ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

define "atmosphere" and what's different about it from "air".
because the conventional definition, "atmosphere" is comprised of "air".

Do you accept that gases can be split?
Do you accept that we have a stacked atmosphere and gases separate into it?

If you can't then I can't explain anything to you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2021, 07:54:25 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 29, 2021, 06:16:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2021, 02:29:55 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 29, 2021, 02:04:12 AM

side derail

just saw a video on lightbulbs.
if vacuums or near vacuums don't exist, explain how old timey lightbulbs work?
they had to evacuate the air due to overheating.
so do we add lightbulbs to the list of things taht, according to sceppy, don't exist?

They are not anywhere near fully evacuated. It's a low pressure and generally with another gas.

Do you think a glass thermos is a vacuum?

You seem very confident and sure about this.
Perhaps you could define your version of atomsphere for us.

Take a look at what light bulbs were filled with.
They weren't vacuums or even extreme low pressure.

Originally they were extreme low pressure, high vacuum. Then to increase longevity and easier production, they switched over to an inert gas. Why you say they weren't is historically incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb

You can read Edison's patent here where a vacuum is referenced:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US223898A/en

(Though many others had made similar devices before Edison, his was seemingly the most robust and commercially viable)

So how do you define the atmosphere?

Extreme low pressure would've compromised the lightbulbs.
How about showing me the process of evacuating the air from a lightbulb, like you think.
Let's see what happens.


If you heat up and seal a bulb you will create lower pressure by expansion of atmosphere from within.
The inner bulb still has lots of trapped atmosphere within but it cannot agitate and expand like before, meaning the bulb does not explode...generally, anyway.

It’s a metal can falling down a big tube, there’s not much to show.  I doubt there’s any benefit installing lighting and cameras, and adding anything that doesn’t need to be there has the potential to compromise the vacuum. 

The vacuum doesn’t need to be absolute though, it only needs to reduce air resistance so that it’s insignificant to the experiments.

I don’t expect you believe anything about these towers, just pointing out that they are almost exactly  scenario described above.

It doesn't show nor solve anything about so called gravity.
What it would do, if the air is allowed to evacuate a fair bit is to create less resistance to the drop of the dense mass of the tube.

If anything it simply shows that air pressure is the big key and not magical mysteries sold as gravity.

Your model indicates poles with an outwards flow should repel each other and poles with an inwards flow should attract each other.

No I didn't.
If you think I did then explain what I said by showing me what I put and I'll be glad to untwist it for you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2021, 01:40:44 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on March 28, 2021, 03:34:19 PM

That drop tower is what we're talking about, but there's no need to go there or build one to test this.

Sceptimatic, I now know you have a set of scales. 

Experiment 1:
Maybe do this outside on your lawn. Find an object which weighs 5 to 10 kg and place on your cheap scales. (Or, so there is no room for doubt, glue the object to the top of the scales). Ask your wife to stand on a chair beside you so she can film directly down over the scales, showing the reading.

Take hold of two opposite ends of the scales. Lift the scales with the object on, up to chest height or higher. Then, release hold with each hand of the scales, simultaneously, so that the scales fall horizontal ? to the floor with the weight still on top.

Now, review the video footage taken by your wife, and see if the weight reading on the scales changes from being in a state of rest to free fall, and then when it hits the floor.

Of course it will change. The scales are not part of a solid foundation as they fall, so naturally the reading will change.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

Experiment 2:
Glue a pair of your shoes to the top of an old set of cheap scales. When the glue is dry, get on to a ledge a few feet off the ground. Put your feet into the shoes, tie up the laces, and stand up on the ledge.

Film down. The scales should read your weight. Keep filming down, as you jump off the ledge to the ground. Review the footage and see if the weight changes between your resting position on the ledge, to falling, to landing on the ground.

Same thing.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. You seem to be confusing yourself.

Both practical experiments illustrate exactly what will occur in the falling elevator scenario, sceptimatic. You know, the scenario where you said your weight on the scales would not change when the elevator falls?

I think you should do the experiment/s. If you want it more like the elevator, glue a square sheet of ply wood to the underside of the scales and then drop it  and then yourself.

I used the word horizontal, for the falling setups, but for you, perhaps the word "level" would have been better, or even the word, "flat"?

Have you done the experiments?

You started off using a vacuum.
Then you changed to low pressure.
Then you changed to high pressure.


You had an elevator with a person and a set of scales on the floor with the person stood on them.


Let's elevator it....oops, sorry, I mean, evaluate it.  (just a light hearted joke).

First of all we rule out your vacuum.

Ok,, so now we have an elevator with lower pressure in the shaft and in the elevator itself.

If the person shows a reading on the scale and the elevator is allowed to drop against little resistance build up, it will take time for it to slow down by compression of that air in that shaft.
However, we have a problem right there because the shaft would be sealed, I assume (unless you want to put another scenario up) and that would not allow a push on that elevator which would mean it would stop anyway  before it got anywhere near the bottom because there would be no air inrush on top of it.


If this baffles you I'll be happy to explain why.

Anyway, the person in the elevator would immediately experience a weight reading drop due to the feet leaving the scales, if the scales were stuck to the elevator floor but not the person's feet to the scale plate.
This would be due to the larger dense mass of the elevator being able to compress the air below, immediately which would offer a reaction against you in compressing that air in the lift against the ceiling and then back to the floor and back onto you, meaning you get a more denser pressure upon you meaning you have less push against resistance......hence, you end up getting left behind.


Attach your feet to a scale plate that is also attached to the floor and you fall with the elevator but scale plate spring would be stretched as the elevators dense mass pushes through the resistance of air and leaves the same type of scenario  inside, which is the spring acting like a loose object until the spring resistance arrests that, meaning it would naturally show nothing and even minus if the plate pushes up a bit.


But, the argument you tried to make was with a vacuum, meaning no resistance and that's why I counter argued it by telling you, in this magical scenario there would be no resistance to anything or anyone.
Sooooo, if the person was attacked to the scales and the elevator and had a reading at that particular hypothetical point, then hypothetically nothing would change. The scale reading would stay the same.....hypothetically in this magical situation.


Does anyone get what I'm saying?

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 29, 2021, 01:44:50 AM

define "atmosphere" and what's different about it from "air".
because the conventional definition, "atmosphere" is comprised of "air".

Do you accept that gases can be split?
Do you accept that we have a stacked atmosphere and gases separate into it?

If you can't then I can't explain anything to you.

Just define it and we ll go from there.
My exceptance is irrelevant to the truthfulness of your model.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on March 29, 2021, 02:38:11 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 29, 2021, 01:40:44 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on March 28, 2021, 03:34:19 PM

That drop tower is what we're talking about, but there's no need to go there or build one to test this.

Sceptimatic, I now know you have a set of scales. 

Experiment 1:
Maybe do this outside on your lawn. Find an object which weighs 5 to 10 kg and place on your cheap scales. (Or, so there is no room for doubt, glue the object to the top of the scales). Ask your wife to stand on a chair beside you so she can film directly down over the scales, showing the reading.

Take hold of two opposite ends of the scales. Lift the scales with the object on, up to chest height or higher. Then, release hold with each hand of the scales, simultaneously, so that the scales fall horizontal ? to the floor with the weight still on top.

Now, review the video footage taken by your wife, and see if the weight reading on the scales changes from being in a state of rest to free fall, and then when it hits the floor.

Of course it will change. The scales are not part of a solid foundation as they fall, so naturally the reading will change.

Quote from: Smoke Machine

Experiment 2:
Glue a pair of your shoes to the top of an old set of cheap scales. When the glue is dry, get on to a ledge a few feet off the ground. Put your feet into the shoes, tie up the laces, and stand up on the ledge.

Film down. The scales should read your weight. Keep filming down, as you jump off the ledge to the ground. Review the footage and see if the weight changes between your resting position on the ledge, to falling, to landing on the ground.

Same thing.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. You seem to be confusing yourself.

Both practical experiments illustrate exactly what will occur in the falling elevator scenario, sceptimatic. You know, the scenario where you said your weight on the scales would not change when the elevator falls?

I think you should do the experiment/s. If you want it more like the elevator, glue a square sheet of ply wood to the underside of the scales and then drop it  and then yourself.

I used the word horizontal, for the falling setups, but for you, perhaps the word "level" would have been better, or even the word, "flat"?

Have you done the experiments?

You started off using a vacuum.
Then you changed to low pressure.
Then you changed to high pressure.


You had an elevator with a person and a set of scales on the floor with the person stood on them.


Let's elevator it....oops, sorry, I mean, evaluate it.  (just a light hearted joke).

First of all we rule out your vacuum.

Ok,, so now we have an elevator with lower pressure in the shaft and in the elevator itself.

If the person shows a reading on the scale and the elevator is allowed to drop against little resistance build up, it will take time for it to slow down by compression of that air in that shaft.
However, we have a problem right there because the shaft would be sealed, I assume (unless you want to put another scenario up) and that would not allow a push on that elevator which would mean it would stop anyway  before it got anywhere near the bottom because there would be no air inrush on top of it.


If this baffles you I'll be happy to explain why.

Anyway, the person in the elevator would immediately experience a weight reading drop due to the feet leaving the scales, if the scales were stuck to the elevator floor but not the person's feet to the scale plate.
This would be due to the larger dense mass of the elevator being able to compress the air below, immediately which would offer a reaction against you in compressing that air in the lift against the ceiling and then back to the floor and back onto you, meaning you get a more denser pressure upon you meaning you have less push against resistance......hence, you end up getting left behind.


Attach your feet to a scale plate that is also attached to the floor and you fall with the elevator but scale plate spring would be stretched as the elevators dense mass pushes through the resistance of air and leaves the same type of scenario  inside, which is the spring acting like a loose object until the spring resistance arrests that, meaning it would naturally show nothing and even minus if the plate pushes up a bit.


But, the argument you tried to make was with a vacuum, meaning no resistance and that's why I counter argued it by telling you, in this magical scenario there would be no resistance to anything or anyone.
Sooooo, if the person was attacked to the scales and the elevator and had a reading at that particular hypothetical point, then hypothetically nothing would change. The scale reading would stay the same.....hypothetically in this magical situation.


Does anyone get what I'm saying?

No
Time to start drawing pictures

Quote from: JackBlack on March 29, 2021, 01:19:37 PM

Your model indicates poles with an outwards flow should repel each other and poles with an inwards flow should attract each other.

No I didn't.
If you think I did then explain what I said by showing me what I put and I'll be glad to untwist it for you.

You didn't state it, because that would be you directly stating your model contradicts reality.
I used simple logic to show how that is a natural result of your model.
And you have been unable to refute it.
What you need to do is explain how the flow creates the observed polarity of magnets.
And it seems you are anything but glad to do that.

Extreme low pressure would've compromised the lightbulbs.

Why?

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 29, 2021, 10:09:17 AM

It’s a metal can falling down a big tube, there’s not much to show.  I doubt there’s any benefit installing lighting and cameras, and adding anything that doesn’t need to be there has the potential to compromise the vacuum. 

The vacuum doesn’t need to be absolute though, it only needs to reduce air resistance so that it’s insignificant to the experiments.

I don’t expect you believe anything about these towers, just pointing out that they are almost exactly  scenario described above.

It doesn't show nor solve anything about so called gravity.
What it would do, if the air is allowed to evacuate a fair bit is to create less resistance to the drop of the dense mass of the tube.

If anything it simply shows that air pressure is the big key and not magical mysteries sold as gravity.

I see that you accept that air resistance slows falling objects.  But don’t you claim that things only fall because of the mass of air above them? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 02:19:22 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 29, 2021, 01:19:37 PM

Your model indicates poles with an outwards flow should repel each other and poles with an inwards flow should attract each other.

No I didn't.
If you think I did then explain what I said by showing me what I put and I'll be glad to untwist it for you.

You didn't state it, because that would be you directly stating your model contradicts reality.
I used simple logic to show how that is a natural result of your model.
And you have been unable to refute it.
What you need to do is explain how the flow creates the observed polarity of magnets.
And it seems you are anything but glad to do that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 02:14:30 AM

Extreme low pressure would've compromised the lightbulbs.

Why?

Maybe pay more attention instead of making stuff up.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 02:17:14 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 29, 2021, 10:09:17 AM

It’s a metal can falling down a big tube, there’s not much to show.  I doubt there’s any benefit installing lighting and cameras, and adding anything that doesn’t need to be there has the potential to compromise the vacuum. 

The vacuum doesn’t need to be absolute though, it only needs to reduce air resistance so that it’s insignificant to the experiments.

I don’t expect you believe anything about these towers, just pointing out that they are almost exactly  scenario described above.

It doesn't show nor solve anything about so called gravity.
What it would do, if the air is allowed to evacuate a fair bit is to create less resistance to the drop of the dense mass of the tube.

If anything it simply shows that air pressure is the big key and not magical mysteries sold as gravity.

I see that you accept that air resistance slows falling objects.  But don’t you claim that things only fall because of the mass of air above them?

Absolutely.

Nothing can move downwards without pressure from above beng enough to push back by the objects displacement.
It's the very reason why the elevator would stop in short order if there were no air pressure above it being allowed to rush into that shaft.

Define atmoshpere

Quote from: JackBlack on March 30, 2021, 04:58:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 02:19:22 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 29, 2021, 01:19:37 PM

Your model indicates poles with an outwards flow should repel each other and poles with an inwards flow should attract each other.

No I didn't.
If you think I did then explain what I said by showing me what I put and I'll be glad to untwist it for you.

You didn't state it, because that would be you directly stating your model contradicts reality.
I used simple logic to show how that is a natural result of your model.
And you have been unable to refute it.
What you need to do is explain how the flow creates the observed polarity of magnets.
And it seems you are anything but glad to do that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 02:14:30 AM

Extreme low pressure would've compromised the lightbulbs.

Why?

Maybe pay more attention instead of making stuff up.

Follow your own advice.
Now again, explain how your model produces the observed polarity of magnets.
If you can't, then admit you have no explanation for how a flow causes that polarity.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 30, 2021, 05:41:58 AM

I see that you accept that air resistance slows falling objects.  But don’t you claim that things only fall because of the mass of air above them?

Absolutely.

Except you have no justification for how or why the air magically pushes things down, especially when the pressure is greater below.
And you seemed to have ignored the problem, the fact that air resists an object falling shows it almost certainly isn't what causes it to fall.

No need for drawings. Sceptimatic, upload your video clip of the experiments, and I'll do the same.

The vacuum in the elevator shaft was simply to remove air resistance under the elevator, which would slow the elevator's descent.

Even without the shaft, the air resistance offered to a falling box with a person standing inside on a set of scales, is low.

Would you feel better if the man is standing on a set of scales inside a large wooden crate, being lifted up by a crane overhead, to the top of a skyscraper? The chain breaks as the crate reaches the height of the skyscraper, and the crate falls.

Is this a better alternative scenario for you?

It's still a falling man standing on a set of scales. The simple experiments I set out, match the falling crate scenario, even more closely than the falling elevator in a shaft. 

Remember, the assertion being tested  is a falling man does not feel gravity. He does not feel his own weight. In free-fall, you become weightless.

Except you have no justification for how or why the air magically pushes things down, especially when the pressure is greater below.
And you seemed to have ignored the problem, the fact that air resists an object falling shows it almost certainly isn't what causes it to fall.

All explained but, as usual you rejected it and decided to go into frenzy mode.
That's your issue.

No need for drawings. Sceptimatic, upload your video clip of the experiments, and I'll do the same.

The vacuum in the elevator shaft was simply to remove air resistance under the elevator, which would slow the elevator's descent.

Even without the shaft, the air resistance offered to a falling box with a person standing inside on a set of scales, is low.

Would you feel better if the man is standing on a set of scales inside a large wooden crate, being lifted up by a crane overhead, to the top of a skyscraper? The chain breaks as the crate reaches the height of the skyscraper, and the crate falls.

Is this a better alternative scenario for you?

It's still a falling man standing on a set of scales. The simple experiments I set out, match the falling crate scenario, even more closely than the falling elevator in a shaft. 

Remember, the assertion being tested  is a falling man does not feel gravity. He does not feel his own weight. In free-fall, you become weightless.

You used a vacuum, which is why I answered like I did.
Now you're changing it.
However, I've answered all scenarios....pay attention to them.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 30, 2021, 05:41:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 02:17:14 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 29, 2021, 10:09:17 AM

It’s a metal can falling down a big tube, there’s not much to show.  I doubt there’s any benefit installing lighting and cameras, and adding anything that doesn’t need to be there has the potential to compromise the vacuum. 

The vacuum doesn’t need to be absolute though, it only needs to reduce air resistance so that it’s insignificant to the experiments.

I don’t expect you believe anything about these towers, just pointing out that they are almost exactly  scenario described above.

It doesn't show nor solve anything about so called gravity.
What it would do, if the air is allowed to evacuate a fair bit is to create less resistance to the drop of the dense mass of the tube.

If anything it simply shows that air pressure is the big key and not magical mysteries sold as gravity.

I see that you accept that air resistance slows falling objects.  But don’t you claim that things only fall because of the mass of air above them?

Absolutely.

Nothing can move downwards without pressure from above beng enough to push back by the objects displacement.
It's the very reason why the elevator would stop in short order if there were no air pressure above it being allowed to rush into that shaft.

So what should changing the air pressure do to the force or acceleration of a falling object?

Say if we remove 99.9% of the air? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 06:33:11 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 30, 2021, 05:41:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 02:17:14 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 29, 2021, 10:09:17 AM

It’s a metal can falling down a big tube, there’s not much to show.  I doubt there’s any benefit installing lighting and cameras, and adding anything that doesn’t need to be there has the potential to compromise the vacuum. 

The vacuum doesn’t need to be absolute though, it only needs to reduce air resistance so that it’s insignificant to the experiments.

I don’t expect you believe anything about these towers, just pointing out that they are almost exactly  scenario described above.

It doesn't show nor solve anything about so called gravity.
What it would do, if the air is allowed to evacuate a fair bit is to create less resistance to the drop of the dense mass of the tube.

If anything it simply shows that air pressure is the big key and not magical mysteries sold as gravity.

I see that you accept that air resistance slows falling objects.  But don’t you claim that things only fall because of the mass of air above them?

Absolutely.

Nothing can move downwards without pressure from above beng enough to push back by the objects displacement.
It's the very reason why the elevator would stop in short order if there were no air pressure above it being allowed to rush into that shaft.

So what should changing the air pressure do to the force or acceleration of a falling object?

Say if we remove 99.9% of the air?

If you cannot remove all atmosphere, which you can't. It stacks, just like anything would stack.

Any object within that stacking system has to displace it by the objects own dense mass.....not volume.

Sooo, just as an object in water would displace water, the same happens in air.

Basically you have an object pushing in all directions above the stacking system, which is massively key.

Everything has to alter to ft withing a stack, no matter what it is. It's just a case of getting your head around it from my side, which people can't.

It needs thought without bias to get it from my side.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 31, 2021, 12:19:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 06:33:11 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 30, 2021, 05:41:58 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2021, 02:17:14 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 29, 2021, 10:09:17 AM

It’s a metal can falling down a big tube, there’s not much to show.  I doubt there’s any benefit installing lighting and cameras, and adding anything that doesn’t need to be there has the potential to compromise the vacuum. 

The vacuum doesn’t need to be absolute though, it only needs to reduce air resistance so that it’s insignificant to the experiments.

I don’t expect you believe anything about these towers, just pointing out that they are almost exactly  scenario described above.

It doesn't show nor solve anything about so called gravity.
What it would do, if the air is allowed to evacuate a fair bit is to create less resistance to the drop of the dense mass of the tube.

If anything it simply shows that air pressure is the big key and not magical mysteries sold as gravity.

I see that you accept that air resistance slows falling objects.  But don’t you claim that things only fall because of the mass of air above them?

Absolutely.

Nothing can move downwards without pressure from above beng enough to push back by the objects displacement.
It's the very reason why the elevator would stop in short order if there were no air pressure above it being allowed to rush into that shaft.

So what should changing the air pressure do to the force or acceleration of a falling object?

Say if we remove 99.9% of the air?

If you cannot remove all atmosphere, which you can't. It stacks, just like anything would stack.

Any object within that stacking system has to displace it by the objects own dense mass.....not volume.

Sooo, just as an object in water would displace water, the same happens in air.

Basically you have an object pushing in all directions above the stacking system, which is massively key.

Everything has to alter to ft withing a stack, no matter what it is. It's just a case of getting your head around it from my side, which people can't.

It needs thought without bias to get it from my side.

I didn’t say remove all the air, I said remove 99.9%.  If you object to that, make it 90%.

How do you think that affects weight, or how fast an object falls?

Heavier/ lighter?  Faster/slower?

I didn’t say remove all the air, I said remove 99.9%.  If you object to that, make it 90%.

How do you think that affects weight, or how fast an object falls?

Heavier/ lighter?  Faster/slower?

If you remove a lot of resistance to a dense mass, then that dense mass will overcome it much easier, obviously.
But the same thing still applies.
You still need above atmosphere for that to work because any dense mass needs something to push back against it, otherwise it would not fall.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 30, 2021, 12:48:04 PM

Except you have no justification for how or why the air magically pushes things down, especially when the pressure is greater below.
And you seemed to have ignored the problem, the fact that air resists an object falling shows it almost certainly isn't what causes it to fall.

All explained but, as usual you rejected it and decided to go into frenzy mode.
That's your issue.

You mean as usual, you have no explanation at all. You have no way to explain it. You know this simple issues shows you are wrong.
So as you have no explanation, you just repeatedly lie and claim to have already explained it, and then just lash out and attack when it is repeatedly pointed out that you are dodging the issue.

If you truly had explained it, it would be trivial for you to either provide the explanation again, or to link to the post where you did explain it.
But we both know that that is not the case as you haven't explained it.
Now stop lying, stop with the pathetic deflection, and either explain how your model accounts for the observed polarity of magnets, or admit you have no explanation.
As that is entirely your issue.

Any object within that stacking system has to displace it by the objects own dense mass.....not volume.

No, it displaces its volume. That is because it occupies some volume. It doesn't matter what its mass is. It displaces its volume.

Sooo, just as an object in water would displace water, the same happens in air.

It is pushed up by the greater pressure below, causing an apparent reduction in weight due to this upwards, buoyant force?

Everything has to alter to ft withing a stack, no matter what it is. It's just a case of getting your head around it from my side, which people can't.
It needs thought without bias to get it from my side.

No, it is just a case of your system simply not working to explain reality and needing to repeatedly contradict itself.
Stop pretending everyone else is always the issue when you can't even explain something as simple as why there is a pressure gradient in the first place, or why the air pushes things in direct defiance of this pressure gradient.

If you remove a lot of resistance to a dense mass, then that dense mass will overcome it much easier, obviously.

The problem is that you claim it is the air which pushes it down in the first place. You aren't just removing the resistance, you are also removing what you CLAIM pushes it down, meaning it is pushed down less.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 31, 2021, 01:33:26 AM

I didn’t say remove all the air, I said remove 99.9%.  If you object to that, make it 90%.

How do you think that affects weight, or how fast an object falls?

Heavier/ lighter?  Faster/slower?

If you remove a lot of resistance to a dense mass, then that dense mass will overcome it much easier, obviously.
But the same thing still applies.
You still need above atmosphere for that to work because any dense mass needs something to push back against it, otherwise it would not fall.

So if we drop something in a chamber with most of the air removed, it should fall much slower?

Things at the bottom of the ocean should be heavier because of all that pressure.

You mean as usual

As usual, what?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 31, 2021, 01:39:10 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 31, 2021, 01:33:26 AM

I didn’t say remove all the air, I said remove 99.9%.  If you object to that, make it 90%.

How do you think that affects weight, or how fast an object falls?

Heavier/ lighter?  Faster/slower?

If you remove a lot of resistance to a dense mass, then that dense mass will overcome it much easier, obviously.
But the same thing still applies.
You still need above atmosphere for that to work because any dense mass needs something to push back against it, otherwise it would not fall.

So if we drop something in a chamber with most of the air removed, it should fall much slower?

Nope. It depends on what's above the object.

Things at the bottom of the ocean should be heavier because of all that pressure.

Nope. More condensed but not heavier.

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 31, 2021, 04:28:17 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 31, 2021, 01:39:10 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on March 31, 2021, 01:33:26 AM

I didn’t say remove all the air, I said remove 99.9%.  If you object to that, make it 90%.

How do you think that affects weight, or how fast an object falls?

Heavier/ lighter?  Faster/slower?

If you remove a lot of resistance to a dense mass, then that dense mass will overcome it much easier, obviously.
But the same thing still applies.
You still need above atmosphere for that to work because any dense mass needs something to push back against it, otherwise it would not fall.

So if we drop something in a chamber with most of the air removed, it should fall much slower?

Nope. It depends on what's above the object.

Very little air at the same pressure as underneath it.  ie dropping something in a vacuum chamber.

Quote from: Themightykabool on March 31, 2021, 05:18:42 AM

Things at the bottom of the ocean should be heavier because of all that pressure.

Nope. More condensed but not heavier.

But you said pressure pushes people down.
Make up your mind.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 31, 2021, 01:40:30 AM

You mean as usual

As usual, what?

Exactly what was in my post, which you just ignore because you have no way to honestly and respond to.

As explained, your model directly contradicts reality.
If air was the cause of things falling, they should be falling upwards, as that is the direction the pressure gradient will push them.

Likewise, if magnets were caused by a flow of air (or something of the like), the polarity of magnets would be completely different to what is observed.

You have no way to honestly address either of these issues, so as usual, you just use whatever dishonest BS you can to deflect.

Now again, are you going to explain how your model produces the observed polarity of magnets, where like poles repel and opposite poles attract?
Or will you continue with this dishonest, childish BS?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on March 30, 2021, 01:33:54 PM

No need for drawings. Sceptimatic, upload your video clip of the experiments, and I'll do the same.

The vacuum in the elevator shaft was simply to remove air resistance under the elevator, which would slow the elevator's descent.

Even without the shaft, the air resistance offered to a falling box with a person standing inside on a set of scales, is low.

Would you feel better if the man is standing on a set of scales inside a large wooden crate, being lifted up by a crane overhead, to the top of a skyscraper? The chain breaks as the crate reaches the height of the skyscraper, and the crate falls.

Is this a better alternative scenario for you?

It's still a falling man standing on a set of scales. The simple experiments I set out, match the falling crate scenario, even more closely than the falling elevator in a shaft. 

Remember, the assertion being tested  is a falling man does not feel gravity. He does not feel his own weight. In free-fall, you become weightless.

You used a vacuum, which is why I answered like I did.
Now you're changing it.
However, I've answered all scenarios....pay attention to them.

Well, I don't think you have answered all scenarios. You seem to maintain that a falling man does not experience weightlessness and his weight does not change during free fall. You seem to prefer to explain everything with air pressure, as if we are all wondering around the ocean floor breathing through gills.

So, can the man in the falling crate, lift a half tonne steel safe which is also falling with him, with his little finger?  The contention here is the weight of the safe also goes to zero during free-fall. This thread is concentrating on gravity, and whether it exists.

Do experiment 1, which will take you five minutes, less time than it takes you to create a post, and upload the result....easy.

Or do you think the world around you and the laws of physics, are different for you, because you have an alternate world model mindset going on in your head?