......

Quote from: sokarul on June 05, 2013, 05:34:07 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 05, 2013, 04:18:56 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 05, 2013, 03:28:37 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 05, 2013, 03:18:43 PM

Quote from: darknavyseal on June 05, 2013, 01:34:36 PM

Guys, bear with me. This may seem controversial, but treat this like a hypothesis.

I was playing basketball the other day, and only 1 out of 10 shots of mine went in. This got me thinking. I noticed that my shot percentage went lower the longer I played, and it became increasingly difficult to run up and down the court, as well as to actually shoot the basketball. Jumping was more difficult too. Could gravity increase while one is playing sports? It seems so.

I noticed that the super athletic guy never seemed to tire, so, I logically concluded that if one plays basketball a lot, gravity realizes you are determined to play the sport, and it doesn't increase for you as quickly. I propose that "gravity" is a live, animate being, and pulls people down with his wispy aether arms.

Also, this super athletic guy made at least 6 out of 10 shots that he tried to make. It seems that gravity is also more favorable to those who practice, and uses his aether arms to guide the ball in the hoop.

Oh, btw, gravity got mad with me and twisted my ankle. Damn you, gravity.

You didn't read the OP did you. 

He is just showing how flawed your argument is. You know, the flaws that made you delete all your posts last time you asked why people got tired climbing mountains.

Your hypothesis is terrible. As they pointed out, metallic objects should fall at a different rate than non metallic objects. Not to mention some metals are attracted to magnets and some are repelled. Also for non metallic materials in your theory surface area, aerodynamics, and mass would all effect the rate at with the object falls.

You also didn't read the OP.

I did and it doesn't cover what I said. You are just making stuff up at will.  We have seen time and time again that you are incapable of understanding physics. You deleted all your post on the topic of getting tired as you climb a mountain. Why do you all of a sudden think your idea was correct when you were laughed at until you deleted your posts? Why can't you answer simple questions about your made up theory? All you have to do is make something up.
Tell us how an iron ingot and a bowling ball can fall at the same rate when they have two different forces acting on them.

Have you dropped an iron ingot and a bowling ball in the north pole or the ice rim to test that they would fall at the same rate?

They do.

Your theory doesn't work. Better luck next time. 

The feather in the vacuum is like the grain of sand, it falls because there is no matter to have any effect on it, so it just drops like any other thing.
To accept this, you naturally have to throw the gravity theory into the fire for now and forget about it.

Here's the problem. Without anything acting upon it, there's no reason it would "drop like any other thing". The normal state of anything is to sit and do nothing unless something's acting upon it. So the grain of sand or feather would just sit there in the vacuum, motionless.

The feather in the vacuum is like the grain of sand, it falls because there is no matter to have any effect on it, so it just drops like any other thing.
To accept this, you naturally have to throw the gravity theory into the fire for now and forget about it.

To restate what ican said in my own words: what makes the feather fall if there's no matter to effect it?

Quote from: icanbeanything on June 06, 2013, 05:13:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 06, 2013, 05:11:00 AM

The feather in the vacuum is like the grain of sand, it falls because there is no matter to have any effect on it, so it just drops like any other thing.
To accept this, you naturally have to throw the gravity theory into the fire for now and forget about it.

Here's the problem. Without anything acting upon it, there's no reason it would "drop like any other thing". The normal state of anything is to sit and do nothing unless something's acting upon it. So the grain of sand or feather would just sit there in the vacuum, motionless.

Why?

Any change in the state of motion requires an input of a force to do said change in the state of motion. Without an input force, there's nothing to change the state of motion of the feather. If the feather's initial state was standing still in a vacuum, it will continue to stand still in a vacuum. You need some force to act upon it if it is to start moving.

It's force is it's own weight, just the same as the grain of sand.
You are blinded by this gravity nonsense which you believe acts on everything.
Bin the gravity for this thought or you will be blinded by it.

Its own weight has to be caused by something. Call it magnetism, gravity, air pressure, whatever. There must be something causing it.

Otherwise, what decides which way this force is pointing? Which way will the feather begin to fall? For it to have a predetermined direction, it has to be caused by some exterior force. Something not intrinsic to the feather.

It's force is it's own weight, just the same as the grain of sand.

What gives it weight though? Please keep in mind that 'weight' and 'mass' are not exactly the same thing. An object that weighs 2kg sitting still will weigh more on the upswing of a roller coaster, and less on the downswing. It's mass remains unchanged.

What I'm getting at is...just accept for now that our own weight or that of any object is what makes it fall to the ground, because the earth is flat and the floor and the sky is up and the ceiling.
It's bound to make no sense, because gravity still creeps in and is a hard thing for people to shrug off.

As far as actual physics is concerned, a predetermined "up" or "down" direction make no sense. I know, it's hard to shrug off that sense of "down" that you were born with, but that's how it is.

Sometimes the only way to achieve something and get a better understanding, is to ditch some physics theories.
To do that, you have to start thinking alternatively to the prescribed view and I know that's hard for people who profess they are physics savvy etc...but for this, let's try and figure a "fit" of some kind, even if we have to alter or suspend some of the theories that most people hang onto like Monkeys to trees.

I have no problem ditching a physics theory, as long as another, more adequate theory takes its place. And I won't settle with philosophy and theorycrafting as adequate. To do that, something needs to be based on reality, not just words and ideas.

Something has to be causing the object to have weight and it has to be something external.   I've described to you once before that if the object itself was causing its own falling,  heavier objects would fall faster than later ones.   This doesn't happen so there must be an external force.

Something has to be causing the object to have weight and it has to be something external.   I've described to you once before that if the object itself was causing its own falling,  heavier objects would fall faster than later ones.   This doesn't happen so there must be an external force.

If the object itself was causing the "falling", then it wouldn't know which way to "fall". It would start moving in a completely random direction.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 06, 2013, 06:02:50 AM

Something has to be causing the object to have weight and it has to be something external.   I've described to you once before that if the object itself was causing its own falling,  heavier objects would fall faster than later ones.   This doesn't happen so there must be an external force.

Air pressure.

Okay,  so we are now back on air pressure causing weight and then back to the vacuum chambers showing this can't be the case since objects still fall with no air,  and actually fall easier.

Quote from: squevil on June 05, 2013, 05:28:09 PM

Is your definition of magnatisim the same as what we see from regular magnets? please answer as i have a point here to help you.

I'm not sure in it's exactness as it's simply a hypothesis, not a scientific hypothesis. I just thought I'd make this bit clear, because I see how some people can twist things on here.

Anyway, I'm taking about the ice rim being magnetic and the north pole being magnetic, basically ultra cold uninhabitable kind of places.

Anyway, what do you have in mind.

An experiment. I can't explain now because since changing server this site doesn't like my phone.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 06, 2013, 06:17:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 06, 2013, 06:12:04 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 06, 2013, 06:02:50 AM

Something has to be causing the object to have weight and it has to be something external.   I've described to you once before that if the object itself was causing its own falling,  heavier objects would fall faster than later ones.   This doesn't happen so there must be an external force.

Air pressure.

Okay,  so we are now back on air pressure causing weight and then back to the vacuum chambers showing this can't be the case since objects still fall with no air,  and actually fall easier.

Nope. I was saying air pressure if the reason for things falling faster than others and it's down to the actual weight of the object as well.

But if two objects are identical except their weight,  they will fall at the same speed.   I've already suggested you take two boxes of identical dimensions and fill one with books and another with clothing,  they will hit the ground at the same time if you drop them at the same time even though the books obviously weigh more.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 06, 2013, 06:40:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 06, 2013, 06:21:06 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 06, 2013, 06:17:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 06, 2013, 06:12:04 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 06, 2013, 06:02:50 AM

Something has to be causing the object to have weight and it has to be something external.   I've described to you once before that if the object itself was causing its own falling,  heavier objects would fall faster than later ones.   This doesn't happen so there must be an external force.

Air pressure.

Okay,  so we are now back on air pressure causing weight and then back to the vacuum chambers showing this can't be the case since objects still fall with no air,  and actually fall easier.

Nope. I was saying air pressure if the reason for things falling faster than others and it's down to the actual weight of the object as well.

But if two objects are identical except their weight,  they will fall at the same speed.   I've already suggested you take two boxes of identical dimensions and fill one with books and another with clothing,  they will hit the ground at the same time if you drop them at the same time even though the books obviously weigh more.

Maybe from a small height. From a higher height I would disagree.

Of course if they are able to hit terminal velocity they have different speeds,  heavier objects have more force when traveling at the same speed as lighter objects.   This force counters the wind resistance.   To get a real feel for this experiment,  it really needs to be performed in a vacuum.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 06, 2013, 06:57:47 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 06, 2013, 06:40:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 06, 2013, 06:21:06 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 06, 2013, 06:17:30 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 06, 2013, 06:12:04 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 06, 2013, 06:02:50 AM

Something has to be causing the object to have weight and it has to be something external.   I've described to you once before that if the object itself was causing its own falling,  heavier objects would fall faster than later ones.   This doesn't happen so there must be an external force.

Air pressure.

Okay,  so we are now back on air pressure causing weight and then back to the vacuum chambers showing this can't be the case since objects still fall with no air,  and actually fall easier.

Nope. I was saying air pressure if the reason for things falling faster than others and it's down to the actual weight of the object as well.

But if two objects are identical except their weight,  they will fall at the same speed.   I've already suggested you take two boxes of identical dimensions and fill one with books and another with clothing,  they will hit the ground at the same time if you drop them at the same time even though the books obviously weigh more.

Maybe from a small height. From a higher height I would disagree.

Of course if they are able to hit terminal velocity they have different speeds,  heavier objects have more force when traveling at the same speed as lighter objects.   This force counters the wind resistance.   To get a real feel for this experiment,  it really needs to be performed in a vacuum.

Or perform the experiment from the Pisa tower.

Or you could try to devise an experiment where the resistance of the air would be negligeable.

Or you could try to devise an experiment where the resistance of the air would be negligeable.

Something like a heavy solid iron ball and a same-sized hollow ball made of plastic. Drop them from the 10th story.

Or you could try to devise an experiment where the resistance of the air would be negligeable.

This too.  Use an aerodynamic casing, like a large hollow dart.   Put different weights inside,  but make sure the weighs all fit in securely and don't rattle around.   Drop the hollow dart with each weight from the and height and measure the travel time.   The dart's shape will cut down air resistance and allow for the experiment to be easily repeatable with different weights.

Quote from: Fizzy Logic on June 06, 2013, 09:48:59 AM

Or you could try to devise an experiment where the resistance of the air would be negligeable.

Only a vacuum and accurate measurements of items hitting the floor would really, only suffice.

Even an imperfect experiment could clear things to you'

This is what I was thinking about.

High speed cameras? Special chronometers?

Quote from: Fizzy Logic on June 06, 2013, 09:48:59 AM

Or you could try to devise an experiment where the resistance of the air would be negligeable.

Only a vacuum and accurate measurements of items hitting the floor would really, only suffice.

Didn't someone post a video of this exact thing happening in a vacuum tube?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 06, 2013, 09:56:50 AM

Quote from: Fizzy Logic on June 06, 2013, 09:48:59 AM

Or you could try to devise an experiment where the resistance of the air would be negligeable.

Only a vacuum and accurate measurements of items hitting the floor would really, only suffice.

Didn't someone post a video of this exact thing happening in a vacuum tube?

Never happened,  those feathers were fake.   The entire experiment was cgi.   

Quote from: 29silhouette on June 05, 2013, 09:16:16 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 05, 2013, 11:22:32 AM

I thought about this then discarded it when I realised I was knackered just walking up 3 flights of stairs. 

Because you're out of shape!  It's called muscle fatigue.

Go to a gym, get a barbell with some weights, and do several repetitions of lifting it.  What happens?  It feels heavier the more you do. 

Hmmm, is gravity suddenly deciding to concentrate its force on those weights, or are your muscles getting tired?

You are totally missing the point. Do a bit of careful thinking first.

I'm not, and I did.  I thought about it the last time you brought up this "theory".

You are blinded by the unexplainable gravity that you are told exists but know nothing of how it works.
I'm trying to figure out what your gravity might actually be and mean, instead of just saying, "oh, things fall because of gravity, yet it doesn't explain why we struggle to ascend something...

Actually it does explain it.  Your legs are lifting your weight repeatedly several times.  Your muscles become tired.

and what I'm thinking about, just might have some kind of reasoning for it.

Yes, muscle fatigue. 

How about when lifting weights and the weights start to 'feel' heavier?  The weights aren't ascending higher and higher, only moving up and down at an average elevation. 

Are you saying an object repeatedly moving up and down increases in weight?

With gravity as it is told, there is no reason at all why someone should be more tired walking a straight path than walking up a gradient, even though our common sense says, "well it's UP, isn't it, so that's why"...yet that doesn't answer the question if you think about it.

There is a reason.  While walking along level ground, your mass is in motion.  Your legs only have to maintain that motion.  When ascending, your legs must lift your mass every step, thus becoming tired because they have to do far more work as opposed to walking on level ground. 

So, yes, it does answer the question if you think about it.

According to your theory, when I drive up a long constant grade, my car will become heavier the higher I go, the engine would work harder, and I would have to press the pedal further and further until it's floored, and I would still continue to slow down. 

Instead, I give it a little extra pedal at the base of the hill, and my speed and pedal position stay the same all the way up.  (given a car with adequate power and cooling system)

With gravity as it is told, there is no reason at all why someone should be more tired walking a straight path than walking up a gradient, even though our common sense says, "well it's UP, isn't it, so that's why"...yet that doesn't answer the question if you think about it.

Holy frikkin God, is this guy in kindergarten?

use ticker tape. you dont need anything fancy. a motor with a pen and a flow of tape attacked to the weight. i did this experiment when i was 10 years old...