# Sceptimatics theory

• 1903 Replies
• 213664 Views
?

#### Shmeggley

• 1909
• Eppur si muove!
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #90 on: August 16, 2013, 02:55:10 PM »
Let's look at your "Air pressure is gravity" idea. You say that pressure pushes us down. But pressure pushes in all directions, and actually pushes slightly upwards, as there is LESS pressure above, as there is overall less pressure above than below, so if pressure causes our vertical movement, we would all rise as air pressure pushed us upwards.
That'snot me who said that. That makes no sense at all.

Quote from: Shmeggley
I agree that air pushes, but it seems to me that it would push on an object from every direction, but slightly more from underneath since air is thicker near the surface of the Earth and thinner the higher up you go. So how does it push things down again?
Air pressure underneath is more compressed, it has the most force on it.

So not only are you wrong about your theory, you're wrong about things you yourself have said in the past. Tsk.

Anyway, whether you said that or not, it's demonstrably true that air pressure is higher at the surface and decreases as you move up. Why would you even try to argue against this simple fact?
I said air pressure underneath has more force on it. Of course it's resisting and you could argue that it's pushing back but it's simply resisting the pressure from above because it's more compressed.
I don't need to get out of anything.

Exactly, there is more force on the air at the surface because of the weight of the air above it. Naturally the air pushes back with equal force. Therefore there is greater air pressure at the surface, and less the higher up you go. So there is a tiny net upward force, just like we've talked about in the past, which explains why very light objects like helium balloons rise. Once again, this disproves the idea that we are pushed down by air.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28541
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #91 on: August 16, 2013, 03:18:07 PM »
why accept a force that clearly does not exists

But it does exist. Its what causes objects to fall towards the ground.
Weight against atmospheric pressure is what makes things fall to the ground, not a fictional force.

Weight is caused by gravity. You just used gravity to prove why gravity doesn't exist.
How can I use something that doesn't exist to prove that something doesn't exist?
I'm using air pressure against weight.
How do you get this fictional gravity inside an ice dome, which is my theory?

The definition of weight is the affect gravity has on an object. Gravity causes weight. Therefore you can't use weight as an argument against gravity.
I'm not using anything as an argument against gravity, because there is no such thing as a gravitational force.
The force is simply atmospheric pressure acting upon everything on this earth from the top of the ice dome, to the bottom of the dome.
Weight is an accumulation of matter is varying dense states that are heavier as they get more dense due to matter being condensed by the pressure above them.
Why people have to hang on to a force that cannot be physically verified or felt, is beyond me.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28541
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #92 on: August 16, 2013, 03:19:05 PM »
Gravity is what causes weight. You haven't explained yet how air pressure can cause weight. Mabye when you do i might change my mind about gravity.
Ok then, explain what this gravity is. Just tell me what it is and how it makes the weight of an object.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28541
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #93 on: August 16, 2013, 03:28:18 PM »
Hey, Scepti, if gravity is atmospheric pressure, then why do metal balls sink in water but foam ones float?
If something is more dense than the water and is devoid of too many air molecules within it, it will sink.
It's merely more or less dense than the environment it's in. So a foam ball which is full of air molecules is going to stay on top of a denser liquid and a metal ball, assuming it's solid metal and not hollow, will sink, because it's mass and size is far greater than the amount of water it's displacing, so it sinks.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28541
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #94 on: August 16, 2013, 03:31:59 PM »
why accept a force that clearly does not exists

But it does exist. Its what causes objects to fall towards the ground.
Weight against atmospheric pressure is what makes things fall to the ground, not a fictional force.

My, you just used the word weight. You do believe in gravity!
Oh, so weight has to be gravity does it.

Well, yes if you are going to use that word. Weight is a word that describes the effects of mass in a given amount of gravity. It is not interchangeable with the word mass.
explain what gravity is. Explain the force and exactly how we know it's there.
Atmospheric pressure can be explained and verified and does a great job in explaining everything on earth.
Show me the great job that this gravity does and how it's measured for someone to know it exists.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28541
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #95 on: August 16, 2013, 03:34:28 PM »
fyi scepti:

weight = mass x gravity

&

your weight on earth = 6 * your weight on the moon
Don't be using this grade school carry on. It doesn't make you look clever, it actually shows up just how screwed the education system is by imprinting this fictional stuff into kids minds.

There is no physical moon in the sky, it's a reflection.

?

#### Alex Tomasovich

• 1030
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #96 on: August 16, 2013, 03:36:56 PM »
Hey, Scepti, if gravity is atmospheric pressure, then why do metal balls sink in water but foam ones float?

Objects that are less dense than water will float.  It's not about gravity at all.  It's about the pressure of the water around the object which is technically it's atmosphere.

But it is about gravity. Before I continue, a setup by Shmeggley:

There is more force on the air at the surface because of the weight of the air above it. Naturally the air pushes back with equal force. Therefore there is greater air pressure at the surface, and less the higher up you go.

Let us assume this is true of water as well (the same arguments can be applied to water, after all). So we place a foam ball, say 20 cm diameter, completely underwater. The water above it pushes down with a certain force F, and the water beneath pushes back with a force F + the weight of the 20 cm of water between. Thus the ball is pushed upwards until the water pushing up equals the air (when it's on the surface) pushing down.

If we put a steel ball 20 cm diameter in the same place, the exact same forces are acting on it by the water with a net force of a bit upward. But this one goes against that force and drops down through the water.

Thus, it can be shown that something other than water is affecting the steel balls.

Nautical science tells us that something will float if it weighs less than the amount of water it displaces. So a 1 cm3 object will float if and only if it weighs less than 1 gram. This means that if it weighs more than 1 gram, this other unknown force will counteract that of the water's upward push. This also implies the net upward force is equal to the weight of the water displaced by the object.

Since the upward force of water only comes because of an imbalance in the forces above and below the object, what if we removed all the water above something? For instance, ice, at around .9 grams per cubic centimeter, if placed just under the water, will experience an upward force of waterbelow - (waterabove + airabove). But when it suddenly breaks the surface, there's no more water above it, completely removing that portion of the equation. Thus the upward force should be suddenly much greater than it was when it was just beneath surface.

But the ice floats only just atop the water, such that only 10% is not submerged. This means it's still displacing its own weight in water. What could be keeping it that low if not this unknown force?

This unknown force seems to act on the mass, not size, of an object since the 20 cm foam ball floated whilst the 20 cm steel ball sank when put in the same conditions. So, we've got a downward force that's dependent on the mass of objects.

Why don't we call this force 'gravity'? That would certainly explain why helium balloons float whilst carbon-dioxide balloons don't--helium is lighter than air, and thus this downward force based on its mass can't counteract the upward force of the air. Carbon-dioxide, on the other hand, is heavier, and thus this downward based on its mass does counteract the upward force of the air.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2013, 03:47:27 PM by Alex Tomasovich »

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28541
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #97 on: August 16, 2013, 03:44:59 PM »
What causes objects with more condensed particles to be attracted to the ground stronger than less condensed particles?
Look...I know where you're going with this and you are going to say, it's because of gravity.
What I can't understand is, why accept a force that clearly does not exists except as a word to describe the reason we stick to a spinning ball.
Atmospheric pressure amply explains what happens on earth.
The up and down scenario can be explained like I told you. Our bodies sense up and down.
Gravity is just a con like all the rest of this space junk.

Except air pressure does not explain what happens on earth because A: Air is not sorted according to density of individual particles, B: The various Air molecules, like all other molecules, push in all directions against all other molecules. If the push of molecules dictated direction, the lower pressure above would cause the net push to be upwards, causing a rise, such as what happens with a ball underwater.
Air is sorted according to density.
How can lower pressure cause a net push to be upwards?

Air is comprised of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Co2, Neon, Helium, and several other elements and compounds of different densities/ weights. These are not sorted into layers, but all mixed together.

A lower pressure causes a net upward push because the pressure pushes equally in all directions, but receives less push from where the pressure is lower, this causes a flow from high pressure to low pressure unless there is an outside force preventing it from doing so. As air pressure is lower the higher you go, the new flow and net push is upwards.
They are sorted into layers but they start off at sea level with all their elements as one pressure, which we will call sea level atmospheric pressure.
Above that point, they expand and break down into lesser elements, losing a lighter and lighter element as they rise up and become a layer on top of another layer.

To put it in simple context...imagine the elements are numbered 1 to 9..don't take this as 9 elements, I'm just using this as a simple explanation, ok.

So we start off at sea level, say...and we have 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 all in one molecule layer, our sea level atmospheric layer.
They now split up to the next layer which is 2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9...9 being the lightest element.
above that layer, we now have 3/4/5/6/7/8/9...
Then, 4/5/6/7/8/9....then 5/6/7/8/9...then...6/7/8/9.....then...7/8/9....then...8/9

then 1 more element to go which freezes as the lightest element against zero pressure of space, it's fully expanded and becomes zero pressure as it sits on the top with only it's own dormant mass/weight. This becomes the ice dome and is replenished like everything else is, in a cycle.

It's the best way I can explain it in easy terms.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28541
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #98 on: August 16, 2013, 03:45:40 PM »
Hey, Scepti, if gravity is atmospheric pressure, then why do metal balls sink in water but foam ones float?

Objects that are less dense than water will float.  It's not about gravity at all.  It's about the pressure of the water around the object which is technically it's atmosphere.
Exactly.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28541
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #99 on: August 16, 2013, 03:56:12 PM »
Hey, Scepti, if gravity is atmospheric pressure, then why do metal balls sink in water but foam ones float?

Objects that are less dense than water will float.  It's not about gravity at all.  It's about the pressure of the water around the object which is technically it's atmosphere.

But it is about gravity. Before I continue, a setup by Shmeggley:

There is more force on the air at the surface because of the weight of the air above it. Naturally the air pushes back with equal force. Therefore there is greater air pressure at the surface, and less the higher up you go.

Let us assume this is true of water as well (the same arguments can be applied to water, after all). So we place a foam ball, say 20 cm diameter, completely underwater. The water above it pushes down with a certain force F, and the water beneath pushes back with a force F + the weight of the 20 cm of water between. Thus the ball is pushed upwards until the water pushing up equals the air (when it's on the surface) pushing down.

If we put a steel ball 20 cm diameter in the same place, the exact same forces are acting on it by the water with a net force of a bit upward. But this one goes against that force and drops down through the water.

Thus, it can be shown that something other than water is affecting the steel balls.

Nautical science tells us that something will float if it weighs less than the amount of water it displaces. So a 1 cm3 object will float if and only if it weighs less than 1 gram. This means that if it weighs more than 1 gram, this other unknown force will counteract that of the water's upward push. This also implies the net upward force is equal to the weight of the water displaced by the object.

Since the upward force of water only comes because of an imbalance in the forces above and below the object, what if we removed all the water above something? For instance, ice, at around .9 grams per cubic centimeter, if placed just under the water, will experience an upward force of waterbelow - (waterabove + airabove). But when it suddenly breaks the surface, there's no more water above it, completely removing that portion of the equation. Thus the upward force should be suddenly much greater than it was when it was just beneath surface.

But the ice floats only just atop the water, such that only 10% is not submerged. This means it's still displacing its own weight in water. What could be keeping it that low if not this unknown force?

This unknown force seems to act on the mass, not size, of an object since the 20 cm foam ball floated whilst the 20 cm steel ball sank when put in the same conditions. So, we've got a downward force that's dependent on the mass of objects.

Why don't we call this force 'gravity'? That would certainly explain why helium balloons float whilst carbon-dioxide balloons don't--helium is lighter than air, and thus this downward force based on its mass can't counteract the upward force of the air. Carbon-dioxide, on the other hand, is heavier, and thus this downward based on its mass does counteract the upward force of the air.
If the density of an object is more dense than the water, it will sink and if it's dense enough and the water is deep enough, it will be compressed as it sinks further, making it smaller as the water pressure starts to crush it.
If the water is not deep enough, the ball will simply hit the bottom and stay there under whatever pressure the water puts on it.
The only time it will be moved is when there is a current acting on it, other wise it's the balls weight acted upon by the waters pressure with the sea floor being the last line of resistance.
Over time, depending on the solidity of the sea floor, the metal ball would eventually sink deeper and deeper into it, until it's density matched that of the depth under that floor.

Every element has its place and if left alone, all the elements of earth would go back to their natural place in that sandwich layer.
It might be 10,000 years or more or whatever but that's what would happen, because nothing is destroyed.

?

#### Alex Tomasovich

• 1030
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #100 on: August 16, 2013, 04:03:51 PM »
Hey, Scepti, if gravity is atmospheric pressure, then why do metal balls sink in water but foam ones float?

Objects that are less dense than water will float.  It's not about gravity at all.  It's about the pressure of the water around the object which is technically it's atmosphere.

But it is about gravity. Before I continue, a setup by Shmeggley:

There is more force on the air at the surface because of the weight of the air above it. Naturally the air pushes back with equal force. Therefore there is greater air pressure at the surface, and less the higher up you go.

Let us assume this is true of water as well (the same arguments can be applied to water, after all). So we place a foam ball, say 20 cm diameter, completely underwater. The water above it pushes down with a certain force F, and the water beneath pushes back with a force F + the weight of the 20 cm of water between. Thus the ball is pushed upwards until the water pushing up equals the air (when it's on the surface) pushing down.

If we put a steel ball 20 cm diameter in the same place, the exact same forces are acting on it by the water with a net force of a bit upward. But this one goes against that force and drops down through the water.

Thus, it can be shown that something other than water is affecting the steel balls.

Nautical science tells us that something will float if it weighs less than the amount of water it displaces. So a 1 cm3 object will float if and only if it weighs less than 1 gram. This means that if it weighs more than 1 gram, this other unknown force will counteract that of the water's upward push. This also implies the net upward force is equal to the weight of the water displaced by the object.

Since the upward force of water only comes because of an imbalance in the forces above and below the object, what if we removed all the water above something? For instance, ice, at around .9 grams per cubic centimeter, if placed just under the water, will experience an upward force of waterbelow - (waterabove + airabove). But when it suddenly breaks the surface, there's no more water above it, completely removing that portion of the equation. Thus the upward force should be suddenly much greater than it was when it was just beneath surface.

But the ice floats only just atop the water, such that only 10% is not submerged. This means it's still displacing its own weight in water. What could be keeping it that low if not this unknown force?

This unknown force seems to act on the mass, not size, of an object since the 20 cm foam ball floated whilst the 20 cm steel ball sank when put in the same conditions. So, we've got a downward force that's dependent on the mass of objects.

Why don't we call this force 'gravity'? That would certainly explain why helium balloons float whilst carbon-dioxide balloons don't--helium is lighter than air, and thus this downward force based on its mass can't counteract the upward force of the air. Carbon-dioxide, on the other hand, is heavier, and thus this downward based on its mass does counteract the upward force of the air.
If the density of an object is more dense than the water, it will sink and if it's dense enough and the water is deep enough, it will be compressed as it sinks further, making it smaller as the water pressure starts to crush it.
If the water is not deep enough, the ball will simply hit the bottom and stay there under whatever pressure the water puts on it.
The only time it will be moved is when there is a current acting on it, other wise it's the balls weight acted upon by the waters pressure with the sea floor being the last line of resistance.
Over time, depending on the solidity of the sea floor, the metal ball would eventually sink deeper and deeper into it, until it's density matched that of the depth under that floor.

Every element has its place and if left alone, all the elements of earth would go back to their natural place in that sandwich layer.
It might be 10,000 years or more or whatever but that's what would happen, because nothing is destroyed.
You managed to repeat the observations whilst ignoring the logic arising from those observations. That takes ... a kind of skill, I guess.

So, assuming you're fantasies are correct, why haven't the elements arranged themselves in their layers, yet? You've said we're completely isolated from the outside universe by the nitrogen ice (heavier than hydrogen ice, but whatever). So what's not "leaving the elements alone" for them to reach their rightful places?

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28541
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #101 on: August 16, 2013, 04:13:26 PM »
The earth is spewing those heavier elements out through steam from geysers and volcanic eruptions which are the result of the centralised glowing heat and light from the earth that we see as the reflected sun off of the ice dome.
The water is the coolant that allows life to exist but the earth is expanding as it dies due to the spill effect of the molten rock that finds its way through the cracks and fissures under the sea which in turn forms land.
When I say dying, I don't mean the earth will be no more. I mean it;s a cycle for the earth as well, as in, in time, it will expand no more and start to cool down meaning the dome shrinks and everything else starts to freeze then condense until it becomes a point in time, maybe millions of years, when it restarts the whole building process all over again.

By the way, look up nitrogen in certain states against helium and such and you may be surprised.

?

#### SuperHater7810

• 187
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #102 on: August 16, 2013, 04:55:54 PM »
Quote from: sceptimatic link=topic= 8)59595.msg1527398#msg1527398 date=1376691545
Gravity is what causes weight. You haven't explained yet how air pressure can cause weight. Mabye when you do i might change my mind about gravity.
Ok then, explain what this gravity is. Just tell me what it is and how it makes the weight of an object.
Well for a verry basic expination. Matter attracts matter. The more matter am object contains the greater its atraction to other objects.
Im a tractor

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28541
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #103 on: August 16, 2013, 05:08:11 PM »
Quote from: sceptimatic link=topic= 8)59595.msg1527398#msg1527398 date=1376691545
Gravity is what causes weight. You haven't explained yet how air pressure can cause weight. Mabye when you do i might change my mind about gravity.
Ok then, explain what this gravity is. Just tell me what it is and how it makes the weight of an object.
Well for a verry basic expination. Matter attracts matter. The more matter am object contains the greater its atraction to other objects.
So what is this force that attracts this matter to matter. Let's take the sun, as you believe it to be in space. What keeps the moon from smashing into this sun or what stops the moon crashing into earth.
If this gravity is an attraction of mass to mass, why is it repelling the moon and being repelled by the sun, plus all other so called planets.
In this so called near vacuum of space, what is this force that can somehow manifest itself in a basically particle less near vacuum that you and others hang onto.

It's amazing how atmospheric pressure can be scoffed at and yet this fictional gravity that requires no real explanation other than, "oh, mass attracts mass"...

?

#### SuperHater7810

• 187
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #104 on: August 16, 2013, 05:29:53 PM »
There are two forces at play regarding the earth and moon. Gravity pulling the two towards each other and the centrifugal force of the moon rotating about the earth pulling it away from the earth. These two forces keep the moon in a fairly stable orbit around the earth.
No body rightly knows what causes matter to be atracted to matter. Even thow we have a fair idea of what might. But we know that it does.  And it does a good job of explaining why objects fall to the ground.
your air pressure thing that your going on about on the other hand doesnt realy explain anything.
Im a tractor

?

#### EarthIsASpaceship

• 1727
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #105 on: August 16, 2013, 05:38:38 PM »
There are two forces at play regarding the earth and moon. Gravity pulling the two towards each other and the centrifugal force of the moon rotating about the earth pulling it away from the earth. These two forces keep the moon in a fairly stable orbit around the earth.
No body rightly knows what causes matter to be atracted to matter. Even thow we have a fair idea of what might. But we know that it does.  And it does a good job of explaining why objects fall to the ground.
your air pressure thing that your going on about on the other hand doesnt realy explain anything.

Gravity doesn't explain anything... "the natural force of attraction"?  Attraction can be caused by many things.

?

#### SuperHater7810

• 187
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #106 on: August 16, 2013, 05:40:18 PM »
What do you mean?
Im a tractor

?

#### EarthIsASpaceship

• 1727
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #107 on: August 16, 2013, 06:18:18 PM »
That's the definition of gravity.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28541
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #108 on: August 16, 2013, 06:23:38 PM »
There are two forces at play regarding the earth and moon. Gravity pulling the two towards each other and the centrifugal force of the moon rotating about the earth pulling it away from the earth. These two forces keep the moon in a fairly stable orbit around the earth.
No body rightly knows what causes matter to be atracted to matter. Even thow we have a fair idea of what might. But we know that it does.  And it does a good job of explaining why objects fall to the ground.
your air pressure thing that your going on about on the other hand doesnt realy explain anything.
Nobody knows what causes matter to be attracted to matter  and yet air pressure solves that riddle but is discounted because it doesn't solve the the space rubbish.

It's like someone saying, oh we know a bus tyre rolls along the floor easy because gravity is inside of it but we don't know why, then someone says, it's just air pressure , to be told, don;t be silly, it's an unknown force called gravity.

That's what main stream science does to people.

?

#### REphoenix

• 984
• Round Earther
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #109 on: August 16, 2013, 08:19:43 PM »
Air pressure is not the answer. Air pressure pushes equally in all directions.

Weight doesn't solve this problem because weight is caused by the "imaginary" force of gravity.
Anyone with a phoenix avatar is clearly amazing.

?

#### FETlolcakes

• 233
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #110 on: August 16, 2013, 08:59:11 PM »

Why would a feather and a steel ball in a vacuum chamber fall at the same rate (vastly different densities) or fall at all (ie. no air) if you assert that gravity doesn't exist and that it is all just 'air pressure'?

The artificially created vacuum is at least 99.9% perfect, so please don't attempt to explain it by saying that it isn't a perfect vacuum.

?

#### hewholikespie

• 249
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #111 on: August 16, 2013, 11:46:54 PM »
There are two forces at play regarding the earth and moon. Gravity pulling the two towards each other and the centrifugal force of the moon rotating about the earth pulling it away from the earth. These two forces keep the moon in a fairly stable orbit around the earth.
No body rightly knows what causes matter to be atracted to matter. Even thow we have a fair idea of what might. But we know that it does.  And it does a good job of explaining why objects fall to the ground.
your air pressure thing that your going on about on the other hand doesnt realy explain anything.
Nobody knows what causes matter to be attracted to matter  and yet air pressure solves that riddle but is discounted because it doesn't solve the the space rubbish.

Air pressue doesn't solve the riddle at all because the air is not chemically sorted. Even at the most rarified levels, the mixture of chemicals is the same.

Quote
It's like someone saying, oh we know a bus tyre rolls along the floor easy because gravity is inside of it but we don't know why, then someone says, it's just air pressure , to be told, don;t be silly, it's an unknown force called gravity.

That's what main stream science does to people.

This situation is in no way comparable to someone saying gravity is responsible for inflating a tire. For one, everyone here knows that you use air of some sort to inflate a tire.

But Air pressure, like water pressure, acts with a net upwards force when at rest- or as at rest as air ever gets, because of equalization of pressure differentials. Higher pressure always rushes to fill lower pressure if able, trying to equalize. If there was not an outside force acting on air, it WOULDN'T get any thinner as you went up in the atmosphere, it would achieve homeostasis throughout.

?

#### Alex Tomasovich

• 1030
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #112 on: August 17, 2013, 02:04:35 AM »
By the way, look up nitrogen in certain states against helium and such and you may be surprised.

Nitrogen is 14 times denser than hydrogen in both frozen and gaseous states. Liquid nitrogen is 11 times denser than liquid hydrogen. Though maybe if you think about it hard enough, the universe will change to your wishful thinking.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28541
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #113 on: August 17, 2013, 04:02:45 AM »
There are two forces at play regarding the earth and moon. Gravity pulling the two towards each other and the centrifugal force of the moon rotating about the earth pulling it away from the earth. These two forces keep the moon in a fairly stable orbit around the earth.
No body rightly knows what causes matter to be atracted to matter. Even thow we have a fair idea of what might. But we know that it does.  And it does a good job of explaining why objects fall to the ground.
your air pressure thing that your going on about on the other hand doesnt realy explain anything.
Atmospheric pressure explains everything on this earth that scientists say gravity is.
The gravity ruse makes no sense in that, we are told it's this "unknown" invisible force and yet it's hung onto because people believe that solid balls of planets and nuclear suns are whizzing around each other.

People seem to have lost the ability to look at things logically and simply. Basically, if it's not a complicated load of mumbo jumbo, then it's not space science. No wonder people just accept it all.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28541
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #114 on: August 17, 2013, 04:06:00 AM »
Air pressure is not the answer. Air pressure pushes equally in all directions.

Weight doesn't solve this problem because weight is caused by the "imaginary" force of gravity.
It doesn't push equally in all directions.
And you are correct about gravity...it is imaginary.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28541
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #115 on: August 17, 2013, 04:22:52 AM »

Why would a feather and a steel ball in a vacuum chamber fall at the same rate (vastly different densities) or fall at all (ie. no air) if you assert that gravity doesn't exist and that it is all just 'air pressure'?

The artificially created vacuum is at least 99.9% perfect, so please don't attempt to explain it by saying that it isn't a perfect vacuum.
If you want to believe an artificial vacuum is 99.9% perfect, then go ahead. The fact is, it's not perfect, which means it still holds matter in an expanded state and in a light state.

Let's equate that to a simple way of describing why your feather and ball drop at the same time inside the chamber.
In a chamber without evacuation, we will see the ball drop and the feather follow it and land a little bit later due to air friction acting on the less dense/lighter feather.
Evacuate most of the air and you also evacuate most of the friction that stopped that feather from falling as fast, so dropping both in that environment in the short distance it happens, will allow the feather to drop, almost effortlessly through the minute amount of friction that is left inside of the chamber.

All the ball and feather experiment proves, is that air pressure is responsible for what we are told is gravity but the weight/mass of any object is used to con people into believing gravity is responsible for that weight, when it's simply made up of more compact elements that become heavier that the air they displace due to this.
Everything on this earth is under pressure in varying stages from super dense to super light and that's it.
It doesn't need to be complicated. It's only the arrogance of science that makes it all complicated so us mere mortals, the sheep, cannot comprehend it, so accept it rather than have our heads explode trying to decipher what is basically a pure load of fiction with most of this earth shape and space nonsense.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28541
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #116 on: August 17, 2013, 04:34:50 AM »

Quote from: hewholikespie
Air pressue doesn't solve the riddle at all because the air is not chemically sorted. Even at the most rarified levels, the mixture of chemicals is the same.

What do you mean "not chemically sorted"...I don't know what you are getting at here.

Quote from: hewholikespie
This situation is in no way comparable to someone saying gravity is responsible for inflating a tire. For one, everyone here knows that you use air of some sort to inflate a tire.

It was a tongue in cheek comment, because that's how the scientific world hang onto fictional stuff and give out ridiculous answers to describe how things work. Don't get me wrong. It's a good fairy story and it's easy to see why the con works. It just doesn't fool all of the people, just most who accept it for what it is.
I keep hearing and seeing people say, "it's true, it's true, I've done experiments to p[rove this and that"...the real truth is, there's no experiment that verifies a fictional force, the same as there's no experiment to verify a black hole, yet here we have it, black holes and warped space time and all the rest of this incredible load of baloney that we get saturated with.

Quote from: hewholikespie
But Air pressure, like water pressure, acts with a net upwards force when at rest- or as at rest as air ever gets, because of equalization of pressure differentials. Higher pressure always rushes to fill lower pressure if able, trying to equalize. If there was not an outside force acting on air, it WOULDN'T get any thinner as you went up in the atmosphere, it would achieve homeostasis throughout.
What's all this net upward force stuff?
Water does not act with any upward force, unless a lighter element is forced into it, pushing it out of the way, which means it acts with a side on force or all around force that squeezes the lighter element back to the top.
It's like squeezing toothpaste out of a tube, this is how it all works.

?

#### rottingroom

• 4785
• Around the world.
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #117 on: August 17, 2013, 06:12:19 AM »
Scepti, it's an understatement that you have a problem with the word gravity.

A common characteristic of scientific theories is that they don't graduate to laws or facts because with current knowledge we don't know "how" they really work. What we do know as matter of fact is the observable and apparent behavior or results of the theory, whatever that may be. Whether it's evolution (for which we have directly observed evidence), or gravity (for which we have observed apparent behavior).

It is apparent that masses are attracted to each other. We can see that (you can say that there is no moon or whatever but that is besides the point). We don't know as a matter of fact why or how masses do this, but it's apparent that they do. We call this gravity. You contest that gravity isn't real and seem upset that scientists would claim to know how gravity works but it seems you are fighting an invisible enemy (the scientific community) here because scientists may suggest ideas about how gravity works but none claim that they know how. The only claim is that it does what is apparent.

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 28541
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #118 on: August 17, 2013, 06:45:39 AM »
Scepti, it's an understatement that you have a problem with the word gravity.

A common characteristic of scientific theories is that they don't graduate to laws or facts because with current knowledge we don't know "how" they really work. What we do know as matter of fact is the observable and apparent behavior or results of the theory, whatever that may be. Whether it's evolution (for which we have directly observed evidence), or gravity (for which we have observed apparent behavior).

It is apparent that masses are attracted to each other. We can see that (you can say that there is no moon or whatever but that is besides the point). We don't know as a matter of fact why or how masses do this, but it's apparent that they do. We call this gravity. You contest that gravity isn't real and seem upset that scientists would claim to know how gravity works but it seems you are fighting an invisible enemy (the scientific community) here because scientists may suggest ideas about how gravity works but none claim that they know how. The only claim is that it does what is apparent.
You say masses are attracted to each other. On earth, tell me how.
If you mean that masses are attracted to each other as in dropping an object and it hitting the floor, this explains nothing.
So if masses attract each other, explain how this happens on earth and where you see this happening on a perfectly flat surface.

I contest that gravity isn't real, because it isn't real. It's made up to explain the reason why things supposedly orbit in the vacuum of space.
Newton supposedly sussed out this gravity all those years ago and yet here we are much more technologically advanced and we still have no clue what the hell it is, except that it must be a force because mass attracts mass and it solves the space issues of supposed planets not colliding into each other yet somehow repelling as well as attracting but is counteracted by immense speeds and rotations that stop this happening, supposedly in a near vacuum and yet this gravity somehow just works as an invisible force.

Kids fairy stories sound 100% more believable.

?

#### SuperHater7810

• 187
##### Re: Sceptimatics theory
« Reply #119 on: August 17, 2013, 02:11:55 PM »
Well even if we dont know exactly what it is. At least we know how it works and it makes sense.
Verry much unlike your air pressure bollox.
Im a tractor