Disproof of gravity

Scepti why can't your "model" make predictions?

And as I said before, why don't you want to make millions of dollars? You don't want a Nobel prize either?

How about elaborating on that.

So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?

I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.

2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   

A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM

So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?

I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM

2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   

A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

1.  I'm trying to establish whether you understand the difference between mass and weight.   And why they are different under your theory of denspressure.  We will get to the why soon enough.


2.  You already agreed that greater mass requires greater force to accelerate to the same speed,  so I'll press onto falling objects.   You claim larger mass objects fall faster than smaller mass objects.    So a fast falling 100 kg object is subject to more force than slow falling 1 kg object,   would it be 100x  the force?  Yes or No?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 12:23:10 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM

So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?

I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM

2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   

A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

1.  I'm trying to establish whether you understand the difference between mass and weight.   And why they are different under your theory of denspressure.  We will get to the why soon enough.


2.  You already agreed that greater mass requires greater force to accelerate to the same speed,  so I'll press onto falling objects.   You claim larger mass objects fall faster than smaller mass objects.    So a fast falling 100 kg object is subject to more force than slow falling 1 kg object,   would it be 100x  the force?  Yes or No?

You need to understand something before you try to tie me in knots. You need to understand that you need 100 times more energy to raise a 100 kg object than raising a 1kg object.

Now then, on the drop you have a different scenario because you are now holding the objects up so in effect they are potential energies is massively different forces.

You only get out of something what you put into it, in EQUAL force.

Ok now we have that out of the way, we also have to account for atmospheric resistance on the fall. You see, you could carry up a slab of lead  to a roof top by balancing it flat on your head but as you climb you are pushing atmospheric pressure away from you in a wide area meaning the resistance on you is a lot more as opposed to carrying it under your arm so it slices through the air to the top, creating minimal resistance against the atmosphere as you push through it.

Now then, at the top, it depends on how you drop that slab which determines how fast it falls against resistance. If it falls flat it will act like a lead parachute. Still enough to push the atmosphere out of the way quite quickly but nowhere near as quickly as if you dropped it  so it's thin edge cut through the atmosphere.

Get your teeth round that and get back to me.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 12:54:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 12:23:10 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM

So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?

I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM

2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   

A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

1.  I'm trying to establish whether you understand the difference between mass and weight.   And why they are different under your theory of denspressure.  We will get to the why soon enough.


2.  You already agreed that greater mass requires greater force to accelerate to the same speed,  so I'll press onto falling objects.   You claim larger mass objects fall faster than smaller mass objects.    So a fast falling 100 kg object is subject to more force than slow falling 1 kg object,   would it be 100x  the force?  Yes or No?

You need to understand something before you try to tie me in knots. You need to understand that you need 100 times more energy to raise a 100 kg object than raising a 1kg object.

Now then, on the drop you have a different scenario because you are now holding the objects up so in effect they are potential energies is massively different forces.

You only get out of something what you put into it, in EQUAL force.

Ok now we have that out of the way, we also have to account for atmospheric resistance on the fall. You see, you could carry up a slab of lead  to a roof top by balancing it flat on your head but as you climb you are pushing atmospheric pressure away from you in a wide area meaning the resistance on you is a lot more as opposed to carrying it under your arm so it slices through the air to the top, creating minimal resistance against the atmosphere as you push through it.

Now then, at the top, it depends on how you drop that slab which determines how fast it falls against resistance. If it falls flat it will act like a lead parachute. Still enough to push the atmosphere out of the way quite quickly but nowhere near as quickly as if you dropped it  so it's thin edge cut through the atmosphere.

Get your teeth round that and get back to me.

Ok,   let's leave the weight vs mass question for a minute,   I'll come back to that,  since it's an important distinction.

Now,  you agree it takes 100 times the energy to carry the 100 kg lump of lead to the top of the building as it did to carry the 1kg lump of lead to the top.   So the potential energy of the 100 kg lump of lead  is 100 times the potential energy of the 1kg lump of lead.   So when we drop both of them off the top of the building, and they fall converting that potential energy to kinetic energy, the 100kg lump will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump.   Agreed so far?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 02:57:20 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 12:54:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 12:23:10 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM

So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?

I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM

2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   

A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

1.  I'm trying to establish whether you understand the difference between mass and weight.   And why they are different under your theory of denspressure.  We will get to the why soon enough.


2.  You already agreed that greater mass requires greater force to accelerate to the same speed,  so I'll press onto falling objects.   You claim larger mass objects fall faster than smaller mass objects.    So a fast falling 100 kg object is subject to more force than slow falling 1 kg object,   would it be 100x  the force?  Yes or No?

You need to understand something before you try to tie me in knots. You need to understand that you need 100 times more energy to raise a 100 kg object than raising a 1kg object.

Now then, on the drop you have a different scenario because you are now holding the objects up so in effect they are potential energies is massively different forces.

You only get out of something what you put into it, in EQUAL force.

Ok now we have that out of the way, we also have to account for atmospheric resistance on the fall. You see, you could carry up a slab of lead  to a roof top by balancing it flat on your head but as you climb you are pushing atmospheric pressure away from you in a wide area meaning the resistance on you is a lot more as opposed to carrying it under your arm so it slices through the air to the top, creating minimal resistance against the atmosphere as you push through it.

Now then, at the top, it depends on how you drop that slab which determines how fast it falls against resistance. If it falls flat it will act like a lead parachute. Still enough to push the atmosphere out of the way quite quickly but nowhere near as quickly as if you dropped it  so it's thin edge cut through the atmosphere.

Get your teeth round that and get back to me.

Ok,   let's leave the weight vs mass question for a minute,   I'll come back to that,  since it's an important distinction.

Now,  you agree it takes 100 times the energy to carry the 100 kg lump of lead to the top of the building as it did to carry the 1kg lump of lead to the top.   So the potential energy of the 100 kg lump of lead  is 100 times the potential energy of the 1kg lump of lead.   So when we drop both of them off the top of the building, and they fall converting that potential energy to kinetic energy, the 100kg lump will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump.   Agreed so far?

Agreed.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 03:11:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 02:57:20 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 12:54:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 12:23:10 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM

So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?

I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM

2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   

A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

1.  I'm trying to establish whether you understand the difference between mass and weight.   And why they are different under your theory of denspressure.  We will get to the why soon enough.


2.  You already agreed that greater mass requires greater force to accelerate to the same speed,  so I'll press onto falling objects.   You claim larger mass objects fall faster than smaller mass objects.    So a fast falling 100 kg object is subject to more force than slow falling 1 kg object,   would it be 100x  the force?  Yes or No?

You need to understand something before you try to tie me in knots. You need to understand that you need 100 times more energy to raise a 100 kg object than raising a 1kg object.

Now then, on the drop you have a different scenario because you are now holding the objects up so in effect they are potential energies is massively different forces.

You only get out of something what you put into it, in EQUAL force.

Ok now we have that out of the way, we also have to account for atmospheric resistance on the fall. You see, you could carry up a slab of lead  to a roof top by balancing it flat on your head but as you climb you are pushing atmospheric pressure away from you in a wide area meaning the resistance on you is a lot more as opposed to carrying it under your arm so it slices through the air to the top, creating minimal resistance against the atmosphere as you push through it.

Now then, at the top, it depends on how you drop that slab which determines how fast it falls against resistance. If it falls flat it will act like a lead parachute. Still enough to push the atmosphere out of the way quite quickly but nowhere near as quickly as if you dropped it  so it's thin edge cut through the atmosphere.

Get your teeth round that and get back to me.

Ok,   let's leave the weight vs mass question for a minute,   I'll come back to that,  since it's an important distinction.

Now,  you agree it takes 100 times the energy to carry the 100 kg lump of lead to the top of the building as it did to carry the 1kg lump of lead to the top.   So the potential energy of the 100 kg lump of lead  is 100 times the potential energy of the 1kg lump of lead.   So when we drop both of them off the top of the building, and they fall converting that potential energy to kinetic energy, the 100kg lump will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump.   Agreed so far?

Agreed.

Ok,  kinetic energy is proportional to mass times velocity squared,    by that I mean that double the mass for the same velocity and you double the kinetic energy.

So,  our 100 kg lump of lead will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump of lead,    Divide the energy by the mass, and you get the same answer for the velocity for both the 100kg and the 1kg lump of lead.

We have proven that a 100kg mass falls at the same velocity as a 1kg mass.     For any given height.

We haven't yet tackled acceleration,  or force.   Do you want to continue?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 04:12:07 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 03:11:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 02:57:20 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 12:54:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 12:23:10 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM

So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?

I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM

2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   

A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

1.  I'm trying to establish whether you understand the difference between mass and weight.   And why they are different under your theory of denspressure.  We will get to the why soon enough.


2.  You already agreed that greater mass requires greater force to accelerate to the same speed,  so I'll press onto falling objects.   You claim larger mass objects fall faster than smaller mass objects.    So a fast falling 100 kg object is subject to more force than slow falling 1 kg object,   would it be 100x  the force?  Yes or No?

You need to understand something before you try to tie me in knots. You need to understand that you need 100 times more energy to raise a 100 kg object than raising a 1kg object.

Now then, on the drop you have a different scenario because you are now holding the objects up so in effect they are potential energies is massively different forces.

You only get out of something what you put into it, in EQUAL force.

Ok now we have that out of the way, we also have to account for atmospheric resistance on the fall. You see, you could carry up a slab of lead  to a roof top by balancing it flat on your head but as you climb you are pushing atmospheric pressure away from you in a wide area meaning the resistance on you is a lot more as opposed to carrying it under your arm so it slices through the air to the top, creating minimal resistance against the atmosphere as you push through it.

Now then, at the top, it depends on how you drop that slab which determines how fast it falls against resistance. If it falls flat it will act like a lead parachute. Still enough to push the atmosphere out of the way quite quickly but nowhere near as quickly as if you dropped it  so it's thin edge cut through the atmosphere.

Get your teeth round that and get back to me.

Ok,   let's leave the weight vs mass question for a minute,   I'll come back to that,  since it's an important distinction.

Now,  you agree it takes 100 times the energy to carry the 100 kg lump of lead to the top of the building as it did to carry the 1kg lump of lead to the top.   So the potential energy of the 100 kg lump of lead  is 100 times the potential energy of the 1kg lump of lead.   So when we drop both of them off the top of the building, and they fall converting that potential energy to kinetic energy, the 100kg lump will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump.   Agreed so far?

Agreed.

Ok,  kinetic energy is proportional to mass times velocity squared,    by that I mean that double the mass for the same velocity and you double the kinetic energy.

So,  our 100 kg lump of lead will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump of lead,    Divide the energy by the mass, and you get the same answer for the velocity for both the 100kg and the 1kg lump of lead.

We have proven that a 100kg mass falls at the same velocity as a 1kg mass.     For any given height.

We haven't yet tackled acceleration,  or force.   Do you want to continue?

Go on, carry on, I want to see where you're going with this.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 04:32:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 04:12:07 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 03:11:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 02:57:20 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 12:54:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 12:23:10 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM

So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?

I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM

2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   

A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

1.  I'm trying to establish whether you understand the difference between mass and weight.   And why they are different under your theory of denspressure.  We will get to the why soon enough.


2.  You already agreed that greater mass requires greater force to accelerate to the same speed,  so I'll press onto falling objects.   You claim larger mass objects fall faster than smaller mass objects.    So a fast falling 100 kg object is subject to more force than slow falling 1 kg object,   would it be 100x  the force?  Yes or No?

You need to understand something before you try to tie me in knots. You need to understand that you need 100 times more energy to raise a 100 kg object than raising a 1kg object.

Now then, on the drop you have a different scenario because you are now holding the objects up so in effect they are potential energies is massively different forces.

You only get out of something what you put into it, in EQUAL force.

Ok now we have that out of the way, we also have to account for atmospheric resistance on the fall. You see, you could carry up a slab of lead  to a roof top by balancing it flat on your head but as you climb you are pushing atmospheric pressure away from you in a wide area meaning the resistance on you is a lot more as opposed to carrying it under your arm so it slices through the air to the top, creating minimal resistance against the atmosphere as you push through it.

Now then, at the top, it depends on how you drop that slab which determines how fast it falls against resistance. If it falls flat it will act like a lead parachute. Still enough to push the atmosphere out of the way quite quickly but nowhere near as quickly as if you dropped it  so it's thin edge cut through the atmosphere.

Get your teeth round that and get back to me.

Ok,   let's leave the weight vs mass question for a minute,   I'll come back to that,  since it's an important distinction.

Now,  you agree it takes 100 times the energy to carry the 100 kg lump of lead to the top of the building as it did to carry the 1kg lump of lead to the top.   So the potential energy of the 100 kg lump of lead  is 100 times the potential energy of the 1kg lump of lead.   So when we drop both of them off the top of the building, and they fall converting that potential energy to kinetic energy, the 100kg lump will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump.   Agreed so far?

Agreed.

Ok,  kinetic energy is proportional to mass times velocity squared,    by that I mean that double the mass for the same velocity and you double the kinetic energy.

So,  our 100 kg lump of lead will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump of lead,    Divide the energy by the mass, and you get the same answer for the velocity for both the 100kg and the 1kg lump of lead.

We have proven that a 100kg mass falls at the same velocity as a 1kg mass.     For any given height.

We haven't yet tackled acceleration,  or force.   Do you want to continue?

Go on, carry on, I want to see where you're going with this.

We agreed earlier that  in requires more force to accelerate a larger mass,   the force required to accelerate a 100kg lump of lead  is 100 times the force required to accelerate a 1kg mass by the same amount.   

So when you drop a 100 kg lump of lead from the top of a building and it accelerates as it falls,  the force acting to accelerate the 100 kg lump must be 100 times the force required to accelerate the 1kg lump of lead.   

Now here's where we diverge,  the force accelerating the lump of lead towards the ground  is called gravity.  You are going to say that force is denspressure.   
Are you agreed so far?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 06:01:09 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 04:32:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 04:12:07 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 03:11:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 02:57:20 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 12:54:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 12:23:10 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM

So down to two questions.

1. If I  put a jar containing a liter of water on the scales,  they will read 1kg  after allowing for the jar.    What is the mass of the water, and what is the weight of the water?

I'm not sure what game you're playing here because the mass is 1 kg held in the jar.
The weight is the water resisting the atmosphere pushing down on it with the aid of the  the water being seperated from it.

You need explain what you want from these questions if these answers aren't what you're looking for.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 07, 2015, 09:16:59 PM

2. What force is required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 meter/sec/sec.   

A small child's tractor would be enough. A star wars type force would do it. The force of Navarone would suffice. Air force one would do it.

If you think I'm playing maths to argue a case then think again. It's not needed. If you can't grasp any of it then you can't grasp it.

1.  I'm trying to establish whether you understand the difference between mass and weight.   And why they are different under your theory of denspressure.  We will get to the why soon enough.


2.  You already agreed that greater mass requires greater force to accelerate to the same speed,  so I'll press onto falling objects.   You claim larger mass objects fall faster than smaller mass objects.    So a fast falling 100 kg object is subject to more force than slow falling 1 kg object,   would it be 100x  the force?  Yes or No?

You need to understand something before you try to tie me in knots. You need to understand that you need 100 times more energy to raise a 100 kg object than raising a 1kg object.

Now then, on the drop you have a different scenario because you are now holding the objects up so in effect they are potential energies is massively different forces.

You only get out of something what you put into it, in EQUAL force.

Ok now we have that out of the way, we also have to account for atmospheric resistance on the fall. You see, you could carry up a slab of lead  to a roof top by balancing it flat on your head but as you climb you are pushing atmospheric pressure away from you in a wide area meaning the resistance on you is a lot more as opposed to carrying it under your arm so it slices through the air to the top, creating minimal resistance against the atmosphere as you push through it.

Now then, at the top, it depends on how you drop that slab which determines how fast it falls against resistance. If it falls flat it will act like a lead parachute. Still enough to push the atmosphere out of the way quite quickly but nowhere near as quickly as if you dropped it  so it's thin edge cut through the atmosphere.

Get your teeth round that and get back to me.

Ok,   let's leave the weight vs mass question for a minute,   I'll come back to that,  since it's an important distinction.

Now,  you agree it takes 100 times the energy to carry the 100 kg lump of lead to the top of the building as it did to carry the 1kg lump of lead to the top.   So the potential energy of the 100 kg lump of lead  is 100 times the potential energy of the 1kg lump of lead.   So when we drop both of them off the top of the building, and they fall converting that potential energy to kinetic energy, the 100kg lump will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump.   Agreed so far?

Agreed.

Ok,  kinetic energy is proportional to mass times velocity squared,    by that I mean that double the mass for the same velocity and you double the kinetic energy.

So,  our 100 kg lump of lead will have 100 times the kinetic energy of the 1kg lump of lead,    Divide the energy by the mass, and you get the same answer for the velocity for both the 100kg and the 1kg lump of lead.

We have proven that a 100kg mass falls at the same velocity as a 1kg mass.     For any given height.

We haven't yet tackled acceleration,  or force.   Do you want to continue?

Go on, carry on, I want to see where you're going with this.

We agreed earlier that  in requires more force to accelerate a larger mass,   the force required to accelerate a 100kg lump of lead  is 100 times the force required to accelerate a 1kg mass by the same amount.   

So when you drop a 100 kg lump of lead from the top of a building and it accelerates as it falls,  the force acting to accelerate the 100 kg lump must be 100 times the force required to accelerate the 1kg lump of lead.   

Now here's where we diverge,  the force accelerating the lump of lead towards the ground  is called gravity.  You are going to say that force is denspressure.   
Are you agreed so far?

Yep we agree so far.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 06:19:01 AM

We agreed earlier that  in requires more force to accelerate a larger mass,   the force required to accelerate a 100kg lump of lead  is 100 times the force required to accelerate a 1kg mass by the same amount.   
So when you drop a 100 kg lump of lead from the top of a building and it accelerates as it falls,  the force acting to accelerate the 100 kg lump must be 100 times the force required to accelerate the 1kg lump of lead.   
Now here's where we diverge,  the force accelerating the lump of lead towards the ground  is called gravity.  You are going to say that force is denspressure.   
Are you agreed so far?

Yep we agree so far.

So we agree there is a force acting to accelerate objects downwards which is proportional to their mass,    that force is what we measure when we place a 1kg mass on a set of scales.    That force is called the weight,  a weight of 1kg is the force that acts on a mass of 1kg.   

I could put the scales in a vacuum chamber and we would see the weight change only a tiny amount due to air buoyancy.   But you'll dispute the vacuum.   So instead we go to a building with a lift.

Put the 1kg on the scales, on the floor of the lift,  and it should read 1kg,  now go up to the top floor.  You will see  the weight momentarily increase  as the lift starts upwards,  then settle back to the same weight as when the lift was still.   Then when the lift starts down then weight decreases momentarily and then settles back to the same weight.

What is causing the weight to change when the scales are accelerated?   It can't be air pressure since that didn't change,   it must the the force acting on the 1kg mass that has changed.

So the force which gives weight to mass can be changed by acceleration?    If you take it to the extreme of a zero g plane the weight vanishes completely,  that's called weightlessness.   You can get the same effect in free fall.  So if you put the scales and 1kg into a box with a camera and then drop the box off a high building,  you will see the weight go to zero during the acceleration of free fall.

So the weight doesn't depend on air pressure,  it  depends on acceleration.  Now the tricky step.   When the 1kg lump of lead is sitting still on the scales on your kitchen table,  it is actually being accelerated,  the acceleration is due to the gravitational field.     That  acceleration is 9.8 meters/sec/sec 

So far so good?      From here on it gets a bit more complicated. 
 

 

So we agree there is a force acting to accelerate objects downwards which is proportional to their mass,    that force is what we measure when we place a 1kg mass on a set of scales.    That force is called the weight,  a weight of 1kg is the force that acts on a mass of 1kg.   

I'll go along with this.

I could put the scales in a vacuum chamber and we would see the weight change only a tiny amount due to air buoyancy.   But you'll dispute the vacuum.   So instead we go to a building with a lift.

The vacuum chamber is a tricky thing. It depends on the amount evacuated as to what would happen in truth, so until that's properly done, we will leave this.

Put the scales on the floor of the lift,  and it should read 1kg,  now go up to the top floor.  You will see  the weight momentarily increase  as the lift starts upwards,  then settle back to the same weight as when the lift was still.   Then when the lift starts down then weight decreases momentarily and then settles back to the same weight.

Ok I know what you're saying. There would be a marginal increase or decrease depending on the lift speed up or down.

What is causing the weight to change when the scales are accelerated?   It can't be air pressure since that didn't change,   it must the the force acting on the 1kg mass that has changed.

But it is air pressure. It's just that you won't accept it because your gravity takes over and it's wrong. The acceleration of the lift compresses the air inside of it by creating a higher pressure upon it's inner roof and a lower pressure at the feet on descent and the opposite on ascent.
I know you won't accept this and it baffles me that you're willing to accept a force that cannot be described for a force that can.
The very same reason you get pushed back in a bus upon acceleration or forward upon breaking.

So the force which gives weight to mass can be changed by acceleration?    If you take it to the extreme of a zero g plane the weight vanishes completely,  that's called weightlessness.   You can get the same effect in free fall.  So if you put the scales and 1kg into a box with a camera and then drop the box off a high building,  you will see the weight go to zero during the acceleration of free fall.

Yes you see the weight go to zero because you compress the air into the roof, taking the weight off of the object and scale plate. together.

So the weight doesn't depend on air pressure,  it  depends on acceleration.  Now the tricky step.   When the 1kg lump of lead is sitting still on the scales on your kitchen table,  it is actually being accelerated,  the acceleration is due to the gravitational field.     That  acceleration is 9.8 meters/sec/sec 

So far so good?      From here on it gets a bit more complicated.

Not so far so good. We differ massively on this.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

So we agree there is a force acting to accelerate objects downwards which is proportional to their mass,    that force is what we measure when we place a 1kg mass on a set of scales.    That force is called the weight,  a weight of 1kg is the force that acts on a mass of 1kg.   

I'll go along with this.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

I could put the scales in a vacuum chamber and we would see the weight change only a tiny amount due to air buoyancy.   But you'll dispute the vacuum.   So instead we go to a building with a lift.

The vacuum chamber is a tricky thing. It depends on the amount evacuated as to what would happen in truth, so until that's properly done, we will leave this.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

Put the scales on the floor of the lift,  and it should read 1kg,  now go up to the top floor.  You will see  the weight momentarily increase  as the lift starts upwards,  then settle back to the same weight as when the lift was still.   Then when the lift starts down then weight decreases momentarily and then settles back to the same weight.

Ok I know what you're saying. There would be a marginal increase or decrease depending on the lift speed up or down.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

What is causing the weight to change when the scales are accelerated?   It can't be air pressure since that didn't change,   it must the the force acting on the 1kg mass that has changed.

But it is air pressure. It's just that you won't accept it because your gravity takes over and it's wrong. The acceleration of the lift compresses the air inside of it by creating a higher pressure upon it's inner roof and a lower pressure at the feet on descent and the opposite on ascent.
I know you won't accept this and it baffles me that you're willing to accept a force that cannot be described for a force that can.
The very same reason you get pushed back in a bus upon acceleration or forward upon breaking.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

So the force which gives weight to mass can be changed by acceleration?    If you take it to the extreme of a zero g plane the weight vanishes completely,  that's called weightlessness.   You can get the same effect in free fall.  So if you put the scales and 1kg into a box with a camera and then drop the box off a high building,  you will see the weight go to zero during the acceleration of free fall.

Yes you see the weight go to zero because you compress the air into the roof, taking the weight off of the object and scale plate. together.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

So the weight doesn't depend on air pressure,  it  depends on acceleration.  Now the tricky step.   When the 1kg lump of lead is sitting still on the scales on your kitchen table,  it is actually being accelerated,  the acceleration is due to the gravitational field.     That  acceleration is 9.8 meters/sec/sec 

So far so good?      From here on it gets a bit more complicated.

Not so far so good. We differ massively on this.

You agree that objects in free fall are weightless? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 08:15:44 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

So we agree there is a force acting to accelerate objects downwards which is proportional to their mass,    that force is what we measure when we place a 1kg mass on a set of scales.    That force is called the weight,  a weight of 1kg is the force that acts on a mass of 1kg.   

I'll go along with this.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

I could put the scales in a vacuum chamber and we would see the weight change only a tiny amount due to air buoyancy.   But you'll dispute the vacuum.   So instead we go to a building with a lift.

The vacuum chamber is a tricky thing. It depends on the amount evacuated as to what would happen in truth, so until that's properly done, we will leave this.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

Put the scales on the floor of the lift,  and it should read 1kg,  now go up to the top floor.  You will see  the weight momentarily increase  as the lift starts upwards,  then settle back to the same weight as when the lift was still.   Then when the lift starts down then weight decreases momentarily and then settles back to the same weight.

Ok I know what you're saying. There would be a marginal increase or decrease depending on the lift speed up or down.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

What is causing the weight to change when the scales are accelerated?   It can't be air pressure since that didn't change,   it must the the force acting on the 1kg mass that has changed.

But it is air pressure. It's just that you won't accept it because your gravity takes over and it's wrong. The acceleration of the lift compresses the air inside of it by creating a higher pressure upon it's inner roof and a lower pressure at the feet on descent and the opposite on ascent.
I know you won't accept this and it baffles me that you're willing to accept a force that cannot be described for a force that can.
The very same reason you get pushed back in a bus upon acceleration or forward upon breaking.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

So the force which gives weight to mass can be changed by acceleration?    If you take it to the extreme of a zero g plane the weight vanishes completely,  that's called weightlessness.   You can get the same effect in free fall.  So if you put the scales and 1kg into a box with a camera and then drop the box off a high building,  you will see the weight go to zero during the acceleration of free fall.

Yes you see the weight go to zero because you compress the air into the roof, taking the weight off of the object and scale plate. together.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

So the weight doesn't depend on air pressure,  it  depends on acceleration.  Now the tricky step.   When the 1kg lump of lead is sitting still on the scales on your kitchen table,  it is actually being accelerated,  the acceleration is due to the gravitational field.     That  acceleration is 9.8 meters/sec/sec 

So far so good?      From here on it gets a bit more complicated.

Not so far so good. We differ massively on this.

You agree that objects in free fall are weightless?

Objects in free fall cannot be weighed. To weigh something on man made scales, you need a resistant base to place the scales onto.
Anything in free fall cannot have that so cannot be weighed.

Rayzor,

Sorry the interruption, I just have a question regarding objects of different mass falling at the same speed. See, the gravitational attraction is F = M*m*G/d^2, isn't that right? Lets call X the mass of the Earth in kg, and H the height at which they fall to the surface of Earth.

So, the equation for an object of 100kg would be 100X/h^2, and the equation for an object of 1kg would be X/h^2. So, would the force acting upon the 100kg object be 100 times bigger than the force acting upon the 1kg object? Correct me if I'm wrong.

@sceptimatic I'll break the radio silence just so that I can teach you how atmospheric pressure works.

Atmospheric pressure is created when the atmospheric matter is concentrated into an area small enough for the matter to collide with matter (Since you don't believe in atoms, this is how I'll put it). This means that all matter in a confined area will push matter equally in every direction, capishe?

If we would put a rock in the atmosphere, and if it was completely sorrounded by atmospheric matter, the atmospheric matter would then push this rock in every direction equally, because of atmospheric pressure, capishe?

Higher density of matter means higher pressure, capishe?

If I put something with higher density than air in our atmosphere, the object would push the atmospheric matter away equally in every direction, capishe?

If I put something with less density than air in the atmosphere, it would get compressed equally from every direction, capishe?

So if I put a rock in the atmosphere, it will not fall  due to pressure. Since the atmospheric matter would push the object equally in every direction, and the object would push the atmospheric matter equally in every direction, no acceleration would occour, capishe?

All air above the object will push down on the object. But equally all air below the object, and the ground beneath the air, will push the object up, because those things also apply pressure. Therefore no downwards acceleration could possibly occour. Capishe?

Rayzor,

Sorry the interruption, I just have a question regarding objects of different mass falling at the same speed. See, the gravitational attraction is F = M*m*G/d^2, isn't that right? Lets call X the mass of the Earth in kg, and H the height at which they fall to the surface of Earth.

So, the equation for an object of 100kg would be 100X/h^2, and the equation for an object of 1kg would be X/h^2. So, would the force acting upon the 100kg object be 100 times bigger than the force acting upon the 1kg object? Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are right.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 08:24:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 08:15:44 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

So we agree there is a force acting to accelerate objects downwards which is proportional to their mass,    that force is what we measure when we place a 1kg mass on a set of scales.    That force is called the weight,  a weight of 1kg is the force that acts on a mass of 1kg.   

I'll go along with this.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

I could put the scales in a vacuum chamber and we would see the weight change only a tiny amount due to air buoyancy.   But you'll dispute the vacuum.   So instead we go to a building with a lift.

The vacuum chamber is a tricky thing. It depends on the amount evacuated as to what would happen in truth, so until that's properly done, we will leave this.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

Put the scales on the floor of the lift,  and it should read 1kg,  now go up to the top floor.  You will see  the weight momentarily increase  as the lift starts upwards,  then settle back to the same weight as when the lift was still.   Then when the lift starts down then weight decreases momentarily and then settles back to the same weight.

Ok I know what you're saying. There would be a marginal increase or decrease depending on the lift speed up or down.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

What is causing the weight to change when the scales are accelerated?   It can't be air pressure since that didn't change,   it must the the force acting on the 1kg mass that has changed.

But it is air pressure. It's just that you won't accept it because your gravity takes over and it's wrong. The acceleration of the lift compresses the air inside of it by creating a higher pressure upon it's inner roof and a lower pressure at the feet on descent and the opposite on ascent.
I know you won't accept this and it baffles me that you're willing to accept a force that cannot be described for a force that can.
The very same reason you get pushed back in a bus upon acceleration or forward upon breaking.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

So the force which gives weight to mass can be changed by acceleration?    If you take it to the extreme of a zero g plane the weight vanishes completely,  that's called weightlessness.   You can get the same effect in free fall.  So if you put the scales and 1kg into a box with a camera and then drop the box off a high building,  you will see the weight go to zero during the acceleration of free fall.

Yes you see the weight go to zero because you compress the air into the roof, taking the weight off of the object and scale plate. together.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 08, 2015, 07:54:21 AM

So the weight doesn't depend on air pressure,  it  depends on acceleration.  Now the tricky step.   When the 1kg lump of lead is sitting still on the scales on your kitchen table,  it is actually being accelerated,  the acceleration is due to the gravitational field.     That  acceleration is 9.8 meters/sec/sec 

So far so good?      From here on it gets a bit more complicated.

Not so far so good. We differ massively on this.

You agree that objects in free fall are weightless?

Objects in free fall cannot be weighed. To weigh something on man made scales, you need a resistant base to place the scales onto.
Anything in free fall cannot have that so cannot be weighed.

The zero g aeroplane has a pressurized cabin, so the pressure doesn't change.  So  the air pressure hasn't changed and yet the weight goes to zero during the parabolic flight trajectory. 

If we go further down the path of examining the detail of denspressure,  the air pressure comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface,  as you go higher the pressure decreases, but the weight doesn't change.    A 1kg mass on the scale will still weigh 1kg when it's at 30,000 feet,  and air pressure is a fraction of what it is at sea level.

Putting it another way, what gives the mass of air it's weight?
 

@sceptimatic I'll break the radio silence just so that I can teach you how atmospheric pressure works.

Atmospheric pressure is created when the atmospheric mass is concentrated into an area small enough for the mass to collide with mass (Since you don't believe in atoms, this is how I'll put it). This means that all mass in a confined area will push matter equally in every direction, capishe?

If we would put a rock in the atmosphere, and if it was completely sorrounded by atmospheric mass, the atmospheric mass would then push this rock in every direction equally, because of atmospheric pressure, capishe?

Higher density of mass means higher pressure, capishe?

If I put something with higher density than air in our atmosphere, the object would push the atmosphere away equally in every direction, capishe?

If I put something with less density than air in the atmosphere, it would get compressed equally from every direction, capishe?

So if I put a rock in the atmosphere, it will not fall  due to pressure. Since the atmospheric mass would push the object equally in every direction, and the object would push the atmospheric mass equally in every direction, no acceleration would occour, capishe?

All air above the object will push down on the object. But equally all air below the object, and the ground beneath the air, will push the object up, because those things also apply pressure. Therefore no downwards acceleration could possibly occour. Capishe?

Wrong.
Now get back to your silence.

Quote from: hoyhoy5 on July 08, 2015, 08:39:14 AM

Rayzor,

Sorry the interruption, I just have a question regarding objects of different mass falling at the same speed. See, the gravitational attraction is F = M*m*G/d^2, isn't that right? Lets call X the mass of the Earth in kg, and H the height at which they fall to the surface of Earth.

So, the equation for an object of 100kg would be 100X/h^2, and the equation for an object of 1kg would be X/h^2. So, would the force acting upon the 100kg object be 100 times bigger than the force acting upon the 1kg object? Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are right.

Oh, wait, I see... The force, even though it is 100 bigger, the 100kg object requires 100 times the force acting on the 1kg object because of momentum... So they would be accelerated at the same rate? No slight variation, or anything?

Quote from: Master_Evar on July 08, 2015, 08:49:30 AM

@sceptimatic I'll break the radio silence just so that I can teach you how atmospheric pressure works.

Atmospheric pressure is created when the atmospheric mass is concentrated into an area small enough for the mass to collide with mass (Since you don't believe in atoms, this is how I'll put it). This means that all mass in a confined area will push matter equally in every direction, capishe?

If we would put a rock in the atmosphere, and if it was completely sorrounded by atmospheric mass, the atmospheric mass would then push this rock in every direction equally, because of atmospheric pressure, capishe?

Higher density of mass means higher pressure, capishe?

If I put something with higher density than air in our atmosphere, the object would push the atmosphere away equally in every direction, capishe?

If I put something with less density than air in the atmosphere, it would get compressed equally from every direction, capishe?

So if I put a rock in the atmosphere, it will not fall  due to pressure. Since the atmospheric mass would push the object equally in every direction, and the object would push the atmospheric mass equally in every direction, no acceleration would occour, capishe?

All air above the object will push down on the object. But equally all air below the object, and the ground beneath the air, will push the object up, because those things also apply pressure. Therefore no downwards acceleration could possibly occour. Capishe?

Wrong.
Now get back to your silence.

Prove it, or I'm right, capishe?

Quote from: hoyhoy5 on July 08, 2015, 08:39:14 AM

Rayzor,

Sorry the interruption, I just have a question regarding objects of different mass falling at the same speed. See, the gravitational attraction is F = M*m*G/d^2, isn't that right? Lets call X the mass of the Earth in kg, and H the height at which they fall to the surface of Earth.

So, the equation for an object of 100kg would be 100X/h^2, and the equation for an object of 1kg would be X/h^2. So, would the force acting upon the 100kg object be 100 times bigger than the force acting upon the 1kg object? Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are right.

Yes  that's right,  both the 100kg and the 1kg accelerate exactly the same,   the force on the 100 kg ( it's weight)  is 100 times that on the 1kg,     Galileo found  F = -mg,   Newton generalized it to F=ma.
If in free fall the terminal velocity depends on the air resistance.    The potential energy is   mgh   and kinetic energy is  1/2 mv²   but scepti doesn't do maths. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 08, 2015, 08:55:43 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on July 08, 2015, 08:49:30 AM

@sceptimatic I'll break the radio silence just so that I can teach you how atmospheric pressure works.

Atmospheric pressure is created when the atmospheric mass is concentrated into an area small enough for the mass to collide with mass (Since you don't believe in atoms, this is how I'll put it). This means that all mass in a confined area will push matter equally in every direction, capishe?

If we would put a rock in the atmosphere, and if it was completely sorrounded by atmospheric mass, the atmospheric mass would then push this rock in every direction equally, because of atmospheric pressure, capishe?

Higher density of mass means higher pressure, capishe?

If I put something with higher density than air in our atmosphere, the object would push the atmosphere away equally in every direction, capishe?

If I put something with less density than air in the atmosphere, it would get compressed equally from every direction, capishe?

So if I put a rock in the atmosphere, it will not fall  due to pressure. Since the atmospheric mass would push the object equally in every direction, and the object would push the atmospheric mass equally in every direction, no acceleration would occour, capishe?

All air above the object will push down on the object. But equally all air below the object, and the ground beneath the air, will push the object up, because those things also apply pressure. Therefore no downwards acceleration could possibly occour. Capishe?

Wrong.
Now get back to your silence.

Prove it, or I'm right, capishe?

Your dead right ok. septic has lost track of truth.

The pressure relief valve on a pressure cooker is at the top and steam comes out of it because pressure pushes in all directions.

The pressure relief valve on a pressure cooker is at the top and steam comes out of it because pressure pushes in all directions.

Sceptimatic says that this happens because when you put force onto an object( and in your example
heat) the matter agitates and expands leaving gas matter.
This gas matter is pushing its way through denser smaller particles .
The dense particles are in the bottom, squeezing the more expanded  that go upwards.

Quote from: guv on July 08, 2015, 09:26:45 AM

The pressure relief valve on a pressure cooker is at the top and steam comes out of it because pressure pushes in all directions.

Sceptimatic says that this happens because when you put force onto an object( and in your example
heat) the matter agitates and expands leaving gas matter.
This gas matter is pushing its way through denser smaller particles .
The dense particles are in the bottom, squeezing the more expanded  that go upwards.

He also says the world is flat.  I'd take anything he says with two healthy doses of skepticism.

So the explanation for the lift in scepti's terms was that the floor of the lift moving upwards causes the air to compress towards the roof of the lift car thus pressing you back down.  Ok this air movement is so slight that it isn't even felt correct.   So lets say this air pressure difference makes your weight increase for the beginning of the acceleration by 1%.  Not a large amount but say a 100 kg person in the lift will momentarily weigh 101kg due to scepti's air movement to increase pressure at the top to push this person back down.
Ok, next step then.  Take a fan blowing roughly 150 times as much as this slight air movement.  This would compress the air on one side ot the lift car 150% correct?  Why is the person not throw to the opposite wall?  Have the fan not blowing on the person but angled at the wall behind him.  So you won't have the air movement canceling itself out.  If we insist it is the oncoming air canceling the effect out then why doesn't the movement of the air going upwards not cancel itself out in the lift car scenario?

So the explanation for the lift in scepti's terms was that the floor of the lift moving upwards causes the air to compress towards the roof of the lift car thus pressing you back down.  Ok this air movement is so slight that it isn't even felt correct.   So lets say this air pressure difference makes your weight increase for the beginning of the acceleration by 1%.  Not a large amount but say a 100 kg person in the lift will momentarily weigh 101kg due to scepti's air movement to increase pressure at the top to push this person back down.
Ok, next step then.  Take a fan blowing roughly 150 times as much as this slight air movement.  This would compress the air on one side ot the lift car 150% correct?  Why is the person not throw to the opposite wall?  Have the fan not blowing on the person but angled at the wall behind him.  So you won't have the air movement canceling itself out.  If we insist it is the oncoming air canceling the effect out then why doesn't the movement of the air going upwards not cancel itself out in the lift car scenario?

The lift car is not a sealed container, so as it falls (for instance), the density of the lift down the shaft pushes against the air under it and compresses it. This compressed air is channelled back around the lift and back up the sides of it, plus the air seeps into the car itself and builds up he pressure inside that car, which creates more pressure inside.
While this is all happening, the external lift roof is moving away from the atmosphere at speed so the atmosphere cannot compress it, meaning there is a pressure difference between the front, sides and top.

Because the air above is less compressed than below, that has to be equalised all the time and it does by the compressed air under the lift being pushed back around it and over he top which fills the lower pressure the lift leave behind it as it plummets.

The opposite happens when ascending, only it requires energy to push the lift up so it will be slower changes in pressure which would be hardly noticeable.

You mention a fan. Go and see the fans that the sky divers practice on that keep them afloat. The only difference to what's happening to them is the fact that air pressure is being compressed below creating a massive void of lower pressure above he people. Because of this, they float on he higher pressure cushion.

This is what happens in lifts, cars, buses, trains and planes, etc.
The problem is, because gravity is mentioned in such a way - atmospheric pressure gets thrown aside as if it's a nothing. People just think it's a small breeze of air that's insignificant.
It's only insignificant to us because we are equalised to it.
The minute it becomes unequal on us, we start to feel it. We feel the pressure change. Now that's either wind or accelerating in a vehicle or free falling from a plane, etc.

Gravity 100% does not exist. It's made up nonsense to cater for the globe and space.
Atmospheric pressure  is the reason why everything works and happens that we know of. The space that we don't know of is irrelevant, because it doesn't exist.

We already proved that objects fall at an acceleration independent of their mass,  and that  some force is acting to give weight to mass.   You think air pressure,  I say gravity. 

So we need to dig  deeper to get to the truth.   

If we go further down the path of examining the detail of denspressure,  the air pressure comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface,  as you go higher the pressure decreases.

So where does air pressure come from,   where does that 14.7 psi come from? 

Putting it another way, what gives the mass of air it's weight?

We already proved that objects fall at an acceleration independent of their mass,  and that  some force is acting to give weight to mass.   You think air pressure,  I say gravity. 

So we need to dig  deeper to get to the truth.   

If we go further down the path of examining the detail of denspressure,  the air pressure comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface,  as you go higher the pressure decreases.

So where does air pressure come from,   where does that 14.7 psi come from? 

Putting it another way, what gives the mass of air it's weight?

All matter under your feet is stacked in a sandwich like dense form and the denser matter is naturally more compressed.
Once energy is applied, this dense matter can be broken down. It can be friction burned and vibrated to expand against where it's compressed at. This means it pushes through material above it which immediately tries to crush it but only manages to push it up.

This happens all the way up with all kinds of matter in all kinds of densities and expansions; eventually ending up on top as water, then atmosphere that consists of a lot of other expanding and contracting elements or matter that settle into their own sandwich depending on their energy of push and also squeeze of denser mater that tries to crush the less dense, meaning it's PUSHED higher. As this expansion goes on and on, it creates the atmosphere from compressed to basically super expanded up in the sky.

There's much more to it but the basics is what people need to grasp. Whether you do or will or care, is entirely down to you.

One thing for certain. here's absolutely no such thing as gravity. It's fantasy and a con job to hide the true Earth and what the so called universe actually is.
It's all there right in your face if you dare to open your eyes and allow yourself to think outside of those labs that the paid scientists patrol to make sure you follow their model, or he model they've been given for you to learn.