I don't think you're a nutcase. I don't know you, so I can't make that assessment. Who knows, maybe all of your experimentation and all of those credentials and scientific reports are true. Too bad you can't prove it.
"depends on the objects and their make up as to how they fare against atmospheric friction..."
The chamber is of equal low regulated pressure, atmospheric friction is not a dependent variable. As for the objects composition, how about a golf ball? Now, answer the question.
"...name the experiments you have done..."
When I was younger, I was gifted a handheld barometer (I loved science, don't judge). I lived in Venezuela at the time, and if you know anything about its geography, you'll know that the region is (especially in northern Caracas) very mountainous. The highest peak, which I hiked, is about 2,700 meters above sea level. I remember getting a reading of 710 millibars. It was a hot day, as it usually is there, so it was 18 millibars lower in pressure than the average. That's the thing, my findings were consistent with the findings of other scientists who conducted the same research, and also used weather balloons to calculate the pressure at much higher altitudes. Also, I've been on trips via Cessna and Piper around the Yucatan peninsula, and usually sat in the co-pilots seat. There was always a plain altimeter, plus a barometer which displayed in atmospheric units. I remember very clearly (this was around a year ago in a Cessna Grand Caravan) we were cruising at around 6000 meters, and the atmospheric pressure read 440 millibars. Once again consistent with the data presented by scientists.
As for my data on the speed of gravity (the label for the phenomena we see of things seeming to want to go downwards, don't pull that "gravity doesn't exist" thing on me, you know exactly what I mean), I've been to a few physics/rocket learning programs as a kid, and one the experiments we always do is getting a vacuum chamber, and dropping coins and paper clips from the inside. Two lasers are put at the top and bottom of the chamber, and velocity always was always the same no matter what was dropped, and consistent with the research and formula for g. As for where I got 9.7 m/s? Math, but it's really irrelevant, since there is only a .1 m/s change in velocity, it doesn't even need to be accounted for at the height I proposed anyway. My point still stands, it's just a consistent velocity.
"It went fantastic and is ongoing. You can accept this or not, I'm not arsed which as you're nothing to me."
If you're not going to present any proof or plain data, and if you don't think you should have to show us anything,
then what in the hell is the point in any of this. This argument. This forum. Why are you even trying to argue with us? You've got, I'm guessing, some or most of your results, you're arguing with us about the validity of your hypothesis and experiments, and you refuse to present any data/documentation or plain proof you even did the experiments.
You make no f*ing sense.
"What experiment?"
Oh my god... I'm going to quote myself, and repeat myself for the third time now, "the experiment I laid out to you in my first post." -Jet Fission
"Did you watch the two balls..."
Did you watch the car and the tire? For the second time,
air resistance. You cannot perform this experiment reliably with high air resistance. I'm sure dozens of people have told you this but you don't listen. Your video, even if at the end it proved you wrong, is completely unscientific T.V bologna. I sure hope that
you, Mr. Sceptimatic, have a higher standard for scientific experiments, like removing all of the unnecessary variables (this is literally high school science right here), considering you claim to have done some of your own. Now, air resistance is a very major factor in the velocity of things on the planet, hopefully you've realized. In ideal conditions, without air resistance, all objects will fall at the same time. Heavier objects require more energy to move, light objects require less. This effect cancels itself out, both objects gain the same velocity. It's not even physics, it's common sense. Now you factor in air resistance. What happens? The heavier object, like I said, requires more energy to move, so the air is going to do a horrible job at slowing it down. Lighter objects require much less energy to move, so air is going to be able to slow it down greatly. Get it? Now, try the experiment in a vacuum chamber, like I have, and you'll realize how ridiculous this is. Profit.
"Using a chamber with the evacuation of pressure to expand a balloon, freeze water, etc, etc, etc. It mimicks higher altitude expansion of matter/molecules or whatever you now want to call them."
Alright then, let's see your results. Your data. Give me some documentation. Back to your previous point about my experiments, which I know you're going to bring up here as well, get a weather balloon and attach a barometer and altimeter on to it. Give me your data. Because as of right now, all of the atmospheric data, as I have demonstrated a few replies ago, has demonstrated your hypothesis to be false. You claim that the data is actually something else. Prove it. Get a high altitude weather balloon. They're only around $200-$300, it's a pretty good investment. In fact, I promise, that if you prove that all the alleged conspiratory atmospheric and gravitational data is false, by using that weather balloon, I will personally pay back your investment. I bet though, that you're going to pull the "I don't need to prove anything to you" card. If that's the case, then once again:
What. Is. The. Point. In. Arguing. About. Any. Of. This.
"Yes I have proved they expand."
See above.
You know, it would be awesome if you could come to my VoIP Teamspeak 3 server so we can discuss this easily. I promise no shouting, ad hominem, jokes/personal attacks. You can leave if that happens.