Disproof of gravity

  • 1389 Replies
  • 174730 Views
?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1350 on: October 15, 2015, 10:27:52 AM »
Quote
The very last molecules are at full expansion at the top. They can't expand much more and are not compressed by much matter at all, so they have no need to do any work or very little and so they freeze into a dome shape due to the central suns energy making it that way.
Quote
None of the molecules push down. They push UP and resist upon the next molecules.

The very last molecules at the top are pushed against but do not push back because they do not have any leverage to do so as there is nothing to push against.
I don't get it. Is there a dome or not (to push against)?

If there is a dome, the Earth and dome form a room/container. Molecules don't push up or down - they push in all directions until they encounter a surface. With wind, they get mixed all over the place (churned).  The natural state of any room/container is to have the molecules equalized (evenly distributed).
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1351 on: October 15, 2015, 10:47:30 AM »
I still don't quite understand how this works.

You are saying that the atmosphere pushing down is what causes things to fall and keeps us on the Earth.  What causes the atmosphere to push or be pulled towards the Earth?  What prevents it from venting off into space?
The atmosphere is stacked. It is atmospheric matter that is attached with NO free space.
Energy from within the ground PUSHES UP to force an object ( tree for instance) into the atmosphere. That tree now grows into that atmosphere by pushing against the stack of atmosphere.
The pressure at ground level is due to the stacking. At ground level or sea level, the molecules are all under severe compression by the molecules above them and above them and so on and so on...all the way to the top.

All the way up the molecules are in different states of compression or expansion. Energy causes change in this by friction, whether it's lightning or fires on the ground or things growing or us moving, etc.

All this happens due to the central core sun  but we don't need to go that far into it.

Anyway, as the molecules stack up they each exert their own mass onto the mass below them.
The very last molecules are at full expansion at the top. They can't expand much more and are not compressed by much matter at all, so they have no need to do any work or very little and so they freeze into a dome shape due to the central suns energy making it that way.

Nothing can vent off into space because there is no such thing as venting up in that sky. It's stacking.
You think of venting because you are under pressure down here and are fighting that pressure with your own dense body. You are basically being friction burned back into the ground but to you, it's called living.

If people just took the time to grasp what's being said, it will open their eyes. Unfortunately the so called science world has done a great number on them in the severe brainwashing department.

Most people are just faithful guardians of the lies without even realising it. It's almost like a scrap yard guard dog unconditionally looking after the yard and owner even though the owner feeds it crap and ridicules it on a regular basis by throwing it a fictional bone to chase and yet the dog still falls for the very same trick and will still tear your throat out if you trespass  on the owners land, even if you hold out a treat.

Okay, but what causes it to stack relative to the ground?  Why not stack from the bottom up?  How does a gas molecule know which way is towards the ground?  If you put a gas in a sealed container, it will want to equalize the pressure.  Why doesn't the atmosphere want to equalize the pressure from the top down?

I don't understand why you felt the need to add the rhetoric at the end there.  I am asking relevant questions to better understand your theory and how it works.
The fact that you asked me how the molecules know which way is towards the ground and also not understanding the fact that I've just explained how they are stacked from the BOTTOM up, tells me that you are taking the piss.

Just carry on with whoever wants to converse with you because I'm done with explaining anything to you.
Don't waste your time typing back or using silliness, it will be ignored.

I am trying to understand your theory.  Do you not want your theory understood?  Do you not want it accepted?  I don't think you would have posted it if you didn't.  Don't be afraid to defend it or answer questions about it.  Be proud of it.

So, you have a bunch of gas molecules stacked, each with the mass of the gas molecules on top of it pushing it down.  So you have a bunch of gas molecules that are all pressing down.  Even the gas molecules at the very top that have no molecules pushing them down.  What causes those gas molecules at the very top layer of the atmosphere to push down towards the Earth?
None of the molecules push down. They push UP and resist upon the next molecules.

The very last molecules at the top are pushed against but do not push back because they do not have any leverage to do so as there is nothing to push against.

Okay, but for the most part, gas molecules aren't touching each other.  They move rapidly in free space and occasionally collide with each other.  There is actually a term for the distance between collisions, called mean free path.  At 1 atm, it is roughly 66 nm (nanometers) for air.  A nitrogen molecule has a diameter around 0.370 nm.  That should give you an idea of the amount of empty space between gas molecules.  You can also use the ideal gas law to get a rough estimate of the number of gas molecules in a given volume to get a better understanding of the amount of empty space in a gas.  As you get closer to sea level, the atmosphere gets denser, which means there are more gas molecules in a given volume.  More gas molecules means more collisions with objects in the atmosphere.  These collisions is what is causing pressure.  The fact that gas molecules aren't attached to each other is why they will fill the volume they are placed in.  If you place it in a larger container, it will expand to fill it, causing the particles to be farther apart, reducing the number of collisions, and reducing the pressure.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1352 on: October 15, 2015, 10:58:38 AM »
I still don't quite understand how this works.

You are saying that the atmosphere pushing down is what causes things to fall and keeps us on the Earth.  What causes the atmosphere to push or be pulled towards the Earth?  What prevents it from venting off into space?
The atmosphere is stacked. It is atmospheric matter that is attached with NO free space.
Energy from within the ground PUSHES UP to force an object ( tree for instance) into the atmosphere. That tree now grows into that atmosphere by pushing against the stack of atmosphere.
The pressure at ground level is due to the stacking. At ground level or sea level, the molecules are all under severe compression by the molecules above them and above them and so on and so on...all the way to the top.

All the way up the molecules are in different states of compression or expansion. Energy causes change in this by friction, whether it's lightning or fires on the ground or things growing or us moving, etc.

All this happens due to the central core sun  but we don't need to go that far into it.

Anyway, as the molecules stack up they each exert their own mass onto the mass below them.
The very last molecules are at full expansion at the top. They can't expand much more and are not compressed by much matter at all, so they have no need to do any work or very little and so they freeze into a dome shape due to the central suns energy making it that way.

Nothing can vent off into space because there is no such thing as venting up in that sky. It's stacking.
You think of venting because you are under pressure down here and are fighting that pressure with your own dense body. You are basically being friction burned back into the ground but to you, it's called living.

If people just took the time to grasp what's being said, it will open their eyes. Unfortunately the so called science world has done a great number on them in the severe brainwashing department.

Most people are just faithful guardians of the lies without even realising it. It's almost like a scrap yard guard dog unconditionally looking after the yard and owner even though the owner feeds it crap and ridicules it on a regular basis by throwing it a fictional bone to chase and yet the dog still falls for the very same trick and will still tear your throat out if you trespass  on the owners land, even if you hold out a treat.

Okay, but what causes it to stack relative to the ground?  Why not stack from the bottom up?  How does a gas molecule know which way is towards the ground?  If you put a gas in a sealed container, it will want to equalize the pressure.  Why doesn't the atmosphere want to equalize the pressure from the top down?

I don't understand why you felt the need to add the rhetoric at the end there.  I am asking relevant questions to better understand your theory and how it works.
The fact that you asked me how the molecules know which way is towards the ground and also not understanding the fact that I've just explained how they are stacked from the BOTTOM up, tells me that you are taking the piss.

Just carry on with whoever wants to converse with you because I'm done with explaining anything to you.
Don't waste your time typing back or using silliness, it will be ignored.

I am trying to understand your theory.  Do you not want your theory understood?  Do you not want it accepted?  I don't think you would have posted it if you didn't.  Don't be afraid to defend it or answer questions about it.  Be proud of it.

So, you have a bunch of gas molecules stacked, each with the mass of the gas molecules on top of it pushing it down.  So you have a bunch of gas molecules that are all pressing down.  Even the gas molecules at the very top that have no molecules pushing them down.  What causes those gas molecules at the very top layer of the atmosphere to push down towards the Earth?
None of the molecules push down. They push UP and resist upon the next molecules.

The very last molecules at the top are pushed against but do not push back because they do not have any leverage to do so as there is nothing to push against.

Okay, but for the most part, gas molecules aren't touching each other.  They move rapidly in free space and occasionally collide with each other.  There is actually a term for the distance between collisions, called mean free path.  At 1 atm, it is roughly 66 nm (nanometers) for air.  A nitrogen molecule has a diameter around 0.370 nm.  That should give you an idea of the amount of empty space between gas molecules.  You can also use the ideal gas law to get a rough estimate of the number of gas molecules in a given volume to get a better understanding of the amount of empty space in a gas.  As you get closer to sea level, the atmosphere gets denser, which means there are more gas molecules in a given volume.  More gas molecules means more collisions with objects in the atmosphere.  These collisions is what is causing pressure.  The fact that gas molecules aren't attached to each other is why they will fill the volume they are placed in.  If you place it in a larger container, it will expand to fill it, causing the particles to be farther apart, reducing the number of collisions, and reducing the pressure.
Before I carry on with you I need you to tell me just what is the free space in between these molecules.

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1353 on: October 15, 2015, 11:07:21 AM »
There is nothing between the molecules, it's just empty space. 

Think of it this way, you have a container separated by a partition that prevents movement of molecules from one side to the other.  Each side is 1 liter in volume.  On one side you have air at atmospheric pressure, on the other is a vacuum.  When you remove the partition, the air fills the volume.  You still have the same amount of air molecules, they are just more spread out now.

« Last Edit: October 15, 2015, 11:11:41 AM by TexasH »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1354 on: October 15, 2015, 11:16:20 AM »
There is nothing between the molecules, it's just empty space. 

Think of it this way, you have a container separated by a partition that prevents movement of molecules from one side to the other.  Each side is 1 liter in volume.  On one side you have air at atmospheric pressure, on the other is a vacuum.  When you remove the partition, the air fills the volume.  You still have the same amount of air molecules, they are just more spread out now.
You stick to that. I have nothing further to say. there's not a hope in hell that I can make you see the reality. You're too indoctrinated by the bullshit .

Free space.  ::)

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1355 on: October 15, 2015, 11:24:34 AM »
There is nothing between the molecules, it's just empty space. 

Think of it this way, you have a container separated by a partition that prevents movement of molecules from one side to the other.  Each side is 1 liter in volume.  On one side you have air at atmospheric pressure, on the other is a vacuum.  When you remove the partition, the air fills the volume.  You still have the same amount of air molecules, they are just more spread out now.
You stick to that. I have nothing further to say. there's not a hope in hell that I can make you see the reality. You're too indoctrinated by the bullshit .

Free space.  ::)

Stick to what?  What do you propose is between gas molecules then?  So even science that has no relevance on the shape of the Earth is BS?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1356 on: October 15, 2015, 11:35:14 AM »
There is nothing between the molecules, it's just empty space. 

Think of it this way, you have a container separated by a partition that prevents movement of molecules from one side to the other.  Each side is 1 liter in volume.  On one side you have air at atmospheric pressure, on the other is a vacuum.  When you remove the partition, the air fills the volume.  You still have the same amount of air molecules, they are just more spread out now.
You stick to that. I have nothing further to say. there's not a hope in hell that I can make you see the reality. You're too indoctrinated by the bullshit .

Free space.  ::)

Stick to what?  What do you propose is between gas molecules then?  So even science that has no relevance on the shape of the Earth is BS?
The atmosphere is massively relevant to the shape of the Earth...but, your issue is having molecules with free space inbetween and you're saying that this free space is literally nothing or a vacuum, right?

Honestly you're being duped to hell and you are not going to listen to me, so just get on with what you believe and I'll do my own thing.

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1357 on: October 15, 2015, 11:39:16 AM »
There is nothing between the molecules, it's just empty space. 

Think of it this way, you have a container separated by a partition that prevents movement of molecules from one side to the other.  Each side is 1 liter in volume.  On one side you have air at atmospheric pressure, on the other is a vacuum.  When you remove the partition, the air fills the volume.  You still have the same amount of air molecules, they are just more spread out now.
You stick to that. I have nothing further to say. there's not a hope in hell that I can make you see the reality. You're too indoctrinated by the bullshit .

Free space.  ::)

Stick to what?  What do you propose is between gas molecules then?  So even science that has no relevance on the shape of the Earth is BS?
The atmosphere is massively relevant to the shape of the Earth...but, your issue is having molecules with free space inbetween and you're saying that this free space is literally nothing or a vacuum, right?

Honestly you're being duped to hell and you are not going to listen to me, so just get on with what you believe and I'll do my own thing.

What do you propose is between gas molecules?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1358 on: October 15, 2015, 11:52:28 AM »
There is nothing between the molecules, it's just empty space. 

Think of it this way, you have a container separated by a partition that prevents movement of molecules from one side to the other.  Each side is 1 liter in volume.  On one side you have air at atmospheric pressure, on the other is a vacuum.  When you remove the partition, the air fills the volume.  You still have the same amount of air molecules, they are just more spread out now.
You stick to that. I have nothing further to say. there's not a hope in hell that I can make you see the reality. You're too indoctrinated by the bullshit .

Free space.  ::)

Stick to what?  What do you propose is between gas molecules then?  So even science that has no relevance on the shape of the Earth is BS?
The atmosphere is massively relevant to the shape of the Earth...but, your issue is having molecules with free space inbetween and you're saying that this free space is literally nothing or a vacuum, right?

Honestly you're being duped to hell and you are not going to listen to me, so just get on with what you believe and I'll do my own thing.

What do you propose is between gas molecules?
Do you know what a gobstopper is?

Take a look at the inside of a gobstopper and imagine that gobstopper as a molecule of elements within.
Now imagine all the gobstoppers clumped together in various states of compression and expansion with outer parts peeling off by expansion and then contraction once away from the molecule to make another molecule that we see as another element.

Picture it like bubbles in a sink and notice how there is never a space between bubbles. When bubbles pop to our vision , they are merely expanding and then contracting. You can vision this in a similar way and see each molecule of matter holding life itself and all its elements from within the Earth to the air we are in up to the last element in that sky as part of the dome.

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1359 on: October 15, 2015, 11:58:48 AM »
There is nothing between the molecules, it's just empty space. 

Think of it this way, you have a container separated by a partition that prevents movement of molecules from one side to the other.  Each side is 1 liter in volume.  On one side you have air at atmospheric pressure, on the other is a vacuum.  When you remove the partition, the air fills the volume.  You still have the same amount of air molecules, they are just more spread out now.
You stick to that. I have nothing further to say. there's not a hope in hell that I can make you see the reality. You're too indoctrinated by the bullshit .

Free space.  ::)

Stick to what?  What do you propose is between gas molecules then?  So even science that has no relevance on the shape of the Earth is BS?
The atmosphere is massively relevant to the shape of the Earth...but, your issue is having molecules with free space inbetween and you're saying that this free space is literally nothing or a vacuum, right?

Honestly you're being duped to hell and you are not going to listen to me, so just get on with what you believe and I'll do my own thing.

What do you propose is between gas molecules?
Do you know what a gobstopper is?

Take a look at the inside of a gobstopper and imagine that gobstopper as a molecule of elements within.
Now imagine all the gobstoppers clumped together in various states of compression and expansion with outer parts peeling off by expansion and then contraction once away from the molecule to make another molecule that we see as another element.

Picture it like bubbles in a sink and notice how there is never a space between bubbles. When bubbles pop to our vision , they are merely expanding and then contracting. You can vision this in a similar way and see each molecule of matter holding life itself and all its elements from within the Earth to the air we are in up to the last element in that sky as part of the dome.

Are you trying to say that gas molecules expand and contract to fill the space they are in?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1360 on: October 15, 2015, 12:17:04 PM »
There is nothing between the molecules, it's just empty space. 

Think of it this way, you have a container separated by a partition that prevents movement of molecules from one side to the other.  Each side is 1 liter in volume.  On one side you have air at atmospheric pressure, on the other is a vacuum.  When you remove the partition, the air fills the volume.  You still have the same amount of air molecules, they are just more spread out now.
You stick to that. I have nothing further to say. there's not a hope in hell that I can make you see the reality. You're too indoctrinated by the bullshit .

Free space.  ::)

Stick to what?  What do you propose is between gas molecules then?  So even science that has no relevance on the shape of the Earth is BS?
The atmosphere is massively relevant to the shape of the Earth...but, your issue is having molecules with free space inbetween and you're saying that this free space is literally nothing or a vacuum, right?

Honestly you're being duped to hell and you are not going to listen to me, so just get on with what you believe and I'll do my own thing.

What do you propose is between gas molecules?
Do you know what a gobstopper is?

Take a look at the inside of a gobstopper and imagine that gobstopper as a molecule of elements within.
Now imagine all the gobstoppers clumped together in various states of compression and expansion with outer parts peeling off by expansion and then contraction once away from the molecule to make another molecule that we see as another element.

Picture it like bubbles in a sink and notice how there is never a space between bubbles. When bubbles pop to our vision , they are merely expanding and then contracting. You can vision this in a similar way and see each molecule of matter holding life itself and all its elements from within the Earth to the air we are in up to the last element in that sky as part of the dome.

Are you trying to say that gas molecules expand and contract to fill the space they are in?
They expand and contract depending on energy applied to them to release them from their own cocoon, kind of thing. It really needs a better explanation and a drawing  but I can't be arsed to waste my time on something that will inevitable be futile with you. Sorry about that. Just stick to what you believe, it's easier for you that way.

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1361 on: October 15, 2015, 12:29:43 PM »
There is nothing between the molecules, it's just empty space. 

Think of it this way, you have a container separated by a partition that prevents movement of molecules from one side to the other.  Each side is 1 liter in volume.  On one side you have air at atmospheric pressure, on the other is a vacuum.  When you remove the partition, the air fills the volume.  You still have the same amount of air molecules, they are just more spread out now.
You stick to that. I have nothing further to say. there's not a hope in hell that I can make you see the reality. You're too indoctrinated by the bullshit .

Free space.  ::)

Stick to what?  What do you propose is between gas molecules then?  So even science that has no relevance on the shape of the Earth is BS?
The atmosphere is massively relevant to the shape of the Earth...but, your issue is having molecules with free space inbetween and you're saying that this free space is literally nothing or a vacuum, right?

Honestly you're being duped to hell and you are not going to listen to me, so just get on with what you believe and I'll do my own thing.

What do you propose is between gas molecules?
Do you know what a gobstopper is?

Take a look at the inside of a gobstopper and imagine that gobstopper as a molecule of elements within.
Now imagine all the gobstoppers clumped together in various states of compression and expansion with outer parts peeling off by expansion and then contraction once away from the molecule to make another molecule that we see as another element.

Picture it like bubbles in a sink and notice how there is never a space between bubbles. When bubbles pop to our vision , they are merely expanding and then contracting. You can vision this in a similar way and see each molecule of matter holding life itself and all its elements from within the Earth to the air we are in up to the last element in that sky as part of the dome.

Are you trying to say that gas molecules expand and contract to fill the space they are in?
They expand and contract depending on energy applied to them to release them from their own cocoon, kind of thing. It really needs a better explanation and a drawing  but I can't be arsed to waste my time on something that will inevitable be futile with you. Sorry about that. Just stick to what you believe, it's easier for you that way.

What's the basis for this theory?  What observations led you to believe gases behave this way?

Also, why is empty space between gas molecules such a crazy idea?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1362 on: October 15, 2015, 07:22:34 PM »
There is nothing between the molecules, it's just empty space. 

Think of it this way, you have a container separated by a partition that prevents movement of molecules from one side to the other.  Each side is 1 liter in volume.  On one side you have air at atmospheric pressure, on the other is a vacuum.  When you remove the partition, the air fills the volume.  You still have the same amount of air molecules, they are just more spread out now.
You stick to that. I have nothing further to say. there's not a hope in hell that I can make you see the reality. You're too indoctrinated by the bullshit .

Free space.  ::)

Stick to what?  What do you propose is between gas molecules then?  So even science that has no relevance on the shape of the Earth is BS?
The atmosphere is massively relevant to the shape of the Earth...but, your issue is having molecules with free space inbetween and you're saying that this free space is literally nothing or a vacuum, right?

Honestly you're being duped to hell and you are not going to listen to me, so just get on with what you believe and I'll do my own thing.

What do you propose is between gas molecules?
Do you know what a gobstopper is?

Take a look at the inside of a gobstopper and imagine that gobstopper as a molecule of elements within.
Now imagine all the gobstoppers clumped together in various states of compression and expansion with outer parts peeling off by expansion and then contraction once away from the molecule to make another molecule that we see as another element.

Picture it like bubbles in a sink and notice how there is never a space between bubbles. When bubbles pop to our vision , they are merely expanding and then contracting. You can vision this in a similar way and see each molecule of matter holding life itself and all its elements from within the Earth to the air we are in up to the last element in that sky as part of the dome.

Are you trying to say that gas molecules expand and contract to fill the space they are in?
They expand and contract depending on energy applied to them to release them from their own cocoon, kind of thing. It really needs a better explanation and a drawing  but I can't be arsed to waste my time on something that will inevitable be futile with you. Sorry about that. Just stick to what you believe, it's easier for you that way.

I am finally convinced that the sceptic is having us all on!  There is no way any rational being could spout that sort of nonsense.  Maybe we might get some better ideas from TheEngineer, he claims to have a smattering of knowledge of this sort of thing, but I won't hold my breath!

I think I am happy live with gravity (even Newton's for most cases).  It's interesting that even Newton's gravitation predicts that light will be deflected by a large mass (such as the sun), but not by the observed value.
Cavendish's experiment worked and have been repeated numerous times, with the accepted value only 1% from his result.  The torsion balance is a difficult experiment, but has been greatly refined with digital readout and automatic data logging so bodies do not need to move around the apparatus.  A couple of other approaches have been used and give results within about 3 parts in 10,000 of the accepted value.  There are certainly questions still to be answered, but for practical applications on earth it works!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1363 on: October 16, 2015, 01:53:29 AM »
There is nothing between the molecules, it's just empty space. 

Think of it this way, you have a container separated by a partition that prevents movement of molecules from one side to the other.  Each side is 1 liter in volume.  On one side you have air at atmospheric pressure, on the other is a vacuum.  When you remove the partition, the air fills the volume.  You still have the same amount of air molecules, they are just more spread out now.
You stick to that. I have nothing further to say. there's not a hope in hell that I can make you see the reality. You're too indoctrinated by the bullshit .

Free space.  ::)

Stick to what?  What do you propose is between gas molecules then?  So even science that has no relevance on the shape of the Earth is BS?
The atmosphere is massively relevant to the shape of the Earth...but, your issue is having molecules with free space inbetween and you're saying that this free space is literally nothing or a vacuum, right?

Honestly you're being duped to hell and you are not going to listen to me, so just get on with what you believe and I'll do my own thing.

What do you propose is between gas molecules?
Do you know what a gobstopper is?

Take a look at the inside of a gobstopper and imagine that gobstopper as a molecule of elements within.
Now imagine all the gobstoppers clumped together in various states of compression and expansion with outer parts peeling off by expansion and then contraction once away from the molecule to make another molecule that we see as another element.

Picture it like bubbles in a sink and notice how there is never a space between bubbles. When bubbles pop to our vision , they are merely expanding and then contracting. You can vision this in a similar way and see each molecule of matter holding life itself and all its elements from within the Earth to the air we are in up to the last element in that sky as part of the dome.

Are you trying to say that gas molecules expand and contract to fill the space they are in?
They expand and contract depending on energy applied to them to release them from their own cocoon, kind of thing. It really needs a better explanation and a drawing  but I can't be arsed to waste my time on something that will inevitable be futile with you. Sorry about that. Just stick to what you believe, it's easier for you that way.

What's the basis for this theory?  What observations led you to believe gases behave this way?

Also, why is empty space between gas molecules such a crazy idea?
My theory is based on observations of what happens which leads me to be 100% sure that all matter is attached with absolutely no free space whatsoever in any shape or form except for magic and any rational person can understand that magic is fantasy.

All it requires is thought and the ability to set aside the mountainous amount of bullshit about all this stuff that was fed to us all throughout our lives.
If you are a young kid then I accept that you will see your side as the truth because brainwashing has got you to this stage. That's not a dig because I spent most of my life with the very same brainwashing.

The logical truth does not require equations to grasp. It merely requires out of the box thought.

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1364 on: October 16, 2015, 02:43:58 AM »
I don't have the time to read through 70 pages of replies so I don't know if this has been discussed here or not.

In the 1st post, the OP says he doesn't believe gravity is real and it's all due to pressure differentials or the weight of the air above an object, keeping it from floating in space, right?

I'm going to give the OP the benefit of the doubt and ask this: if what you say is true, how come objects (any object regardless of its weight) don't simply float if you place them in a vacuum chamber? There's no air in there to push it down! Your hypothesis should be very simple to test. Put an object of known weight in a vacuum chamber and see if it floats in mid air. Trust me, it won't.

In fact, that kind of chambers are the perfect experimental set-up for testing gravity. If you drop two objects of radically different weights, they should hit the ground in exactly the same time regardless of their weight. Inside the atmosphere that doesn't happen, because of air friction (among other things). But in a vacuum it does. If you remove air from the equation, gravity is the only thing left to influence your two objects. And they will reach the ground in EXACTLY the same time. It has been done, you can find the vids on youtube. 

Note:
You can't argue the validity of a vacuum chamber because you can build one for yourself. It's very easy. You only need an airtight container, a gauge to measure the atmospheric pressure inside the container and a vacuum pump. And the pumps are not even that expensive. You find cheap ones, for roughly £200 (maybe less if you buy it from eBay).
« Last Edit: October 16, 2015, 02:48:00 AM by adiman83 »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1365 on: October 16, 2015, 03:10:26 AM »
I don't have the time to read through 70 pages of replies so I don't know if this has been discussed here or not.

In the 1st post, the OP says he doesn't believe gravity is real and it's all due to pressure differentials or the weight of the air above an object, keeping it from floating in space, right?

I'm going to give the OP the benefit of the doubt and ask this: if what you say is true, how come objects (any object regardless of its weight) don't simply float if you place them in a vacuum chamber? There's no air in there to push it down! Your hypothesis should be very simple to test. Put an object of known weight in a vacuum chamber and see if it floats in mid air. Trust me, it won't.

In fact, that kind of chambers are the perfect experimental set-up for testing gravity. If you drop two objects of radically different weights, they should hit the ground in exactly the same time regardless of their weight. Inside the atmosphere that doesn't happen, because of air friction (among other things). But in a vacuum it does. If you remove air from the equation, gravity is the only thing left to influence your two objects. And they will reach the ground in EXACTLY the same time. It has been done, you can find the vids on youtube. 

Note:
You can't argue the validity of a vacuum chamber because you can build one for yourself. It's very easy. You only need an airtight container, a gauge to measure the atmospheric pressure inside the container and a vacuum pump. And the pumps are not even that expensive. You find cheap ones, for roughly £200 (maybe less if you buy it from eBay).
You have to know how a so called vacuum chamber works before you can lay claim to what's happening.
No offence to you but you have no real clue what happens in a vacuum chamber, you simply believe you do because you're told by science teachers that are parroting bullshit.
Like I said, no offence to you but this is why you stick rigidly to gravity and all the rest of the absolute crap that the so called science experts put out.

If you think you know what's happening with a vacuum chamber then explain it all in detail from start to finish so I know your full thoughts. Once you do this, I'll then show you exactly what's really happening.

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1366 on: October 16, 2015, 04:06:59 AM »
You have to know how a so called vacuum chamber works before you can lay claim to what's happening.
No offence to you but you have no real clue what happens in a vacuum chamber, you simply believe you do because you're told by science teachers that are parroting bullshit.
Like I said, no offence to you but this is why you stick rigidly to gravity and all the rest of the absolute crap that the so called science experts put out.

If you think you know what's happening with a vacuum chamber then explain it all in detail from start to finish so I know your full thoughts. Once you do this, I'll then show you exactly what's really happening.

Dude, I am one of those science experts and I worked with vacuum chambers, in more than one experiment. And there's really not much to explain:
- one rigid container; if it's not rigid it will buckle and collapse because of the vacuum inside;
- one vacuum pump starts to pull the air put of the rigid container (it's a relatively slow process so it takes some time);
- after some time (a couple of hours usually) you will now have a vacuum inside your container.

And yes, the vacuum can be verified in more than one way:
- 1) boiling liquids. It is a known and demonstrated fact that a liquid's boiling point is strongly dependant on the atmospheric pressure. It has to do with something called vapour pressure. Liquids evaporate at ANY temperature. BUT when you increase the temperature, liquids will start to evaporate faster. When the pressure of the vapours becomes equal to the atmospheric pressure, the liquid boils and rapidly evaporates. As a consequence, if you decrease the atmospheric pressure in sealed container, liquids will start to boil at lower temperatures. Equally, higher pressure means higher boiling point. I did this experiment and it VERY BASIC CHEMISTRY.
- 2) put inside the vacuum chamber, a balloon. When you decrease the pressure inside the chamber, the air in the balloon will start to expand and the balloon will inflate. Try it.

I could think for more ways but I'll stop here.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1367 on: October 16, 2015, 05:08:05 AM »

Dude, I am one of those science experts and I worked with vacuum chambers, in more than one experiment. And there's really not much to explain:
There's plenty to explain if you don't know what's happening. And you don't know what's happening, so you're hardly any expert at all. If so, prove it by explaining the following below.

- one rigid container; if it's not rigid it will buckle and collapse because of the vacuum inside;

Why will it buckle and collapse because of the vacuum inside?


- one vacuum pump starts to pull the air put of the rigid container (it's a relatively slow process so it takes some time);
Can you tell me what is happening when the air is pulled out of the container. What do you mean by  pulled out and how does the pump pull it out? How is the atmosphere inside the container released and in what way.

For instance: if I was to ask you how cars are released from a parking lot, you could say, they leave in single file following a pattern (road arrows) and I would grasp it.
So explain.

- after some time (a couple of hours usually) you will now have a vacuum inside your container.
A couple of hours? can you explain why?


And yes, the vacuum can be verified in more than one way:
- 1) boiling liquids. It is a known and demonstrated fact that a liquid's boiling point is strongly dependant on the atmospheric pressure. It has to do with something called vapour pressure. Liquids evaporate at ANY temperature. BUT when you increase the temperature, liquids will start to evaporate faster. When the pressure of the vapours becomes equal to the atmospheric pressure, the liquid boils and rapidly evaporates. As a consequence, if you decrease the atmospheric pressure in sealed container, liquids will start to boil at lower temperatures. Equally, higher pressure means higher boiling point. I did this experiment and it VERY BASIC CHEMISTRY.
Can you tell me if the water would be boiling hot? What do you mean by boiling?

- 2) put inside the vacuum chamber, a balloon. When you decrease the pressure inside the chamber, the air in the balloon will start to expand and the balloon will inflate. Try it.

I could think for more ways but I'll stop here.
What is the air doing in the balloon to make that balloon expand once you decrease the pressure in the chamber?

Try and explain it all so I know if you're worth dealing with.

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1368 on: October 16, 2015, 05:30:27 AM »
There is nothing between the molecules, it's just empty space. 

Think of it this way, you have a container separated by a partition that prevents movement of molecules from one side to the other.  Each side is 1 liter in volume.  On one side you have air at atmospheric pressure, on the other is a vacuum.  When you remove the partition, the air fills the volume.  You still have the same amount of air molecules, they are just more spread out now.
You stick to that. I have nothing further to say. there's not a hope in hell that I can make you see the reality. You're too indoctrinated by the bullshit .

Free space.  ::)

Stick to what?  What do you propose is between gas molecules then?  So even science that has no relevance on the shape of the Earth is BS?
The atmosphere is massively relevant to the shape of the Earth...but, your issue is having molecules with free space inbetween and you're saying that this free space is literally nothing or a vacuum, right?

Honestly you're being duped to hell and you are not going to listen to me, so just get on with what you believe and I'll do my own thing.

What do you propose is between gas molecules?
Do you know what a gobstopper is?

Take a look at the inside of a gobstopper and imagine that gobstopper as a molecule of elements within.
Now imagine all the gobstoppers clumped together in various states of compression and expansion with outer parts peeling off by expansion and then contraction once away from the molecule to make another molecule that we see as another element.

Picture it like bubbles in a sink and notice how there is never a space between bubbles. When bubbles pop to our vision , they are merely expanding and then contracting. You can vision this in a similar way and see each molecule of matter holding life itself and all its elements from within the Earth to the air we are in up to the last element in that sky as part of the dome.

Are you trying to say that gas molecules expand and contract to fill the space they are in?
They expand and contract depending on energy applied to them to release them from their own cocoon, kind of thing. It really needs a better explanation and a drawing  but I can't be arsed to waste my time on something that will inevitable be futile with you. Sorry about that. Just stick to what you believe, it's easier for you that way.

What's the basis for this theory?  What observations led you to believe gases behave this way?

Also, why is empty space between gas molecules such a crazy idea?
My theory is based on observations of what happens which leads me to be 100% sure that all matter is attached with absolutely no free space whatsoever in any shape or form except for magic and any rational person can understand that magic is fantasy.

All it requires is thought and the ability to set aside the mountainous amount of bullshit about all this stuff that was fed to us all throughout our lives.
If you are a young kid then I accept that you will see your side as the truth because brainwashing has got you to this stage. That's not a dig because I spent most of my life with the very same brainwashing.

The logical truth does not require equations to grasp. It merely requires out of the box thought.

Would care to share the observations?  How exactly can anyone move through a gas based on your model?  You are basically describing a solid.  What is the molecular difference between a gas, liquid, and solid in your model?  Why does diffusion occur rapidly in a gas, slowly in a liquid, and not at all in a solid?

You already know that I'm not a young kid.

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1369 on: October 16, 2015, 05:44:19 AM »

Dude, I am one of those science experts and I worked with vacuum chambers, in more than one experiment. And there's really not much to explain:
There's plenty to explain if you don't know what's happening. And you don't know what's happening, so you're hardly any expert at all. If so, prove it by explaining the following below.

- one rigid container; if it's not rigid it will buckle and collapse because of the vacuum inside;

Why will it buckle and collapse because of the vacuum inside?

The vacuum inside the container will exert no force outwards while atmospheric pressure will push inwards. If the container is not rigid it cannot offer any resistance to the inward force and it will collapse.

- one vacuum pump starts to pull the air put of the rigid container (it's a relatively slow process so it takes some time);
Can you tell me what is happening when the air is pulled out of the container. What do you mean by  pulled out and how does the pump pull it out? How is the atmosphere inside the container released and in what way.

For instance: if I was to ask you how cars are released from a parking lot, you could say, they leave in single file following a pattern (road arrows) and I would grasp it.
So explain.

Your car park example is reasonably close but instead of the cars following a pattern they would be driving around at random. If a car happens to drive through the exit accidentally it cannot get back in, and also no new cars are allowed in either. Eventually through random chance all the cars will eventually exit the car park leaving it empty.

- after some time (a couple of hours usually) you will now have a vacuum inside your container.
A couple of hours? can you explain why?

Presumably that is the operating rate of the vacuum pump given a certain volume to evacuate. Some pumps are better than others.

And yes, the vacuum can be verified in more than one way:
- 1) boiling liquids. It is a known and demonstrated fact that a liquid's boiling point is strongly dependant on the atmospheric pressure. It has to do with something called vapour pressure. Liquids evaporate at ANY temperature. BUT when you increase the temperature, liquids will start to evaporate faster. When the pressure of the vapours becomes equal to the atmospheric pressure, the liquid boils and rapidly evaporates. As a consequence, if you decrease the atmospheric pressure in sealed container, liquids will start to boil at lower temperatures. Equally, higher pressure means higher boiling point. I did this experiment and it VERY BASIC CHEMISTRY.
Can you tell me if the water would be boiling hot? What do you mean by boiling?

A boiling liquid will have bubbles of vapour (of that liquid) forming within the volume of the liquid. An merely evaporating liquid will have vapour forming at the surface of the liquid.

- 2) put inside the vacuum chamber, a balloon. When you decrease the pressure inside the chamber, the air in the balloon will start to expand and the balloon will inflate. Try it.

I could think for more ways but I'll stop here.

What is the air doing in the balloon to make that balloon expand once you decrease the pressure in the chamber?

Try and explain it all so I know if you're worth dealing with.

When a balloon is in a normal atmosphere it has one force pushing outwards which is the pressure of the gas inside, and two forces compressing the balloon, 1) atmospheric pressure and 2) the elastic force of the rubber material of the balloon.

If you decrease the atmospheric pressure by putting the balloon in a vacuum chamber then the total forces trying to compress the balloon decrease while the force trying to expand the balloon remains the same. Therefore the balloon will expand. Simple.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2015, 05:46:10 AM by Mainframes »
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1370 on: October 16, 2015, 05:58:28 AM »
Adding on to what boiling is; it is the rapid vaporization of a liquid into a gas.  The liquid is changing phases to become a gas.

Four phases of matter:
plasma
gas
liquid
solid

Phase changes:
solid -> liquid: melting
liquid -> solid: freezing
liquid -> gas: vaporization
gas -> liquid: condensation
solid -> gas: sublimation
gas -> solid: deposition
gas -> plasma: ionization
plasma -> gas: recombination

Re: getting past "gravity" nonsense
« Reply #1371 on: October 16, 2015, 03:29:26 PM »
Can millions/billions/trillions/ etc miles of planets and stars etc really play a ring o ring of roses routine for us?
Absolutely not. 

The answer is no, unless we accept the book of magic stories.
Are you not at least impressed that a book written at a time when 99% of humanity was illiterate does a good job of describing the true form of our world? 
A long time ago, people knew the truth.  It was probably plain, simple and obvious to them back then. 

We are looking at a shooting gallery of reflections that are duplicating. We don't see that because we are merely tiny ants looking at one part of the dome.
It's why things get seen upside down on other parts of the circle. It's like a sort of kaleidoscope type carry on.
It's like being surrounded by mirrors with a big torch and shining it into the mirror. You see the larger light at first but if you look at the reflection of the light in the reflection of the next mirror and so on and so on, you see the classic shrinking lights as far as your eyes can see. All you see are suns to stars in a way, if that's what your mind wants to tell you.
I envision a meniscus in the center of the dome.  This creates a double parabolic mirror effect from which a disco-ball effect is naturally projected onto the dome for us to admire.
As well, the changing height of the sun will also create the effect of the crescent moon since reflection back onto the dome will be partially blocked by the low-hanging meniscus

This Earth is simplicity in its running and our life is dependent on what the core gives out from the decay that fuels it.
We are bacteria eating away at a rotten apple but keeps branching out and growing the pips, over time.
Is there any reason to believe that it can go on forever?  Could things slow down to a crawl or stop? 


Magnets are simply trapped pressures that require equalisation. They are merely dense metal atmosphere trappers.
How? Trapped by what? 
What do you mean by require?  and what is equalization? 
I am not trying to be ornery.  I am now confused because I can not envision what is "equal" between an air molecule and a piece of metal.  The concept seems blurred in air pressure.  These actions/reactions occur independent of our observations and our choice of quantization. 

I believe you are using "equalization" as a catch-all for a much simpler concept which I believe is better expressed in terms which would answer the question:  What are these things doing to eachother in motion?  How do these objects move? 

We all matter but no more than mould matters in breaking down matter.
I am impressed that the truth about our world was given to mankind in no uncertain terms many moons ago. 
We have to matter to somebody.  What twisted force of nature would be so neurotically compelled to mislead us? 

So, it is a physical object.
I think so. A super carbon/graphite kind of thing.
Would you expect it to attract gaseous carbon towards it? 

 
Is it possible to surmise the distance of air above the sun and below the dome? 
It's like a fountain in a way, of various stages of atmosphere spilling out in waves. I'm probably not explaining this well as I'm in a hurry to go out.
No, you are not explaining this well but that is ok. 
You are giving my mind a creative challenge! 

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1372 on: October 17, 2015, 09:31:14 AM »
if I have an elevator that is moved into position over a deep shaft and begins lowering?  Will it push the air away that is below it and squeeze that air back up the sides of the elevator to equalize the pressure lost by the energy of that elevator going down and leaving a lower pressure above it due to the compression below it?
That elevator will compress the air below it. Let's imagine that the elevator fits the shaft so good that no air can escape up the sides of it so all the air is trapped below. Let go of that elevator and let it drop and what have you got?
You have what we know as "a shock absorber."
As I said earlier. The energy used to take that elevator up against the atmosphere now has the potential energy and then all that energy when it is released but now all that energy is compressing the air below it.
Now if you think about it you will realise that the elevator would end up floating on compressed air, because the air above it is not capable of equalising with the compressed air due to the sealing.

This tells you all you need to know as to why when you jump up in trains and such that you don't fly backwards when it's in motion but people just don't want to see the truth and stick to gravity and inertia bullshit.

Would this compression below it push the elevator back up to it's original position?
A compression can shove it back up like a spring but not for long, as explained above. All atmosphere is attached, there are no loose molecules or whatever. It acts like a barrier like water does to anything hitting it and it compresses and expands.
What if the downward elevator isn't sealed around it, just like a normal elevator?  Would denpressure still push the elevator back up the shaft in the same way denpressure pushes an elevator back down the shaft?

This tells you all you need to know as to why when you jump up in trains and such that you don't fly backwards when it's in motion but people just don't want to see the truth and stick to gravity and inertia bullshit.
No, not really.  Why does something on the dashboard of a vehicle slide to the right when I turn to the left?



Why is a block of aluminum of equal size lighter ?  It's pushing the same amount of air as the lead.
It's not pushing the same amount of air as the lead. It appears to be because our primitive eyes only see a block of two metals in equal size.

What's inside is what counts as in which one absorbs atmosphere in its pores and which is so dense that it stores little.

Think of it like this.
You see 2 bee hives of equal size in every way to your external vision.
Which one is heavier or denser? In your mind you will say that they're equal and both are pushing against the air the same.
Open them up and you find that one is full of honey and wax and the other is an empty shell.
Now think back to the aluminium block and the lead.
Clue: the lead is the one that is full of honey and wax if you can accept an analogy.
So things that are light simply let more air pass through them?  That should be easy to test.  If I have two sealed containers, one made of aluminum and the other made of lead (the walls are the same thickness for each), with a vacuum pump and gauge on each one, will I see the aluminum container return to normal atmospheric pressure faster than the lead container when the pump is turned off?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1373 on: October 18, 2015, 06:12:48 AM »

What if the downward elevator isn't sealed around it, just like a normal elevator?  Would denpressure still push the elevator back up the shaft in the same way denpressure pushes an elevator back down the shaft?

No.

 
Why does something on the dashboard of a vehicle slide to the right when I turn to the left?

The atmospheric slosh effect.



 So things that are light simply let more air pass through them?  That should be easy to test.  If I have two sealed containers, one made of aluminum and the other made of lead (the walls are the same thickness for each), with a vacuum pump and gauge on each one, will I see the aluminum container return to normal atmospheric pressure faster than the lead container when the pump is turned off?
You're not grasping it. The walls might appear the same thickness to you but they're not the same make up.

For instance: a pancake can be the same thickness as metal disc and if both sprayed the same colour you would not know the difference (assuming a near perfect replica) yet the metal is heavier because it's more dense because it's repelling more atmospheric pressure from it's own area and the pancake is repelling much less due to it's internal structure being much more porous, meaning that atmospheric pressure was already part of its make up, meaning much less of the pancake is repelling the atmosphere upon it.

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1374 on: October 18, 2015, 09:20:41 AM »

What if the downward elevator isn't sealed around it, just like a normal elevator?  Would denpressure still push the elevator back up the shaft in the same way denpressure pushes an elevator back down the shaft?

No.

But...
None of the molecules push down. They push UP and resist upon the next molecules.

The very last molecules at the top are pushed against but do not push back because they do not have any leverage to do so as there is nothing to push against.
If there is also upward push, and nothing above the top layer of molecules to push them down, which means the next layer down has no downward push from above, and the layer below that, so on and so on to the ground, why do the lower layers try to push down?  You claim 'stacking', but in order for that stack of air to push downward via a push from above, that would require the uppermost layer of air molecules to push down, which they don't.

This brings me to another question.  If I hold up a tennis ball, hold my other hand above it and slowly raise it, shouldn't the tennis ball float since I'm pushing the 'stacked' column of air higher and taking the pressure off the ball?



Why does something on the dashboard of a vehicle slide to the right when I turn to the left?

The atmospheric slosh effect.
Since I feel no wind when this happens, is it a pressure issue?  If I have two balloons of equal size inside the car, one secured to the left side and the other to the right, will I see one get bigger and the other smaller when I turn?



 So things that are light simply let more air pass through them?  That should be easy to test.  If I have two sealed containers, one made of aluminum and the other made of lead (the walls are the same thickness for each), with a vacuum pump and gauge on each one, will I see the aluminum container return to normal atmospheric pressure faster than the lead container when the pump is turned off?
You're not grasping it. The walls might appear the same thickness to you but they're not the same make up.

For instance: a pancake can be the same thickness as metal disc and if both sprayed the same colour you would not know the difference (assuming a near perfect replica) yet the metal is heavier because it's more dense because it's repelling more atmospheric pressure from it's own area and the pancake is repelling much less due to it's internal structure being much more porous, meaning that atmospheric pressure was already part of its make up, meaning much less of the pancake is repelling the atmosphere upon it.
Are you saying aluminum is more porous than lead?  If so, then that should be easy to test with the vacuum test I mentioned above.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1375 on: October 18, 2015, 02:08:46 PM »
If there is also upward push, and nothing above the top layer of molecules to push them down, which means the next layer down has no downward push from above, and the layer below that, so on and so on to the ground, why do the lower layers try to push down?  You claim 'stacking', but in order for that stack of air to push downward via a push from above, that would require the uppermost layer of air molecules to push down, which they don't.
The push is a direct result of resistance from below.

Hopefully you grasp this analogy.
Imagine 10 people stacked upon each other is a column of air. Each person is squashing the next but you can see that the person laid against the floor is the one that's holding up all the rest. He is the most compressed and to stop himself being crushed fully he creates a resistance...a push against that stack but his push is against the next man above him and the next man pushes (resists) the next man and so on.
At the very top there is a man who's mass is pushed against by the second last man but the man on the top has nothing to push against. He's simply laid dormant and what mass he has is what the man under him is resisting or pushing up.

Ok, now imagine more men added to that stack? the next man would have to be pushed from under the ground to the top under the man originally laid on that ground and it takes a lot of energy to do that. And so on and so on.



This brings me to another question.  If I hold up a tennis ball, hold my other hand above it and slowly raise it, shouldn't the tennis ball float since I'm pushing the 'stacked' column of air higher and taking the pressure off the ball?
If you had that tennis ball in water and done the same thing  would the water simply form around your hand and back onto the ball?
You can't simply push air away from something with your hand but you can with a fan and then your question is answered to the affirmative. As long as that fan has enough energy to force the air away to allow the tennis ball to rest on dense air as if it's floating.



Since I feel no wind when this happens, is it a pressure issue?
Yes it's a pressure issue. It's a pressure slosh if you like.

  If I have two balloons of equal size inside the car, one secured to the left side and the other to the right, will I see one get bigger and the other smaller when I turn?
No, not so your eyes could determine. If you could do it at super speed you would certainly see it.




Are you saying aluminum is more porous than lead?  If so, then that should be easy to test with the vacuum test I mentioned above.
It would be easy to test by using those two containers as evacuation chambers.

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1376 on: October 19, 2015, 07:39:31 PM »
At the very top there is a man who's mass is pushed against by the second last man but the man on the top has nothing to push against. He's simply laid dormant and what mass he has is what the man under him is resisting or pushing up.
And when the man at the very top stops moving upward, the man below is no longer exerting force to hold him up since nothing is pushing the top man downward.  The man second to the top no longer has downward force on him, and therefor is not pushing down on the man third from the top.  So on and so on, all the way to the ground.


You can't simply push air away from something with your hand
I'm disrupting the stacked air above the ball.  It will have pressure all the way around it (slightly more against the bottom), but no stacked air.  At that point, what causes it to fall?

No, not so your eyes could determine. If you could do it at super speed you would certainly see it.
  Yet if the object has to move the majority of the length of the dashboard (we have bigger cars here in the US), that can take at least a full second.  That is at least a second of massive pressure difference.  I should think the driver and passenger would feel that in their ears too.  Since this 'pressure slosh' is able to shove objects and people, (which is odd since there is no felt wind) would it also turn a small fan?

Also, how long does this 'pressure slosh' last, because as long as the car continues turning in a circle, objects try to move to the outside.  That should be plenty of time to notice balloons changing size, or get some readings from gauges.

It would be easy to test by using those two containers as evacuation chambers.
Yes, it would.  It would be a major step in proving denpressure.  Why don't you give it a try.

Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1377 on: October 20, 2015, 02:38:37 PM »
Gravity/gravitation seems to be a popular topic on here.  There are multiple threads active on the topic.

Here is an experiment that most people can do as long as you have a smart phone.

Modern smart phones come with an accelerometer in them.  An accelerometer measures proper acceleration.  Now, go search your app store for an accelerometer app, there should be a free one available.  Now open up the app and place it on a flat surface that is level with the ground such as your countertop.  Mine shows an acceleration in the Z direction of 9.80 m/s2.  This is proof that the reason we don't float off the surface of the Earth is due to this acceleration. 

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1378 on: October 20, 2015, 02:55:22 PM »
This is proof that the reason we don't float off the surface of the Earth is due to this acceleration.

No it isn't.

But the fact that you have no idea why it isn't proof of anything IS proof that you are an idiot.

Plus LOL!!!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Disproof of gravity
« Reply #1379 on: October 21, 2015, 07:31:41 AM »
Anyhow; time to return to the logical fallacy in the title of this thread.

It is an important topic, so I will return to it as often as needed until the Truth is known.

Nobody is in the least obliged to provide any 'disproof' of gravity whatsoever.

Because there is no PROOF for it in the first place.

Thus, mere DISBELIEF is all that is required to set you free from the Luciferian Sun-Worshipper's Tyranny.

Just.

Stop.

Believing...
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!