Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes

There are scientific papers dedicated to this subject, gas mixture settling:

http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/bk3/c07/Mixture%20settling.pdf

In this article, on page 13, v_sed, the velocity of sedimentation, is calculated as 0 for atoms and molecules. This means that larger molecules, like oxygen, will not sediment under the smaller molecules, like nitrogen at any significant speed. Even a slight breeze is many orders of magnitude faster than this sedimentation speed.

Your own post exemplifies my previous statement; the subterfuge of diverting the discussion to the settling of microscopic particles does not work with me.


Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.”  Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

The ozone layer is kept in a stable balance. And, moreover, in the stratosphere, the ozone layer concentrations are about 2 to 8 parts per million, which is much higher than in the lower atmosphere.

The ozone is not kept in a stable layer. It is created in large quantities in the upper atmosphere, in exactly the same way as it is created in home water purifiers: by high voltage electrical discharges, or with ultraviolet light. It then slowly descends and mixes with the surrounding air by the action of the wind, but in a matter of days it decomposes into O₂. There is nothing unusual going on. The only unusual property here is the relatively fast rate at which it is created and decomposed, before it reaches the lower atmosphere in large quantities.

Why would anyone engage levee in a discussion.  Did you just want to read the contents of the internet Dave?

Why would anyone engage levee in a discussion.  Did you just want to read the contents of the internet Dave?

I've debated with levee before and have not gone away with nothing. His strategy is (mis)information overload followed by topic creep. The key is to stick to one point and keep going until its concluded. As you can see I kept at him on the single point of why oxygen would sink down so rapidly. I've attempted multiple times to get a numerical answer.  As you can see, he hasn't yet replied with the requested math.

Just don't let yourself be drawn into the side points. It will make answering become tedious as the topics diverge. Levee has a wealth of prewritten paragraphs and posts to draw upon. You do not.

lorddave, I have given you enough evidence so that you can understand that the notion of attractive gravity is completely wrong.

I did answer your specific point several times: in a world which would be subject to attractive gravity, gases would separate and stay apart according to their specific gravities.

Brownian motion, the slow settling of gases is possible ONLY in the absence of the permanent effect of attractive gravity.

That is why your formula is WORTHLESS: as there is no such thing as attractive gravity.



Let me remind you:

You have not been able to respond to any of the points I made:


-the fact that the movement of the gas molecules simply defy attractive gravity

-the barometric pressure paradox

-the fact that clouds and mist simply defy the same attractive gravity



You have not answered to the experiments performed by Dr. Bruce DePalma: a clear violation of the law of attractive gravity.

Here is Dr. Bruce DePalma:

Actually the experiment has two parts, the spinning ball going up, and the spinning ball falling. Since I would be rather thought a fool than misrepresent results of experiments I only attempted to analyze the portion of the experiment I thought I understood. Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.


lorddave, are you able to understand the physics? Let me explain again.

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.


It is the end of the attractive gravity delusion.


Now, you posted this website: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm

The author does not understand that the anomalies discovered are an extraordinary proof of the existence of telluric currents: please read the following paragraphs carefully:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899

In the same way, ring-laser gyroscopes are a proof that telluric currents do exist and cause the phenomenon.


Anomalies in the law of attractive gravity were discovered many times over, not only at Tamarack, that is why I invited you to read up:

In 1981 a paper was published showing that measurements of G in deep mines, boreholes, and under the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted. Furthermore, the deeper the experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by Eotvos in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence of a short-range, composition-dependent fifth force. Their paper caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world.

No, no you haven't.
You can't seem to tell me the force required to keep an atom of oxygen aloft in a gravity environment. Or the force required to keep it aloft with your pressure idea.

Also from Wikipedia:
Brownian motion or pedesis (from Greek: πήδησις Pɛɖeːsɪs "leaping") is the presumably random moving of particles suspended in a fluid (a liquid or a gas) resulting from their bombardment by the fast-moving atoms or molecules in the gas or liquid.

Yeah... Nothing about settling.
You really have no idea how little force is required to keep atoms of gasses mixed do you?
Allow me to applrximate it (I'm on my phone and don't have the math handy): 1.0 x10^-24 newtons.

That means that if there is less force than that, oxygen will fall slowly. But if something is in the way like, say.... Other gasses, then it can't fall. And since other gases are constantly being put into the air even on a still day (See CO2) it's logical to assume that they have enough force or bouyancy to keep the oxygen and nitrogen from settling even if there is no wind.

Of course for there to be no wind would mean all gas molecules have slowed significantly. The temperature would have to be around 50K. (The temperature of liquid oxygen)
In fact, your mention of Brownian motion proves it. The dust particles more randomly, not down. This is because of other high motion particles pushing it around.

Now, if you don't give me the math on the pressure your aether pushes down while simultaneously allowing large particles (dust and water) to stay afloat I'm going to have to assume you never even did the math and thus your conclusion is based on personal feelings and is invalid.

If Dr. Bruce DePalma uses these words to describe the new discovery that there is no such thing as the law of attractive gravity, namely: ...present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general. you can imagine that to work out the math/physics of the pressure gravity of the telluric currents is no easy matter.

For example here are laws discovered by John W. Keely (excerpt): "Atoms are capable of vibrating within themselves at a pitch inversely as the Dyne (the local coefficient of Gravity), and as the atomic volume, directly as the atomic weight, producing the creative force (Electricity), whose transmissive force is propagated through atomolic solids, liquids, and gases, producing induction and the static effect of magnetism upon other atoms of attraction or repulsion, according to the Law of Harmonic Attraction and Repulsion." Imagine carrying out the experiments in a lab to work out the mathematics of a perfect law of pressure gravity...



It is obvious, ld, that you cannot answer anything relating to the facts I presented in my messages.


Please read the following texts carefully: the barometric pressure of the atmosphere and movement of gas molecules simply DEFY attractive gravity.

You have been avoiding these facts all along.


One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


A clear violation of the law of attractive gravity; your comments amount to nothing, unless you can explain the barometric pressure paradox.


Even if perfect elasticity is a quality of the molecules of all gases, the motion of the molecules, if effected by a mechanical cause, must subside because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the gravitational pull of the earth.

There should also be a loss of momentum as the result of the transformation of a part of the energy of motion into vibration of molecules hit in the collisions. But since the molecules of a gas at a constant temperature (or in a perfect insulator) do not stop moving, it is obvious that a force generated in collisions drives them. The molecules of gases try to escape one another. Repulsion between the particles of gases and vapors counteracts the attraction.


A simple demonstration that you do not understand gas dynamics in the context of the law of attractive gravity.

Brownian motion COULD NOT exist in the presence of the permanent effect of attractive gravity.

You try to shift the issue to mathematics, while avoiding all along the obvious facts from physics: under the law of attractive gravity, gases in the atmosphere must separate and stay apart according to their specific gravities. If you do not want to understand this basic fact, you are free to create your own fantasy world, ld, where gases stay separated in the atmosphere DESPITE the permanent effect of attractive gravity.


Again, let me present the spinning ball experiment of Dr. Bruce DePalma:

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.


I ask for the third time ld: are you able to read english and understand the physics involved here?

Let me repeat: the ball spinning at 27,000 RPM travelled higher and weighed less (in absolute defiance of the law of attractive gravity) than its non-spinning counterpart.

Therefore, ld, we have a clear violation of the law of attractive gravity: your analysis of the movement of gases is worthless, the law of attractive gravity is completely false.

Levee, sorry to interrupt the discussion, but I have a kind of a question for you.
First, I am not familiar with your explanations about gravity, so I will read some of the links you posted later, but It's been a time that I know that Newton was a evil man, a lier, and that his theory looked like bouchet, also that electricity and/or "spinning" has something to do  with gravity.
But my question is this: on Russia, if I am not mistake, there is a giant hole made with the years because of the mining of diamonds. This circular hole is really large, like a football field, and really deep (don't know how much).
The thing is that helicopters are forbidden of flying above it because, if someone try, the helicopter is pushed/pulled to the inside of it.
I remember I considered this strange on the past, but din't gave much atention, but now that I was reading this discussion, I thought that this seens compatible with the "pressure gravity" you are talking about. Like, sudenly without floor, the new level to achieve stability with the helicopter would be close to the floor of the hole, or if the pilot increase the motor potency to that of a high altitude.

Hum... and other question: what about the gravity below water? Would it be that it decreases the effect of the pressure gravity, so you weight less, but when you are really deep you began to weight more because of the pressure of the water?

You're seriously going to respond to levee?

Quote from: Lorddave on October 05, 2012, 03:19:11 AM

You're seriously going to respond to levee?

Yes I seriously did. And will continue to do so.

Quote from: Beorn on October 05, 2012, 07:34:20 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on October 05, 2012, 03:19:11 AM

You're seriously going to respond to levee?

Yes I seriously did. And will continue to do so.

Why would you do that?

Levee, I don't want to talk about the spinning gyroscope in this thread. Make a new one and I'll talk to you there. Here it's all about pressure.

What bothers me is that you say gravity can't be true in the atmosphere yet can't even explain how it stays up in your system. You can't claim something is true if you haven't even determined if it works yet.

You also keep saying that the gases should separate but you have failed to say how long it should take. If oil and water can take hours to separate, how long do you think two gases of similar density take to separate?

I believe that you don't really understand the mechanics of settling or density. This is my fault. I should have explained it sooner.


Density is a measure of how tightly packed matter is. It's mass/volume. So a 1kg block of 1m^3 matter has a density of 1.

When an object of more density sits atop an object of less density, gravity pulls the more dense object down with more force than it does the less dense object. This is called weight.

If the less dense object is unable to push back with an equal force, the more dense object goes through depending on the states of matter. For solids, the solid is usually crushed until its density is capable of supporting the heavier object. For liquids and gases the molecules of the less dense object are pushed away to allow the heavier object to move down.

With that in mind the movement down isn't always instant. Pushing through any liquid or gas requires effort and creates drag. A stone falling in a pond will fall slower than in the air because the water resists the stone and slows its descent.

If the force of resistance is great enough, an object of less density can hold up an object of greater density for long periods of time.

So for oxygen and nitrogen to settle requires the force down for the oxygen to be large enough to break through the force the nitrogen has up. This only occurs when no external forces are moving the atoms.

Since wind is always present and the temperature almost never drops below 50c, this never occurs in nature.
In a controlled environment, it can take days or more.

Brownian motion, the slow settling of gases is possible ONLY in the absence of the permanent effect of attractive gravity.

Brownian motion is not the slow settling of gases. And Brownian motion works through forces that are many orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational pull for gas molecules. You gave the article that made the calculations where a heavy gas molecule inside a lighter gas settles (sediments) to the bottom of the container, but does so at such a slow speed that it is essentially zero.

You are not helping anyone with this discussion. Whether the Earth is flat and finite, flat and infinite, round or square, the only thing that enters this calculation is the existence of acceleration of the molecule towards the floor of the container (which nobody, not even in this forum, denies) and the Brownian movement of the gas that fills the container.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 05, 2012, 09:13:57 AM

Quote from: Beorn on October 05, 2012, 07:34:20 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on October 05, 2012, 03:19:11 AM

You're seriously going to respond to levee?

Yes I seriously did. And will continue to do so.

Why would you do that?

Because I enjoy it. It may be futile as levee is nuts but its a good refresher on basic physics.

Your own post exemplifies my previous statement; the subterfuge of diverting the discussion to the settling of microscopic particles does not work with me.


Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.”  Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.



The ozone layer is kept in a stable balance. And, moreover, in the stratosphere, the ozone layer concentrations are about 2 to 8 parts per million, which is much higher than in the lower atmosphere.


Had attractive gravity been a real phenomenon, ozone would descend immediately as its own specific weight (trioxygen) is greater than of oxygen.

Ozone is EXTREMELY reactive and breaks down rapidly.  It is predominantly formed in the stratosphere by the high intensity of oxygen free radicals thanks to the proportionally higher intensity of short-wave UV light.  So yeah...its miscule concentration is higher where it is formed and gets reduced quickly as you move away because it's approximate half life is trivial.

The suggestion about O2 being higher still is spot on, the area in the stratosphere that has a slight amount of ozone in it is still dominated by significantly more O2.  No rules are broken.

Additionally the comments on mixing in regard to gas and density levee suggest a fundamental lack of knowledge in basic gas behavior.  The idea that a gas molecules should loose momentum when impacting an insulator suggests that the molecules the insulator is made from do not vibrate, which is patently false.  All molecules that have any measurable "heat" vibrate relative to this.  Thus as a gas impacts the vibrating object energy is exchanged between them.  If the object is significantly colder, the gas molecules (as a whole) will in fact loose energy which directly impacts their density as they will effectively "take up less space due to not moving as fast".  But this is all on a molecular level. 

Regardless, gasses, all gasses, seek to fill available space.  This means gasses inherently mix and are extremely difficult to perfectly separate.  The comments on small particles are also spot on.  Get a fine enough particle in water and the time it would take to settle is long enough that the slightest disturbance to the water will prevent it from ever settling to any notable degree.  Take that, apply it to gasses along with thermal currents and fluid film layers due to earth's rotation among other things and you've got one seriously well mixed gas layer.

Your arugments about how gravity should separate things out suggests you have only the most rudimentary knowledge of physics as it applies to fluid dynamics and materials science.

Your arguments about ozone suggest you have little knowledge of chemistry or light based chemical reactions.

Bringing up a multitude of other subjects that have nothing to do with atmosphere conditions does not change this.

"realscientist" is spot on.

Quote from: levee on October 05, 2012, 01:04:45 AM

Everybody with an IQ above room temperature is on to the con act of our media

Gore Vidal

What temperature scale? F, C or k?

In your case, it is obvious: C.


To invalidate a theory, according to the accepted principles of science, it is necessary to present a single counterexample.

Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment is one of the best demonstrations that there is no such thing as attractive gravity.

http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.



We also have the experiments with gyroscopes performed by Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev.

N.A. Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation.


The barometric pressure paradox, the subject of this thread, is also a clear proof that the gases in the atmosphere do not obey an attractive gravity law:

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.



Formulas based on a law of attractive gravity, which is inexistent, are worthless, as are any discussions on the density of gases/liquids, which do not take into account the real cause of gravity: pressure of the telluric currents.





For the other comments...I wrote very clearly from the beginning: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,39823.msg1005453.html#msg1005453 (ozone layer paradox/mechanics)

For example, here is the data on the barometric pressure in Taiwan:


http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan, for example, (at 25 degrees N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST.


A clear confirmation of the following paradox, which shows the current understanding of physics (especially that of our resident engineer, solmyre) is more than rudimentary: it is disastrous.


One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


It is the end of the attractive gravity delusion.

To invalidate a theory, according to the accepted principles of science, it is necessary to present a single counterexample.

To invalidate a mathematical theorem it is only necessary to present a single counterexample. To invalidate a scientific theory you need a lot more. What you are saying is a pop culture claim that sounds good but has no substance.

Every scientific theory has a range of conditions for which it has been tested and a number of known experimental errors that are expected. A single experiment with currently unexplained results does not invalidate a whole theory. The experiment has to be repeated several times under different conditions and several steps have to be taken to look for sources of error before the theory is even acknowledged to have an anomaly. If it were not like this, every time a science student tries an experiment a theory would be invalidated.

This is the old logical argument that says that I can never say that all swans are white. Of course, from a logical perspective the argument is true. But from a scientific standpoint it is perfectly reasonable to say that swans are generally white, even though a few black swans were found somewhere in the far East.

If you were truly interested in the science of any of the three or four subjects you are showing you could repeat the experiments here, now, with a good scientist looking at the possible sources of error. Just like with Rowbotham, experiments that were supposedly done decades ago, with no analysis of experimental errors at all, are worth nothing.

I like how levee assumes that the pressure of a single location can only change due to the temperature at that location.

It's like he assumes that wind doesn't exist. It's weird.

...

To invalidate a theory, according to the accepted principles of science, it is necessary to present a single counterexample.

Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment is one of the best demonstrations that there is no such thing as attractive gravity.

http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.



We also have the experiments with gyroscopes performed by Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev.

N.A. Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation.
...

You still keep posting this and it still proves nothing.  Once again, gyroscopes do not defy "attractive gravity". Didn't work the first 20 times you posted it and it's not going to to work the next 20 times.  Give it up. 

sokarul, your ignorance is truly astounding.


Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment shatters the "law" of attractive gravity.

Here are his own words:

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.


Torsion physics DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

To invalidate the law of attractive gravity, we only need a single counterexample (fakescientist, do your homework...).



http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.


A clear proof that the law of attractive gravity IS COMPLETELY FAKE AND FALSE.

The ball spinning at 27,000 RPM had the SAME MASS, and was under the influence of the same supposed law of attractive gravity, however it weighed LESS, and travelled HIGHER than the non-rotating ball.


The greatest astrophysicist of the 20th century, Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev discovered the same thing.

N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation.

In the 1970s, in order to verify N.A.Kozyrev's theory, a major research of gyroscopes and gyroscopic systems was conducted by a member of Belarus Academy of Sciences, professor A.I.Veinik. The effect discovered earlier by N.A.Kozyrev was completely confirmed.


http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/tors1a.html


The laevorotatory rotation of the gyroscopes violates the law of attractive gravity: FOR THE SAME MASS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING GYROSCOPE WEIGHS LESS.



One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

The periodic variation of the barometric pressure measurements defies attractive gravity: IT CONFIRMS THE RESULTS OBTAINED BY DR. T. HENRY MORAY, the periodic variations of the telluric currents.


There is no such thing as attractive gravity: terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of the telluric currents.

The laevorotatory rotation of the gyroscopes violates the law of attractive gravity: FOR THE SAME MASS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING GYROSCOPE WEIGHS LESS.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

Did he take into account the gravitational influence of the sun and moon in those maxima and minima measurements?

Quote from: levee on October 09, 2012, 12:13:57 AM

The laevorotatory rotation of the gyroscopes violates the law of attractive gravity: FOR THE SAME MASS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING GYROSCOPE WEIGHS LESS.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

Did he take into account the gravitational influence of the sun and moon in those maxima and minima measurements?

That would require a date and location. Levee has neither because he never checks other people's work if it agrees with him.

To invalidate the law of attractive gravity, we only need a single counterexample (fakescientist, do your homework...).

You continue to play with your totally wrong claim. One counterexample would be a devastating blow for a theory if the corresponding experiment is verified to a scientific certainty. In the end, when scientific certainty is achieved a lot of independent experiments have been done. That includes a lot of hard work on all the possible sources of error, which your example has not shown. And it includes independent experiments that show that the anomaly is not just a weird phenomenon caused by poor experiment design. One experiment done by one person is a counterexample, but is not enough to invalidate anything.

But the claim that somebody did an experiment with unknown protocols to control error, and with no verification by peers, with no response to such simple questions as why the experiment was not done in a vacuum, is the same as nothing. There is not even some clarity as to whether the momentum of the rotating ball includes the rotational momentum or just the vertical and horizontal momentum.

Flat Earth has been invalidated with multiple inconsistencies yet those aren't enough to convince levee they are false.

You can smell the hypocrisy.

Both the DePalma and the Kozyrev experiments were performed in full vacuum; this is a basic requirement, which does not even need to be mentioned...

Both experiments were verified many times over, at MIT, over a period of several years, by Dr. DePalma and his team of scientists (see the links please), and over a period of three decades in the Soviet Union by dozens of researchers (see, again, the bibliography provided).

Both experiments prove clearly that there is no such thing as the law of attractive gravity: the spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart, while weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation.



In the official textbook on atmospheric physics only the Sun's heating of the atmosphere is taken into account.

Here is Rayleigh himself describing the situation:

‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.'


Again, if the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


The periodic variation of the barometric pressure defies the law of attractive gravity.

Levee, your experiment doesn't say what you think it does. According to N.A.Kozyrev, the rotation is actually the force of time. See, he hypothesized that stars keep burning because they are spinning in such a way as to create a time imbalance between the past and future.
http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/korotaev_force.pdf

So please stop usin that experiment as proof gravity doesn't exist when in reality it proves time like spinning objects.



Also:
If I can show you one instance where pressure changes due to non-temperature forces, will that solve your "paradox"?

Both the DePalma and the Kozyrev experiments were performed in full vacuum; this is a basic requirement, which does not even need to be mentioned...

You claim that they are scientists, but that the basic parts of the equipment used, such as the huge vacuum chamber where the balls are thrown, are irrelevant? No wonder why all of the real scientists who are looking for real anomalies in the known Physics theories are looking elsewhere.

Since no such thing as full vacuum exists, and this experiment requires a very sophisticated and big vacuum chamber, the barometric pressure inside the chamber during the test is a critical parameter. A reasonable estimation of the experimental error due to the residual gases inside the chamber should be a central part of the presentation of the experiment to peers.

And the graph you are presenting shows that the two balls did not leave the device used to throw them at the same speed. Any half competent scientist sees this graph and immediately finds a lot of questions you have not answered.

The gyro drop experiment was done by the team of engineers/scientists who worked with the late Dr. Bruce DePalma, PhD, researcher at MIT,  (read the link to see the perfect conditions for vacuum were complied with).

It was carefully performed, as we can see from the undeniable data:

http://www.depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html

This is the perfect example of the misunderstandings in Science for which I bother posting in this forum. The very bad science shown in this link should make any beginner or amateur scientist scream his head off. If you want to learn science you should look at these results and learn.

First, commercial gravimeters have a precision of some 10 microgals, which means a precision of about 0.01 parts per million. And this is a portable unit (Micro G LaCoste A-10), not even a state of the art non-portable unit! Even if you want to give yourself a good margin of error, you are measuring the acceleration of a ball falling through vacuum with an error of 0.1 parts per million. In this experiment the error is more than 3000 parts per million!

Your scientific knowledge should tell you immediately that this is a poorly implemented experiment. Four orders of magnitude worse than the commercially available gravimeter! Like measuring amoebas with your kid's ruler!

Now, look at the results in the table that shows all the 20 ball drops. All the results on the "rotating" column except for two are slower than the fastest result on the "non-rotating" column! Even a quick glance at this table should tell you that there is nothing compelling in these results, but the author tries to show them as the demise for known Physics!

I do not want to enter in a complex discussion on statistics, but I can tell you that the standard deviations shown here are a textbook example of the misuse of the Bell Curve and of the intent of standard deviations. The author has not even shown that the data follows a Bell Curve, and has not shown in the least that the calculated standard deviation is the phenomenon's deviation and not the sample's deviation!

As a simple example of the error in the standard deviation calculation, just think of this experiment:
 - I throw the ball twice on a roulette  with numbers from 1 to 40, and get the results 5 and 14.
 - I then calculate the average and standard deviation for my data, getting an average of 9.5 and a standard deviation of 6.4, so I declare that in this roulette a result of 40 is almost 5 standard deviations from the average, and it is an almost impossible result. But we know that 40 is exactly as probable as any other number. Standard deviations do not even have any significance in this case!

So, look at the table in the link given, and learn how bad science looks like.

sokarul, your ignorance is truly astounding.

lol

Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment shatters the "law" of attractive gravity.

Here are his own words:

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.

What was the hypothesis of his experiment? What did he write about the non spinning ball? "Non spinning ball followed predicted path established by gravity"?  He never made the claim "attractive gravity" is now invalid due to his experiment.  If you would read what he said you would see he only makes the claim that spinning bodies act differently in a gravitational field. His own hypothesis claims that gravitation is real.  You are the only one making the claim that his experiment defies the law of "attractive gravity".   

Torsion physics DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

Nope, you are just unable to comprehend the advanced physics required to answer why gyroscopes and other spinning objects act differently then non spinning objects.   

To invalidate the law of attractive gravity, we only need a single counterexample (fakescientist, do your homework...).

Still incorrect, no matter how many times you try to claim it.  He addressed this. 

http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.


A clear proof that the law of attractive gravity IS COMPLETELY FAKE AND FALSE.

Why does the non spinning ball act normal?

The ball spinning at 27,000 RPM had the SAME MASS, and was under the influence of the same supposed law of attractive gravity, however it weighed LESS, and travelled HIGHER than the non-rotating ball.

Once again so maybe you answer it, why does the non spinning ball act normal?

The greatest astrophysicist of the 20th century, Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev discovered the same thing.

N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation.

In the 1970s, in order to verify N.A.Kozyrev's theory, a major research of gyroscopes and gyroscopic systems was conducted by a member of Belarus Academy of Sciences, professor A.I.Veinik. The effect discovered earlier by N.A.Kozyrev was completely confirmed.


http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/tors1a.html


The laevorotatory rotation of the gyroscopes violates the law of attractive gravity: FOR THE SAME MASS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING GYROSCOPE WEIGHS LESS.

What calculations did you due to come up with this?

Now for everyone to see for themselves the nature of gyroscopes, here is a youtube video I posted in the past to address leeve's claim.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eric Laithwaite - gyroscopic gravity modification.mov

Pretty neat video.  No physics were broken in the making of the video.