If you think gravity is a lie, how do you explain this?

Quote

They'd both burst at the pressure equivalent of about 27,600 m altitude.
But, if the balloons were both of some hypothetical material that would not stretch or burst they would both fall.
There could be no buoyancy, because buoyancy is just the weight of displaced fluid (be it gas of liquid).

and this "weight of displaced fluid" is much stronger than gravity.

We agree!

Thank you for proving my point!

But, without gravity there is no "weight of displaced fluid", so how can "weight of displaced fluid" be much stronger than gravity - it is gravity!

What causes weight if not gravity and why is the resultant force down in the first place?

You have proven nothing against gravity at all - it is an essential ingredient in buoyancy.

In any case gravitation, the cause of gravity, has been verified experimentally probably hundreds of times.
I have the results of 60 or so from Henry Cavendish's time until 2000.

As well as the many laboratory experiments there are numerous qualitative demonstrations the mass attracts mass.
They are experiments that anyone can do.
The forces involved are very small, so strays such as magnetic and electrostatic effects and breezes must be excluded.
Here's a few:

But, without gravity there is no "weight of displaced fluid", so how can "weight of displaced fluid" be much stronger than gravity - it is gravity!

OK, then how come their are variations in gravity dependent of the media that it is in. Is this some type of anti-gravity force???

How about tensile strength is the controlling fact for everything!!!!In Air, water and solid. That would solve everything and in tensile strength their is no gravity, is their???

Quote

But, without gravity there is no "weight of displaced fluid", so how can "weight of displaced fluid" be much stronger than gravity - it is gravity!

OK, then how come their are variations in gravity dependent of the media that it is in. Is this some type of anti-gravity force???

There are no "variations in gravity dependent of the media that it is in". What you measure on scales is the weight, less any buoyancy.

In air at sea-level in air that buoyancy is only about 1.225 kg/m³, while water weighs 1000 kg wt/³ so it's not very significant.

What people loosely call weight usually includes the buoyancy of air, but only because it is much less than the errors expected on any but precision scales.

How about tensile strength is the controlling fact for everything!!!!In Air, water and solid.

Fluids (gasses and liquids) have no tensile or shear strength.
Liquids can have surface tension, but that is only a surface effect and is significant only in small drops or thin films.

That would solve everything and in tensile strength their is no gravity, is their???

Sure tensile strength does not involve gravity, but it doesn't exist for liquids and gasses.

But, what's to solve? Gravitation as mass attracting mass is extremely well proven experimentally as fits perfectly with all we observe.

Sure tensile strength does not involve gravity, but it doesn't exist for liquids and gasses.

It does if their is Aether...

Quote

Sure tensile strength does not involve gravity, but it doesn't exist for liquids and gasses.

It does if their is Aether...

And if there is a Santa Claus, parents don't have to put presents under the tree...

Was there any particular reason you were bringing up something that is demonstrably fictional?

Quote

Sure tensile strength does not involve gravity, but it doesn't exist for liquids and gasses.

It does if their is Aether...

Total utter garbage! How does the non-existent Aether give tensile strength to fluids.

Come back out of la-la land!

Quote

Sure tensile strength does not involve gravity, but it doesn't exist for liquids and gasses.

It does if their is Aether...

Have you taken any classes on the strength of materials? Physics? Geography even?

They'd both burst at the pressure equivalent of about 27,600 m altitude.
But, if the balloons were both of some hypothetical material that would not stretch or burst they would both fall.
There could be no buoyancy, because buoyancy is just the weight of displaced fluid (be it gas of liquid).

Balloons don't have to be completely filled.
Small enough amount of helium wold expand to the full balloon capacity without bursting it.
In that case the total weight of balloon and helium would be even lower than standard, and balloon would still fall without medium.

Quote

But, without gravity there is no "weight of displaced fluid", so how can "weight of displaced fluid" be much stronger than gravity - it is gravity!

OK, then how come their are variations in gravity dependent of the media that it is in. Is this some type of anti-gravity force???

How about tensile strength is the controlling fact for everything!!!!In Air, water and solid. That would solve everything and in tensile strength their is no gravity, is their???

There is no variation in gravity, only variation in difference between gravity and buoyancy.
And that is because of difference in buoyancy for different mediums.

Gravity remains the same.
Against other forces sometimes is enough, sometimes isn't.

Aluminum brick will sink in water, but float in mercury.
Not because aluminum brick loses weight (it doesn't), but because mercury has higher density than water and counters harder.

Does heavier kid on the other side of seesaw makes you "lose gravity"?

If their is Aether, then the rocket has something to have friction with.

As their not being any Aether in the Universe, how can you prove that something does not exists if you don't know what it is?

If their is Aether, then the rocket has something to have friction with.

What about 'friction' between rocket and exiting gas?
Drive wheels push ground back, propellers push water or air back, and rocket pushes gas back?
Pushing air back and pushing gas back "lights the bulb"? (enlightens the thinker)

What about 'friction' between rocket and exiting gas?
Drive wheels push ground back, propellers push water or air back, and rocket pushes gas back?
Pushing air back and pushing gas back "lights the bulb"? (enlightens the thinker)

The ground has matter, atmosphere has matter, vacuum has NO matter, thus nothing can push back. Is their an opposite reaction to the satellite in a vacuum?

Quote

What about 'friction' between rocket and exiting gas?
Drive wheels push ground back, propellers push water or air back, and rocket pushes gas back?
Pushing air back and pushing gas back "lights the bulb"? (enlightens the thinker)

The ground has matter, atmosphere has matter, vacuum has NO matter, thus nothing can push back. Is their an opposite reaction to the satellite in a vacuum?

You have to be trolling.  It is not reasonable to believe that someone can be this dumb.

He said "wheels push ground", "propellers push water or air", and "rocket pushes gas".

You answered "ground has matter", "atmosphere has matter", and "vacuum has NO matter". 

He said "rocket pushes gas", not "rocket pushes vacuum".  Why did you add vacuum to the issue?  Gas has matter, so all is well.  You insist on the vacuum being an issue despite the fact that the rocket uses matter it carries with it to push off instead of matter outside of it to push. 

This is too simple for you to be misunderstanding so I'm left to believe you're being deliberately obtuse to irritate people.  I hope you're having fun.  It seems like a giant waste of time to me, but I guess everyone has a hobby.

Why did you add vacuum to the issue?

Are satellites operating in a vacuum or in an atmosphere?

Quote

Why did you add vacuum to the issue?

Are satellites operating in a vacuum or in an atmosphere?

Satellites would slow down if there was atmosphere there.
Rocket would also go slower if there was atmosphere around.
And it does if it is, for example, AMRAAM, or balistic projectile.

Quote

Why did you add vacuum to the issue?

Are satellites operating in a vacuum or in an atmosphere?

What they are operating in is irrelevant, because unlike every other vehicle you've mentioned, rockets do not engage an external medium for propulsion. 

Wheels pushing ground are pushing an external medium. Propellers pushing air are pushing an external medium.  Rockets pushing gas is an internal medium. 

You're confused because most vehicles utilize the medium around them for propulsion.  Rockets don't.  They push the gas they carry to move.  It doesn't matter if they are in a vacuum or in a vat of molasses.  They aren't using what's around them to move. 

If their is Aether, then the rocket has something to have friction with.

As their not being any Aether in the Universe, how can you prove that something does not exists if you don't know what it is?

I don't have to prove it doesn't exist, you have to prove it does

Where is your proof of the aether?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on January 31, 2018, 09:39:39 AM

If their is Aether, then the rocket has something to have friction with.

As their not being any Aether in the Universe, how can you prove that something does not exists if you don't know what it is?

I don't have to prove it doesn't exist, you have to prove it does

Where is your proof of the aether?

I have to prove that it exists, then you have to prove that satellites can move in a vacuum!!!

I have to prove that it exists, then you have to prove that satellites can move in a vacuum!!!

Is this a joke?

Buy a vacuum pump, make a vacuum, drop something, hey look it moves

Or just watch the hundreds of videos that show this

Quote from: InFlatEarth on January 31, 2018, 12:41:12 PM

I have to prove that it exists, then you have to prove that satellites can move in a vacuum!!!

Is this a joke?

Buy a vacuum pump, make a vacuum, drop something, hey look it moves

Or just watch the hundreds of videos that show this

We are talking moving in a zero gravity environment in a vacuum

We are talking moving in a zero gravity environment in a vacuum

Satellites don't move in a zero gravity environment? So i'm not sure why that is a criteria

in any case, just take your vacuum pump up in the vomit commit and put a little rocket, fire extinguisher, or anything that shoots exhaust gasses out its end and you will see things move just fine

Come on dude, this stuff was known about in the 1600's, do yourself a favour and look up Issac Newtons laws of motion

Satellites don't move in a zero gravity environment?

In what environment do they operate in?

If their is an environment, then their must also be a temperature and is this higher of lower than the melting point of aluminum or titanium?

Quote

Satellites don't move in a zero gravity environment?

In what environment do they operate in?

If their is an environment, then their must also be a temperature and is this higher of lower than the melting point of aluminum or titanium?

They operate in a vacuum

As to the temperature, its slightly colder but not to different from what we experience on earth, the same sun that warms our planet also warms objects orbiting our planet

Do they operate in a gravity and if so, what is the g value for it?

Do they operate in a gravity and if so, what is the g value for it?

Well that depends how high they are

Here is a handy dandy table

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/The-Value-of-g

If their is Aether, then the rocket has something to have friction with.

But a rocket needs nothing "to have friction with" and if a rocket had "something to have friction with" then so would satellites and that would rapidly slow them down, that does not happen.
The traces of atmosphere left in LEO are bad enough, necessitating the ISS to use fuel to raise its orbit periodically.

As their not being any Aether in the Universe, how can you prove that something does not exists if you don't know what it is?

Outline the features of the aether model for the transmission of light.

• In 1801, Thomas Young showed that light could interfere with each other through some experiments and soon light was decided to be a WAVE.
• Before the concept of Electromagnetic Waves was accepted, people believed that all waves required a medium to travel through. (See Prelim: The world communicates)
• Having recognised that light was a wave, the scientists thought that light needed a medium to travel through, seeing how most other waves known at the time needed one such as sound.
• The Aether was believed to have the following properties:
  • Perfectly Transparent
  • Permeated ALL matter
  • Filled ALL of space
  • Low to No density (massless)
  • Rigid AND/OR Elastic to support high-velocity waves. (Yeah I have no idea either)
• However, the existence of Aether could not be proved. One experiment which had failed to prove this was the Michelson Morley experiment which attempted to find an aether wind but failed.
• Eventually, it was found that light did not require a medium to propagate. In fact, light was a self-propagating wave. As there was proof for this new model, unlike the Aether model, the newer model was accepted and the Aether model was eventually phased out as noone used it any more.

From: Outline the features of the aether model for the transmission of light.

No description aether's properties that I have seen postulates any interaction with matter, only with EM waves or gravitation.

If you have a better ideas, please present them.

Quote

Satellites don't move in a zero gravity environment?

In what environment do they operate in?

Satellites operate in a region where:
     the gravitational field varies from about 8.6 m/s² at 400 km to 0.225 m/s² at 35,786 km altitude.
     the gas pressure is very close to a vacuum.

If their there is an environment, then their there must also be a temperature and is this higher of lower than the melting point of aluminum or titanium?

You say, "If there is an environment, then there must also be a temperature", but not if that environment were a perfect vacuum.

The few molecules left in that region have a high velocity, so are said to be at a high temperature.
But there is so little matter in space that its temperature is quite irrelevant because there is not enough of it for heat transfer by either conduction or convection.

Read this: The MAD Scientist, Feeling of Heat in the Thermosphere

What does aether taste like?

Quote

Satellites don't move in a zero gravity environment?

In what environment do they operate in?

If their is an environment, then their must also be a temperature and is this higher of lower than the melting point of aluminum or titanium?

More goalpost moving?  What does your gross misunderstanding of temperature and heat transfer have to do with gravity or movement in a vacuum?

Is there gravity in the space?
There is.
https://www.space.com/7050-gravity-space.html

After that article was published, ISS changed orbit from 354 km to 414 km to reduce drag caused by remnants of the atmosphere at high altitudes.

What is the value of Earth's gravitational acceleration at different heights?
CALCULATOR

Geostationary orbit is at 35 786 km. Gravitational acceleration of the Earth there is 0.22555 m/s²
Low Orbit satellites are lower.
For example, ISS orbit is at 414 km. Gravitational acceleration there is 8.6453 m/s²

Astronauts in the ISS (and ISS itself) are in the state of weightlessness because
orbital speed of ISS is enough to counter gravitational forces by centrifugal forces.

EDIT: Meanwhile I found another ISS orbital correction, from 415 km down to about 400 km or so.
First for about 2.5 km by direct boost of supply vehicle, then by letting drag to lower it 12 km more.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2931725/ISS-moves-closer-home-Space-station-lowers-orbit-make-commute-Earth-space-shorter.html.

At 400 km g = 8.681 m/s²
At earlier 354 km it was a bit higher, or 8.7996 m/s²

I have created a new thread about the satellite orbit, which is at the following link

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74102.0