Disproof of gravity

Quote from: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 11:51:13 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 23, 2015, 11:25:46 AM

Because the density of the balloon when filled with helium is lower than the atmosphere surrounding it by a good bit.  The same could be said for a balloon filled with carbon dioxide underwater (you know if you could blow a balloon up under water and release it.  It would float to the top rather quickly and then float on top of the water.  Or release an ice cube from your freezer underwater, it will float to the top since it contains air pockets, its density is less than the surrounding water and it will float up. 
So yes, gravity on such a small mass when the density is much lower would not overcome the tendency to float to the lower density area.

Mikey T.

I understand what you are telling me. I've seen balloons float away and ice cubes rise to the surface. But could you kindly work out the formula for me and show me the results of the earth's gravity pulling on a helium filled balloon that is 10" diameter. I haven't done much math for a long time. If you don't want to that's fine.

Thanks,
Yendor

Since I am at work I will not be able to do the math for you right now but the mass of the balloon vs the buoyancy in the air is what you need.  It depends on those factors.  Just saying a 10" balloon filled with helium really isn't enough per say.  If you want a close approximation of the forces at work you would need to know the mass of the empty balloon and the mass of the helium inside once filled to an appropriate level.  This would give you enough, with the mass of the Earth numbers to calculate the force of gravity on the balloon.  You would then need the buoyancy calculations for that volume of helium for air at sea level.  It's a bit of calculations and some research to do, so good luck and if I get a chance I will do the same and we can compare numbers.

This is easy. You can actually calculate the buoyant force from scratch, but I'll skip that and say that Fb=d*V*g, where d is the density of the fluid the object is immersed in, V is the volume displaced by said object and g is the gravitational constant. In this case, the only forces at work are gravity and buoyancy, so for an object to remain stationary (neither sink nor rise), the two must be equal
mg=d*V*g -> m=V*d. Any object with a mass greater than the mass of air for a same volume will sink, otherwise it will float. Let's take the example of the balloon (I will work in the metric system now, without changing the numbers; the results won't change). He has a density of 0.164 Kg/m³, and let's consider the balloon a sphere of radius 10cm.
Volume of the sphere=4/3 Pi*r³=4188 cm³. To get the mass of the He, just multiply it by the density (carefulwith the units) and you will get 0.686g. Add that to the mass of the balloon itself (let's say 2g), and the total mass is 2.686g
Now for the mass of air: at sea level and normal temperature, air has a density of 1.2 kg/m³. Multiply that by the volume and you get 5.02g
Since 5.02>2.686, the buoyant force is greater than the gravitational force, and the balloon will rise. The density of air is not constant with altitude, however, so at some point the two will equalize (if the rubber resists) and the balloon will be stationary.

Thanks.

Thanks.

There's even more you can do: given the difference in densities of He and air, you can calculate the volume you need to lift a specific mass.
1 m³ of He has 0.164 kg of mass, and the same amount of air has 1.2 kg; therefore, each cubic meter of He in a balloon can lift 1.2-0.164=1.036kg

Quote from: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 09:13:53 AM

As I become more indoctrinated in the FET

Thanks for admitting that you are just being indoctrinated.  And that you have given up on thinking for yourself and are just taking the FE story for what it is.  Congratulations.

And also this
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

BJ1234,

When you began learning physics you were being indoctrinated too. As far as the the video goes, if they kept pulling the air out i'm sure the balloon would have been sucked up into the tube. When they allowed air to reenter the chamber the Helium balloon was lighter or less dense then air an it began to rise. Have I stated something different some where?
Yendor

I wish I could find a different video of a helium balloon in a vacuum chamber so it doesn't give the impression that it may be getting sucked up into the large tube at the top.  The main problem is that to get the surrounding pressure down far enough for the balloon to equalize enough for gravity to overpower the buoyancy, then the balloon will most likely pop or expand enough to fill most of the chamber due to the difference in pressure between inside and outside.

Here is an interesting one dealing with heavier than air gases.  Somewhat of the same principles are at play.  The more dense gas, which is clear has a boat made of aluminum foil floating on what looks like nothing in a fishtank. 

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

When you began learning physics you were being indoctrinated too.

Okay so you've never taken a physics class. Anybody who has ever taken engineering physics knows that you start with the most basic of principles. The force of your feet on the ground you can feel. Geometry. Observable phenomena. And then it builds from there, using logical/mathematical derivations and lab experiments.

NOWHERE in there is indoctrination.

.......okay maybe some of the advanced Quantum mechanics, that shit is voodoo haha

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 24, 2015, 05:49:52 AM

Quote from: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 11:51:13 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 23, 2015, 11:25:46 AM

Because the density of the balloon when filled with helium is lower than the atmosphere surrounding it by a good bit.  The same could be said for a balloon filled with carbon dioxide underwater (you know if you could blow a balloon up under water and release it.  It would float to the top rather quickly and then float on top of the water.  Or release an ice cube from your freezer underwater, it will float to the top since it contains air pockets, its density is less than the surrounding water and it will float up. 
So yes, gravity on such a small mass when the density is much lower would not overcome the tendency to float to the lower density area.

Mikey T.

I understand what you are telling me. I've seen balloons float away and ice cubes rise to the surface. But could you kindly work out the formula for me and show me the results of the earth's gravity pulling on a helium filled balloon that is 10" diameter. I haven't done much math for a long time. If you don't want to that's fine.

Thanks,
Yendor

Since I am at work I will not be able to do the math for you right now but the mass of the balloon vs the buoyancy in the air is what you need.  It depends on those factors.  Just saying a 10" balloon filled with helium really isn't enough per say.  If you want a close approximation of the forces at work you would need to know the mass of the empty balloon and the mass of the helium inside once filled to an appropriate level.  This would give you enough, with the mass of the Earth numbers to calculate the force of gravity on the balloon.  You would then need the buoyancy calculations for that volume of helium for air at sea level.  It's a bit of calculations and some research to do, so good luck and if I get a chance I will do the same and we can compare numbers.

This is easy. You can actually calculate the buoyant force from scratch, but I'll skip that and say that Fb=d*V*g, where d is the density of the fluid the object is immersed in, V is the volume displaced by said object and g is the gravitational constant. In this case, the only forces at work are gravity and buoyancy, so for an object to remain stationary (neither sink nor rise), the two must be equal
mg=d*V*g -> m=V*d. Any object with a mass greater than the mass of air for a same volume will sink, otherwise it will float. Let's take the example of the balloon (I will work in the metric system now, without changing the numbers; the results won't change). He has a density of 0.164 Kg/m³, and let's consider the balloon a sphere of radius 10cm.
Volume of the sphere=4/3 Pi*r³=4188 cm³. To get the mass of the He, just multiply it by the density (carefulwith the units) and you will get 0.686g. Add that to the mass of the balloon itself (let's say 2g), and the total mass is 2.686g
Now for the mass of air: at sea level and normal temperature, air has a density of 1.2 kg/m³. Multiply that by the volume and you get 5.02g
Since 5.02>2.686, the buoyant force is greater than the gravitational force, and the balloon will rise. The density of air is not constant with altitude, however, so at some point the two will equalize (if the rubber resists) and the balloon will be stationary.

spaceman spiff,

The author is talking about the mass of the Earth and the balloon filled with Helium.

His quote,"With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but
to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1.
F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force
that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the
helium is rising to meet its level of density."
Yendor

I'm going to gamble, that understanding these lectures isn't beyond you.    Lesson 1 covers Newtonian Gravity,  if you can understand that,  then you might later want to advance to Einstein's General Relativity.

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

I wish I could find a different video of a helium balloon in a vacuum chamber so it doesn't give the impression that it may be getting sucked up into the large tube at the top.  The main problem is that to get the surrounding pressure down far enough for the balloon to equalize enough for gravity to overpower the buoyancy, then the balloon will most likely pop or expand enough to fill most of the chamber due to the difference in pressure between inside and outside.

Here is an interesting one dealing with heavier than air gases.  Somewhat of the same principles are at play.  The more dense gas, which is clear has a boat made of aluminum foil floating on what looks like nothing in a fishtank. 

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

Mikey T.

I know how vacuum works. I've had to evacuate a lot of air out of things during my life. I know that when you pull air out the balloon will get larger because the air outside will be less dense then the air inside. If you keep pulling a vacuum evently the balloon would burst. What I meant on my last post to you was, when the balloon burst it would be sucked up into the vacuum hose.
Yendor

So do you see why air is not responsible for gravity yet?

I'm going to gamble, that understanding these lectures isn't beyond you.    Lesson 1 covers Newtonian Gravity,  if you can understand that,  then you might later want to advance to Einstein's General Relativity.

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

Rayzor,

Good afternoon to you. Before I watch any youtube videos, read this.

NEWTON’S THOUGHTS ON GRAVITY
Newtonian gravity theory assumes that gravity propagates instantaneously across empty space, i.e. it is believed to be a form of action at a distance. However, in a private letter Newton himself dismissed this idea:
That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.1
Newton periodically toyed with the idea of an all-pervading ether filling his ‘absolute space’, and thought that the cause of gravity must be a spiritual agency, which he understood to mean ‘God’.


Here is Tesla's thoughts on relativity. I think Tesla was the smartest of them all.


quote from Tesla:
"According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible."

From Einstein:
Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.
Albert Einstein

I've read a lot and watched many videos to know there are some bugs in the ointment. Someone is not telling the whole truth.
Yendor

What do you think Gravity is and why different masses fall at the same rate?

What do you think Gravity is and why different masses fall at the same rate?

sokarul,
Good afternoon. I thing what we call gravity is the combination of:
A. Density of objects
B. Atmospheric pressure
c. Some kind of magnetic force

Different masses don't fall at the same rate. Heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects given enough distance for the heavier object to have enough time to gain enough speed to pass the smaller object.
Yendor

So do you see why air is not responsible for gravity yet?

sokarul,

Good afternoon. I still believe the atmosphere, density and maybe some kind of magnetic force. Is what we call gravity.
Yendor

Quote from: spaceman spiff on June 24, 2015, 06:55:20 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 24, 2015, 05:49:52 AM

Quote from: Yendor on June 23, 2015, 11:51:13 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 23, 2015, 11:25:46 AM

Because the density of the balloon when filled with helium is lower than the atmosphere surrounding it by a good bit.  The same could be said for a balloon filled with carbon dioxide underwater (you know if you could blow a balloon up under water and release it.  It would float to the top rather quickly and then float on top of the water.  Or release an ice cube from your freezer underwater, it will float to the top since it contains air pockets, its density is less than the surrounding water and it will float up. 
So yes, gravity on such a small mass when the density is much lower would not overcome the tendency to float to the lower density area.

Mikey T.

I understand what you are telling me. I've seen balloons float away and ice cubes rise to the surface. But could you kindly work out the formula for me and show me the results of the earth's gravity pulling on a helium filled balloon that is 10" diameter. I haven't done much math for a long time. If you don't want to that's fine.

Thanks,
Yendor

Since I am at work I will not be able to do the math for you right now but the mass of the balloon vs the buoyancy in the air is what you need.  It depends on those factors.  Just saying a 10" balloon filled with helium really isn't enough per say.  If you want a close approximation of the forces at work you would need to know the mass of the empty balloon and the mass of the helium inside once filled to an appropriate level.  This would give you enough, with the mass of the Earth numbers to calculate the force of gravity on the balloon.  You would then need the buoyancy calculations for that volume of helium for air at sea level.  It's a bit of calculations and some research to do, so good luck and if I get a chance I will do the same and we can compare numbers.

This is easy. You can actually calculate the buoyant force from scratch, but I'll skip that and say that Fb=d*V*g, where d is the density of the fluid the object is immersed in, V is the volume displaced by said object and g is the gravitational constant. In this case, the only forces at work are gravity and buoyancy, so for an object to remain stationary (neither sink nor rise), the two must be equal
mg=d*V*g -> m=V*d. Any object with a mass greater than the mass of air for a same volume will sink, otherwise it will float. Let's take the example of the balloon (I will work in the metric system now, without changing the numbers; the results won't change). He has a density of 0.164 Kg/m³, and let's consider the balloon a sphere of radius 10cm.
Volume of the sphere=4/3 Pi*r³=4188 cm³. To get the mass of the He, just multiply it by the density (carefulwith the units) and you will get 0.686g. Add that to the mass of the balloon itself (let's say 2g), and the total mass is 2.686g
Now for the mass of air: at sea level and normal temperature, air has a density of 1.2 kg/m³. Multiply that by the volume and you get 5.02g
Since 5.02>2.686, the buoyant force is greater than the gravitational force, and the balloon will rise. The density of air is not constant with altitude, however, so at some point the two will equalize (if the rubber resists) and the balloon will be stationary.

spaceman spiff,

The author is talking about the mass of the Earth and the balloon filled with Helium.

His quote,"With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but
to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1.
F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force
that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the
helium is rising to meet its level of density."
Yendor

You're confusing which force acts on which body.  Since we are interested only in the motion of the balloon, the fact that it exerts a force on earth is irrelevant. There are only 2 forces acting on the balloon: gravity and buoyancy, and that's all you need to calculate its motion.
And yes, the force on the balloon due to the earth has the same magnitude as the force on earth due to the balloon; Newton's 3rd law. The author is saying that the balloon would not rise if the force on earth due to the balloon is the same as the force on the balloon due to earth. These two forces are acting on two different bodies; the author apparently forgot that, or I didn't understand the quote

Quote from: sokarul on June 24, 2015, 09:56:49 AM

What do you think Gravity is and why different masses fall at the same rate?

sokarul,
Good afternoon. I thing what we call gravity is the combination of:
A. Density of objects
B. Atmospheric pressure
c. Some kind of magnetic force

Different masses don't fall at the same rate. Heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects given enough distance for the heavier object to have enough time to gain enough speed to pass the smaller object.
Yendor

If magnetism was involved then magnets would be effected differently by gravity and magnetic metals like Iron would be effected differently then non-magnetic metals like copper.  That doesn't happen.

The reason feathers usually fall slower then hammers is because of the air resistance to mass ratio, but in a vacuum all objects fall at the same rate.  Zero G planes are proof of this, they fly in a parabolic trajectory where they accelerate down at 9.8m/s² and everything in them appears weightless because it's all falling at the same rate.  Air resistance is not a probelem since the air in the plane is not moving relative to the objects.

Some objects like balloons fall up because the buoyant force which is there because the air is heavier then the balloon and so the air goes down and the balloon goes up, kind of like what happens when you have a light person and a heavy person on a teeter toter.  Gravity is still trying to pull the balloon down but the buoyant force is stronger.

In a vacuum, hammers and feathers fall at the same rate.  This experiment has been replicated many times.  A local round earther (I can't remember who) actually did an experiment wcich proved that objects get heavier on lower pressures because the buoyant force is weaker.

Spaceman spiff,

I didn't give you enough information, I guess. Here is just one of the authors experiment to disprove gravity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several ways to disprove gravity.
1) Experimentally
One simple experiment shows there is no gravity. The Helium Balloon. It rises. How is this
possible? Classical Mechanics shows that Force equals the Constant of Gravity multiplied by the
Mass of Object 1 multiplied by the Mass of Object 2 divided by the Distance between the two
masses raised to the second power.
F=GM1M2/r^2
With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but
to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1.
F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force
that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the
helium is rising to meet its level of density.

Yendor

Heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects given enough distance for the heavier object to have enough time to gain enough speed to pass the smaller object.
Yendor

This is quite a claim  -do you have evidence to support this assertion?

Different masses don't fall at the same rate. Heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects given enough distance for the heavier object to have enough time to gain enough speed to pass the smaller object.

Yes they do,  different mass objects fall at exactly the same rate in a uniform gravitational field.    This is what Galileo proved back the 1600's
If you take away air resistance,  a feather will fall at exactly the same rate as hundred pound block of steel.   

Galileo is supposed to have dropped different  things off the leaning tower of Pisa to prove it.

Spaceman spiff,

I didn't give you enough information, I guess. Here is just one of the authors experiment to disprove gravity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several ways to disprove gravity.
1) Experimentally
One simple experiment shows there is no gravity. The Helium Balloon. It rises. How is this
possible? Classical Mechanics shows that Force equals the Constant of Gravity multiplied by the
Mass of Object 1 multiplied by the Mass of Object 2 divided by the Distance between the two
masses raised to the second power.
F=GM1M2/r^2
With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but
to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1.
F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force
that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the
helium is rising to meet its level of density.

Yendor

With a helium balloon gravity is not the only force involved, there is also the buoyant force.  Gravity is also trying to pull down the air, and because it's heavier then the balloon the air goes down and the balloon goes up like two people on a teeter totter.  The buoyant force is proportional to the density of the air times the volume of the object times the force of gravity.  Mass is not a factor in buoyancy and it's the only factor in gravity, so with a small mass and a large volume like a helium balloon will be buoyant enough and light enough that the bouyant force is stronger then gravity, so the object floats up.

Quote from: sokarul on June 24, 2015, 09:38:52 AM

So do you see why air is not responsible for gravity yet?

sokarul,

Good afternoon. I still believe the atmosphere, density and maybe some kind of magnetic force. Is what we call gravity.
Yendor

Then why didnt the experiment I do show a change in weight?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 10:38:22 AM

Quote from: sokarul on June 24, 2015, 09:56:49 AM

What do you think Gravity is and why different masses fall at the same rate?

sokarul,
Good afternoon. I thing what we call gravity is the combination of:
A. Density of objects
B. Atmospheric pressure
c. Some kind of magnetic force

Different masses don't fall at the same rate. Heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects given enough distance for the heavier object to have enough time to gain enough speed to pass the smaller object.
Yendor

If magnetism was involved then magnets would be effected differently by gravity and magnetic metals like Iron would be effected differently then non-magnetic metals like copper.  That doesn't happen.

The reason feathers usually fall slower then hammers is because of the air resistance to mass ratio, but in a vacuum all objects fall at the same rate.  Zero G planes are proof of this, they fly in a parabolic trajectory where they accelerate down at 9.8m/s² and everything in them appears weightless because it's all falling at the same rate.  Air resistance is not a probelem since the air in the plane is not moving relative to the objects.

Some objects like balloons fall up because the buoyant force which is there because the air is heavier then the balloon and so the air goes down and the balloon goes up, kind of like what happens when you have a light person and a heavy person on a teeter toter.  Gravity is still trying to pull the balloon down but the buoyant force is stronger.

In a vacuum, hammers and feathers fall at the same rate.  This experiment has been replicated many times.  A local round earther (I can't remember who) actually did an experiment wcich proved that objects get heavier on lower pressures because the buoyant force is weaker.

Hello mikeman,

I'm not talking about magnetism in the sense of the word. This is what I mean: Temperature/vertical magnetism of the Earth. Why does heavy than air smoke rise up against the lighter air molecules? Temperate reduces the magnet attraction/repulsion.

I don't consider Zero G planes a good simulation of gravity. It simply pulls the bottom out from the people on board. They are floating because they can't catch up with the floor of the plane and they probably use large fans to blow them up so they look like they are floating. It looks cool, but I don't think gravity would look like that in the real world. It would look like someone falling off a building. You would be wise not to believe everything NASA tells you.

I don't know if I can trust someone when they say they can pull enough vacuum so a hammer and a feather falls at the same rate. I believe I'd have to take part in that experiment to believe it.
Yendor

Quote from: sokarul on June 24, 2015, 09:56:49 AM

What do you think Gravity is and why different masses fall at the same rate?

sokarul,
Good afternoon. I thing what we call gravity is the combination of:
A. Density of objects
B. Atmospheric pressure
c. Some kind of magnetic force

Different masses don't fall at the same rate. Heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects given enough distance for the heavier object to have enough time to gain enough speed to pass the smaller object.
Yendor

That post has all the indications of a blatant troll,   deliberately false and looney proposals,  phrased politely but classic trolling nonetheless.   He did it before with the spinning earth frames of reference thread, and he's shaping up to do it again.   So have fun Yendor.   I think you just overreached.

I'm not talking about magnetism in the sense of the word. This is what I mean: Temperature/vertical magnetism of the Earth. Why does heavy than air smoke rise up against the lighter air molecules? Temperate reduces the magnet attraction/repulsion.

That happens because all the heat makes the air expand and become less dense, so it rises and creates an updraft which carries smoke particles up with it.  Again, gravity is not the only force involved.  Temperature effects how fast things fall because it makes things expand and that makes the buoyant force stronger.

If your theory is right then who does ice, which is colder then water, float?  Mainstream science says that it's because water has the unique property of expanding when it freezes which makes ice lighter then water so the buoyant force makes it float.

I don't consider Zero G planes a good simulation of gravity. It simply pulls the bottom out from the people on board. They are floating because they can't catch up with the floor of the plane and they probably use large fans to blow them up so they look like they are floating. It looks cool, but I don't think gravity would look like that in the real world. It would look like someone falling off a building. You would be wise not to believe everything NASA tells you.

There are no fans beneath a zero G plane, just look at videos from them.

Also, it isn't just NASA that says that things fall at the same rate.  That was well known since the time of Galileo.

I don't know if I can trust someone when they say they can pull enough vacuum so a hammer and a feather falls at the same rate. I believe I'd have to take part in that experiment to believe it.
Yendor

Fair enough.

Quote from: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 10:44:10 AM

Quote from: sokarul on June 24, 2015, 09:38:52 AM

So do you see why air is not responsible for gravity yet?

sokarul,

Good afternoon. I still believe the atmosphere, density and maybe some kind of magnetic force. Is what we call gravity.
Yendor

Then why didnt the experiment I do show a change in weight?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Still waiting for a response.

Quote from: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 10:38:22 AM

Quote from: sokarul on June 24, 2015, 09:56:49 AM

What do you think Gravity is and why different masses fall at the same rate?

sokarul,
Good afternoon. I thing what we call gravity is the combination of:
A. Density of objects
B. Atmospheric pressure
c. Some kind of magnetic force

Different masses don't fall at the same rate. Heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects given enough distance for the heavier object to have enough time to gain enough speed to pass the smaller object.
Yendor

That post has all the indications of a blatant troll,   deliberately false and looney proposals,  phrased politely but classic trolling nonetheless.   He did it before with the spinning earth frames of reference thread, and he's shaping up to do it again.   So have fun Yendor.   I think you just overreached.

I think he overreached with all the Masonic shit before.  Especially the Masonic "G" standing for gravity.

Quote from: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 11:43:39 AM

I'm not talking about magnetism in the sense of the word. This is what I mean: Temperature/vertical magnetism of the Earth. Why does heavy than air smoke rise up against the lighter air molecules? Temperate reduces the magnet attraction/repulsion.

That happens because all the heat makes the air expand and become less dense, so it rises and creates an updraft which carries smoke particles up with it.  Again, gravity is not the only force involved.  Temperature effects how fast things fall because it makes things expand and that makes the buoyant force stronger.

If your theory is right then who does ice, which is colder then water, float?  Mainstream science says that it's because water has the unique property of expanding when it freezes which makes ice lighter then water so the buoyant force makes it float.

Quote from: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 11:43:39 AM

I don't consider Zero G planes a good simulation of gravity. It simply pulls the bottom out from the people on board. They are floating because they can't catch up with the floor of the plane and they probably use large fans to blow them up so they look like they are floating. It looks cool, but I don't think gravity would look like that in the real world. It would look like someone falling off a building. You would be wise not to believe everything NASA tells you.

There are no fans beneath a zero G plane, just look at videos from them.

Also, it isn't just NASA that says that things fall at the same rate.  That was well known since the time of Galileo.

Quote from: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 11:43:39 AM

I don't know if I can trust someone when they say they can pull enough vacuum so a hammer and a feather falls at the same rate. I believe I'd have to take part in that experiment to believe it.
Yendor

Fair enough.

Mikeman,

Aristotle was correct in claiming that heavier objects fall faster (in air or any other dense medium).

Do you really believe those guys are twirling around like that simply because the plane takes a dive. Do you think the same thing would happen if you were on an elevator and the cable broke and you went down like a bat out of h-ll. I bet the ceiling would come down to meet you.

Yendor 

Yendor, listen up, Aristotle is probably a Renaissance Scientist or philosopher who invented the era and the character of Aristotle, ancient Greece is a hoax.
Fomenko is not a truly devoted to seek the truth but I believe history is a hoax.

Quote from: Yendor on June 24, 2015, 10:38:22 AM

Quote from: sokarul on June 24, 2015, 09:56:49 AM

What do you think Gravity is and why different masses fall at the same rate?

sokarul,
Good afternoon. I thing what we call gravity is the combination of:
A. Density of objects
B. Atmospheric pressure
c. Some kind of magnetic force

Different masses don't fall at the same rate. Heavier objects fall faster then lighter objects given enough distance for the heavier object to have enough time to gain enough speed to pass the smaller object.
Yendor

That post has all the indications of a blatant troll,   deliberately false and looney proposals,  phrased politely but classic trolling nonetheless.   He did it before with the spinning earth frames of reference thread, and he's shaping up to do it again.   So have fun Yendor.   I think you just overreached.

Rayzor,

And I thought we were being cordial towards each other and then you had to go and call me a blatant troll no less,(the ones with different color hair are cute though).  I'm not really sure what is meant by being a troll on here. If I have been doing it I'm truly sorry. My post was an excerpt from the work someone else did. I was only trying to answer questions that everyone was throwing an me in between working on a job outside. I know you guys are smart as h_ll when it comes to this stuff, It's blatantly obvious. I'm just spouting off stuff I've read trying to keep my head above the water. It is hard when I'm being attacked by so many REers at once. When I made the statement I now believe FEers are right, I made no claims I was now an expert and I now everything about the flat Earth. I certainly don't. Now I don't care If people call me names or not, I can get over that. I'm not a kid, I'm all grown up. I'm not like that Astronaut who wanted to punch that guy in the face because he simply wanted for him to put his hand on the Bible and swear he went to the moon. I don't see any thing wrong with that. I would have done that without any hesitation. If he did go to the moon, whats the big deal.

Here is the bottom line, if you guys think I'm only trolling you and you think I'm just here trying to be dumb, Then please don't respond to anymore of my posts and I will simply go away.
Thanks,
Yendor

Yendor, listen up, Aristotle is probably a Renaissance Scientist or philosopher who invented the era and the character of Aristotle, ancient Greece is a hoax.
Fomenko is not a truly devoted to seek the truth but I believe history is a hoax.

modestman,

I guess I still have a friend in you. I had never heard anyone say that history is a hoax before. That's interesting. I've never heard of Fomenko before either. I need to study this kind of stuff more. Thanks,
Yendor