A Challenge to All of the pretentious Rounders!

Yes, a force depends on high gives you an acceleration of objects in freefall.

You are really acting a beginner for physics. I think it would be better if you wrote after a few investigating. Or this is not your matter.

Why don't you put some real numbers into your formula and demonstrate....whatever it is you're trying to demonostrate.

Go on, I dare you.

I know that you think you are making sense, but you really arent.

Little of what you say (ever) makes any sense. If you have an experiment you think will debunk gravity then perform it yourself then present your findings here. No one is going to bother performing an experiment for you just so you can reject it no matter what. We've been thru that idiocy with scepti and his daft denpressure delusion.

hahaha funny

Also, please put me on your ignore list. Since you ignore anyone who has the temerity to correct you, I feel like I haven't done well enough to get on your ignore list.

If it helps, I think you are an idiot.

hahahaha even funnier love this site

Quote from: İntikam on September 09, 2016, 05:54:02 AM

Yes, a force depends on high gives you an acceleration of objects in freefall.

You are really acting a beginner for physics. I think it would be better if you wrote after a few investigating. Or this is not your matter.

Why don't you put some real numbers into your formula and demonstrate....whatever it is you're trying to demonostrate.

Go on, I dare you.

Your dare is comic. It's seems like a challenge with a rabbit to an elephant in my mind. 

I don't use real numbers because i don't calculate it before challenge starts. this is an honesty action in my mind. But i accept that you do not have to believe did i calculated it before or not.

Be sure it is not hard for me create new hypothesis and prove it. Because when i was at univercity, most of our time had done with create new hypothesis and prove them. In this matter, i see it is possible to create a formula depends on (X-H), instead of Newton's formula depends on (1/R^2). A force is increasing when near to ground. Just a difference is it depends on X^2 or X. this varies a bit different but not too much.

as I said before. a month-long for challenge for the evaluation. You are not the best one here on the physics. inadequate equipment . If despite the absence of anyone else and only I can accept your dare then. As i say rounders have 1 month decide and discuss.

I want to best one on physics of all of rounders. To leave no doubt of victory.

 
And what "university' have you been to?

Here is the formula you are looking for:

deltaH=1/2*a*t^2

It's called a kinematic equation. Record the time and height, and a will always equal around -9.8m/s^2

And what "university' have you been to?

Just i'm giving you all of my biography for let them to NASA.  Okey. 

Here is the formula you are looking for:

deltaH=1/2*a*t^2

It's called a kinematic equation. Record the time and height, and a will always equal around -9.8m/s^2

The word as around is not acceptable. if a is an constant, you can't change it. This is not scientific. constants must be constans, changeable must be changeable. if it's not, get a formula for "a". To say a as 9,80 and to changing it is a scientific cheating! This is not science. Is it constant or not? If constant, constant must have only one value! If a (actually g) is not constant, then define it by formula.

What a formula you are saying something as constant but it can changing. is it because you can't formulate it?

acceleration is a variable. But on earth at sea level, it will always be ~-9.8m/s^2

I don't use real numbers because i don't calculate it before challenge starts. this is an honesty action in my mind. But i accept that you do not have to believe did i calculated it before or not.

Some pretend numbers then.  You haven't even told us what the units are.

Be sure it is not hard for me create new hypothesis and prove it. Because when i was at univercity, most of our time had done with create new hypothesis and prove them.

This seems unlikely.  Nobody "proves" a hypothesis - you attempt falsification and if that fails then you have provided evidence to support your hypothesis.

Proof is for mathematics only - not hypothesis testing.

In this matter, i see it is possible to create a formula depends on (X-H)

Define X and H. 

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on September 09, 2016, 06:32:35 AM

Here is the formula you are looking for:

deltaH=1/2*a*t^2

It's called a kinematic equation. Record the time and height, and a will always equal around -9.8m/s^2

The word as around is not acceptable. if a is an constant, you can't change it. This is not scientific. constants must be constans, changeable must be changeable. if it's not, get a formula for "a". To say a as 9,80 and to changing it is a scientific cheating! This is not science. Is it constant or not? If constant, constant must have only one value! If a (actually g) is not constant, then define it by formula.

What a formula you are saying something as constant but it can changing. is it because you can't formulate it?

9.81 is no constant it changes depending on where on earth you are and how high you are.
Gravitational constant is 6.6741 ﾗ 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2.

Now stop your bullshit talk until you actually understand some scientific basics - and no, to understand science, it won't help you to read your bible.

Just i'm giving you all of my biography for let them to NASA.  Okey. 

Pretty sure your university is in your cellar and you are "home/self educated".

A Challenge that waiting for accept the rounders have the conditions as follow:

1- graduated from a technical department of Universty
2- propose do the experiment which i recommend.
3- preferably not idiot or ignored by me.

I recommend this model for free fall instead of gravity.



The alternative model is gravity depends on one force as gravitational force.

We pre accept as we don't know anything about gravity or sky pushing.

So we'll calculate constants first.

1- We pre accept as air resistance is zero and done 3 experiments for calculating constants for each theory. 4th and 5th experiments prove us which one is near to be real.

2- We pre accept as air resistance is exist, then we'll do 4 experiments for calculating constans and air resistance. 5th and 6th experiments prove us which one is near to be real.

Confront !

You came who are you most faithless !! And Taste my sword !

 

Edit:

Most of users don't understand what i mean or how the experiment done or what is the sense of all.

We are using the formula of gravitation for Newton's law for calculating to free fall time. It's like that: F= g*m1*m2/R^2  Actually it is a bit more complex than this but generally useful this formula.

Now.

I'm refusing that gravity is exist so i need another formula for define the calculating time for free fall.

Newton formula depends on the gravity. So i need an alternative power for gravity and recommend it as "sky pushing power".

I recommend that: "Earth isn't pulling us, sky is pushing us".  (Because almost everything push others)

So i must suggest an alternative formula. The shape on the top depends on explaining that formula. The parameters will show after experiments.

Newtons formulas for F depends on a parameter (k*g*m1*m2) and a function f(1/R^2).
Alternative formula depends on a parameter (K*F(h)).

As we see that two formulas so different. Both two has some constants and some changeables. Changeables depends on (1/R^2). for Newton's law and for us depends on (H) for our formula.

It is generally accepted that Newton's law is correct. But "g" is actually a constant but changes by location and by the altitude. It is unacceptable. If "g" changes, then Formulate to "g" depending on variables. It is not my problem, it is problem of who defend Newton's law of universal gravitation.

I don't accept to changing for g some values as 9,8 or 9,81, 9,82. You can get only one value for one constant! You can't change the constant!

I'll not use Newton's gravitation law, i'll use the formula depends on some (H) values and all we calculate the altitude of the "heaven" together. 

Okey.

We'll do 3 experiments for sure our constants and a variable formula;after that  4th and 5th experiments will be for show us the Newton's gravitation theory is better then "pushing by sky" or opposite is true.

Equipments requered for this test:

1- A laser meter for measuring the altitude of rock will free fall.
2- A camera for recording the experiment and prove the free falling time.
3- An altimeter for measuring the altitude (or all of experiments done at sea level)

Okey. You can ask where don't you understand.

First question: How far is the Sky?

Other than that, we have as follows:
If everything is pushing things away, then ground is pushing things up, sky pushing down.
Rock on bridge will be pushed harder up as it gets closer to the ground, or harder pushed down as it gets closer to the sky.

After some possible oscillations, the rock will find ballance levitating somewhere inbetween.
We would too.
Same goes for sea water.

~~~~~

F = G * m₁ * m₂ / d² is for universal case.

Do not mix G and g.

G is gravitational constant, and it is 6.67 x 10^-11 m³ kg^-1 s^-2.
(Inacurracy in measuring such small values makes us unsure is it 6.67408 x 10^-11 or is it 6.67529 x 10^-11.)

g is gravitational acceleration of the Earth.
It varies from 9.832 m/s² on poles, to 9.78 on equator, to 9.77 at top of Mount everest, to 7.33 at altitude of 1000 kilometers above sea.

I'll find g myself. Here's the setup:


I roll a marble off of the edge of the table, and record the time it takes to hit the bottom.

To record the time, I use Audacity and locate the exact times the sound of the ball rolling stops, and the exact time when the sound of the ball hitting the floor starts. I subtract these times to get the total time in freefall.

I will then substitute the height and time into this formula:

Δh=ｽgt²

and solve for g.

Results:

Trial 1 time: .507

Trial 2 time: .508

Trial 3 time: .508

Trial 4 time: .508

Trial 5 time: .507

Average time: .5076

Substitution: 1.263=ｽg(.5076)² g=9.8037m/s^2

Accepted value of g: 9.81

Error: .064% (really low)

There you go! I found g. Now you guys can do it yourself if you want to.

I like this method with Audacity.

I like this method with Audacity.

Me too, it's audacious!  (Couldn't resist...)

Most of users don't understand what i mean or how the experiment done or what is the sense of all.

We are using the formula of gravitation for Newton's law for calculating to free fall time. It's like that: F= g*m1*m2/R^2  Actually it is a bit more complex than this but generally useful this formula.

Now.

I'm refusing that gravity is exist so i need another formula for define the calculating time for free fall.

Newtons formulas for F depends on a parameter (k*g*m1*m2) and a function f(1/R^2).

It is generally accepted that Newton's law is correct. But "g" is actually a constant but changes by location and by the altitude. It is unacceptable. If "g" changes, then Formulate to "g" depending on variables. It is not my problem, it is problem of who defend Newton's law of universal gravitation.

I don't accept to changing for g some values as 9,8 or 9,81, 9,82. You can get only one value for one constant! You can't change the constant!

You claim that: "Newtons formulas for F depends on a parameter (k*g*m1*m2) and a function f(1/R^2)."
Then you say: "But "g" is actually a constant but changes by location and by the altitude. It is unacceptable. If "g" changes, then Formulate to "g" depending on variables. It is not my problem, it is problem of who defend Newton's law of universal gravitation."

But it is your problem, because you have "Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation" all wrong. You should have said:
Where G = Universal Gravitational Constant = 6.674 x 10⁻¹¹ N⋅m²/kg² and is a constant.

The "g" that you quote is just the acceleration due to gravitation due to the earth and does vary from place to place due mainly to latitude and altitude  (the 1/(d²)).

You get the "Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation" all wrong, then complain it is wrong, but it is your presentation of it that is wrong.

No one is going to do the experiment for several reasons.
1) you dont explain it even remotely well enough to do
2) you are an idiot
3) no on is going to do your job for you
4) you are lazy
5) gravity is proven
6) you are a lazy idiot.

TYPICAL!!!
1) ignorance must hurt
2)One of the biggest questions that has puzzled mankind throughout the ages is how gravity works. This new gravitational theory not only explains how gravity works, but shows how errors can arise in determining the positions of space probes, in determining the mass of the earth and other planets and in determining the value of G, the universal gravitational constant. This new theory of gravity is part of a more general Unified Field Theory (UFT) that shows how all of the known force fields work together. Once understood, this new UFT explains several heretofore unexplained phenomena in nature. In this brief write up, we will only deal with the gravitational part of the UFT.

John Anderson and colleagues of NASA JPL, experts in the determination of spacecraft positioning, have published discrepancies observed in the locations of Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11 and of the Ulysses solar probe. (Anderson, 1998, Katz, 1999, Murphy, 1999) To date these discrepancies have not been fully explained. Anderson has raised the question as to whether there is a fundamental problem in our understanding of gravity or in the timing provided by the atomic clocks as part of the Deep Space Network (DSN), which tracks the space probes. The space vehicles exhibit a pull toward the sun greater than current theory would predict by about 2e-8 cm/s2.
3) Theory of relativity you know gravity...which was so contradictory of Isaac Newtons theory on gravity had been accepted by people like you since 1915. 1915! That is your "proof" you are familiar with the term in science right, called a theory. PROOF would infer a different title such as LAW. Which isn't denoted ever scientifically anywhere all time within the science realm. So Einstein was real smart and was close until this thing called CERN showed up, which shot atoms 15,000of them faster than the speed of light. YOUR theory of gravity only a semblance of credence based on the idea that the speed of light is the pinnacle of speed in universe, it clearly scientifically not.
4) Gravity pulls, everything else pushes
5) all the other forces of nature have the relative sa e exact resonance signature. Gravity's is so weak, where as the things it governs should indicate a much higher recordable signature.

Quote from: fliggs on September 09, 2016, 01:30:38 AM

No one is going to do the experiment for several reasons.
1) you dont explain it even remotely well enough to do
2) you are an idiot
3) no on is going to do your job for you
4) you are lazy
5) gravity is proven
6) you are a lazy idiot.

TYPICAL!!!
1) ignorance must hurt
2)One of the biggest questions that has puzzled mankind throughout the ages is how gravity works. This new gravitational theory not only explains how gravity works, but shows how errors can arise in determining the positions of space probes, in determining the mass of the earth and other planets and in determining the value of G, the universal gravitational constant. This new theory of gravity is part of a more general Unified Field Theory (UFT) that shows how all of the known force fields work together. Once understood, this new UFT explains several heretofore unexplained phenomena in nature. In this brief write up, we will only deal with the gravitational part of the UFT.

John Anderson and colleagues of NASA JPL, experts in the determination of spacecraft positioning, have published discrepancies observed in the locations of Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11 and of the Ulysses solar probe. (Anderson, 1998, Katz, 1999, Murphy, 1999) To date these discrepancies have not been fully explained. Anderson has raised the question as to whether there is a fundamental problem in our understanding of gravity or in the timing provided by the atomic clocks as part of the Deep Space Network (DSN), which tracks the space probes. The space vehicles exhibit a pull toward the sun greater than current theory would predict by about 2e-8 cm/s2.
3) Theory of relativity you know gravity...which was so contradictory of Isaac Newtons theory on gravity had been accepted by people like you since 1915. 1915! That is your "proof" you are familiar with the term in science right, called a theory. PROOF would infer a different title such as LAW. Which isn't denoted ever scientifically anywhere all time within the science realm. So Einstein was real smart and was close until this thing called CERN showed up, which shot atoms 15,000of them faster than the speed of light. YOUR theory of gravity only a semblance of credence based on the idea that the speed of light is the pinnacle of speed in universe, it clearly scientifically not.
4) Gravity pulls, everything else pushes
5) all the other forces of nature have the relative sa e exact resonance signature. Gravity's is so weak, where as the things it governs should indicate a much higher recordable signature.

I just did my own experiment to find "g" I couldn't understand what Intakim was saying, so I did my own. Please note any flaws you see in it.

pretentious?

mate you've been categorically proven wrong over and over again.. now you only want graduates?

you're a beginner when it comes to flat earth, and you've no idea how to debate, why would graduates waste their time with you?

Quote from: fliggs on September 09, 2016, 01:30:38 AM

No one is going to do the experiment for several reasons.
1) you dont explain it even remotely well enough to do
2) you are an idiot
3) no on is going to do your job for you
4) you are lazy
5) gravity is proven
6) you are a lazy idiot.

TYPICAL!!!
1) ignorance must hurt

          I don't know, does it?

2)One of the biggest questions that has puzzled mankind throughout the ages is how gravity works. This new gravitational theory not only explains how gravity works, but shows how errors can arise in determining the positions of space probes, in determining the mass of the earth and other planets and in determining the value of G, the universal gravitational constant. This new theory of gravity is part of a more general Unified Field Theory (UFT) that shows how all of the known force fields work together. Once understood, this new UFT explains several heretofore unexplained phenomena in nature. In this brief write up, we will only deal with the gravitational part of the UFT.

So gravitation is not fully understood, who claims that science know everything?
But does Flat Earth have anything approaching even Newton's Gravitational Theory in the accuracy of calculation?

John Anderson and colleagues of NASA JPL, experts in the determination of spacecraft positioning, have published discrepancies observed in the locations of Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11 and of the Ulysses solar probe. (Anderson, 1998, Katz, 1999, Murphy, 1999) To date these discrepancies have not been fully explained. Anderson has raised the question as to whether there is a fundamental problem in our understanding of gravity or in the timing provided by the atomic clocks as part of the Deep Space Network (DSN), which tracks the space probes. The space vehicles exhibit a pull toward the sun greater than current theory would predict by about 2e-8 cm/s2.

So, see above comments! I am no expert on space probe trajectories, but there are are lot of little known variables, such as the exact paths of planets and the many smaller objects. I presume these are accurately accounted for, but I don't know.
From what I can see nothing is calculable to anything like that precision under Flat Earth Theory.
So do we throw out something that lets us make accurate (though not perfect) calculations for one that can't make any?

3) Theory of relativity you know gravity...which was so contradictory of Isaac Newtons theory on gravity had been accepted by people like you since 1915. 1915! That is your "proof" you are familiar with the term in science right, called a theory. PROOF would infer a different title such as LAW.

No, Einstein's GR is not contrary to Newton's Laws of Motion nor his Law of Gravitation. It extended Newton's laws to regimes of very high velocity and mass. Newton can hardly be expected to have foreseen this as he was only dealing with earth sized masses and did not know that the speed of light was finite.

In a region such as Earth, however, the solution to Einstein's GR for masses much less than the Earth's mass and velocities much less than "c", guess what, leads to Newton's Laws. Newton was not that far out. Mind you his laws were based on a tremendous amount or experimental data.

Which isn't denoted ever scientifically anywhere all time within the science realm. So Einstein was real smart and was close until this thing called CERN showed up, which shot atoms 15,000of them faster than the speed of light. YOUR theory of gravity only a semblance of credence based on the idea that the speed of light is the pinnacle of speed in universe, it clearly scientifically not.

That has been answered elsewhere and does not disprove Einstein, but what if it did?

4) Gravity pulls, everything else pushes

Completely incorrect! Both magnetic and electrostatic forces can "pull" and relation between force and distance is inverse square in all three cases.

5) all the other forces of nature have the relative sa e exact resonance signature. Gravity's is so weak, where as the things it governs should indicate a much higher recordable signature.

Why? True, gravitation is (luckily for us) a very weak force. But since it depends on the product of the mass, is has only a very small effect on light objects on earth, but a massive force between say the sun and planets.

The energy of photons is very small, but quite detectable as photons interact with electrons and protons.
This energy is directly proportional to the frequency of the corresponding EM radiation. The existence of gravitons is still only hypothesised, but
if so and their energy is directly proportional to the frequency of the corresponding gravitational radiation.(Gravitational Waves) the energy may be below any detectable limit and as far as we know they would interact only with mass.

But all you are doing is trying to find weaknesses in current theories, without offering any viable alternative.

On the tiny scales (as in, atoms smaller than Lead), the Strong Force dominates all else. On slightly larger things (atoms larrger than Lead), the weak force and electromagnetism dominate. On the scale of molecules, the electromagnetic force is in charge, and everything bigger, gravity dominates. It's pretty interesting.

I think the OP is trying to find the height to the sky by offering an alternative to Newton's law.
So he writes this new law of force as F = k * Delta(H)

We can get the F by inserting Newton's law (we may discatd it later, but it can be used to do measurements). so we have a force to work with. However on the right side of the equation we run into problems. I assume H is the height to the sky. Delta may be a function, or it may be the difference between the rock's distance to earth and sky. Then we have K, which is some unknown constant.

Either way we have a single equation with 2 unknowns, so the model is incomplete, to put it charitably.

Also, the model contains no explicit dependence on time, so you won't be able to get a trajectory out of it. No, the model as such is woefully incomplete.

I like this method with Audacity.

Very neat.  Brilliant.

Now thinking about *why* the OP wants to reject Newton's laws and replace them with some dark repulsive energy in the sky. Is it because your FE model does not have enough mass to generate the required gravitational pull? I suggest 2 alternatives:

1. You can adjust your model to have enough mass in the earth to give the same result as a round earth. No, I am not going to do that calculation for you, but it is going to make for quite a thick flat earth.

2. If thickness is a problem, then another form of matter could be assumed, for instance that of a neutron star. Then the earth's mantle would be much thinner.

Either of these would free you from trying to restate Newton, which you are not doing with much success.

Now thinking about *why* the OP wants to reject Newton's laws and replace them with some dark repulsive energy in the sky. Is it because your FE model does not have enough mass to generate the required gravitational pull? I suggest 2 alternatives:

1. You can adjust your model to have enough mass in the earth to give the same result as a round earth. No, I am not going to do that calculation for you, but it is going to make for quite a thick flat earth.

2. If thickness is a problem, then another form of matter could be assumed, for instance that of a neutron star. Then the earth's mantle would be much thinner.

Either of these would free you from trying to restate Newton, which you are not doing with much success.

I keep trying to tell them that but for whatever reason FET is very fixated on disproving gravity.

Now i'm going to holliday for 9 days for give you thinking and discussing time. 

OK, he's gone for nine days.

Let's change the name of the site so he can't find us when he gets back.

I keep trying to tell them that but for whatever reason FET is very fixated on disproving gravity.

I think the reason is the sun and moon rotating above the surface at a more or less fixed altitude is difficult (impossible?) to reconcile with gravity, therefore there can be no gravity in the FE model.

My formula will be on the form of:

H= (k1)*t^2)/(1-(k2)*t^2)

The formula upside depend on "sky pushing hyphotes". This is the result of the calculation.

For example:

If we do 3 experiments and result be compatible with gravitational formation, then our formula will give us same result:

Example:

Gravitional results will be like these:

Experiment 1:

g=10 (preliminary estimates)
t=3
then we calculate by gravitional formula as X= 1/2gt^2 = 45

Experiment 2:
g=10
t=4
then we calculate by gravitional formula as X= 1/2gt^2 = 80

Experiment 3:
g=10
t=5
then we calculate by gravitional formula as X= 1/2gt^2 = 125

We preaccept that the result of gravitional calculation is %100 compatible with experiment results.

Now we use our formula depends on "sky pushing"

H= (k1)*t^2)/(1-(k2)*t^2)

equation 1:

H= (k1)*9 / (1-(k2)*9) =45

equation 2:

H=(k1)*16/(1-(k2)*16) = 80

equation 3:

H=(k1)*25/(1-(k2)*25) = 125

Solve the problem:

K2:0 ; k1=5 (k1/2=1/2g=5)

These results are %100 compatible with these experiments and these gravitional calculations. because the measurements was perfectly consistent. but we know that results are not compatible in this way in real experiments.

Gravitional constant g is not enought to explain the differences between experiments and theories. So most of scientists try to explain the differences with "g" is changing because of the earth is not completely curve. but this is not really scientific . The shape of the world because it is not proven . You can make up any shape you want it that way and you can harmonize your results with a shape that nobody see.

I'm inviting scientists to give the real value to the constant g or formulate it. I'm doing that. If g is constant and have a value, i would argue that "two constants"  is more useful then using one constant as (g) .

Now:

Have you made ​​a decision ? Show me your most ambitious scientist. So not to be skeptical about victory.

. . . . . . . . . . . .
Gravitional constant g is not enought to explain the differences between experiments and theories. So most of scientists try to explain the differences with "g" is changing because of the earth is not completely curve. but this is not really scientific . The shape of the world because it is not proven . You can make up any shape you want it that way and you can harmonize your results with a shape that nobody see.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

You still do not know the difference between
"g" the gravitational acceleration on the earth, which does vary with latitude, altitude, etc.
and
"G" the Universal Gravitational Constant, which (presumably) is a constant.

So all your silly equations are useless rubbish, expecially as there is no evidence of "sky push" etc.

Of course, given a few parameters you can get a sort of fit to nearly anything.

I think somebody talked who i contemn.