Gravity = Air Pressure

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 09:05:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2014, 08:23:13 AM

Siphoning disproves gravity.

Vacuum chambers disprove denpressure.

No they don't. A vacuum chamber still has pressure inside of it, no matter how small.
Try again.

Well, if the air pressure is much less, wouldn't the object at least fall more slowly? Because in fact, the object falls slightly more quickly, because of less air resistance. This all points to gravity NOT being caused by air pressure. I think a better way to explain this, Mr. Sceptimatic, is by showing us some actual math. Why is it that no matter the air pressure in a 'not'-vacuum, objects fall at the same rate? And if your hypothesis claims that they wouldn't fall at the same rate, explain why not?

I would love if you conducted a simple experiment to support your claim. If you conduct this experiment, and it concludes that your hypothesis is correct, you will earn millions upon millions in research money, and a nobel prize, for completely changing our entire understanding of reality.

Here's what you do:
1. Design a low pressure chamber which can, from the inside, drop an object and measure its velocity, and send the information wirelessly to a receiver. Make sure it can make multiple drops for scientific redundancy.
2. Engage the drop from sea level, record your findings.
3. Attach this chamber to a large weather balloon. Engage the drop from 50,000 or so feet. Record your findings.

edit: I should add that you should also record the air pressures in the chamber at every drop. It's not necessary, but it would be good information nonetheless.
Go on, scepti! Prove us all wrong!

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2014, 10:14:11 AM

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 09:05:55 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2014, 08:23:13 AM

Siphoning disproves gravity.

Vacuum chambers disprove denpressure.

No they don't. A vacuum chamber still has pressure inside of it, no matter how small.
Try again.

Well, if the air pressure is much less, wouldn't the object at least fall more slowly? Because in fact, the object falls slightly more quickly, because of less air resistance. This all points to gravity NOT being caused by air pressure. I think a better way to explain this, Mr. Sceptimatic, is by showing us some actual math. Why is it that no matter the air pressure in a 'not'-vacuum, objects fall at the same rate? And if your hypothesis claims that they wouldn't fall at the same rate, explain why not?

I would love if you conducted a simple experiment to support your claim. If you conduct this experiment, and it concludes that your hypothesis is correct, you will earn millions upon millions in research money, and a nobel prize, for completely changing our entire understanding of reality.

Here's what you do:
1. Design a low pressure chamber which can, from the inside, drop an object and measure its velocity, and send the information wirelessly to a receiver. Make sure it can make multiple drops for scientific redundancy.
2. Engage the drop from sea level, record your findings.
3. Attach this chamber to a large weather balloon. Engage the drop from 50,000 or so feet. Record your findings.

edit: I should add that you should also record the air pressures in the chamber at every drop. It's not necessary, but it would be good information nonetheless.
Go on, scepti! Prove us all wrong!

I'm not here to prove you all wrong. It's not your fault that you bought into it all. I'm here to help you think for yourself whilst also destroying the indoctrinated view, as best I can.

It matters not whether you think I'm doing a piss poor job of it, because what anyone thinks about me or my theories, is irrelevant.
I'm also not of the holding my breath type to think that one day I'll actually prove what you leared is wrong and have it accepted. It simply won't happen for obvious reasons.

Well, if the air pressure is much less, wouldn't the object at least fall more slowly? Because in fact, the object falls slightly more quickly, because of less air resistance.


As for the above, bold. You need to understand what I'm saying if you are to have any chance of grasping the enirety of it all, which starts at the very bottom where mass/density is concerned.

Let's see if you grasp it.

Things will fall faster in a low pressure environment just like it will be lifted faster from the deck in the same environment, which is the key to it all.

Start to picture this scene.

Imagine trying to pick up a 4x4 foot board from flat. You feel the resistance, right? it's fairly hard to pick up quickly, right?
It's also harder to drop to the floor on the flat due to it compressing the air under it.

Ok, we accept this, right?

Now let's do it in a low pressure environment like a vacuum chamber.
Now pick up the board. Much easier and faster, right? of course, because you are only picking up the actual board against very little resistance.
Now remember equal and opposite action and reaction. What goes up as fast will also come down fast, or to put it plainly - drop it on the flat and it slams into the floor without much, if any cushion.

No gravity needed, just an environment of pressure differences.

...
Things will fall faster in a low pressure environment just like it will be lifted faster from the deck in the same environment, which is the key to it all.

Start to picture this scene.

Imagine trying to pick up a 4x4 foot board from flat. You feel the resistance, right? it's fairly hard to pick up quickly, right?
It's also harder to drop to the floor on the flat due to it compressing the air under it.

Ok, we accept this, right?

Now let's do it in a low pressure environment like a vacuum chamber.
Now pick up the board. Much easier and faster, right? of course, because you are only picking up the actual board against very little resistance.
Now remember equal and opposite action and reaction. What goes up as fast will also come down fast, or to put it plainly - drop it on the flat and it slams into the floor without much, if any cushion.

No gravity needed, just an environment of pressure differences.

This goes against what you believe.

First imagine dropping the board in atmosphere after you picked it up. As you claim, the air stacked above it pushes it down, not gravity.(we drilled wholes in it to stop it from compressing air underneath.)
 Now imaging dropping the board in a low pressure environment, the air stacked above it pushes it down, but since there is much less air stacked above it, it pushes faster? No, it would push slower.

So, try again.

It is not harder to drop to the floor.  Just let go.  And it falls at the same speed as a coin.

You need to understand what I'm saying if you are to have any chance of grasping the entirety of it all, which starts at the very bottom where mass/density is concerned.

Let's see if you grasp it.

Things will fall faster in a low pressure environment just like it will be lifted faster from the deck in the same environment, which is the key to it all.

Start to picture this scene.

Imagine trying to pick up a 4x4 foot board from flat. You feel the resistance, right? it's fairly hard to pick up quickly, right?
It's also harder to drop to the floor on the flat due to it compressing the air under it.

Ok, we accept this, right?

Now let's do it in a low pressure environment like a vacuum chamber.
Now pick up the board. Much easier and faster, right? of course, because you are only picking up the actual board against very little resistance.
Now remember equal and opposite action and reaction. What goes up as fast will also come down fast, or to put it plainly - drop it on the flat and it slams into the floor without much, if any cushion.

No gravity needed, just an environment of pressure differences.

LOL..... I'm thinking  sceptimatic forgot his medication this morning?  And from what I'm reading here, there's only one thing he's been grasping.  And far too often. 

           

   

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2014, 03:13:16 PM

...
Things will fall faster in a low pressure environment just like it will be lifted faster from the deck in the same environment, which is the key to it all.

Start to picture this scene.

Imagine trying to pick up a 4x4 foot board from flat. You feel the resistance, right? it's fairly hard to pick up quickly, right?
It's also harder to drop to the floor on the flat due to it compressing the air under it.

Ok, we accept this, right?

Now let's do it in a low pressure environment like a vacuum chamber.
Now pick up the board. Much easier and faster, right? of course, because you are only picking up the actual board against very little resistance.
Now remember equal and opposite action and reaction. What goes up as fast will also come down fast, or to put it plainly - drop it on the flat and it slams into the floor without much, if any cushion.

No gravity needed, just an environment of pressure differences.

This goes against what you believe.

First imagine dropping the board in atmosphere after you picked it up. As you claim, the air stacked above it pushes it down, not gravity.(we drilled wholes in it to stop it from compressing air underneath.)
 Now imaging dropping the board in a low pressure environment, the air stacked above it pushes it down, but since there is much less air stacked above it, it pushes faster? No, it would push slower.

So, try again.

This is why you must pay attention to everything I've said in the past. Grabbing snippets and doing your own jigsaw will just confuse you.

Think about the board itself and forget about holes as they aren't needed, nor do you have a drill.
Anyway.
When you pick an object up, what are you doing?

The answer is, you are taking that object from the deck where it is displacing it's own mass against the air pressure.
Once you remove it to whatever height, you are forcing that air pressure to replace the gap left by the board and now the mass of that board is now displacing that air at whatever height. See what I'm saying?

The board is creating it's own pressure against it whether it's on the deck or at a height, by displacement.
The only way to find out the weight is to use that displacement of pressure upon it by man made measurement (scales) that measure the pressure that the board displaces.

If you can't grasp it then fair enough, just go with what you believe you know.

It is not harder to drop to the floor.  Just let go.  And it falls at the same speed as a coin.

No it doesn't at all. It might over a short distance to the untrained eye but unless two things are absolutely equal, they will never drop at the same rate...ever.
All this clap trap about falling the same in a vacuum is exactly that. A vacuum is the absence of all matter, so nothing can be tested in it for falling because falling simply would not exist in any way.

Quote from: inquisitive on November 19, 2014, 03:21:28 PM

It is not harder to drop to the floor.  Just let go.  And it falls at the same speed as a coin.

No it doesn't at all. It might over a short distance to the untrained eye but unless two things are absolutely equal, they will never drop at the same rate...ever.
All this clap trap about falling the same in a vacuum is exactly that. A vacuum is the absence of all matter, so nothing can be tested in it for falling because falling simply would not exist in any way.

Please provide some measured proof.  This must be a simple experiment for you to carry out.

This is why you must pay attention to everything I've said in the past. Grabbing snippets and doing your own jigsaw will just confuse you.

Not only did I "snippet" i didn't even read the crap above it. Not worth my time.

Think about the board itself and forget about holes as they aren't needed, nor do you have a drill.
Anyway.
When you pick an object up, what are you doing?

The answer is, you are taking that object from the deck where it is displacing it's own mass against the air pressure.
Once you remove it to whatever height, you are forcing that air pressure to replace the gap left by the board and now the mass of that board is now displacing that air at whatever height. See what I'm saying?

Yes, a board will displace it's volume in air mass. It cannot displace enough air equal to it's mass.  Ships can float because they displace enough water mass to equal the ships mass. 

The board is creating it's own pressure against it whether it's on the deck or at a height, by displacement.
The only way to find out the weight is to use that displacement of pressure upon it by man made measurement (scales) that measure the pressure that the board displaces.

The displacement you talk about is equal on all sides, like air pressure. You wouldn't get a reading with everything being equal as it cancels out.

If you can't grasp it then fair enough, just go with what you believe you know.

Not only am I going to go with what I believe in, I destroy what you believe in.

I'm not here to prove you all wrong. It's not your fault that you bought into it all. I'm here to help you think for yourself whilst also destroying the indoctrinated view, as best I can.

It matters not whether you think I'm doing a piss poor job of it, because what anyone thinks about me or my theories, is irrelevant.
I'm also not of the holding my breath type to think that one day I'll actually prove what you leared is wrong and have it accepted. It simply won't happen for obvious reasons.

Well, if the air pressure is much less, wouldn't the object at least fall more slowly? Because in fact, the object falls slightly more quickly, because of less air resistance.


As for the above, bold. You need to understand what I'm saying if you are to have any chance of grasping the enirety of it all, which starts at the very bottom where mass/density is concerned.

Let's see if you grasp it.

Things will fall faster in a low pressure environment just like it will be lifted faster from the deck in the same environment, which is the key to it all.

Start to picture this scene.

Imagine trying to pick up a 4x4 foot board from flat. You feel the resistance, right? it's fairly hard to pick up quickly, right?
It's also harder to drop to the floor on the flat due to it compressing the air under it.

Ok, we accept this, right?

Now let's do it in a low pressure environment like a vacuum chamber.
Now pick up the board. Much easier and faster, right? of course, because you are only picking up the actual board against very little resistance.
Now remember equal and opposite action and reaction. What goes up as fast will also come down fast, or to put it plainly - drop it on the flat and it slams into the floor without much, if any cushion.

No gravity needed, just an environment of pressure differences.

Not only is this completely irrelevant, it doesn't even answer my questions. You literally described air resistance and pressure. What does that have to do with anything? I think everyone here agrees that high air pressure causes things to slow down. This  doesn't help your case at all.

Now answer the question, straight. Don't argue semantics. Why do things fall at mostly the same rate, (within an altitude of around 0-100,000ft) within a chamber with equal regulated pressure, regardless of altitude- sea level to the edge of the atmosphere? If you think they don't, then conduct my proposed experiment. If you think they do, then your entire hypothesis is incorrect.

If you're having trouble figuring out why my experiment is relevant, think about this:
1. You claim air pressure causes gravity.
2. This means, the higher in altitude you go, there should be a change in the rate of gravity, because of decreased air pressure.
3. At 100,000 feet, gravity is 9.71 m/s
4. At sea level, gravity is 9.8 m/s
5. At sea level, atmospheric pressure is 1 atmosphere.
6. At 100,000 feet, atmospheric pressure is 11 millibars. That's 0.011 atmospheres, one hundred times less than sea level.
7. If your hypothesis is correct, why is it that gravity only changes by .1 m/s while air pressure decreases one hundred times over?

By conducting my experiment, you can prove that the effect of gravity is directly correlated to air pressure.

Obvious to anybody else, gravity isn't due to air pressure, or else objects in vacuums would float.

Remember Mr. Scepti, stick to the question, don't derail this.

Sorry my quotes aren't right, I didn't want to post a massive reply. I'm new, I wasn't sure how to do it correctly.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2014, 03:40:37 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on November 19, 2014, 03:21:28 PM

It is not harder to drop to the floor.  Just let go.  And it falls at the same speed as a coin.

No it doesn't at all. It might over a short distance to the untrained eye but unless two things are absolutely equal, they will never drop at the same rate...ever.
All this clap trap about falling the same in a vacuum is exactly that. A vacuum is the absence of all matter, so nothing can be tested in it for falling because falling simply would not exist in any way.

Please provide some measured proof.  This must be a simple experiment for you to carry out.

I don't need to provide anything to you. Either grasp it or don't. Either way is fine by me.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2014, 03:37:20 PM

This is why you must pay attention to everything I've said in the past. Grabbing snippets and doing your own jigsaw will just confuse you.

Not only did I "snippet" i didn't even read the crap above it. Not worth my time.

Quote

Think about the board itself and forget about holes as they aren't needed, nor do you have a drill.
Anyway.
When you pick an object up, what are you doing?

The answer is, you are taking that object from the deck where it is displacing it's own mass against the air pressure.
Once you remove it to whatever height, you are forcing that air pressure to replace the gap left by the board and now the mass of that board is now displacing that air at whatever height. See what I'm saying?

Yes, a board will displace it's volume in air mass. It cannot displace enough air equal to it's mass.  Ships can float because they displace enough water mass to equal the ships mass. 

Quote

The board is creating it's own pressure against it whether it's on the deck or at a height, by displacement.
The only way to find out the weight is to use that displacement of pressure upon it by man made measurement (scales) that measure the pressure that the board displaces.

The displacement you talk about is equal on all sides, like air pressure. You wouldn't get a reading with everything being equal as it cancels out.

Quote

If you can't grasp it then fair enough, just go with what you believe you know.

Not only am I going to go with what I believe in, I destroy what you believe in.

You carry on, I'm done explaining to you.

septic, get a lump of lead and a block of pine the same size and shape. How come denpressure works better on the lead?.

Quote from: inquisitive on November 19, 2014, 03:46:18 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2014, 03:40:37 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on November 19, 2014, 03:21:28 PM

It is not harder to drop to the floor.  Just let go.  And it falls at the same speed as a coin.

No it doesn't at all. It might over a short distance to the untrained eye but unless two things are absolutely equal, they will never drop at the same rate...ever.
All this clap trap about falling the same in a vacuum is exactly that. A vacuum is the absence of all matter, so nothing can be tested in it for falling because falling simply would not exist in any way.

Please provide some measured proof.  This must be a simple experiment for you to carry out.

I don't need to provide anything to you. Either grasp it or don't. Either way is fine by me.

The proof is in the pudding.  Prove it. 

Is the rate of fall of an object dependant on the atmospheric pressure that day?

Not only is this completely irrelevant, it doesn't even answer my questions. You literally described air resistance and pressure. What does that have to do with anything? I think everyone here agrees that high air pressure causes things to slow down. This  doesn't help your case at all.

This is my case.

Now answer the question, straight. Don't argue semantics. Why do things fall at mostly the same rate, (within an altitude of around 0-100,000ft) within a chamber with equal regulated pressure, regardless of altitude- sea level to the edge of the atmosphere? If you think they don't, then conduct my proposed experiment. If you think they do, then your entire hypothesis is incorrect.

Only objects that are identical will fall at the same rate.

If you're having trouble figuring out why my experiment is relevant, think about this:
1. You claim air pressure causes gravity.

No, I claim atmospheric pressure is the real reason things work on Earth and gravity is a made up lie.

2. This means, the higher in altitude you go, there should be a change in the rate of gravity, because of decreased air pressure.

Gravity is a lie.

3. At 100,000 feet, gravity is 9.71 m/s

As above.

4. At sea level, gravity is 9.8 m/s

As above.

5. At sea level, atmospheric pressure is 1 atmosphere.

Fine.

6. At 100,000 feet, atmospheric pressure is 11 millibars. That's 0.011 atmospheres, one hundred times less than sea level.

Show me how you got this figure and by what means did you get the info for it by what craft that measured it?

7. If your hypothesis is correct, why is it that gravity only changes by .1 m/s while air pressure decreases one hundred times over?

Gravity is bunkum and air pressure changes due to expanded molecules the higher you go due to less compression of the stack to the dome.

By conducting my experiment, you can prove that the effect of gravity is directly correlated to air pressure.

Gravity will never be proved as it is made up. Air pressure is prived, you just won't accept it because your mind is fixated on gravity.

Obvious to anybody else, gravity isn't due to air pressure, or else objects in vacuums would float.

Objects in a true vacuum will theoretically float. Infact they will be in suspended animation, as the Earth is.

septic, get a lump of lead and a block of pine the same size and shape. How come denpressure works better on the lead?.

Because the lead is much less porous and cannot absorb the pressure so it's dense body repels that pressure. Pine absorbs a certain  amount meaning it's full mass is not repelling all of that pressure.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2014, 03:56:53 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on November 19, 2014, 03:46:18 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2014, 03:40:37 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on November 19, 2014, 03:21:28 PM

It is not harder to drop to the floor.  Just let go.  And it falls at the same speed as a coin.

No it doesn't at all. It might over a short distance to the untrained eye but unless two things are absolutely equal, they will never drop at the same rate...ever.
All this clap trap about falling the same in a vacuum is exactly that. A vacuum is the absence of all matter, so nothing can be tested in it for falling because falling simply would not exist in any way.

Please provide some measured proof.  This must be a simple experiment for you to carry out.

I don't need to provide anything to you. Either grasp it or don't. Either way is fine by me.

The proof is in the pudding.  Prove it. 

Is the rate of fall of an object dependant on the atmospheric pressure that day?

You can say that.

And now we are back to this thread that destroys everything you say.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62324.msg1640096#msg1640096

And now we are back to this thread that destroys everything you say.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62324.msg1640096#msg1640096

You carry on. I can't help you.

I apologise in advance, but I just can't resist posting some of sceptimatic's more hilarious or nonsensical responses in this thread.....

-  I don't need to provide anything to you. Either grasp it or don't. Either way is fine by me.
-  A vacuum is the absence of all matter, so nothing can be tested in it for falling because falling simply would not exist in any way.
-  Only objects that are identical will fall at the same rate.
-  This is why you must pay attention to everything I've said in the past. Grabbing snippets and doing your own jigsaw will just confuse you.
-  Objects in a true vacuum will theoretically float.
-  You carry on, I'm done explaining to you.
-  Because the lead is much less porous and cannot absorb the pressure so it's dense body repels that pressure.
-  Pine absorbs a certain  amount meaning it's full mass is not repelling all of that pressure.

I'm gonna have to resist reading all this Monty Pythonesque stuff he continues to post, otherwise I'm gonna burst a vital bodily organ laughing.

I particularly love the bit about lead not "absorbing" pressure because of its density, whilst pine wood "absorbs" pressure because its less dense.   I have not the foggiest idea of what sceptimatic thinks "pressure" is.  He must think it's some sort of invisible liquid?

           

Sceptimatic-
Thanks for not answering my question, as I expected.

1. When I say gravity, I thought it was obvious I was labeling the observable phenomena of things being pushed down. So, it's kind of annoying that you completely disregarded everything I said to once again argue semantics. Nice job, you're pretty predictable.

2. As for my measurements, I used a very consistent method called math.

3. If you aren't a complete charlatan, then you can observe my figures yourself by conducting your own experiments. After all, you're the one making the claim. If you expect us do conduct experiments, we expect you to aswell. Is that reasonable?

4. "Only objects that are identical will fall at the same rate." No. No no no, no. No. Jesus Christ. How about this Mr. Scepti: Jump of tall building at the same time an aerodynamically (probably won't be very aerodynamic) similar but lighter model of you is dropped from the same height. I'll be there to record who hit the ground first.

5. Oh but of course, you can't notice what hit the ground first, because the difference is so small. So Mr. Scepti, design your own experiment which allows us to accurately measure what falls first. Oh wait, you cannot make an accurate experiment, because the only way to do so would be in a vacuum, and you don't believe that we can create a good enough vacuum.

6. "...molecules expand..." What evidence do you have that molecules expand? Or hey, let me be you bungos for a day. What evidence do you have for the existence of molecules? Get it?

So what do we end up with? A completely unfalsifiable hypothesis, and a lot of unanswered questions. Thanks. So much for your so called Occam's Razor.

Ok septic, get some spongy lead from a car battery and a bit of smooth plastic the same size and shape. The lead is still heavier and it is the most porous.

SMDDD

Sceptimatic-
Thanks for not answering my question, as I expected.

I can't answer something I don't believe in.

1. When I say gravity, I thought it was obvious I was labeling the observable phenomena of things being pushed down. So, it's kind of annoying that you completely disregarded everything I said to once again argue semantics. Nice job, you're pretty predictable.

Then don't mention gravity and expect me to do anything with it. If it doesn't exist then it doesn't exist. Why don't you tell me aboout unicorns?

2. As for my measurements, I used a very consistent method called math.

A consistent method for what? what aid did you use to come to your answers?

3. If you aren't a complete charlatan, then you can observe my figures yourself by conducting your own experiments. After all, you're the one making the claim. If you expect us do conduct experiments, we expect you to aswell. Is that reasonable?

I can't conduct experiments on something that does not exist. The same way I cannot shoe a unicorn.

4. "Only objects that are identical will fall at the same rate." No. No no no, no. No. Jesus Christ. How about this Mr. Scepti: Jump of tall building at the same time an aerodynamically (probably won't be very aerodynamic) similar but lighter model of you is dropped from the same height. Hopefully there will be someone who can record who hit the ground first.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brainiac - Do heavy objects fall faster than light objects ? Aristotle vs Galileo

5. Oh but of course, you can't notice what hit the ground first, because the difference is so small. So Mr. Scepti, design your own experiment which allows us to accurately measure what falls first. Oh wait, you cannot make an accurate experiment, because the only way to do so would be in a vacuum, and you don't believe that we can create a good enough vacuum.

The one above is enough to prove my point.

6. "...molecules expand..." What evidence do you have that molecules expand? Or hey, let me be you bungos for a day. What evidence do you have for the existence of molecules? Get it?

All I can use is what I see, plus logic and common sense by observations in evacuation chambers on elements. Disregard it if you wish.

So what do we end up with? A completely unfalsifiable hypothesis, and a lot of unanswered questions. Thanks. So much for your so called Occam's Razor.

You take it however you want. I believe in what i say, what you do, is your affair.

Ok septic, get some spongy lead from a car battery and a bit of smooth plastic the same size and shape. The lead is still heavier and it is the most porous.

SMDDD

Spongy lead? 

3. If you aren't a complete charlatan, then you can observe my figures yourself by conducting your own experiments. After all, you're the one making the claim. If you expect us do conduct experiments, we expect you to as well. Is that reasonable?

Earlier this year, along with another couple of scientists, sceptimatic carried out his own research which used a specially developed and expensive laser system, and a 2km stretch of perfectly flat ice in order to prove unequivocally that the earth was flat.  He also sent his completed research results to another four world-renowned scientists for their perusal.

He claimed at the time that the results of this experiment would stun the entire world, and throw the accepted science regarding the geometry of the planet into disarray.

Thus far however, we've not heard any further word on this, nor have I personally seen any references in science journals or the wider press to either the original experiment, or its results.  You may want to raise this issue with sceptimatic yourself (as he's blocked me) and see if he's got any further info about this.

Quote from: Jet Fission on November 19, 2014, 04:49:56 PM

6. "...molecules expand..." What evidence do you have that molecules expand?

All I can use is what I see, plus logic and common sense...

So now sceptimatic claims he can actually "see" molecules expanding?  And I'll resist the obvious temptation to comment on his claims to possess "logic and common sense".   

Quote from: guv on November 19, 2014, 04:53:19 PM

Ok septic, get some spongy lead from a car battery and a bit of smooth plastic the same size and shape. The lead is still heavier and it is the most porous.

SMDDD

Spongy lead? 

You don't know how lead acid car batteries work septic?. Lift your game boy, that makes you look real dumb.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brainiac - Do heavy objects fall faster than light objects ? Aristotle vs Galileo

Wind resistance is the same answer that you ignored the first time you showed this video.

Is your argumentative strategy to purposefully distract your opponent into a completely irrelevant argument?

Answer the question Sceptimatic, the question which I have proposed twice now. Why do things fall at mostly the same rate, (within an altitude of around 0-100,000ft) within a chamber with equal regulated pressure, regardless of altitude- sea level to the edge of the atmosphere? If you think they don't then conduct my experiment.

"A consistent method for what? what aid did you use to come to your answers?" Fine Scepti, whatever, I'm just blindly following the experiments conducted by thousands of individuals around the world with completely different agendas and cultural priorities. Honestly, it's really irrelevant. It would be nice, instead of you accusing us of not conducting experiments, for YOU to conduct an experiment. Now, you claimed to have conducted an experiment on a 2 kilometer ice shelf with other scientists and have finished and sent your findings. How's that going?

It's so obvious you're avoiding the experiment. I laid it out to you, the experiment I proposed in my first post, and was only referring to that experiment. But you dodged the question. That experiment does not require a belief in gravity. Jesus.

Your video: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> Did you even watch the end?! That's hilarious! You disproved yourself! Air resistance my friend, the only way to conduct that experiment correctly is with minimal air resistance.

"All I can use is what I see, plus logic and common sense by observations in evacuation chambers on elements. Disregard it if you wish." What experiments and/or logical observations have you conducted to prove the existence of molecules? What experiments and/or observations have you conducted to prove molecules expand at higher altitudes?

So. We can't prove molecules expand. You haven't answered my original question, and you don't want to conduct my experiment. We're back to where we started: An unproven hypothesis.

A battery cell consists of two lead plates a positive plate covered with a paste of lead dioxide and a negative made of sponge lead,

http://www.progressivedyn.com/battery_basics.html

They start cars septic.