Were all 130 space shuttle launches faked?

Seriously scepti, no it hasn't. The fact that you think it has just makes you look crazy, not right.

Seriously scepti, no it hasn't. The fact that you think it has just makes you look crazy, not right.

I've explained it very patiently and rather well. I can't do any more than that. How people view it, is entirely up to them. All I say to anyone is, try your utmost to see what I'm saying and you may actually start to see a more realistic view of your Earth, rather than the one you have been force fed all your lives.

I'm fine because I know how it all works. I can't expect people to simply jump onboard and see it for the truth it is. It will take time for people to grasp. Firstly, gravity has to be flushed from the mind. To do this, you have to concentrate on Earth and not even give space a second thought if you are ever going to udnerstand what I'm saying.

Once you grasp it and fine tune it, you will start to see why space is not the amazing endless universe we have been told to accept.

I can make up my own science and explain it patiently too.

That wouldn't make it true.

Nothing you say matches reality. The problem lies in the fact you don't know enough about science to even begin to invent your own. But the effort you give is valiant. I'll give you that.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 26, 2014, 06:37:22 AM

Seriously scepti, no it hasn't. The fact that you think it has just makes you look crazy, not right.

I've explained it very patiently and rather well. I can't do any more than that. How people view it, is entirely up to them. All I say to anyone is, try your utmost to see what I'm saying and you may actually start to see a more realistic view of your Earth, rather than the one you have been force fed all your lives.

I'm fine because I know how it all works. I can't expect people to simply jump onboard and see it for the truth it is. It will take time for people to grasp. Firstly, gravity has to be flushed from the mind. To do this, you have to concentrate on Earth and not even give space a second thought if you are ever going to udnerstand what I'm saying.

Once you grasp it and fine tune it, you will start to see why space is not the amazing endless universe we have been told to accept.

You've tried to yes. Did it actually explain anything? No, it was nonsense. You can't see this because your crazy. This is inevitably where this type of discussion must lead with you because that is the reason why you come up with nonsense. Not because your nonsense makes sense but because you have a mental condition.

I can make up my own science and explain it patiently too.

That wouldn't make it true.

Nothing you say matches reality. The problem lies in the fact you don't know enough about science to even begin to invent your own. But the effort you give is valiant. I'll give you that.

You are more than welcome to your opinion. I can't change anyones thoughts. Mainstream science is unquestionable to you and fair enough. Follow it and be happy with it. I'm not happy with it and I will follow my own path of thought whilst avoiding branching off.

I am one billion percent sure in my mind that the Earth is not a rotating globe. I am also one billion percent sure that gravity and space does not exist in how we are told it does.

For those reasons I have to look at why. I'm starting to see why. It's just a case of applying logic to the ridiculous formulas put out that describe the fantasy that people have bought into.

Yes, I know I'm crazy and you say I'm wrong. Fair enough, I get it. Don't expend too much energy telling me I'm wrong, prove I'm wrong.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 06:46:11 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 26, 2014, 06:37:22 AM

Seriously scepti, no it hasn't. The fact that you think it has just makes you look crazy, not right.

I've explained it very patiently and rather well. I can't do any more than that. How people view it, is entirely up to them. All I say to anyone is, try your utmost to see what I'm saying and you may actually start to see a more realistic view of your Earth, rather than the one you have been force fed all your lives.

I'm fine because I know how it all works. I can't expect people to simply jump onboard and see it for the truth it is. It will take time for people to grasp. Firstly, gravity has to be flushed from the mind. To do this, you have to concentrate on Earth and not even give space a second thought if you are ever going to udnerstand what I'm saying.

Once you grasp it and fine tune it, you will start to see why space is not the amazing endless universe we have been told to accept.

You've tried to yes. Did it actually explain anything? No, it was nonsense. You can't see this because your crazy. This is inevitably where this type of discussion must lead with you because that is the reason why you come up with nonsense. Not because your nonsense makes sense but because you have a mental condition.

And weirdly my mental condition would be miraculously cured if I regurgitated the global Earth heliocentric model with all the trimmings. It's amazing what  mainstream medicine can cure, isn't it.

I'll stick to my mental condition thanks.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 26, 2014, 06:50:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 06:46:11 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 26, 2014, 06:37:22 AM

Seriously scepti, no it hasn't. The fact that you think it has just makes you look crazy, not right.

I've explained it very patiently and rather well. I can't do any more than that. How people view it, is entirely up to them. All I say to anyone is, try your utmost to see what I'm saying and you may actually start to see a more realistic view of your Earth, rather than the one you have been force fed all your lives.

I'm fine because I know how it all works. I can't expect people to simply jump onboard and see it for the truth it is. It will take time for people to grasp. Firstly, gravity has to be flushed from the mind. To do this, you have to concentrate on Earth and not even give space a second thought if you are ever going to udnerstand what I'm saying.

Once you grasp it and fine tune it, you will start to see why space is not the amazing endless universe we have been told to accept.

You've tried to yes. Did it actually explain anything? No, it was nonsense. You can't see this because your crazy. This is inevitably where this type of discussion must lead with you because that is the reason why you come up with nonsense. Not because your nonsense makes sense but because you have a mental condition.

And weirdly my mental condition would be miraculously cured if I regurgiated the global Earth heliocentric model with all the trimmings. It's amazing what  mainstream medicine can cure, isn't it.

I'll stick to my mental condition thanks.

No, it wouldn't be. This is about not recognizing the difference between nonsense and the alternative. You'd obviously be indoctrinated by us at this point if you just gave up and agreed. You've demonstrated that you are just incapable of actually getting it. I don't prescribe to all that because of some ebb and flow. I follow what makes sense because I can recognize sense. You can't do that.

You are more than welcome to your opinion.

Well thanks but I don't remember asking for permission.

Mainstream science is unquestionable to you

Please point out where I have ever said this.

I am one billion percent sure in my mind that the Earth is not a rotating globe. I am also one billion percent sure that gravity and space does not exist in how we are told it does.

For those reasons I have to look at why. I'm starting to see why.

Here is where you prove you're an idiot.

You came up with an opinion.............and then looked for reasons to validate them.

In reality..........you see evidence and form opinions on it. That is how an actual thought process works. Observe something, investigate it, and produce your findings.

You do it the opposite. Decide in your mind something is not right and produce an alternate explanation that doesn't come from observation but from the depths of your own mind.

Don't expend too much energy telling me I'm wrong, prove I'm wrong.

You've already been proven wrong. Multiple times by multiple posters.

You just refuse to accept it.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 26, 2014, 06:50:31 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 06:46:11 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 26, 2014, 06:37:22 AM

Seriously scepti, no it hasn't. The fact that you think it has just makes you look crazy, not right.

I've explained it very patiently and rather well. I can't do any more than that. How people view it, is entirely up to them. All I say to anyone is, try your utmost to see what I'm saying and you may actually start to see a more realistic view of your Earth, rather than the one you have been force fed all your lives.

I'm fine because I know how it all works. I can't expect people to simply jump onboard and see it for the truth it is. It will take time for people to grasp. Firstly, gravity has to be flushed from the mind. To do this, you have to concentrate on Earth and not even give space a second thought if you are ever going to udnerstand what I'm saying.

Once you grasp it and fine tune it, you will start to see why space is not the amazing endless universe we have been told to accept.

You've tried to yes. Did it actually explain anything? No, it was nonsense. You can't see this because your crazy. This is inevitably where this type of discussion must lead with you because that is the reason why you come up with nonsense. Not because your nonsense makes sense but because you have a mental condition.

And weirdly my mental condition would be miraculously cured if I regurgitated the global Earth heliocentric model with all the trimmings. It's amazing what  mainstream medicine can cure, isn't it.

I'll stick to my mental condition thanks.

You'll notice that not even the other FEers support your ideas. When the other people who reject orthodox science won't touch you with a ten foot pole you should perhaps consider that your idea is poorly conceived and/or badly explained.

No, it wouldn't be. This is about not recognizing the difference between nonsense and the alternative. You'd obviously be indoctrinated by us at this point if you just gave up and agreed. You've demonstrated that you are just incapable of actually getting it. I don't prescribe to all that because of some ebb and flow. I follow what makes sense because I can recognize sense. You can't do that.

You followed the model given to you. You studied what was put in front of you. You acted out what you were ordered to do. Your choices were not your own.
You continue to follow the same model to this very day, because your mind has been saturated to such a point that it is extremely hard to see anything other than that.
Everything has been made to make sense, no matter how outlandish the theory is, it still got put into fine tune the lie. You hecked it out and believed it all fits, without actually sitting down and thinking, "wait a minute, let me think on all the stuff that has been made up to make this model fit."

You accept gravity because of supposed ago old stories.
You accept warped space time because some person who was put on a pedestal, in your face as a genius theorised it.
You accept special relativity for the same reasons.
You accept them because they appear to fit. You don't even wonder why they fit or what they are. You simply accept all of this without any physical proof or any ability to challenge it, because challenging it requires knowing what the hell you are actually challenging, which is an impossibility, because it does not exist, except in someones mind who made it all up to the saturation of your mind.

Logical science literally is not allowed to exist as any theory. If logic explains the complexity of teh what science world gave out, then the person who logically explained it, is banished and called a complete mentally challenged lunatic.

That's how it works.

Those things weren't made up to fit the model.

They were discovered and they fit because they're real.

Logic alone can explain the external world now? Never mind that your ideas are not logical anyway, but even if they were, you can't determine anything about the external with just your own logic. We are discussing what is and isn't true about something separate from the innards of yourself. Empiricism is crucial to the discussion. And so it goes, there isn't much left to say about the subject. If there is an audience then we both agree they have the information they need to make a decision. I only say to you, personally, that I genuinely recommend help.

You'll notice that not even the other FEers support your ideas. When the other people who reject orthodox science won't touch you with a ten foot pole you should perhaps consider that your idea is poorly conceived and/or badly explained.

I'm under no illusions whatsoever about what most flat Earther theorists think of me. It's irrelevant what they think, just as it is with what you people think. I don't need back up for my theories.
Flat Earth theorists have their own way of thinking. If you've noticed, I don't jump in and tell them they are wrong. They have UA and all the other stuff. Most of it differs with mine, so why would they support a theory of mine if it goes against their theory? They wouldn't, unless they genunely see something in it.
most don't even look at what I say. Thay hold me in worse contempt than you people do. However - I respect them. I respect them because they can think for themselves.

I'm not like many global Earth indocs. I don't need back up. I fight my corner mostly on my own, with sometimes the odd person who will come in and have similar thoughts on some of my stuff.

I regularly take on about 10 at a time of you people. I try my utmost to be a nice as I possibly can amid an onslaught. I also try my best to answer every post worth answering.


That's just how I am.

Logic alone can explain the external world now? Never mind that your ideas are not logical anyway, but even if they were, you can't determine anything about the external with just your own logic. We are discussing what is and isn't true about something separate from the innards of yourself. Empiricism is crucial to the discussion. And so it goes, there isn't much left to say about the subject. If there is an audience then we both agree they have the information they need to make a decision. I only say to you, personally, that I genuinely recommend help.

If I need help I'll seek it. At the moment, I'm absolutely fine, Dr.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 26, 2014, 07:21:43 AM

Logic alone can explain the external world now? Never mind that your ideas are not logical anyway, but even if they were, you can't determine anything about the external with just your own logic. We are discussing what is and isn't true about something separate from the innards of yourself. Empiricism is crucial to the discussion. And so it goes, there isn't much left to say about the subject. If there is an audience then we both agree they have the information they need to make a decision. I only say to you, personally, that I genuinely recommend help.

If I need help I'll seek it. At the moment, I'm absolutely fine, Dr.

That's precisely what a crazy person would say.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 26, 2014, 07:07:31 AM

You'll notice that not even the other FEers support your ideas. When the other people who reject orthodox science won't touch you with a ten foot pole you should perhaps consider that your idea is poorly conceived and/or badly explained.

I'm under no illusions whatsoever about what most flat Earther theorists think of me. It's irrelevant what they think, just as it is with what you people think. I don't need back up for my theories.
Flat Earth theorists have their own way of thinking. If you've noticed, I don't jump in and tell them they are wrong. They have UA and all the other stuff. Most of it differs with mine, so why would they support a theory of mine if it goes against their theory? They wouldn't, unless they genunely see something in it.
most don't even look at what I say. Thay hold me in worse contempt than you people do. However - I respect them. I respect them because they can think for themselves.

I'm not like many global Earth indocs. I don't need back up. I fight my corner mostly on my own, with sometimes the odd person who will come in and have similar thoughts on some of my stuff.

I regularly take on about 10 at a time of you people. I try my utmost to be a nice as I possibly can amid an onslaught. I also try my best to answer every post worth answering.


That's just how I am.

You don't try to be nice either.

My point in all this is only that your world view cannot accurately describe anything, you can only do it generally in a visualizing sort of way and even when you do so, you are regularly shown examples of how observation does not match what you say. When this happens you claim everyone else is wrong. More people believed Jesus was the son of God before he resurrected than believe you know how to even open a textbook or do an experiment. Gotta admire your commitment though. (That was a compliment, something nice people give from time to time)

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 07:22:12 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 26, 2014, 07:07:31 AM

You'll notice that not even the other FEers support your ideas. When the other people who reject orthodox science won't touch you with a ten foot pole you should perhaps consider that your idea is poorly conceived and/or badly explained.

I'm under no illusions whatsoever about what most flat Earther theorists think of me. It's irrelevant what they think, just as it is with what you people think. I don't need back up for my theories.
Flat Earth theorists have their own way of thinking. If you've noticed, I don't jump in and tell them they are wrong. They have UA and all the other stuff. Most of it differs with mine, so why would they support a theory of mine if it goes against their theory? They wouldn't, unless they genunely see something in it.
most don't even look at what I say. Thay hold me in worse contempt than you people do. However - I respect them. I respect them because they can think for themselves.

I'm not like many global Earth indocs. I don't need back up. I fight my corner mostly on my own, with sometimes the odd person who will come in and have similar thoughts on some of my stuff.

I regularly take on about 10 at a time of you people. I try my utmost to be a nice as I possibly can amid an onslaught. I also try my best to answer every post worth answering.


That's just how I am.

You don't try to be nice either.

My point in all this is only that your world view cannot accurately describe anything, you can only do it generally in a visualizing sort of way and even when you do so, you are regularly shown examples of how observation does not match what you say. When this happens you claim everyone else is wrong. More people believed Jesus was the son of God before he resurrected than believe you know how to even open a textbook or do an experiment. Gotta admire your commitment though. (That was a compliment, something nice people give from time to time)

Oh I think I am being nice, plus calm. I mean how many people do you know that can answer a huge influx of posts like I do and being told they are nuts, crazy, need mental health care, etc, etc...and still be as nice as I'm being?

Oh - and thanks for the compliment.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 04:54:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 25, 2014, 04:00:49 PM

Quote from: evildylan on July 25, 2014, 12:57:34 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 12:50:54 PM

Quote from: evildylan on July 25, 2014, 12:40:42 PM

Let me get this straight, pressure makes one weight more or less according to the amount of pressure they are experiencing?

Is this correct?

That's what he's claiming. But for some reason nobody notices a 25% reduction in their weight while flying. Probably because we're all so indoctrinated.

Maybe he can answer why things don't weigh ridiculous amounts when under water. Seeing as how under water the pressure is much greater, especially down deep.

I mean I should need to keep inflating my BCD to maintain neutral buoyancy the deeper I go, correct?

Put some scales on water and step on them. Tell me what you weigh?

The scale would read less under water. Why is that when according to your "logic" the pressure should push you down even harder? Why is it people float in water but not in air, if pressure and density are the key to weight?

Your body has a lot of air in it. It is also made up of mostly water. Your lungs are floatation devices, like a swim bladder on a fish.
In water you weigh nothing. That's why you can float, because the air pressure above you cannot push your body area with resisting air down and the denser water is pushing your body up, so you float, essentially. No scale is going to measure that, unless you were inside a water tank that was sat on a large scale.

So the pressure from air pushes you down, but the pressure from water (which is higher) pushes you up? Why is that?

Quote from: bravimone on July 26, 2014, 04:48:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 04:42:21 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 04:51:21 PM

Are you saying you can't plot a trajectory based on gravity?

Considering I've spent a long time telling you that gravity DOES NOT EXIST, I'd say that answer should already be ingrained into your mind.

Then how is it possible that the calculations using it work perfectly?

Apart from space, show me a calculation based on gravity that proves gravity needs to be involved, that atmospheric pressure can't equally match.

Drop a feather in an evacuated chamber. There's next to no air in the chamber, yet it falls much faster than when air is present. Obviously there is a force pulling on the feather that air normally opposes.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 04:58:08 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 04:54:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 25, 2014, 04:00:49 PM

Quote from: evildylan on July 25, 2014, 12:57:34 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 12:50:54 PM

Quote from: evildylan on July 25, 2014, 12:40:42 PM

Let me get this straight, pressure makes one weight more or less according to the amount of pressure they are experiencing?

Is this correct?

That's what he's claiming. But for some reason nobody notices a 25% reduction in their weight while flying. Probably because we're all so indoctrinated.

Maybe he can answer why things don't weigh ridiculous amounts when under water. Seeing as how under water the pressure is much greater, especially down deep.

I mean I should need to keep inflating my BCD to maintain neutral buoyancy the deeper I go, correct?

Put some scales on water and step on them. Tell me what you weigh?

The scale would read less under water. Why is that when according to your "logic" the pressure should push you down even harder? Why is it people float in water but not in air, if pressure and density are the key to weight?

Your body has a lot of air in it. It is also made up of mostly water. Your lungs are floatation devices, like a swim bladder on a fish.
In water you weigh nothing. That's why you can float, because the air pressure above you cannot push your body area with resisting air down and the denser water is pushing your body up, so you float, essentially. No scale is going to measure that, unless you were inside a water tank that was sat on a large scale.

So the pressure from air pushes you down, but the pressure from water (which is higher) pushes you up? Why is that?

Because your body is already full of air/gas.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 05:58:40 AM

Quote from: bravimone on July 26, 2014, 04:48:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 04:42:21 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 04:51:21 PM

Are you saying you can't plot a trajectory based on gravity?

Considering I've spent a long time telling you that gravity DOES NOT EXIST, I'd say that answer should already be ingrained into your mind.

Then how is it possible that the calculations using it work perfectly?

Apart from space, show me a calculation based on gravity that proves gravity needs to be involved, that atmospheric pressure can't equally match.

Drop a feather in an evacuated chamber. There's next to no air in the chamber, yet it falls much faster than when air is present. Obviously there is a force pulling on the feather that air normally opposes.

There's no force pulling on the feather. The feather has been placed into that position using energy. It's density is now potential energy which becomes energy when it's dropped. It simply more easily overcomes resistance due to the more expanded molecules in that environment.

If I let go of a helium balloon, why doesn't gravity pull that down?

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 26, 2014, 10:53:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 04:58:08 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 04:54:57 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 25, 2014, 04:00:49 PM

Quote from: evildylan on July 25, 2014, 12:57:34 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 12:50:54 PM

Quote from: evildylan on July 25, 2014, 12:40:42 PM

Let me get this straight, pressure makes one weight more or less according to the amount of pressure they are experiencing?

Is this correct?

That's what he's claiming. But for some reason nobody notices a 25% reduction in their weight while flying. Probably because we're all so indoctrinated.

Maybe he can answer why things don't weigh ridiculous amounts when under water. Seeing as how under water the pressure is much greater, especially down deep.

I mean I should need to keep inflating my BCD to maintain neutral buoyancy the deeper I go, correct?

Put some scales on water and step on them. Tell me what you weigh?

The scale would read less under water. Why is that when according to your "logic" the pressure should push you down even harder? Why is it people float in water but not in air, if pressure and density are the key to weight?

Your body has a lot of air in it. It is also made up of mostly water. Your lungs are floatation devices, like a swim bladder on a fish.
In water you weigh nothing. That's why you can float, because the air pressure above you cannot push your body area with resisting air down and the denser water is pushing your body up, so you float, essentially. No scale is going to measure that, unless you were inside a water tank that was sat on a large scale.

So the pressure from air pushes you down, but the pressure from water (which is higher) pushes you up? Why is that?

Because your body is already full of air/gas.

Speak for yourself.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 26, 2014, 10:58:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 05:58:40 AM

Quote from: bravimone on July 26, 2014, 04:48:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 04:42:21 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 04:51:21 PM

Are you saying you can't plot a trajectory based on gravity?

Considering I've spent a long time telling you that gravity DOES NOT EXIST, I'd say that answer should already be ingrained into your mind.

Then how is it possible that the calculations using it work perfectly?

Apart from space, show me a calculation based on gravity that proves gravity needs to be involved, that atmospheric pressure can't equally match.

Drop a feather in an evacuated chamber. There's next to no air in the chamber, yet it falls much faster than when air is present. Obviously there is a force pulling on the feather that air normally opposes.

There's no force pulling on the feather. The feather has been placed into that position using energy. It's density is now potential energy which becomes energy when it's dropped. It simply more easily overcomes resistance due to the more expanded molecules in that environment.

If I let go of a helium balloon, why doesn't gravity pull that down?

If there weren't any air, it would fall down. Presuming that the pressure from the Helium didn't pop the balloon of course. Actually, it can fall in air as well (watch at 2:25):

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Edit: And here's an example of a helium balloon falling under partial vacuum:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 11:10:50 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 26, 2014, 10:58:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 05:58:40 AM

Quote from: bravimone on July 26, 2014, 04:48:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 04:42:21 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 04:51:21 PM

Are you saying you can't plot a trajectory based on gravity?

Considering I've spent a long time telling you that gravity DOES NOT EXIST, I'd say that answer should already be ingrained into your mind.

Then how is it possible that the calculations using it work perfectly?

Apart from space, show me a calculation based on gravity that proves gravity needs to be involved, that atmospheric pressure can't equally match.

Drop a feather in an evacuated chamber. There's next to no air in the chamber, yet it falls much faster than when air is present. Obviously there is a force pulling on the feather that air normally opposes.

There's no force pulling on the feather. The feather has been placed into that position using energy. It's density is now potential energy which becomes energy when it's dropped. It simply more easily overcomes resistance due to the more expanded molecules in that environment.

If I let go of a helium balloon, why doesn't gravity pull that down?

If there weren't any air, it would fall down. Presuming that the pressure from the Helium didn't pop the balloon of course. Actually, it can fall in air as well (watch at 2:25):

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Amazing. So cooling the balloon makes the contents of it take up less space? You don't say? Let's see scepti come up with another isolated excuse.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 26, 2014, 10:58:19 AM

Drop a feather in an evacuated chamber. There's next to no air in the chamber, yet it falls much faster than when air is present. Obviously there is a force pulling on the feather that air normally opposes.

There's no force pulling on the feather. The feather has been placed into that position using energy. It's density is now potential energy which becomes energy when it's dropped. It simply more easily overcomes resistance due to the more expanded molecules in that environment.

If I let go of a helium balloon, why doesn't gravity pull that down?

How can the thing that's resisting the fall be the thing that's causing the fall?

When you lift the feather, why does it gain potential energy? When you drop it, why does does that potential energy become kinetic energy? If it's because of a thing's density, why would a lead ball and a rubber ball fall at the same rate when lead is more dense?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 11:10:50 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 26, 2014, 10:58:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 05:58:40 AM

Quote from: bravimone on July 26, 2014, 04:48:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 04:42:21 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 04:51:21 PM

Are you saying you can't plot a trajectory based on gravity?

Considering I've spent a long time telling you that gravity DOES NOT EXIST, I'd say that answer should already be ingrained into your mind.

Then how is it possible that the calculations using it work perfectly?

Apart from space, show me a calculation based on gravity that proves gravity needs to be involved, that atmospheric pressure can't equally match.

Drop a feather in an evacuated chamber. There's next to no air in the chamber, yet it falls much faster than when air is present. Obviously there is a force pulling on the feather that air normally opposes.

There's no force pulling on the feather. The feather has been placed into that position using energy. It's density is now potential energy which becomes energy when it's dropped. It simply more easily overcomes resistance due to the more expanded molecules in that environment.

If I let go of a helium balloon, why doesn't gravity pull that down?

If there weren't any air, it would fall down. Presuming that the pressure from the Helium didn't pop the balloon of course. Actually, it can fall in air as well (watch at 2:25):

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Edit: And here's an example of a helium balloon falling under partial vacuum:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

If you actually took notice of what I'm tellijng you, you will start to understand why I mention expansion and contraction of molecules.

Take your first video. You say it sinks . It sinks because the helium molecules are being compressed by the nitrogen which is allowing the atmospheric pressure compress the balloon, meaning the denser air molecules cannot push the balloon up.

The second video is expanding the moelcules inside the chamber leaving no scope to push up the balloon as the balloon skin can now easily push through the remaining expanded molecules inside the cahmber.
The second video actually kills of felix Baumgartners helium balloon jump.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 11:10:50 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 26, 2014, 10:58:19 AM

Drop a feather in an evacuated chamber. There's next to no air in the chamber, yet it falls much faster than when air is present. Obviously there is a force pulling on the feather that air normally opposes.

There's no force pulling on the feather. The feather has been placed into that position using energy. It's density is now potential energy which becomes energy when it's dropped. It simply more easily overcomes resistance due to the more expanded molecules in that environment.

If I let go of a helium balloon, why doesn't gravity pull that down?

How can the thing that's resisting the fall be the thing that's causing the fall?

When you lift the feather, why does it gain potential energy? When you drop it, why does does that potential energy become kinetic energy? If it's because of a thing's density, why would a lead ball and a rubber ball fall at the same rate when lead is more dense?

If I hoisted a lead block up to a certain height by rope and tied it off. That block has potential energy. It only has potential energy due to my energy being used to pull it up against the atmospheric pressure upon it. It occupies that space.
If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you still owe Peter and he wants it back.
The tied rope is the only thing stopping you from paying Peter back.

Also, a lead ball and a rubber ball do not fall at the same rate. This is a fallacy.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 26, 2014, 11:21:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 11:10:50 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 26, 2014, 10:58:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 05:58:40 AM

Quote from: bravimone on July 26, 2014, 04:48:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 04:42:21 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 04:51:21 PM

Are you saying you can't plot a trajectory based on gravity?

Considering I've spent a long time telling you that gravity DOES NOT EXIST, I'd say that answer should already be ingrained into your mind.

Then how is it possible that the calculations using it work perfectly?

Apart from space, show me a calculation based on gravity that proves gravity needs to be involved, that atmospheric pressure can't equally match.

Drop a feather in an evacuated chamber. There's next to no air in the chamber, yet it falls much faster than when air is present. Obviously there is a force pulling on the feather that air normally opposes.

There's no force pulling on the feather. The feather has been placed into that position using energy. It's density is now potential energy which becomes energy when it's dropped. It simply more easily overcomes resistance due to the more expanded molecules in that environment.

If I let go of a helium balloon, why doesn't gravity pull that down?

If there weren't any air, it would fall down. Presuming that the pressure from the Helium didn't pop the balloon of course. Actually, it can fall in air as well (watch at 2:25):

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Edit: And here's an example of a helium balloon falling under partial vacuum:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

If you actually took notice of what I'm tellijng you, you will start to understand why I mention expansion and contraction of molecules.

Take your first video. You say it sinks . It sinks because the helium molecules are being compressed by the nitrogen which is allowing the atmospheric pressure compress the balloon, meaning the denser air molecules cannot push the balloon up.

The second video is expanding the moelcules inside the chamber leaving no scope to push up the balloon as the balloon skin can now easily push through the remaining expanded molecules inside the cahmber.
The second video actually kills of felix Baumgartners helium balloon jump.

You can take a balloon with something simple in it, just air perhaps and put it in a freezer and it will get smaller.

Also, you might notice that when a helium balloon gets to the vacuum of space it stops rising, just as the video demonstrates it should. It doesn't continue sinking because below the point that the balloon has reached, there isn't a vacuum.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 26, 2014, 11:40:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 11:10:50 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 26, 2014, 10:58:19 AM

Drop a feather in an evacuated chamber. There's next to no air in the chamber, yet it falls much faster than when air is present. Obviously there is a force pulling on the feather that air normally opposes.

There's no force pulling on the feather. The feather has been placed into that position using energy. It's density is now potential energy which becomes energy when it's dropped. It simply more easily overcomes resistance due to the more expanded molecules in that environment.

If I let go of a helium balloon, why doesn't gravity pull that down?

How can the thing that's resisting the fall be the thing that's causing the fall?

When you lift the feather, why does it gain potential energy? When you drop it, why does does that potential energy become kinetic energy? If it's because of a thing's density, why would a lead ball and a rubber ball fall at the same rate when lead is more dense?

If I hoisted a lead block up to a certain height by rope and tied it off. That block has potential energy. It only has potential energy due to my energy being used to pull it up against the atmospheric pressure upon it. It occupies that space.
If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you still owe Peter and he wants it back.
The tied rope is the only thing stopping you from paying Peter back.

Also, a lead ball and a rubber ball do not fall at the same rate. This is a fallacy.

Again, so then if I drop something then just as the pressure above it pushes it down according to you, then the pressure below it caused by the fall should send it back up.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 12:17:31 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 26, 2014, 11:21:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 11:10:50 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 26, 2014, 10:58:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 05:58:40 AM

Quote from: bravimone on July 26, 2014, 04:48:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 26, 2014, 04:42:21 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 25, 2014, 04:51:21 PM

Are you saying you can't plot a trajectory based on gravity?

Considering I've spent a long time telling you that gravity DOES NOT EXIST, I'd say that answer should already be ingrained into your mind.

Then how is it possible that the calculations using it work perfectly?

Apart from space, show me a calculation based on gravity that proves gravity needs to be involved, that atmospheric pressure can't equally match.

Drop a feather in an evacuated chamber. There's next to no air in the chamber, yet it falls much faster than when air is present. Obviously there is a force pulling on the feather that air normally opposes.

There's no force pulling on the feather. The feather has been placed into that position using energy. It's density is now potential energy which becomes energy when it's dropped. It simply more easily overcomes resistance due to the more expanded molecules in that environment.

If I let go of a helium balloon, why doesn't gravity pull that down?

If there weren't any air, it would fall down. Presuming that the pressure from the Helium didn't pop the balloon of course. Actually, it can fall in air as well (watch at 2:25):

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Edit: And here's an example of a helium balloon falling under partial vacuum:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

If you actually took notice of what I'm tellijng you, you will start to understand why I mention expansion and contraction of molecules.

Take your first video. You say it sinks . It sinks because the helium molecules are being compressed by the nitrogen which is allowing the atmospheric pressure compress the balloon, meaning the denser air molecules cannot push the balloon up.

The second video is expanding the moelcules inside the chamber leaving no scope to push up the balloon as the balloon skin can now easily push through the remaining expanded molecules inside the cahmber.
The second video actually kills of felix Baumgartners helium balloon jump.

You can take a balloon with something simple in it, just air perhaps and put it in a freezer and it will get smaller.

Yep, it will, because the air inside the balloon is under agitation. Putting that in the freezer slows down that agitation, so the air molecules start to get compressed as they start to become dormant allowing the air pressure outside to slowly compress them, as there is less and less fight.