or consistency with actual manifest reality.
That is basically what defensible means in this context.
In order for it to be defendsible, you need to be able to justify it. Not merely show that it is capable of producing an internally consistent system, but actually justifying it.
So claims about how reality operates need evidence to support them, to show they are consistent with reality, in order to be defensible.

Quote
The fact that you can isolate it into a ball and observer shows that they are 2 systems/objects.
So make it even more ridiculous and define the singular observer/system as a sadist that viciously tears their own limbs off and throws them in a, likely, vain attempt to return to the space station.  The point is not about the amount of objects in the system, nor if they were intended/designed to be seperate or not.
The point is, THEY ARE separate objecst and thus can accelerate each other. Each one can provide an external force to the other.
It shows the grouping to form a system is a completely arbitrary choice and that the argument is nonsense.

Quote
All we need is a demonstration of recoil occurring in as close to a vacuum as we can muster
Firstly, no we don't. Logic alone is enough to show the arguments are nonsense.
Secondly, you have been provided with an example of inertia in a vacuum.

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

Quote
I agree that it is strong evidence, but it doesn't necessarily refute the idea that air causes weight.
It sure seems to.
If air causes weight, more air should cause more weight and less air should cause less weight.
Instead we have the opposite.

Quote
it is this "air" that is most responsible for the pressure effect we know as weight.
Which is just a fancy way of saying it isn't the air.
But instead of being honest about it you pretend that something that isn't the air actually is the air to pretend it is the air that causes weight.

Quote
Not particularly (because I am not a proponent)
Then stop promoting the idea, and stop claiming such things exist.
Because whenever you make such a claim you become a proponent of at least that claim.

Quote
They are reasonably easy to defend
Again, if you wish to claim that, DEFEND THEM.

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

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

Quote
Why/how are you so certain that you have not misinterpreted scepti
Due to the long period of interaction with him.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 12, 2021, 02:34:37 AM
You've just explained it. It's a resistance to change in motion.
That is just stating what it is, not explaining it.
I want you to explain how the air causes it, in such a manner that the resistance is proportional to the mass of the object.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Themightykabool on February 12, 2021, 03:10:19 AM
Is he describing inertia?
The thing he said isnt a thing?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 12, 2021, 03:18:24 AM

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

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


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

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

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

I would ask this the other way - if people are making claims about the nature of physics that:  1) massively contradict the existing framework we use to understand and engineer the world the around us,   AND 2) would be VERY easily demonstrable using simple equipment,  then WHY haven't they performed this demonstration?   Why bicker endlessly on the internet rather than just go and do the work? 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 12, 2021, 06:43:03 AM
You've just explained it. It's a resistance to change in motion.
That is just stating what it is, not explaining it.
I've never seen you explain it, except for what you've just said...as a resistance to a change in motion.


Quote from: JackBlack
I want you to explain how the air causes it, in such a manner that the resistance is proportional to the mass of the object.
First of all, your so called gravity is supposedly a pull towards the centre of your Earth, of any mass. The more mass the greater the pull, as I'm told. Feel free to correct me on this if I've taken it out of term.
Anyway, the lesser mass, such as a helium balloon seems to rise up.


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

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

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

Ok, over to you.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Themightykabool on February 12, 2021, 07:01:23 AM
Your low level of intelligence has no bearing on its ability to exist.
The model is as it is despite your misunderstanding or misrepresenting it.

Try proving your own theory before "just asking questions" against very well documented and repeatable experiements that anyone can look up and do themselvs.
Youve yet to take your own tu-tube photo.
Seriously.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 12, 2021, 07:07:38 AM
Your low level of intelligence has no bearing on its ability to exist.
The model is as it is despite your misunderstanding or misrepresenting it.

Try proving your own theory before "just asking questions" against very well documented and repeatable experiements that anyone can look up and do themselvs.
Youve yet to take your own tu-tube photo.
Seriously.
Anything to add?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sokarul on February 12, 2021, 12:52:03 PM
Buoyancy has been understood since at least 243 BC.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 12, 2021, 01:33:50 PM
You've just explained it. It's a resistance to change in motion.
That is just stating what it is, not explaining it.
I've never seen you explain it, except for what you've just said...as a resistance to a change in motion.
I have also explained how it depends on the mass of the object and is innate to the object.
Whereas you claim it is a result of the air.

Quote from: JackBlack
I want you to explain how the air causes it, in such a manner that the resistance is proportional to the mass of the object.
First of all, your so called gravity
Gravity has nothing to do with inertia.

This thread is discussing inertia. Stop with the distractions.

is supposedly a pull towards the centre of your Earth, of any mass. The more mass the greater the pull, as I'm told. Feel free to correct me on this if I've taken it out of term.
Anyway, the lesser mass, such as a helium balloon seems to rise up.
Only when it is in a fluid.
Buoyancy has been explained to you many times and you just ignore it.
When you have a fluid like water or air, gravity will create a pressure gradient as the fluid at the bottom needs to support the fluid at the top.
This pressure gradient means that if you put something in this fluid the pressure at the bottom from the fluid is higher than the pressure at the top from the fluid. This means the fluid applies an upwards force on the object.

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

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

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

I see arguments that gravity is what pulls air down and keeps it on Earth. It's absolutely senseless
Yet all you can do is repeat that it is senseless. You cannot provide any explanation as to why.

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

yet my way explains it all in a rational way that seems to be brushed aside in favour of something that has no reasoning.
There you go projecting.
Mainstream science explains it all in a rational away, which you brush aside in favour of pure nonsense that has no reasoning to back it up at all.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Themightykabool on February 12, 2021, 03:17:00 PM
Your low level of intelligence has no bearing on its ability to exist.
The model is as it is despite your misunderstanding or misrepresenting it.

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

Youve been asked plenty of times to add.
You refuse and give non answers or deflect.
Ill say it to your face.
Youre dont even stand up for your own ideas and continue to pathetically dodge its so obvious
Dont deflect.
Youre the one whos insisting things are not what they seem to be.
Feel free to enlighten us beyond your word salad with a photo or sensical diagram of your ideas.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 12, 2021, 04:03:12 PM
Quote
Conversely for a helium filled balloon, its density is less than that of air and thus the buoyant force wins and the object floats up.
The helium filled balloon rises as the denser air around it falls down.

Correct. The helium balloon will continue to rise until it reaches an altitude where the density of the air surrounding the balloon matches the density inside the balloon. It is natures way to try to reach an equilibrium state.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 13, 2021, 02:29:41 AM
You've just explained it. It's a resistance to change in motion.
That is just stating what it is, not explaining it.
I've never seen you explain it, except for what you've just said...as a resistance to a change in motion.
I have also explained how it depends on the mass of the object and is innate to the object.
Whereas you claim it is a result of the air.

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

Can you explain it because this explains nothing.


Also, I've already told you it's mass against atmosphere, for mine.
But let's deal with this gravity. I want to see how much you know, by explaining.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 13, 2021, 02:31:06 AM


Youve been asked plenty of times to add.
You refuse and give non answers or deflect.
Ill say it to your face.
Youre dont even stand up for your own ideas and continue to pathetically dodge its so obvious
Dont deflect.
Youre the one whos insisting things are not what they seem to be.
Feel free to enlighten us beyond your word salad with a photo or sensical diagram of your ideas.
Anything to add?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 13, 2021, 02:31:37 AM
Quote
Conversely for a helium filled balloon, its density is less than that of air and thus the buoyant force wins and the object floats up.
The helium filled balloon rises as the denser air around it falls down.

Correct. The helium balloon will continue to rise until it reaches an altitude where the density of the air surrounding the balloon matches the density inside the balloon. It is natures way to try to reach an equilibrium state.
Explain it with gravity.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 13, 2021, 02:44:15 AM
Quote
Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 13, 2021, 02:55:10 AM
Quote
Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?
The whole premise of your Earth working as you seem to go along with, is this gravity. So, explain it.
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 13, 2021, 03:38:07 AM
Quote
Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.

1.  Gravity produces a pressure gradient in a fluid.

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

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

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

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

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

This isnít that advanced.  The fact that you canít even come close to understanding it is not at this point surprising, but is still a little sad. 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Smoke Machine on February 13, 2021, 03:43:48 AM
Quote
Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?
The whole premise of your Earth working as you seem to go along with, is this gravity. So, explain it.
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.

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

"Your earth" is actually our Earth. We all live on it, sceptic. Oh, that's right, my homework you set for me, was to explain to you how a gravimeter works, wasn't it?  My last explanation wasn't good enough for you, was it?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 13, 2021, 04:27:46 AM
Its always the same with Scepti.  Explain this, explain that etc...  Then whenever we do try to explain how things actually work he immediately comes back with whatever BS he can think of to dismiss our explanations as complete nonsense.

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

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

Quote
This gravity makes no sense, at all.

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

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

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

But you say that gravity doesn't exist, so in that case what exactly are my bathroom scales telling me? What is causing my bathroom scales to read 99kg?  Perhaps you could explain it to me and give me your figures to show me how you reach the same result. Without any reference to gravity of course.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 13, 2021, 12:46:41 PM
What do you mean it depends on the mass of the object and is innate to the object?
[/quote]
They are all pretty simple English words.

It means that you need to apply a force to accelerate the object and that force is proportional to the mass of the object, and in fact that is one of the ways to determine the mass of the object. It being innate means it is a natural property of the mass.
To go any further would require an understanding of the Higg's field which causes mass.

Also, I've already told you it's mass against atmosphere, for mine.
Again, I don't care if you keep telling me it's mass against atmosphere. That explains nothing and goes directly against how aerodynamics work.

But let's deal with this gravity. I want to see how much you know, by explaining.
Like I said, stop with the pathetic deflections. It is time for you to start explaining your BS rather than trying to continually deflect to another topic.

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

Correct. The helium balloon will continue to rise until it reaches an altitude where the density of the air surrounding the balloon matches the density inside the balloon. It is natures way to try to reach an equilibrium state.
Explain it with gravity.
I already did, back in this post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2304268#msg2304268
and like I predicted, you just ignored it and asked for the explanation again.
Why do you continually ask for that which has already been provided?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 14, 2021, 01:11:59 AM
What I want to know from Sceptimatic is how you can calculate your weight without using gravity.  Since according to him gravity as we understand it to be doesn't exist, how does he work out his weight. 

I have gone through the calculation for how I calculated my weight using my bathroom scales.  So I would like a similar explanation including work through with figures from Sceptimatic of how you can calculate the weight of a person or indeed anything without using the acceleration due to gravity.

He always asks us to explain things according to what we believe so that is exactly what I have done.  Over to you for yours now Scepti.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 14, 2021, 05:26:44 AM
Quote
Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.

1.  Gravity produces a pressure gradient in a fluid.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

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

Can you give me an example and explain what's going on with it?

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

Again, can you give me an example of this and explain what's happening?

Quote from: sobchak
4.  There are therefore two forces on a body submerged in a fluid under gravity.
How do the two forces work?
 
Quote from: sobchak
5.  The object goes up or down depending on which of these forces is dominant.

Can you give me an example and tell me how you know it to be the truth, according to you?

Quote from: sobchak
6.  For a helium balloon in the atmosphere, the net upward surface force is greater than the downward body force, so the balloon rises.
Explain what is happening to the helium balloon.



Quote from: sobchak
This isnít that advanced.  The fact that you canít even come close to understanding it is not at this point surprising, but is still a little sad.
Try and make me not so sad by explaining it in the reality you believe.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 14, 2021, 05:31:39 AM
Quote
Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?
The whole premise of your Earth working as you seem to go along with, is this gravity. So, explain it.
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.

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

"Your earth" is actually our Earth. We all live on it, sceptic. Oh, that's right, my homework you set for me, was to explain to you how a gravimeter works, wasn't it?  My last explanation wasn't good enough for you, was it?
Gravity has never been explained as to what it is, only what it supposedly does.
Your gravimeter has never been explained by you or anyone else, except to say that it works.
How about explaining what gravity is and explain what this gravimeter does to tell you it's gravity it's measuring?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 14, 2021, 05:48:25 AM
Its always the same with Scepti.  Explain this, explain that etc...  Then whenever we do try to explain how things actually work he immediately comes back with whatever BS he can think of to dismiss our explanations as complete nonsense.

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

So Scepti - what does the term 'resultant force' mean to you?  Then think about how strong the downward pulling force on the helium balloon is compared to the upward buoyancy force and then decide which way the balloon is going to move.  Up or down?
Differences between forces and the resultant percentage left over as the major force.
Your gravity is nonsense.
You go on about gravity acting on mass. If this was so, gravity would pull (no such thing as pull) that mass down and the lesser mass would be much more easily pulled (no such thing as pull) down.




Quote from: Solarwind
Quote
This gravity makes no sense, at all.

Doesn't it?  Why not? Seems pretty straight forward to me and that isn't just based on what I am 'told'.
It's not straightforward, at all. You say it is because you simply follow the word as your proof, based on nothing other than fictional story adherence, to be fair.

Quote from: Solarwind
Which bit don't you understand?
None of it as any reality.

Quote from: Solarwind
We all experience this thing that everyone else apart from you calls gravity in our everyday life. I stood on my bathroom scales this morning and they told me I weigh... well too much! 15st 10lb.  Converted to kg that comes to 99.

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

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



Quote from: Solarwind
But you say that gravity doesn't exist, so in that case what exactly are my bathroom scales telling me?
What is causing my bathroom scales to read 99kg?
They're telling you that your mass is displacing atmosphere and the resulting displaced pressure is pushing right back onto you and the scales, overcoming some spring resistance to create a person made measuring scale.


Quote from: Solarwind
  Perhaps you could explain it to me and give me your figures to show me how you reach the same result. Without any reference to gravity of course.
No need for figures. You only need those if you want to measure pressures. As for explaining, it simply needs logical and the ability to see past the gravity bull crap, in my honest opinion.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 14, 2021, 05:49:23 AM

Again, I don't care if you keep telling me it's mass against atmosphere. That explains nothing and goes directly against how aerodynamics work.


No, it doesn't.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 14, 2021, 05:56:18 AM
Quote
This is just a load of accepted gobbledegook.

How is my measured weight (by me) just 'accepted gobbledegook' as you so eloquently put it?  And how is it that when I enter my measured weight into a widely recognised equation I get consistent figures for the known mass and radius of the Earth?  The only gobbledegook around here is made up of your totally unqualified wild claims.

It's always the same with you.  You demand people explain things to you and show you things and then when they do you just dismiss it all as 'accepted gobbledegook'.  Yet you cannot an/or will not back up anything that you claim with actual figures. 

Probably because you can't.  No surprises there then.

What is the mass and radius of the Earth according to you?

Quote
Quote
No need for figures. You only need those if you want to measure pressures. As for explaining, it simply needs logical and the ability to see past the gravity bull crap, in my honest opinion.

So how then do you measure weight using pressure?  Pressure is force / area by the way.  So pressure would be a downward directed force towards the ground.  What is causing that downward force if it isn't due to gravity?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 14, 2021, 05:59:19 AM
What I want to know from Sceptimatic is how you can calculate your weight without using gravity.  Since according to him gravity as we understand it to be doesn't exist, how does he work out his weight. 

I have gone through the calculation for how I calculated my weight using my bathroom scales.  So I would like a similar explanation including work through with figures from Sceptimatic of how you can calculate the weight of a person or indeed anything without using the acceleration due to gravity.

He always asks us to explain things according to what we believe so that is exactly what I have done.  Over to you for yours now Scepti.
You already resist a lot of air pressure upon you by your own displacement of it, of your own dense mass.
You have no weight at all unless you have something in which to measure that displacement. Enter the person(s) made scales that have numbers on and a spring which will determining how much your body's dense mass is resisting the atmospheric pressure upon it.


It's all been explained if you care to look.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 14, 2021, 06:01:44 AM
Quote
This is just a load of accepted gobbledegook.

How is my measured weight (by me) just 'accepted gobbledegook' as you so eloquently put it?  And how is it that when I enter my measured weight into a widely recognised equation I get consistent figures for the known mass and radius of the Earth.

It's always the same with you.  You demand people explain things to you and show you things and then when they do you just dismiss it all as 'accepted gobbledegook'.  Yet you cannot back up anything that you claim with actual figures. 

Probably because you can't.  No surprises there then.

What is the mass and radius of the Earth according to you?

Quote
Quote
No need for figures. You only need those if you want to measure pressures. As for explaining, it simply needs logical and the ability to see past the gravity bull crap, in my honest opinion.

So how then do you measure weight using pressure?  Pressure is force / area by the way.  So pressure would be a downward directed force towards the ground.  What is causing that downward force if it isn't due to gravity?
Let's make this abundantly clear. You have absolutely no clue what the mass of the Earth is. You absolutely do not. Your reliance is completely on authority and you appeal to it as and when you feel it's needed.

Don't lie to yourself and pretend you know the Earth's mass. It's ridiculous and I'm well within my rights to call it out.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 14, 2021, 06:08:11 AM
Quote
Let's make this abundantly clear.

There is one thing that is abundantly clear to me. And that is that you cannot explain anything you claim.  I have shown you how I can make a very simple measurement with nothing other than a set of bathroom scales and then use that figure to calculate and verify the mass of the Earth, the gravitational acceleration and the radius of the Earth. All of which has been measured and re-measured many, many times. 

Quote
Don't lie to yourself and pretend you know the Earth's mass.

I have just calculated the Earths mass using my weight.  So how can I 'pretend' to know the Earths mass when I have just worked it out using some simple maths and something I have measured myself? 

Quote
Your reliance is completely on authority

No my reliance is based on using my brain to solve a problem and prove something to myself.

As I said, if I change the value of any of these it will immediately give me a different value for my weight.  Which I would then know is wrong because it would be different from my measured value.

What is abundantly clear to me is that you cannot bring yourself to understand that or accept it.  Instead you would rather stick to your guns and believe whatever crazy ideas exist only in your head.  I am certainly not the one lying to myself here.  Just go and play with your tubes instead eh.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 14, 2021, 06:27:40 AM


I have just calculated the Earths mass using my weight.  So how can I 'pretend' to know the Earths mass when I have just worked it out using some simple maths and something I have measured myself? 

If you think you can measure the Earth's mass by weighing yourself then you must be called Earth's Mass, or is it, Earthsmass. Is that your name or am I close?

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Unconvinced on February 14, 2021, 07:08:06 AM
Quote
Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.

1.  Gravity produces a pressure gradient in a fluid.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

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

Can you give me an example and explain what's going on with it?

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

Again, can you give me an example of this and explain what's happening?

Quote from: sobchak
4.  There are therefore two forces on a body submerged in a fluid under gravity.
How do the two forces work?
 
Quote from: sobchak
5.  The object goes up or down depending on which of these forces is dominant.

Can you give me an example and tell me how you know it to be the truth, according to you?

Quote from: sobchak
6.  For a helium balloon in the atmosphere, the net upward surface force is greater than the downward body force, so the balloon rises.
Explain what is happening to the helium balloon.



Quote from: sobchak
This isn’t that advanced.  The fact that you can’t even come close to understanding it is not at this point surprising, but is still a little sad.
Try and make me not so sad by explaining it in the reality you believe.

Why don't you go and actually try to learn this yourself, you lazy sod?

Maybe if you could be bothered to spend a fraction of the time on it that you spend repeating your nonsense, you might understand how it works, and why your ideas very clearly don't. 

Instead you use the product of advanced physics and engineering to arrogantly claim you know better than every single physicist and engineer who's lived for hundreds of years.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 14, 2021, 08:11:23 AM
Quote
If you think you can measure the Earth's mass by weighing yourself then you must be called Earth's Mass, or is it, Earthsmass. Is that your name or am I close?

I more than think I can.  I have actually demonstrated I can.  If you weren't so obsessed with your own self-denial about simple concepts in science and your 'Sceptimatic is always right' state of mind then you would see that I have. 

There is this equation that we use and has been used for a long time now.  You need two masses and a distance between those masses.  As long as I have one mass I can calculate the other.  It's not hard. That's what we do in science. Just to re-iterate you have two constants (G and g) one of which is universal and one is specific to the Earth.  As long as I know my mass then I can work out both the mass of the Earth and the radius of the Earth.  Clearly you cannot get your head around that can you.  Working the same method backwards, can you not see if the Earths mass and radius were any different to what we are 'told' then I would get a discrepancy between the measured value for my weight and my calculated value. That would tell me something was wrong somewhere.  As it is there was a less than 1% difference in my calculation.

You seem to get very annoyed when people show how they can prove things very simply which go against your beliefs don't you.  You also seem to dismiss any experiment that you haven't dictated to us how to do or what to do. 

How do you work out your weight?  You talk about pressure.  OK so what is pressure? Force/Area.  In the case of weight that force is a downward (towards the ground) force. So where does the force come from if not from gravity?  Why does atmospheric pressure decrease with height? Weight is a force.  F=ma.  My mass is a physical property of me and will be the same where ever I am.  So why do astronauts in the ISS float?  Because they are further away from the Earth and hence F is less.

None of us are your servants.  It's not a case of you say jump and we say how high.  We give you the information that would otherwise help you actually learn something but no... Scepti would prefer to just sit there and live in denial.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 14, 2021, 12:15:15 PM
Again, I don't care if you keep telling me it's mass against atmosphere. That explains nothing and goes directly against how aerodynamics work.
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it explain nothing, just like I said.
Now again, care to try providing an explanation?
As a hint, we know that air provides a force based upon pressure and area.

1.  Gravity produces a pressure gradient in a fluid.
Can you explain what you mean by this?
Again, why continually ask for explanations for things that have been explained to you countless times.

Remember the thread which you fled from because you couldn't explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere (or anywhere)?
It was all explained there, complete with a little diagram to show what is needed to explain pressure gradient you couldn't explain.
Remember this:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)

Now stop playing dumb.

Your gravity is nonsense.
You go on about gravity acting on mass. If this was so, gravity would pull (no such thing as pull) that mass down and the lesser mass would be much more easily pulled (no such thing as pull) down.
No, your objection is nonsense.
If gravity acts on mass, i.e. creates a force, real or apparent, based upon the mass of the object, (just like the columbic force applies a force based upon the charge and so on), then the larger the mass, the greater the force. This means the greater mass would have a larger force acting on it than the lesser mass.

It's not straightforward, at all.
It is quite straight forward, but you hate it, and need to deny it at all costs, so you come up with whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend it must be wrong.
Just like you use whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid admitting your wild claims are pure garbage, even massively changing the topic, where you have now almost completely fled from your inability to defend your nonsense replacement for inertia (ending with a mere denial).


They're telling you that your mass is displacing atmosphere and the resulting displaced pressure is pushing right back onto you and the scales, overcoming some spring resistance to create a person made measuring scale.
See, this is an example of something which makes no sense at all and is not straight forward at all.
When you displace the atmosphere, it pushes back FROM ALL DIRECTIONS!
It doesn't magically push you down.
In fact, as the pressure is greater the lower down you are, it actually pushes you UP, in complete defiance of your BS.

In order to have your BS work, you need to explain how the air magically pushes things down.

As for explaining, it simply needs logical and the ability to see past the gravity bull crap, in my honest opinion.
And as has been made abundantly clear, your claims require a complete rejection of logic and reality and self-delusion.
You are yet to explain anything, probably because you can't.

Shall we go back to the most basic thing in your model, the pressure gradient, and see if you can explain that yet?
Again, what magic causes the increase in pressure as you go down your "stack"

You have no weight at all unless you have something in which to measure
As has been explained to you repeatedly, if that was the case we would float.
The fact that we don't, and instead fall to the ground, shows measuring is irrelevant.
We have weight regardless of it is measured.

It's all been explained if you care to look.
By mainstream science, which you reject (although I wouldn't say all, as there is always a step further back you can go).
Meanwhile, you have explained nothing.

Let's make this abundantly clear. You have absolutely no clue what the mass of the Earth is. You absolutely do not. Your reliance is completely on authority and you appeal to it as and when you feel it's needed.

Don't lie to yourself and pretend you know the Earth's mass. It's ridiculous and I'm well within my rights to call it out.
Again, this is because we are not paranoid and delusional.
If we really wanted to, we could determine the mass of Earth ourselves, the same way it was determined in the past.
So no, it is ridiculous for you to object to things like that, especially when you offer nothing in exchange.
Feel free to go and do the experiment yourself.

Now again, stop playing dumb, stop with the pathetic dishonest deflection, and explain your pure BS.
Explain how the air causes inertia such that all objects resist changes in motion based upon their mass, rather than another property actually related to the air with aerodynamics, such as volume or area? (and again, your garbage idea of volume which is in no way supported by reality, doesn't help, not unless you can show no objects are air-tight).
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 14, 2021, 12:27:31 PM
I just wonder how, in the world of Sceptimatic you can learn anything that you cannot personally prove as being true.  For instance there's no point in reading books because according to him that would be just believing or accepting stuff that we are 'told'.

So where would we be if we made a decision that we were going to live our lives out in total denial of anything and everything that we could not personally prove ourselves?

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 14, 2021, 09:17:39 PM


Why don't you go and actually try to learn this yourself, you lazy sod?

Maybe if you could be bothered to spend a fraction of the time on it that you spend repeating your nonsense, you might understand how it works, and why your ideas very clearly don't. 

Instead you use the product of advanced physics and engineering to arrogantly claim you know better than every single physicist and engineer who's lived for hundreds of years.
Ok I'll try and learn.
First of all I need to actually know what I'm learning. I mean, learning.
I don't want stories of old, told as stories of new.
I don't want to be told gravity is, so there. I want to learn what this gravity actually is in real time.
I want to know what it is and how it can be explained to become the force to do what it supposedly does.


Nobody's explained it in any realistic terms.

It'sd absolutely fine to go on about advanced physics...but show what that is by dumbing it right down to the basics of explanation instead of simply copy/paste what is to be parroted.

And as for me claiming to know better. No I don't. You people make that claim about me due to frustrations of not being able to batter the stuff you follow, into my head. You then claim I know I think I know better than scientists of hundreds of years, rather than just saying...today.
It's always harking back.

Why?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 14, 2021, 09:56:08 PM
Quote
If you think you can measure the Earth's mass by weighing yourself then you must be called Earth's Mass, or is it, Earthsmass. Is that your name or am I close?

I more than think I can.  I have actually demonstrated I can.  If you weren't so obsessed with your own self-denial about simple concepts in science and your 'Sceptimatic is always right' state of mind then you would see that I have. 

There is this equation that we use and has been used for a long time now.  You need two masses and a distance between those masses.
Ok, let's sort this out. I'll start and  you can correct me.

You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?

If you think I'm being childish and simple....yes I am, because this is how you're coming across with your explanations, as thought it was just like this.

In nice steps like explaining it to a retard like myself, please. Enlighten me as to how it all works and forgive me if I stop you and quiz you as you go.



Quote from: Solarwind
As long as I have one mass I can calculate the other.  It's not hard. That's what we do in science. Just to re-iterate you have two constants (G and g) one of which is universal and one is specific to the Earth.
 As long as I know my mass then I can work out both the mass of the Earth and the radius of the Earth.  Clearly you cannot get your head around that can you.  Working the same method backwards, can you not see if the Earths mass and radius were any different to what we are 'told' then I would get a discrepancy between the measured value for my weight and my calculated value. That would tell me something was wrong somewhere.  As it is there was a less than 1% difference in my calculation.
Ok what is the G and what Is the g when pertaining to Earth and this universe thing?

Remember, explain it to me like I'm a retard.


Quote from: Solarwind
You seem to get very annoyed when people show how they can prove things very simply which go against your beliefs don't you.  You also seem to dismiss any experiment that you haven't dictated to us how to do or what to do.
Nahhhhh, I really don't. I do smirk now and again and do get bemused. It's a rarity that I get flustered. I used to years ago.

 
Quote from: Solarwind
How do you work out your weight?  You talk about pressure.  OK so what is pressure? Force/Area.
Weight is a man made concept. Understand that first.
It's a man made measure.
It's measured on a scale.
You accept that atmosphere has mass, right?
You also accept that for that mass to build up to the sky it has to stack.
You also know that anything stacked onto another will make the below stacks more compacts than the above.
You also must understand that, if you place a dense mass into that atmospheric stack, that dense mass will be compressed and that dense mass will resist that atmospheric stacking it is part of and under.

Place a scale plate under that dense mass and you will see how much the resistance and displacement of that atmosphere, is, on a scale reading by a spring, or sorts, that resists the crush onto that dense mass and then shows up a man made scale reading.


Pretty simple really and explainable to those who wish to actually throw away the magical stuff.


Quote from: Solarwind
In the case of weight that force is a downward (towards the ground) force. So where does the force come from if not from gravity?
The ground, up, for objects using that ground.
Or the sea up, for any object using the sea/water as the foundation of resistance to stacked pressure upon that mass.

Quote from: Solarwind
Why does atmospheric pressure decrease with height?
Less amount of atmospheric stacking.

Quote from: Solarwind
Weight is a force.  F=ma.
And?

Quote from: Solarwind
My mass is a physical property of me and will be the same where ever I am.
Yep...but understand what your real mass is. However, although your mass will be the same, it's how that mass is spread out as pressure upon  is lessened, or if pressure was increased then it would be the opposite in terms of how smaller and compressed that mass becomes.

Quote from: Solarwind
  So why do astronauts in the ISS float?
They don't. It fictional.

Quote from: Solarwind
  Because they are further away from the Earth and hence F is less.
No, they are not. Astronauts are not in any space.
hey may be underwater pretending to be in so called space, or whatever...but not what we're coaxed in accepting, In my view.


Quote from: Solarwind
None of us are your servants.
You do not need to ever respond to me. You make that choice. Don;t be anything and just forget I exist and you won't need to worry or whine.

Quote from: Solarwind
  It's not a case of you say jump and we say how high.
Correct...and this massively applies to you and your posse of globalists.

Quote from: Solarwind
We give you the information that would otherwise help you actually learn something but no... Scepti would prefer to just sit there and live in denial.
When I get info that I believe will help me, I'll be sure to let you now.

First of all, offer me genuine reality, not parroted theory passed off as some kind of peer reviewed fact, cloaked back into a theory as a security mechanism.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM
Again, I don't care if you keep telling me it's mass against atmosphere. That explains nothing and goes directly against how aerodynamics work.
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it explain nothing, just like I said.

Explain what gravity actually is and why it does what you claim it does.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 14, 2021, 09:58:59 PM
I just wonder how, in the world of Sceptimatic you can learn anything that you cannot personally prove as being true.  For instance there's no point in reading books because according to him that would be just believing or accepting stuff that we are 'told'.

So where would we be if we made a decision that we were going to live our lives out in total denial of anything and everything that we could not personally prove ourselves?
I'm managing just fine as it is, so I must be ok in the middle of this mish mash of truth and fiction.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 14, 2021, 11:15:34 PM
Explain what gravity actually is and why it does what you claim it does.
Again, STOP DEFLECTING!

Try to explain and justify your BS, or see if you can actually provide any problem with gravity. Because so far all you have done is completely misrepresent it and dismiss it as nonsense.

If you think "it's mass against atmosphere" is an explanation, then just what do you find wrong with the explanation for gravity?

Perhaps before anyone even attempts to try to explain gravity to you, you explain just what you think an explanation is and what level would be acceptable, because there will ALWAYS be another question for any explanation.

For example, will you accept Newton's idea of a force-field where by any mass creates a gravitational field and any object in that field will experience a force based upon the mass and the strength of that field?

Would you accept Einstein's curvature of space time where every object is travelling through normalised space-time at a rate of c, and any object with mass or energy will distort spacetime, curving it based upon the mass/energy, and objects travelling through this distorted spacetime will have motion through time converted into motion through space due to this distortion?

If not, just what would you accept? Perhaps you can provide an example by way of how you would explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, or how air causes inertia.

I just wonder how, in the world of Sceptimatic you can learn anything that you cannot personally prove as being true.  For instance there's no point in reading books because according to him that would be just believing or accepting stuff that we are 'told'.

So where would we be if we made a decision that we were going to live our lives out in total denial of anything and everything that we could not personally prove ourselves?
I'm managing just fine as it is, so I must be ok in the middle of this mish mash of truth and fiction.
But you aren't learning anything, you are just continuing to cling to fiction.

And as for me claiming to know better. No I don't.
Yes you do. You claim that what we all accept is pure BS and that you can easily see through the nonsense and so on and realise it is all BS.
That is claiming you know better.
The problem is that you cannot justify that claim in any way.

You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?
There are a few different ways. The simplest is if you have a calibrated set of scales which measure weight, which depends upon mass and gravity (i.e. F=mg).
If you don't have them calibrated there are ways to do so, based upon measuring g independently from mass, such as free fall acceleration.

An alternative is to measure how much of a particular fluid it displaces which it floats in, which returns its mass as a function of the mass of the fluid.

Another is to measure its resistance to acceleration.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 14, 2021, 11:16:08 PM
Quote from: Solarwind
You seem to get very annoyed when people show how they can prove things very simply which go against your beliefs don't you.  You also seem to dismiss any experiment that you haven't dictated to us how to do or what to do.
Nahhhhh, I really don't.
Oh yes you do, such as when you entirely ignore explanations which have been provided because you cannot find fault with them, and how you ignore logical arguments until you can think of some excuse to dismiss it, and how you dismiss so much evidence as fake merely because it shows you are wrong.
So you most certainly do. The only question is how annoyed you get.


Quote from: Solarwind
How do you work out your weight?  You talk about pressure.  OK so what is pressure? Force/Area.
Weight is a man made concept. Understand that first.
Or, how about you understand reality first.
Weight is a very real thing, which exists completley independent on man.
Again, the fact things fall shows weight is very real.
It is not a man-made concept.
The fact we measure weight doesn't magically mean it is man made.
We are simply measuring something in reality.
Understand that first, before spouting so much BS about it.

You accept that atmosphere has mass, right?
You also accept that for that mass to build up to the sky it has to stack.
You also know that anything stacked onto another will make the below stacks more compacts than the above.
Due to gravity, which you dismiss and try to replace with something else.
Again, clearly explained by the simple diagram you hate as it shows the massive flaw in your argument.
Here is a simple schematic of a stack of anything, including air or any other fluid, or solid objects:
(https://i.imgur.com/QgCeM07.png)

The green layer is being pushed down by the layer above, with a force of F.
In addition to that, it has gravity acting on it, applying a force of W.
This means the layer below which is supporting it has a force of F+W acting on it. This is greater than F and thus the force and pressure is greater at this lower layer.

Notice how this requires gravity, which you outright reject.
You need to explain what causes this extra force of W.

If it is just the air and you don't have gravity or anything like it, then there is no extra force and the mass of that layer is irrelevant.
Without this force of W, you have F=G, and there is no increase in pressure.

We can easily see this by turning the stack on its side.
If you take a simple spring and compress or stretch it between 2 objects horizontally, the force is constant throughout.

You can even try this yourself with a slinky.
Get a slinky, lie it on a table and pull the ends of the slinky to the sides of the table. Then measure how elongated any section is. You will find it is the same along the length (within measuring and manufacturing tolerances).

But now, suspend it by hanging it from the top.
Now you find that the top is stretched out far more than the bottom.
This is because the bottom only has to hold up its small weight, while the top has to hold up the weight of the entire slinky.
This is different to the above diagram as it is now under tension rather than compression, however technically when noting the sign of the force, it still applies as now F and G are now upwards, rather than downwards in the diagram.

Again, this is all explained perfectly with gravity providing weight to all mass.
But your nonsense rejects that.
If it is just air pushing it down, there is no increase in force at all and the atmosphere should have the same pressure throughout.

So in your attempt to explain and justify an alternative to gravity you are implicitly appealing to it.

So can you explain this pressure gradient, just using your system, rather than appeal to clear evidence of gravity?

will resist that atmospheric stacking it is part of and under.
Why not above?

Place a scale plate under that dense mass and you will see how much the resistance and displacement of that atmosphere, is, on a scale reading by a spring, or sorts, that resists the crush onto that dense mass and then shows up a man made scale reading.
No, you will see the force of gravity pushing it down.
If you want to see the effect of the atmosphere, there are 2 options, one is to ensure the entire scale and the object are sealed in an airtight bag, with no air in there at all (or only a negligible amount). Then you see the air exert a force based upon the AREA of the scales, not the volume, not the mass.
The other option, to see the effect of the pressure gradient (i.e. the stack), you can compare the weight of the object in different fluids, or no fluid. With this you see the air applies an upwards force, not a downwards one.

This has all already been pointed out to you. Stop playing dumb.

Pretty simple really and explainable to those who wish to actually throw away the magical stuff.
Yes, when we throw away your magical nonsense and instead stick to the very real gravity it is trivial to explain.

But with your nonsense, you can't even explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere.

The ground, up, for objects using that ground.
And for objects in mid air?

Quote from: Solarwind
Why does atmospheric pressure decrease with height?
Less amount of atmospheric stacking.
You need to explain why this stacking causes a pressure gradient in the first place, without appealing to gravity.

it's how that mass is spread out as pressure upon  is lessened, or if pressure was increased then it would be the opposite in terms of how smaller and compressed that mass becomes.
But increasing pressure reduces your weight, not increases it, due to the buoyant force increasing.

It fictional.
There you go rejecting reality and evidence again.

When I get info that I believe will help me, I'll be sure to let you now.
By which I take it you mean when you get info that will help you attack reality that you hate and prop up your delusional nonsense?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Smoke Machine on February 15, 2021, 12:03:49 AM
Quote
Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?
The whole premise of your Earth working as you seem to go along with, is this gravity. So, explain it.
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.

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

"Your earth" is actually our Earth. We all live on it, sceptic. Oh, that's right, my homework you set for me, was to explain to you how a gravimeter works, wasn't it?  My last explanation wasn't good enough for you, was it?
Gravity has never been explained as to what it is, only what it supposedly does.
Your gravimeter has never been explained by you or anyone else, except to say that it works.
How about explaining what gravity is and explain what this gravimeter does to tell you it's gravity it's measuring?

I'm not a scientist, so any answer you get from me will be a quote, or other people's ideas.

Simply put, "Gravity is a natural phenomenon. It is a natural phenomenon where things of mass or energy are brought towards each other."

More specifically, Newton's law of universal gravitation describes what gravity is, as, "A force. Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects."

Or alternatively, "Einstein's general relativity describes gravity is as a result of space time curvature."

In my own words, gravity is the phenomenon whereby density of a mass and proximity to a second mass determine the strength of attraction between those two objects.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 15, 2021, 12:12:53 AM
Quote
Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.

1.  Gravity produces a pressure gradient in a fluid.

Can you explain what you mean by this?


Sure, but first can you let me know what you do and don't understand about this?  It has been explained to you by others, what did you understand and what is still eluding you? 

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: sobchak
2.  This pressure gradient results in a net upwards surface force on an immersed object.

Can you give me an example and explain what's going on with it?



Sure, imagine a solid object submerged in a liquid.  The liquid exerts a pressure over the entire surface of the object.  Now visualize that there is a pressure gradient in the fluid. This means the pressure on one side of the object will be lower than the pressure at the other side.  What will this difference in pressure through the fluid do to the object?  If you want, you can think about holding an object with pressure between your two hands - if you press equally with both hands, the object doesn't move, if you push harder with one side than the other, you are creating a difference in pressure between the sides, and what happens? the object will move.  That is due to the fact that even though you are pushing on both sides, the NET force is in one direction. 

In the case of the submerged object, if we want to find out what the force from the pressure differential will be, the heterogenous pressure in the fluid can be integrated over the entire surface area of the object to find the resulting net force vector.  Here, it will be normal to the direction of gradient and in the opposite direction of increasing pressure.  Or, more simply for the case of an object submerged in a fluid on Earth, up. 

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: sobchak
3.  Gravity exerts a downward body force between any object and the earths center of mass.

Again, can you give me an example of this and explain what's happening?


Sure, careful observation shows that two masses exert a pull on each other directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers of mass.  Therefore, as we understand it, any object (mass 1) will experience a pull downwards towards the earth (mass 2) with a predictable and calculable force. 

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: sobchak
4.  There are therefore two forces on a body submerged in a fluid under gravity.
How do the two forces work?


The surface force is electrostatic in nature, made up by statistical repulsive interaction of the electron clouds of individual fluid molecules and the surface. 

Meanwhile, while the properties of the observed force between mass is well characterized and described, and the physics of its abstraction incredibly useful, the fundamental mechanism of how mass generates gravity remains undiscovered.  Still work to be done!

Quote from: sceptimatic

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

Can you give me an example and tell me how you know it to be the truth, according to you?

This exact buoyancy framework is used to describe the resulting forces on any body submerged in a fluid acting under a external field.  Maybe the most easily demonstration of this is in the calculation of settling rates for use in the design and execution of centrifugal separation.   I have done these, and the framework worked wonderfully.  I have also used our collective understanding of solid mechanics and fluid dynamics, which are the backbone of this analysis (and all of engineering), to calculate and investigate forces in structures under motion and load.  They too have worked beautifully, highly predictive and informative. 

As for my personal opinion of whether this is THE TRUTH,  I dont think it is possible to claim any one abstraction of reality is the total truth.  In my opinion, the physical framework we are currently using seems to be a reasonable approximation of reality, and is without any doubt incredibly predictive and useful.  Im totally open to it being falsified and replaced by something better though. 

Quote from: sceptimatic

Quote from: sobchak
6.  For a helium balloon in the atmosphere, the net upward surface force is greater than the downward body force, so the balloon rises.
Explain what is happening to the helium balloon.

See steps 1-6 in case you missed them last time. 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 15, 2021, 01:13:36 AM
If you think "it's mass against atmosphere" is an explanation, then just what do you find wrong with the explanation for gravity?
Nothing if what you're saying is, gravity is mass against atmosphere. Is this what you're saying?


Quote from: JackBlack
Perhaps before anyone even attempts to try to explain gravity to you, you explain just what you think an explanation is and what level would be acceptable, because there will ALWAYS be another question for any explanation.

Yeah, I get this regularly. We'll explain when you do this and that. You can't explain it and you know it. Nobody can because it's ludicrous. It's a fictional addition to reality to create the magic required for your globe and space to work.

Quote from: JackBlack
For example, will you accept Newton's idea of a force-field where by any mass creates a gravitational field and any object in that field will experience a force based upon the mass and the strength of that field?

I'll accept a vortex that pushes anything towards the centre. Is this any good?


Quote from: JackBlack
Would you accept Einstein's curvature of space time where every object is travelling through normalised space-time at a rate of c, and any object with mass or energy will distort spacetime, curving it based upon the mass/energy, and objects travelling through this distorted spacetime will have motion through time converted into motion through space due to this distortion?
I'll certainly accept atmospheric warping by any mass within it and especially moving within it to actually warp it.


Quote from: JackBlack
If not, just what would you accept? Perhaps you can provide an example by way of how you would explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, or how air causes inertia.

How air causes resistance, you mean?

Quote from: JackBlack
You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?
There are a few different ways. The simplest is if you have a calibrated set of scales which measure weight, which depends upon mass and gravity (i.e. F=mg).
If you don't have them calibrated there are ways to do so, based upon measuring g independently from mass, such as free fall acceleration.

An alternative is to measure how much of a particular fluid it displaces which it floats in, which returns its mass as a function of the mass of the fluid.

Another is to measure its resistance to acceleration.
Ok, so now tell me how you measure Earth.
Dip it in water?
Put Earth on a scale plate?

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 15, 2021, 01:29:07 AM
I'm not a scientist, so any answer you get from me will be a quote, or other people's ideas.
At least you're being honest.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
Simply put, "Gravity is a natural phenomenon. It is a natural phenomenon where things of mass or energy are brought towards each other."
Is the attraction, magnetic?
Is the attraction simply something you just don't know or haven't ever seen?
What about horizontal attraction?
One tiny non magnetic iron ball 1 foot away from a massive non magnetic iron ball. Do you think the tiny ball will simply attach to the larger one?
You know it wouldn't.

Just drop a tennis ball and that's enough to called gravity, real....right?


Quote from: Smoke Machine
More specifically, Newton's law of universal gravitation describes what gravity is, as, "A force. Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects."
So, basically we should be flung into the sun, or the moon should be, or the moon should be flung into us, or all the other so called stars and planets.
You know this in nonsense.



Quote from: Smoke Machine
Or alternatively, "Einstein's general relativity describes gravity is as a result of space time curvature."
Space time curvature?
Tell me in your own words what this actually means.
Space time first and then curvature in space and how this curvature works.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
In my own words, gravity is the phenomenon whereby density of a mass and proximity to a second mass determine the strength of attraction between those two objects.
Denpressure.
Any mass up against atmospheric mass to create a pressure/push upon that mass.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 15, 2021, 04:13:12 AM
If you think "it's mass against atmosphere" is an explanation, then just what do you find wrong with the explanation for gravity?
Nothing if what you're saying is, gravity is mass against atmosphere. Is this what you're saying?
Not how it works.
Provide the standard for what you think is an acceptable explanation.
If you think your above nonsense is an explanation, just what is wrong with that provided for gravity which is vastly superior to that pile of nonsense of yours?

Quote from: JackBlack
Perhaps before anyone even attempts to try to explain gravity to you, you explain just what you think an explanation is and what level would be acceptable, because there will ALWAYS be another question for any explanation.
Yeah, I get this regularly.
Yet instead of providing any answer, you just dismiss any explanation provided as nonsense.

You can't explain it and you know it.
Until you provide an actual standard, that question is impossible to answer.
If you provide a ridiculously high standard, then no one can explain anything.
If you provide a reasonable standard, then I already have explained gravity.

So again, WHAT IS YOUR STANDARD?

I'll certainly accept atmospheric warping
The atmosphere has nothing to do with it.
It seems the only standard you have is if it agrees with you.

If you accept the atmosphere warping as an explanation then you have no reason to reject space warping as one.

And again, this just shows that you have an extremely dishonest double standard and have no interest in ever accepting an explanation for gravity and will never find any explanation acceptable, simply because it doesn't agree with your delusional nonsense.
Grow up.


Quote from: JackBlack
If not, just what would you accept? Perhaps you can provide an example by way of how you would explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, or how air causes inertia.
How air causes resistance, you mean?
[/quote]
As explained repeatedly, it is not merely resistance. It is specifically resistance to a change in motion.
That is what you need to explain.


Quote from: JackBlack
You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?
There are a few different ways. The simplest is if you have a calibrated set of scales which measure weight, which depends upon mass and gravity (i.e. F=mg).
If you don't have them calibrated there are ways to do so, based upon measuring g independently from mass, such as free fall acceleration.
An alternative is to measure how much of a particular fluid it displaces which it floats in, which returns its mass as a function of the mass of the fluid.
Another is to measure its resistance to acceleration.
Ok, so now tell me how you measure Earth.
Dip it in water?
Put Earth on a scale plate?
That was already explained to you.
The simplest way to realise is that weight on a scale is the weight of the object against Earth and the weight of Earth against the object.
It is given by F=GMm/r^2.
So by measuring gravitational attraction between small objects (e.g. Cavendish experiment) you can determine the value of G, and from that and the weight of an object on Earth and its known mass, you can determine the mass of Earth.

How about you stop deflecting from your own inability to explain anything and instead you start providing explanations.

Again, what magic causes your pressure gradient? What provides the necessary extra force if not gravity?
By what magic does air explain inertia (i.e. resistance to change in motion).

Is the attraction, magnetic?
No, it is gravitational.
Do you accept magnetism as real, or do you reject that as well and also want to pretend that is the air?

So, basically we should be flung into the sun, or the moon should be, or the moon should be flung into us, or all the other so called stars and planets.
You know this in nonsense.
We know your claim about it is pure nonsense.
This ties in with the other part of reality you are rejecting in this thread, INERTIA!
If Earth was stationary relative to the sun, it would be accelerated towards the sun and crash into it.
But it isn't.
Earth is moving, and not directly towards the sun.
So instead of falling into the sun, the gravitational pull of the sun just bends Earth's path. It does this in such a way to produce an elliptical orbit.
Kind of like how the tension (I know, pulling another thing you hate about reality) on a string will make an object at the end of it trace a circle if you swing it around. It is the same principle, the string pulls the object towards the centre, but its motion and inertia means it traces a circle instead of flying straight into your hand.

So no, reality isn't nonsense, just your rejection of it.
All you can do is dismiss it as nonsense, based upon more and more rejection of reality.
You have no actual argument against it.

Tell me in your own words what this actually means.
Did you forget where he clearly said that it wasn't his own words?

Quote from: Smoke Machine
In my own words, gravity is the phenomenon whereby density of a mass and proximity to a second mass determine the strength of attraction between those two objects.
Denpressure.
No, not denpressure, nothing like it.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 15, 2021, 04:15:05 AM
Quote
Nahhhhh, I really don't. I do smirk now and again and do get bemused.

So do I whenever I read most if not all the 'theories' you come out with.  Your holographic theory for the Sun and Moon is the best.

I am not going to go to the trouble of re-quoting you on every single sentence like you have for me.  But I will reply to you on this

Quote
You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?

Tell me what the big block is made of first of all and then we'll take it from there.  For example if it was a specific material then I could find out its density, estimate its volume and then multiply together to calculate the mass.  Or I could get hold of a nice big spring balance and hang the big block of something from it and then use the known value of g to calculate the mass.

You didn't specify what equipment I have or haven't got available to me so there are two possible methods.   Obviously if this nice big block of something was say a metre cube of ice then I would already know what the mass was.

I don't know whereabouts in the world you are but where I come from we have GCSEs and A levels.  The difference between the two is that at GCSE level you are generally given all the information in a science exam for example that you need to solve a problem. You just need to know what to do with that information. At A level you are given some information you need to solve the problem but not all.  So what you are not given you have to work out. It requires a deeper level of understanding.  That of course is more resembling of the real world.  Which level would you say you are at?

So your block in the road problem.  Obviously the big block of whatever it is has a mass.  So there is a way of working it out to whatever level of accuracy is appropriate.  But unless there is a big label stuck to this block which says something along the lines of Mass= ... you would have to do some work of your own to work it out.  Or would you say 'Don't know and it is impossible for me to work it out' and leave it at that? 

Obviously if you lived in prehistoric times when very little was known about anything then it would be harder to work out.  However we don't live in prehistoric time and there is no need for us to pretend we do.  We can look stuff up which will help us solve the problem.  In a physics exam you are given a list of standard physical constants to help you.  So would you refuse to use that because you would have no way of proving the validity of those constants for yourself?

Finally just one more question.  Do you need to understand what gravity is in order to understand what gravity does?  I know... I know as far as you are concerned gravity is fictional.  Just humour me for once will you. I'm talking about the phenomenon that every one else in the world calls gravity.  Likewise do you need to understand how a car works in order to drive it?

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 15, 2021, 09:14:21 AM

As explained repeatedly, it is not merely resistance. It is specifically resistance to a change in motion.
That is what you need to explain.

Resistance is resistance, no matter how you try to dress it up.
If inertia is resistance then I'm onboard with inertia.
Is this the case?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 15, 2021, 09:17:54 AM
Quote
Nahhhhh, I really don't. I do smirk now and again and do get bemused.

So do I whenever I read most if not all the 'theories' you come out with.  Your holographic theory for the Sun and Moon is the best.

I am not going to go to the trouble of re-quoting you on every single sentence like you have for me.  But I will reply to you on this

Quote
You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?

Tell me what the big block is made of first of all and then we'll take it from there.  For example if it was a specific material then I could find out its density, estimate its volume and then multiply together to calculate the mass.  Or I could get hold of a nice big spring balance and hang the big block of something from it and then use the known value of g to calculate the mass.

You didn't specify what equipment I have or haven't got available to me so there are two possible methods.   Obviously if this nice big block of something was say a metre cube of ice then I would already know what the mass was.

I don't know whereabouts in the world you are but where I come from we have GCSEs and A levels.  The difference between the two is that at GCSE level you are generally given all the information in a science exam for example that you need to solve a problem. You just need to know what to do with that information. At A level you are given some information you need to solve the problem but not all.  So what you are not given you have to work out. It requires a deeper level of understanding.  That of course is more resembling of the real world.  Which level would you say you are at?

So your block in the road problem.  Obviously the big block of whatever it is has a mass.  So there is a way of working it out to whatever level of accuracy is appropriate.  But unless there is a big label stuck to this block which says something along the lines of Mass= ... you would have to do some work of your own to work it out.  Or would you say 'Don't know and it is impossible for me to work it out' and leave it at that? 

Obviously if you lived in prehistoric times when very little was known about anything then it would be harder to work out.  However we don't live in prehistoric time and there is no need for us to pretend we do.  We can look stuff up which will help us solve the problem.  In a physics exam you are given a list of standard physical constants to help you.  So would you refuse to use that because you would have no way of proving the validity of those constants for yourself?

Finally just one more question.  Do you need to understand what gravity is in order to understand what gravity does?  I know... I know as far as you are concerned gravity is fictional.  Just humour me for once will you. I'm talking about the phenomenon that every one else in the world calls gravity.  Likewise do you need to understand how a car works in order to drive it?
You just told me you know the mass of the entire Earth just by weighing yourself.
And now you're asking me what my block just 10 feet away from you , is made of.

The Earth is made of all kinds of different masses, so what are you playing at?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 15, 2021, 09:25:45 AM
Quote
You just told me you know the mass of the entire Earth just by weighing yourself.
And now you're asking me what my block just 10 feet away from you , is made of.

The Earth is made of all kinds of different masses, so what are you playing at?

Ah Sceptimatic... you are funny.  Earth is made up of different masses?  Really?  It is certainly made up of different materials I'll give you that.  Have you never heard of such a thing as a composite material?   So tell me more about this big block of whatever lying in the road.  What is it made of? A big block of iron is going weigh more than a big block of polystyrene or wood is it not?  Because wood and iron are both more dense than polystyrene and you need to know the density and the volume of a 'big block' of something in order to calculate its mass.  Remember mass = volume x density yes?  So far all you've told me is that there is a big block of something in the road.  I can't calculate anything from that.  More information needed.  I have all the information I need already to calculate the Earths mass by just measuring my weight.  That's the difference. 

I can use information I have measured myself to verify known (or you would say given) information.  F=GMm/r2.  I know G and I can calculate F (my weight) and from that m (my mass) and so from that I can measure M (mass of the Earth) and r (radius of the Earth).  Since F is a function of M, m and r if I was to change M or r then that would also alter the value of F to something other than my measured value.  That's how I can verify that the figures for M and r that I am 'given' are correct. Why would anyone lie about the mass or the radius of the Earth?

This can work with any mass. Take a 1kg mass used in school science lab or a 10kg weight used in a gym.  They are called weights in the gym but it is actually a 10kg mass. Now place the 'weight' on some scales and from that you can read off the downward force (it's actual weight) in Newtons. Since we know g we can predict what the weight will be even before we use the scales to confirm our prediction. From there we can use the equation to work out r (radius of the Earth).  You can use whatever mass you like you will always get the same value for r.  However since I don't know anything about your big block in the road I cannot work out anything from that unless you provide me with some information about it.

There is only one Earth as far as I know so there is only one mass value associated with the Earth.  Just like there is only one of you and so you have a certain mass.  But you are made up of a myriad of different materials aren't you.  If you want to break it down to the atomic level you are made of a lot of oxygen, hydrogen, calcium, carbon atoms etc etc.  If someone asked you what your mass was you wouldn't say to them 'What mass do you want.. the mass of all the oxygen atoms or the mass of all the hydrogen atoms or calcium atoms or carbon atoms?' Well you could but you would get some very bemused expressions!

Does that help?

Quote
If you think I'm being childish and simple....yes I am, because this is how you're coming across with your explanations, as thought it was just like this.

A good teacher will always try to assess the level of their students knowledge so they can relate to them at a level appropriate to them.  So when you start to ask grown up questions about whatever it is that you want to try and prove then you will get grown up explanations.  But if you think the Earth has different masses for the different materials it is made up of... well that doesn't bode well does it.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 15, 2021, 10:35:53 AM
As explained repeatedly, it is not merely resistance. It is specifically resistance to a change in motion.
That is what you need to explain.
Resistance is resistance, no matter how you try to dress it up.
If inertia is resistance then I'm onboard with inertia.
Is this the case?
Again, NO IT ISN'T!

There are fundamentally different types of resistance.
I know you want to pretend they are all the same so you can pretend to explain it by explaining something completely different, like how you tried to pass it off as increasing the pressure in a sealed tube.
But it simply is not the case.

So can you actually explain inertia, i.e. a resistance to change in motion, or are you only capable of continuing this dishonest BS?

Likewise, can you explain what magic provides the extra force needed to create your pressure gradient?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Unconvinced on February 16, 2021, 12:45:52 AM


Why don't you go and actually try to learn this yourself, you lazy sod?

Maybe if you could be bothered to spend a fraction of the time on it that you spend repeating your nonsense, you might understand how it works, and why your ideas very clearly don't. 

Instead you use the product of advanced physics and engineering to arrogantly claim you know better than every single physicist and engineer who's lived for hundreds of years.
Ok I'll try and learn.
First of all I need to actually know what I'm learning. I mean, learning.
I don't want stories of old, told as stories of new.

Great, you want to learn, but youíve already fallen at the first hurdle by deciding beforehand what you want it be.

Iím not even suggesting you accept it as true, just to learn the physics that everyone else learns, so you understand how it works.  Because only then can you begin to find problems with it, if there are any.


Quote
I don't want to be told gravity is, so there. I want to learn what this gravity actually is in real time.
I want to know what it is and how it can be explained to become the force to do what it supposedly does.

And this is all backwards. Every scientific discovery has come from observing and experimenting with the effects first.  eg. people understood that fire was hot long before theyíd figured out the mechanics of exothermic chemical reactions.  With gravity, we know what it does which is observed and measured, but the precise mechanism is still up for debate.


Quote
Nobody's explained it in any realistic terms.

How do you judge whatís realistic? 

Quote
It'sd absolutely fine to go on about advanced physics...but show what that is by dumbing it right down to the basics of explanation instead of simply copy/paste what is to be parroted.

Iím not here to explain it to you.  Iím suggesting you find out yourself.  Basic physics first though.  The point is that our technology is built on these principles, which is a pretty good way of knowing that they work.

Quote
And as for me claiming to know better. No I don't. You people make that claim about me due to frustrations of not being able to batter the stuff you follow, into my head. You then claim I know I think I know better than scientists of hundreds of years, rather than just saying...today.
It's always harking back.

Why?

You may not use those words, but you claim that the physics that everyone uses to make all the technology we rely on is all just indoctrination.  Pretty much the same thing.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 16, 2021, 01:13:16 AM
I have all the information I need already to calculate the Earths mass by just measuring my weight.  That's the difference.
First of all, you don't.
You need to understand what weight is before you even go near what you think Earth's mass is.
This is the utter nonsense that appears to look ok on paper for anyone who does not need to bother thinking logically on the reality.
Basically 1+1 can be made into 5  if enough utter gobbledygook is applied

Quote from: Solarwind
I can use information I have measured myself to verify known (or you would say given) information.
The only thing you can measure is what a scale shows you.
The rest is all added in bits of reality and nonsense to make it appear like it's worthwhile scientific theoretical so people can hide behind letters on the  external breast pocket.


Quote from: Solarwind
  F=GMm/r2.  I know G and I can calculate F (my weight) and from that m (my mass) and so from that I can measure M (mass of the Earth) and r (radius of the Earth).  Since F is a function of M, m and r if I was to change M or r then that would also alter the value of F to something other than my measured value.  That's how I can verify that the figures for M and r that I am 'given' are correct. Why would anyone lie about the mass or the radius of the Earth?
You don't know your mass by using so called G and you certainly do not know what Earth is in its entirety. You believe you know because you were massively indoctrinated. Accept that as a truth if you care to be honest about it.


Quote from: Solarwind
This can work with any mass. Take a 1kg mass used in school science lab or a 10kg weight used in a gym.  They are called weights in the gym but it is actually a 10kg mass. Now place the 'weight' on some scales and from that you can read off the downward force (it's actual weight) in Newtons. Since we know g we can predict what the weight will be even before we use the scales to confirm our prediction. From there we can use the equation to work out r (radius of the Earth).  You can use whatever mass you like you will always get the same value for r.  However since I don't know anything about your big block in the road I cannot work out anything from that unless you provide me with some information about it.

You can't call anything a weight until it's showing a scale measurement readout. Until then, it's a mass.


Quote from: Solarwind
There is only one Earth as far as I know so there is only one mass value associated with the Earth.

Yep, if you look at it that way.......but, it's knowing what Earth is in its entirety of mass and that is something you will never be able to measure.


Quote from: Solarwind
  Just like there is only one of you and so you have a certain mass.
Yep...and because of man made scales with man made measurements on a readout, you can measure your mass by displacement against atmosphere and the resulting reaction of that compression of it back onto you.
No need for G and what not unless it's used to actually cater for the reality, which is what we are under.

When you're served up the nonsense on a platter from cradle to present, you will naturally argue for the reality you think it presents but you know in your mind that you are doing nothing more than learning to parrot.


Quote from: Solarwind
  But you are made up of a myriad of different materials aren't you.

As it appears....yes. Different densities of make up.

Quote from: Solarwind
  If you want to break it down to the atomic level you are made of a lot of oxygen, hydrogen, calcium, carbon atoms etc etc.
We could do but it would end up as one basic ingredient, so we have to deal with what we're basically told to go with and decipher from all that.

Quote from: Solarwind
If someone asked you what your mass was you wouldn't say to them 'What mass do you want.. the mass of all the oxygen atoms or the mass of all the hydrogen atoms or calcium atoms or carbon atoms?' Well you could but you would get some very bemused expressions!

Does that help?
If someone asked me what my mass was I'd ask, in what way.
If they say kg, I'd use a scale.



Quote from: Solarwind
A good teacher will always try to assess the level of their students knowledge so they can relate to them at a level appropriate to them.  So when you start to ask grown up questions about whatever it is that you want to try and prove then you will get grown up explanations.  But if you think the Earth has different masses for the different materials it is made up of... well that doesn't bode well does it.
A good protocol teacher will follow protocol. A curriculum. Anyone not onboard with it will be left behind to fend for themselves.......gradeless in terms of worth .....certificate shy.....drone material.

A good teacher is one who teaches reality or potential. A logical approach and a patient approach to all those who are not as quick as the better absorbent parrots/mimics.
Someone who doesn't cloak reality in favour of handed down fiction.
If someone can't do their 2x table, you start them at one and make them feel like they're making progress, amid, maybe those on their 4x table.

The complicated will always be complicated to anyone who is shown the complicated way. The strip down of the complicated can reveal the simplicity of anything.
Reverse engineer the conundrum.

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 16, 2021, 01:21:23 AM
As explained repeatedly, it is not merely resistance. It is specifically resistance to a change in motion.
That is what you need to explain.
Resistance is resistance, no matter how you try to dress it up.
If inertia is resistance then I'm onboard with inertia.
Is this the case?
Again, NO IT ISN'T!

There are fundamentally different types of resistance.
I know you want to pretend they are all the same so you can pretend to explain it by explaining something completely different, like how you tried to pass it off as increasing the pressure in a sealed tube.
But it simply is not the case.

So can you actually explain inertia, i.e. a resistance to change in motion, or are you only capable of continuing this dishonest BS?

Likewise, can you explain what magic provides the extra force needed to create your pressure gradient?
Ok, let's deal with inertia.

You say it's a resistance to change in motion.

Ok, let's see where we go.

Does a  change in motion mean the object with inertia is in motion?......Or does it also mean the object resists any force that attempts to create a motion.


Let's sort this bit out before we move on.
We are going child like on this so we can get a proper explanation.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 16, 2021, 01:41:54 AM
You say it's a resistance to change in motion.

Ok, let's see where we go.

Does a  change in motion mean the object with inertia is in motion?......Or does it also mean the object resists any force that attempts to create a motion.


Let's sort this bit out before we move on.
We are going child like on this so we can get a proper explanation.
Do you not understand change?
It means the object resists any change in motion such that a force needs to be applied to change its motion.
This applies regardless of if the object is at rest and you try to make it move, or if it is moving and you try to make it stop, or if it is moving and you try to change its speed or direction (or both).
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 16, 2021, 01:48:13 AM
I have all the information I need already to calculate the Earths mass by just measuring my weight.  That's the difference.
First of all, you don't.
You need to understand what weight is before you even go near what you think Earth's mass is.
You need to understand what it is before spouting so much nonsense about it.
You sure do love claiming things with absolutely certainty far too much for someone who claims to have no idea.

This is the utter nonsense
Do you have anything at all to indicate it is nonsense?
Because you continually dismissing it as nonsense because you don't like it does not help your case at all.
It just shows you have no case.

You can't call anything a weight until it's showing a scale measurement readout. Until then, it's a mass.
Unless it is floating, it has weight.
The force that makes things fall is weight, no matter how much you want to reject reality.

you can measure your mass by displacement against atmosphere
No, you can't. Not unless this mass floats and you can measure the volume of atmosphere (and thus mass) displaced.
Otherwise, until you can justify your garbage, the atmosphere does not cause weight.

 and the resulting reaction of that compression of it back onto you.
No need for G and what not unless it's used to actually cater for the reality, which is what we are under.

When you're served up the nonsense on a platter from cradle to present, you will naturally argue for the reality you think it presents but you know in your mind that you are doing nothing more than learning to parrot.

Quote from: Solarwind
If someone asked you what your mass was you wouldn't say to them 'What mass do you want.. the mass of all the oxygen atoms or the mass of all the hydrogen atoms or calcium atoms or carbon atoms?' Well you could but you would get some very bemused expressions!
Does that help?
If someone asked me what my mass was I'd ask, in what way.
If they say kg, I'd use a scale.
And notice how you ignored the main point.
You aren't just focusing on one part of you.
Likewise, we can just consider Earth as a hole rather than trying to focus on one part.

A good teacher is one who teaches reality or potential.
No it isn't, and even you implicitly accept that. That is the kind of teacher you hate.
A good teacher makes sure the student understands, rather than just teaching them reality.
When they are a horrible teacher and just teach reality without any understanding, we end up with people like you who dismiss reality as fictional nonsense, without any ability to justify their dismissal.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 16, 2021, 03:43:54 AM

Do you not understand change?
It means the object resists any change in motion such that a force needs to be applied to change its motion.
This applies regardless of if the object is at rest and you try to make it move, or if it is moving and you try to make it stop, or if it is moving and you try to change its speed or direction (or both).
Let's get this right. Correct me if I'm wrong and or there's something needs to be added.
I'm stood still (ish) and you go to push me. I resist that push from you. Is this inertia?

Or I'm stood there. do I have inertia at that point and if so, why?

Just explain it like I'm a retard   you think I am or a child you may think I show the mentality of.
This might make it easier for me to understand, rather than all the gobbledygook I keep seeing.


And....from now on, treat me like a retard and a child, when explaining.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 16, 2021, 03:45:11 AM
I have all the information I need already to calculate the Earths mass by just measuring my weight.  That's the difference.
First of all, you don't.
You need to understand what weight is before you even go near what you think Earth's mass is.
You need to understand what it is before spouting so much nonsense about it.
You sure do love claiming things with absolutely certainty far too much for someone who claims to have no idea.


Ok, as above, explain it like I'm a retard or a child. Real simple.
Let's see where we get.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 16, 2021, 04:27:32 AM
Considering how clever you seem to think you are why should I have to explain it to you like you are someone with learning difficulties or a child.  After all someone who thinks they have successfully completely re-invented the laws of physics self-handedly is certainly not someone who should be treated as a child.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 16, 2021, 06:07:36 AM
Considering how clever you seem to think you are why should I have to explain it to you like you are someone with learning difficulties or a child.  After all someone who thinks they have successfully completely re-invented the laws of physics self-handedly is certainly not someone who should be treated as a child.

And why would someone so capable even need it explained by random people on the internet?  Couldn't he just read this all himself?

I mean, if his ideas were correct he would rank as one of the greatest minds in history, single handedly able to piece the veil of indoctrination that fools us all, and discover the truth of the world around us by thought and intuition alone.  Pretty impressive feat. 

I would think that someone capable of that would have no problem picking up basic concepts on their own.  But no, it turns out the most amazing intellect we have ever been privileged to speak with cant even understand grade school geometry without needing a dozen people patiently explaining and re-explaining simple concepts over weeks or months. 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 16, 2021, 08:20:07 AM
Quote
You need to understand what weight is before you even go near what you think Earth's mass is.

Ah so that's where I am going wrong is it.  So despite having a degree in physics and astrophysics, I don't understand a simple concept like weight.  OK Sceptimatic I bow to your superior knowledge so tell me exactly what weight is and how I can measure weight.  Tell me and I will do the experiment to verify what you say.  Weight is a numerical value though of course so I need some figures to work with.

Quote
You can't call anything a weight until it's showing a scale measurement readout.

And where does this scale measurement come from? How do you work it out?

OK let's try a different and very simple experiment. I have an apple tree in my garden and one day I pick up an apple from the ground.  Being the simpleton that I am and based on the fact that the apple is lying directly under an apple tree which is still full of apples, I make an assumption that the apple has fallen from the tree onto the ground.  I hold the apple in my hand and then open my hand.  The apple falls to the ground. 

What has caused the apple to fall to the ground?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 16, 2021, 09:33:51 AM
Considering how clever you seem to think you are why should I have to explain it to you like you are someone with learning difficulties or a child.  After all someone who thinks they have successfully completely re-invented the laws of physics self-handedly is certainly not someone who should be treated as a child.
I would find it odd that you can't explain it, simply. However, I think I know the real reason.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 16, 2021, 09:35:37 AM
Considering how clever you seem to think you are why should I have to explain it to you like you are someone with learning difficulties or a child.  After all someone who thinks they have successfully completely re-invented the laws of physics self-handedly is certainly not someone who should be treated as a child.

And why would someone so capable even need it explained by random people on the internet?  Couldn't he just read this all himself?

I mean, if his ideas were correct he would rank as one of the greatest minds in history, single handedly able to piece the veil of indoctrination that fools us all, and discover the truth of the world around us by thought and intuition alone.  Pretty impressive feat. 

I would think that someone capable of that would have no problem picking up basic concepts on their own.  But no, it turns out the most amazing intellect we have ever been privileged to speak with cant even understand grade school geometry without needing a dozen people patiently explaining and re-explaining simple concepts over weeks or months.
You people don't do simple logic, do you?
You can't simply explain this stuff because all your efforts are spent copying and pasting or simply referencing what's put out there on a plate for you.
This is how I find that out.

No lay people among you?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 16, 2021, 09:49:31 AM
Quote
You need to understand what weight is before you even go near what you think Earth's mass is.

Ah so that's where I am going wrong is it.  So despite having a degree in physics and astrophysics, I don't understand a simple concept like weight.
I believe you don't, no.
Your belief in gravity tells me all I need to know about that. And also your belief in astro physics....but....we won't go into that bit.....yet.


Quote from: Solarwind
  OK Sceptimatic I bow to your superior knowledge so tell me exactly what weight is and how I can measure weight.  Tell me and I will do the experiment to verify what you say.  Weight is a numerical value though of course so I need some figures to work with.

Weight is the man made scale measurement by numbers, of mass of any object capable of being pushed down against it's own push/resistance of atmosphere.
Basically and simply speaking, the object uses the man made scale plate as a leverage. A foundation to push/resist the atmospheric crush back by its own displacement, of it.

Gravity has no such luck in showing anything, because it's fictional.


Quote from: Solarwind
Quote
You can't call anything a weight until it's showing a scale measurement readout.
And where does this scale measurement come from? How do you work it out?
You measure any mass, as above.

Quote from: Solarwind
OK let's try a different and very simple experiment. I have an apple tree in my garden and one day I pick up an apple from the ground.  Being the simpleton that I am and based on the fact that the apple is lying directly under an apple tree which is still full of apples, I make an assumption that the apple has fallen from the tree onto the ground.  I hold the apple in my hand and then open my hand.  The apple falls to the ground. 

What has caused the apple to fall to the ground?
First off all the apple is held up by the tree branch and the stem on that branch.
Weakness of that stem means the mass of the apple displacing the atmosphere it was held in, is crushed down to the ground by the above stacking and the actual compression of its own mass that overcomes the stacking below it.

No gravity pull and no such thing as pull in reality. Nothing can pull. It just appears so because we're accustomed to the word, pull...which is fine to use to simply explain stuff in every day life. It just doesn't work when fictional gravity and such, is used.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Unconvinced on February 16, 2021, 10:37:03 AM
Quote
You need to understand what weight is before you even go near what you think Earth's mass is.

Ah so that's where I am going wrong is it.  So despite having a degree in physics and astrophysics, I don't understand a simple concept like weight.
I believe you don't, no.
Your belief in gravity tells me all I need to know about that. And also your belief in astro physics....but....we won't go into that bit.....yet.


Quote from: Solarwind
  OK Sceptimatic I bow to your superior knowledge so tell me exactly what weight is and how I can measure weight.  Tell me and I will do the experiment to verify what you say.  Weight is a numerical value though of course so I need some figures to work with.

Weight is the man made scale measurement by numbers, of mass of any object capable of being pushed down against it's own push/resistance of atmosphere.
Basically and simply speaking, the object uses the man made scale plate as a leverage. A foundation to push/resist the atmospheric crush back by its own displacement, of it.

Gravity has no such luck in showing anything, because it's fictional.


Quote from: Solarwind
Quote
You can't call anything a weight until it's showing a scale measurement readout.
And where does this scale measurement come from? How do you work it out?
You measure any mass, as above.

Quote from: Solarwind
OK let's try a different and very simple experiment. I have an apple tree in my garden and one day I pick up an apple from the ground.  Being the simpleton that I am and based on the fact that the apple is lying directly under an apple tree which is still full of apples, I make an assumption that the apple has fallen from the tree onto the ground.  I hold the apple in my hand and then open my hand.  The apple falls to the ground. 

What has caused the apple to fall to the ground?
First off all the apple is held up by the tree branch and the stem on that branch.
Weakness of that stem means the mass of the apple displacing the atmosphere it was held in, is crushed down to the ground by the above stacking and the actual compression of its own mass that overcomes the stacking below it.

No gravity pull and no such thing as pull in reality. Nothing can pull. It just appears so because we're accustomed to the word, pull...which is fine to use to simply explain stuff in every day life. It just doesn't work when fictional gravity and such, is used.

Total rubbish.  Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesnít work like that. 

And it would be blindingly obvious that it canít possibly work like that, if you had the first clue what youíre talking about.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 16, 2021, 11:41:47 AM
Quote
I believe you don't, no.

That doesn't surprise me in the least.  (that you believe I don't that is)

Quote
First off all the apple is held up by the tree branch and the stem on that branch.

I wasn't talking about the apples that are still on the tree. I said I picked an apple up that was on the ground.  I hold the apple in my hand with the palm pointing downwards and the apple remains in my hand (because I am holding it).  I open my hand and the apple falls to the ground.  According to your laws of physics, why does the apple fall to the ground? Why doesn't the apple fall through my fingers while they are still closed around the apple?  Explain it like I'm a retard or a child. Real simple. (yes I copied and pasted that last sentence)

Quote
Weight is the man made scale measurement by numbers, of mass of any object capable of being pushed down against it's own push/resistance of atmosphere.

OK you have used the word push in that sentence.  In school we are 'told' that a force is a push or a pull.  So you are implying there is a force involved here.  Where is that force coming from?  If you read your own sentence you are also implying that the push is acting on the mass of an objects.  So again what causes this. Mass is just mass.  The weight aspect only comes into play when combined with what you are calling a push or resistance of atmosphere.  So what causes this resistance you are talking about?

Quote
You measure any mass, as above.

How?

Quote
Your belief in gravity tells me all I need to know about that. And also your belief in astro physics

No I study astrophysics.  It is not something you believe or don't believe in.  I don't believe in certain interpretations of God but I believe in religion.

Quote
Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesnít work like that.

Sceptimatic keeps in talking about this pressure thing.  But where does the pressure come from.  What generates the pressure in the first place?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 16, 2021, 12:12:59 PM
Let's get this right. Correct me if I'm wrong and or there's something needs to be added.
I'm stood still (ish) and you go to push me. I resist that push from you. Is this inertia?

Or I'm stood there. do I have inertia at that point and if so, why?
You ALWAYS have inertia. This is why you don't just randomly start flying around all over the place, and why accelerating something takes a force.

Instead of thinking of it as a resistance to the push, think of it as the resistance to a change in motion which requires that push.

i.e. if you stand in front of a ball and try to move your hand or foot through it, you don't just move your hand or foot as if the object wasn't there with the object moving with your hand/foot. Instead when your hand/foot reaches the object you need to apply an additional force to accelerate it, with the force required based upon the mass of the object and how quickly you are accelerating it.

Likewise, if an object is thrown to you, it doesn't just hit you and stop. Instead you need to apply a force to stop it, and again, depending on the mass and how quickly you try to slow it down the force varies.


As for the why, that is what you need to explain with how your air causes inertia in complete defiance of the known laws of aerodynamics.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: JackBlack on February 16, 2021, 12:35:35 PM
Ok, as above, explain it like I'm a retard or a child. Real simple.
Let's see where we get.
And like I said, describe your standard for an explanation, because so far you just reject everything as a non-explanation (or just ignore it) unless it uses your air, and you are happy to accept it if it uses your air.

Especially when I have already provided explanations and you just ignore them or try to twist them, like here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2304389#msg2304389

Quote
You need to understand what weight is before you even go near what you think Earth's mass is.
Ah so that's where I am going wrong is it.  So despite having a degree in physics and astrophysics, I don't understand a simple concept like weight.
I believe you don't, no.
Your belief in gravity tells me all I need to know about that.
The problem is that you cannot justify your irrational hatred of gravity and are unable to show a single fault with it.
So it is really your irrational hatred which tells us what we need to know about that.
Either you don't understand physics or your just reject what you hate.

Weight is the man made scale measurement by numbers, of mass
Stop just repeating the same BS.
Weight is the downwards force experienced by an object.

This is separate from mass and allows a simple way to measure mass as weight is proportional to mass if you ignore the effects of buoancy, but both are still there even when not measured.

Again, if weight didn't exist unless it was measured, nothing would fall.
It is weight that makes things fall.

Basically and simply speaking, the object uses the man made scale plate as a leverage.
How does it do that in mid air?

And even when it is on that plate, as far as the air is concerned, the object is being "crushed" against the plate and the air is on the underside of that plate crushing right back.
It doesn't push the entire top plate down.

Again, that would require the scale and object to be placed in an airtight bag with as much air removed as possible. Then we see a much larger reading, which remains roughly the same regardless of the orientation.

Gravity has no such luck in showing anything, because it's fictional.
It seems to work just fine, unlike your delusional nonsense with the air.
You are yet to provide any fault with it and instead just repeatedly dismiss the explanations provided, while being unable to explain your garbage at all.


Weakness of that stem means the mass of the apple displacing the atmosphere it was held in, is crushed down to the ground by the above stacking and the actual compression of its own mass that overcomes the stacking below it.
WHY?
Why doesn't it get pushed back up into that stem?
Why doesn't it get pushed up based upon the higher pressure air below?
Why doesn't it get pushed in any random direction?

This is one of the keys parts of your garbage you are unable to explain.
The air is all around.
The only exception is where the apple joins the stem which is above the apple.
Thus if you want to appeal to that, like you try to do so with an object on the ground, then
You have no reason at all for the air to preferentially push objects down.
In fact, due to the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, which even you accept even though you cannot explain it, the pressure is greater a the bottom than the top, and thus this should push the apple upwards.

no such thing as pull in reality. Nothing can pull.
Except the countless things that do which you can't explain otherwise.

Remember this diagram:
https://imgur.com/QCW82GY
Showing a simple chain, with you unable to explain how the force to move it to the right is transferred through the chain without needing the right side to pull the left side?

But regardless, this "pull" is just semantics.
When you get down to it, there is very little (if any) difference between the actual physics behind pushing and pulling.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 16, 2021, 01:04:33 PM
Despite all this 'I don't believe this' and 'I don't believe that' he has yet to provide anything other than his opinions.  He cannot provide any actual evidence that he is correct about any of what he believes and without that evidence none of his opinions count for anything.

With a simple pair of bathroom scales I can easily obtain an actual value for my weight and then show how I can use that to reach figures for the Earths radius and mass that agree with the quoted values. 

I guess it is just a bit beyond Sceptimatics ability to comprehend that.  But then he does have the mind of a child or 'retard' apparently to use his words.  He obviously hates anything he cannot understand and so he hits the deny its true button and invent his own version of physics rather than making any sort of attempt to try and understand it.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 16, 2021, 01:07:32 PM
Considering how clever you seem to think you are why should I have to explain it to you like you are someone with learning difficulties or a child.  After all someone who thinks they have successfully completely re-invented the laws of physics self-handedly is certainly not someone who should be treated as a child.

And why would someone so capable even need it explained by random people on the internet?  Couldn't he just read this all himself?

I mean, if his ideas were correct he would rank as one of the greatest minds in history, single handedly able to piece the veil of indoctrination that fools us all, and discover the truth of the world around us by thought and intuition alone.  Pretty impressive feat. 

I would think that someone capable of that would have no problem picking up basic concepts on their own.  But no, it turns out the most amazing intellect we have ever been privileged to speak with cant even understand grade school geometry without needing a dozen people patiently explaining and re-explaining simple concepts over weeks or months.

You people don't do simple logic, do you?


Oh come on, and you do? What's the "simple logic" behind your graphite carbonite electrode beneath a layer of crystal at the North Pole projecting holographic Sun, Moon, and stars onto a breathing melting & freezing dome heating the earth, causing night and day and seasons? Seriously.

The point is, stop asking for all of these explanations as:

A) Everything has been explained to you a million times
B) Go bone up on Globe Earth features and functions yourself (We would with your stuff, but there are zero places in the world to find out other than from you, and you alone)
C) Stop playing the "I'm just caveman..explain it to me..." trope
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Solarwind on February 16, 2021, 01:35:57 PM
I'm assuming that Sceptimatic is actually an adult with no diagnosed learning difficulties despite his claims. In which case there is nothing contained in what I have said on here which I haven't also explained to the primary school kids that I work with.  They seem to be able to make sense of what I say. I can tell that from the answers to the questions I get from them.

So come on Sceptimatic... stop playing the 'Duh... I'm thick' card and put some effort into actually trying to understand something about what we are trying to explain to you. Rather than just burying your head in the sand and denying everything as you seem to like to do so much.  As my parents always told me, the world is not going to adapt to the way you think it should be you so you had better learn to adapt to the world as it is.

Quote
We would with your stuff, but there are zero places in the world to find out other than from you, and you alone

Well actually Sceptimatic insists that all that he believes in has been fully documented 'elsewhere' but whenever I have asked me where 'elsewhere' actually is he can't seem to be able to tell me.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 16, 2021, 11:41:53 PM
Considering how clever you seem to think you are why should I have to explain it to you like you are someone with learning difficulties or a child.  After all someone who thinks they have successfully completely re-invented the laws of physics self-handedly is certainly not someone who should be treated as a child.

And why would someone so capable even need it explained by random people on the internet?  Couldn't he just read this all himself?

I mean, if his ideas were correct he would rank as one of the greatest minds in history, single handedly able to piece the veil of indoctrination that fools us all, and discover the truth of the world around us by thought and intuition alone.  Pretty impressive feat. 

I would think that someone capable of that would have no problem picking up basic concepts on their own.  But no, it turns out the most amazing intellect we have ever been privileged to speak with cant even understand grade school geometry without needing a dozen people patiently explaining and re-explaining simple concepts over weeks or months.
You people don't do simple logic, do you?


Seems like simple logic that someone who can single-handedly figure out the hidden nature of the world around us using thought and intuition alone should be able to understand circles and triangles. 

I guess you disagree.  Oh well.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 16, 2021, 11:48:56 PM
Considering how clever you seem to think you are why should I have to explain it to you like you are someone with learning difficulties or a child.  After all someone who thinks they have successfully completely re-invented the laws of physics self-handedly is certainly not someone who should be treated as a child.

And why would someone so capable even need it explained by random people on the internet?  Couldn't he just read this all himself?

I mean, if his ideas were correct he would rank as one of the greatest minds in history, single handedly able to piece the veil of indoctrination that fools us all, and discover the truth of the world around us by thought and intuition alone.  Pretty impressive feat. 

I would think that someone capable of that would have no problem picking up basic concepts on their own.  But no, it turns out the most amazing intellect we have ever been privileged to speak with cant even understand grade school geometry without needing a dozen people patiently explaining and re-explaining simple concepts over weeks or months.

You people don't do simple logic, do you?


Oh come on, and you do? What's the "simple logic" behind your graphite carbonite electrode beneath a layer of crystal at the North Pole projecting holographic Sun, Moon, and stars onto a breathing melting & freezing dome heating the earth, causing night and day and seasons? Seriously.


lol, dont forget the vortex of some hydrogen-mineral slurry as an energy source, or the worldwide whirlwind of energy that pushes masses towards each other.

Simple logic.   :D 
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 16, 2021, 11:52:55 PM
Total rubbish.  Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesnít work like that. 

And it would be blindingly obvious that it canít possibly work like that, if you had the first clue what youíre talking about.
You think it's magical gravity so I don't expect you to accept it.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Stash on February 16, 2021, 11:56:57 PM
Considering how clever you seem to think you are why should I have to explain it to you like you are someone with learning difficulties or a child.  After all someone who thinks they have successfully completely re-invented the laws of physics self-handedly is certainly not someone who should be treated as a child.

And why would someone so capable even need it explained by random people on the internet?  Couldn't he just read this all himself?

I mean, if his ideas were correct he would rank as one of the greatest minds in history, single handedly able to piece the veil of indoctrination that fools us all, and discover the truth of the world around us by thought and intuition alone.  Pretty impressive feat. 

I would think that someone capable of that would have no problem picking up basic concepts on their own.  But no, it turns out the most amazing intellect we have ever been privileged to speak with cant even understand grade school geometry without needing a dozen people patiently explaining and re-explaining simple concepts over weeks or months.

You people don't do simple logic, do you?


Oh come on, and you do? What's the "simple logic" behind your graphite carbonite electrode beneath a layer of crystal at the North Pole projecting holographic Sun, Moon, and stars onto a breathing melting & freezing dome heating the earth, causing night and day and seasons? Seriously.


lol, dont forget the vortex of some hydrogen-mineral slurry as an energy source, or the worldwide whirlwind of energy that pushes masses towards each other.

Simple logic.   :D

Oops, forgot about those.  ;)
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 17, 2021, 12:02:52 AM
Quote
I believe you don't, no.

That doesn't surprise me in the least.  (that you believe I don't that is)

Quote
First off all the apple is held up by the tree branch and the stem on that branch.

I wasn't talking about the apples that are still on the tree. I said I picked an apple up that was on the ground.  I hold the apple in my hand with the palm pointing downwards and the apple remains in my hand (because I am holding it).  I open my hand and the apple falls to the ground.  According to your laws of physics, why does the apple fall to the ground? Why doesn't the apple fall through my fingers while they are still closed around the apple?  Explain it like I'm a retard or a child. Real simple. (yes I copied and pasted that last sentence)
The apple doesn't fall because you have it gripped in your fingers.
Try and think of something else.


Quote from: Solarwind
Quote
Weight is the man made scale measurement by numbers, of mass of any object capable of being pushed down against it's own push/resistance of atmosphere.

OK you have used the word push in that sentence.  In school we are 'told' that a force is a push or a pull.  So you are implying there is a force involved here.  Where is that force coming from?  If you read your own sentence you are also implying that the push is acting on the mass of an objects.  So again what causes this. Mass is just mass.  The weight aspect only comes into play when combined with what you are calling a push or resistance of atmosphere.  So what causes this resistance you are talking about?
Atmosphere.



Quote from: Solarwind
Quote
You measure any mass, as above.

How?
Pay attention.


Quote from: Solarwind
Quote
Your belief in gravity tells me all I need to know about that. And also your belief in astro physics

No I study astrophysics.  It is not something you believe or don't believe in.  I don't believe in certain interpretations of God but I believe in religion.

Of course you believe in religion. Most of your theoretical science acceptance, is like a religion.

Quote from: Solarwind
Quote
Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesnít work like that.

Sceptimatic keeps in talking about this pressure thing.  But where does the pressure come from.  What generates the pressure in the first place?
Stacking and anything within it being crushed by it, by their own displacement of it, like I already told you.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 17, 2021, 12:05:35 AM
Let's get this right. Correct me if I'm wrong and or there's something needs to be added.
I'm stood still (ish) and you go to push me. I resist that push from you. Is this inertia?

Or I'm stood there. do I have inertia at that point and if so, why?
You ALWAYS have inertia. This is why you don't just randomly start flying around all over the place, and why accelerating something takes a force.

Instead of thinking of it as a resistance to the push, think of it as the resistance to a change in motion which requires that push.

i.e. if you stand in front of a ball and try to move your hand or foot through it, you don't just move your hand or foot as if the object wasn't there with the object moving with your hand/foot. Instead when your hand/foot reaches the object you need to apply an additional force to accelerate it, with the force required based upon the mass of the object and how quickly you are accelerating it.

Likewise, if an object is thrown to you, it doesn't just hit you and stop. Instead you need to apply a force to stop it, and again, depending on the mass and how quickly you try to slow it down the force varies.


As for the why, that is what you need to explain with how your air causes inertia in complete defiance of the known laws of aerodynamics.
So, inertia is the obstacle to a force until it becomes resistant to that force?
Is this what you are saying?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 17, 2021, 12:12:56 AM

The problem is that you cannot justify your irrational hatred of gravity and are unable to show a single fault with it.
So it is really your irrational hatred which tells us what we need to know about that.
Either you don't understand physics or your just reject what you hate.

It's got nothing to do with any irrational hatred of physics from my side. I don't believe gravity exists so I can hardly hate it. I just have to argue against the magical story of it, against people who buy into it for no other reason than to follow mass indoctrination of stuff like this.

If I spent my life believing in something that is put out as a theory, only to be told it's been found to be something else and the theory I held onto now holds no water....what have I actually learned up until that point?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 17, 2021, 12:55:41 AM

If I spent my life believing in something that is put out as a theory, only to be told it's been found to be something else and the theory I held onto now holds no water....what have I actually learned up until that point?

If nothing else, you should have learned that it is a mistake to "believe" in a theory.  You can accept theories as provisionally true, you can think they are good or even great explanations for a set of facts, but dont "believe" in them.  Any theory, no matter how well it represents what we know, can be disproven with additional data.

Once you have learned that, you at least have a chance of understanding how science works.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sobchak on February 17, 2021, 01:36:20 AM
Total rubbish.  Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesnít work like that. 

And it would be blindingly obvious that it canít possibly work like that, if you had the first clue what youíre talking about.
You think it's magical gravity so I don't expect you to accept it.

Sceptimatic, just so you know - the reason people don't accept your musings is that they are actually incredibly bad abstractions of what we know.  They exclude known facts, they are non-predictive and non-quantitative, they can not be readily shared with others, they continually require ad-hoc addendums, and they have no demonstrated value to anyone other than yourself.

They are worst type of explanatory conjectures - confused, opaque, and completely without use. 

You are of course welcome to hold them, but you are doing yourself a delusional disservice pretending that the only reason people reject your ideas is because of their own held beliefs.

The failing is yours, not ours.  You should learn from that failure and try to grow, instead of simply failing again and again and again. 

Unless you like failure - in which case I say keep on with what you are doing!

Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 17, 2021, 02:06:05 AM

If I spent my life believing in something that is put out as a theory, only to be told it's been found to be something else and the theory I held onto now holds no water....what have I actually learned up until that point?

If nothing else, you should have learned that it is a mistake to "believe" in a theory.  You can accept theories as provisionally true, you can think they are good or even great explanations for a set of facts, but dont "believe" in them.  Any theory, no matter how well it represents what we know, can be disproven with additional data.

Once you have learned that, you at least have a chance of understanding how science works.
Is gravity a theory?
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on February 17, 2021, 02:12:07 AM
Total rubbish.  Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesnít work like that. 

And it would be blindingly obvious that it canít possibly work like that, if you had the first clue what youíre talking about.
You think it's magical gravity so I don't expect you to accept it.

Sceptimatic, just so you know - the reason people don't accept your musings is that they are actually incredibly bad abstractions of what we know.  They exclude known facts, they are non-predictive and non-quantitative, they can not be readily shared with others, they continually require ad-hoc addendums, and they have no demonstrated value to anyone other than yourself.

They are worst type of explanatory conjectures - confused, opaque, and completely without use. 

You are of course welcome to hold them, but you are doing yourself a delusional disservice pretending that the only reason people reject your ideas is because of their own held beliefs.

The failing is yours, not ours.  You should learn from that failure and try to grow, instead of simply failing again and again and again. 

Unless you like failure - in which case I say keep on with what you are doing!
I'm quite happy with my thoughts.
I'm more than happy to explain in my own way.
I'm also more than happy to play simple.

The major issue for people like you lot is, you don't understand how to play simple because your heads are crammed with mumbo jumbo that doesn't make real sense but is accepted as making sense because it would be embarrassing for you lot to dismiss it or question it in any simplified way.

Basically you do not hold any layman's mindset, because to do so would place you among the peasants of the intellectual circles you believe you are part of....and we can't be having that, can we?


I'm simple and I go about my stuff in my own way. I have no issue with being dug at or called names. I follow my own experiments, as simple as they may be.


As simple as that.
Title: Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
Post by: Smoke Machine on February 17, 2021, 03:31:44 AM
Total rubbish.  Atmospheric (or any gas) pressure just doesnít work like that. 

And it would be blindingly obvious that it canít possibly work like that, if you had the first clue what youíre talking about.
You think it's magical gravity so I don't expect you to accept it.

Sceptimatic, just so you know - the reason people don't accept your musings is that they are actually incredibly bad abstractions of what we know.  They exclude known facts, they are non-predictive and non-quantitative, they can not be readily shared with others, they continually require ad-hoc addendums, and they have no demonstrated value to anyone other than yourself.

They are worst type of explanatory conjectures - confused, opaqu