ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

  • 2095 Replies
  • 44288 Views
*

JJA

  • 4213
  • Math is math!
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #150 on: January 29, 2021, 09:32:05 AM »
Quote from: JJA
Which is it, do objects of the same volume have the same volume or not?

Yes they do.

You say yes here.

Quote from: JJA
Does a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?
No.

You say no here.

Quote from: JJA
You have changed your answer back and forth several times now. Just answer the question I asked, yes or no.

I have never changed it. It's you that can't marry up what I am saying.

You change your answer depending on how the question is asked. I'm beginning to think you have no idea what volume is.

One cubic meter is the same as one cubic meter.  That's what volume is, a measurement of space.

You are getting it mixed up with density which might explain your confusion about pressure and displacement and other simple concepts.

You still haven't explained how 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone can have different volumes when they are the exact same size.

Does a 1 inch bar of stone and a 1 inch bar of lead have different lengths?

*

Stash

  • 7337
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #151 on: January 29, 2021, 10:40:28 AM »
You're right, he doesn't know what volume is. This might help decipher, a Rosetta Stone, if you will; A translation of terms as defined by one person who made them up to conform to a theory that is shared by only one person:

"Density"....The structure of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure to create a scale reading. (Denpressure)
"Mass" .....The amount of material that makes up an object. (see above).
...

"Weight" ....A man made scale measurement that gives a reading of the compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure.

"Volume",...The amount of porosity in any object.

"Speed" ....The ability to go a distance in a certain time in any direction. (ie mph)

"Velocity" ..... The speed of something in one direction, only.

"Acceleration" .....The continuous build up of movement.

...
"Force" ..... Any energy push in any direction
"Pressure" .....I think pressure can be lumped in with force. there's actually no difference to what they both mean in the grand scheme of things.
...

"Pressure gradient" ........ The difference in energy force that goes from low to high or high to low.

"Power"....  Energy push.

"Energy"......Vibration and friction, which basically are the same thing.

"Inertia" ..... Something that cannot be explained as anything, to be fair.

Use this as a reference because this is on my terms not on the terms of someone who wants to dictate my theory and ways.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #152 on: January 29, 2021, 12:53:23 PM »
You're not pointing out where I'm wrong
But I have, repeatedly.
Again, you claim that it is based upon displacing air, and displacing more air means the air resists more.
But the hollow object displaces more air and has less resistance.

The major issue is you refusing to accept you are wrong and refusing to honestly and rationally engage in any discussion.

Can anyone help this person out?
Yes, the amount of space something takes up is its volume.

You are saying 2 objects with the same volume do not have the same volume.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27566
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #153 on: January 30, 2021, 02:33:21 AM »
Quote from: JJA
Which is it, do objects of the same volume have the same volume or not?

Yes they do.

You say yes here.

Quote from: JJA
Does a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?
No.

You say no here.

Quote from: JJA
You have changed your answer back and forth several times now. Just answer the question I asked, yes or no.

I have never changed it. It's you that can't marry up what I am saying.

You change your answer depending on how the question is asked. I'm beginning to think you have no idea what volume is.

One cubic meter is the same as one cubic meter.  That's what volume is, a measurement of space.

You are getting it mixed up with density which might explain your confusion about pressure and displacement and other simple concepts.

You still haven't explained how 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone can have different volumes when they are the exact same size.

Does a 1 inch bar of stone and a 1 inch bar of lead have different lengths?
Read it all carefully and ask your friends.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27566
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #154 on: January 30, 2021, 02:38:23 AM »
You're not pointing out where I'm wrong
But I have, repeatedly.
No you have not...not one bit. You twist things to suit yourself and that's fine but wasting your own time to try and make me accept them is an ongoing thing with you.

Once you actually try and play it fair and honestly, I'll engage properly.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #155 on: January 30, 2021, 12:43:16 PM »
Read it all carefully and ask your friends.
Follow your own advice.
"Amount of space" is volume.
He is asking if 2 objects which have the same volume (they take up the same amount of space) have the same volume.
And you are saying no, while contradicting yourself and saying that 2 objects with the same volume have the same volume.


You're not pointing out where I'm wrong
But I have, repeatedly.
No you have not
Again, ignoring reality will not change it.
I have clearly explained how we know that with your delusional nonsense, we would expect a lower density object to have an equal or greater resistance to motion.
You have been unable to refute that other than by repeatedly ignoring it.

Grow up.
Once you actually try and play it fair and honestly, I'll engage properly.
Follow your own advice. For the entire time you have been on these fora I don't think I have ever seen you be fair and honest, or engage properly.
So do you really mean once I just start accepting whatever nonsense you say even if it contradicts other things you say or makes no sense at all then you will "engage". i.e. you wont engage when you are shown to be wrong?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27566
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #156 on: January 30, 2021, 03:05:12 PM »
Read it all carefully and ask your friends.
Follow your own advice.
"Amount of space" is volume.
He is asking if 2 objects which have the same volume (they take up the same amount of space) have the same volume.
And you are saying no, while contradicting yourself and saying that 2 objects with the same volume have the same volume.


You're not pointing out where I'm wrong
But I have, repeatedly.
No you have not
Again, ignoring reality will not change it.
I have clearly explained how we know that with your delusional nonsense, we would expect a lower density object to have an equal or greater resistance to motion.
You have been unable to refute that other than by repeatedly ignoring it.

Grow up.
Once you actually try and play it fair and honestly, I'll engage properly.
Follow your own advice. For the entire time you have been on these fora I don't think I have ever seen you be fair and honest, or engage properly.
So do you really mean once I just start accepting whatever nonsense you say even if it contradicts other things you say or makes no sense at all then you will "engage". i.e. you wont engage when you are shown to be wrong?
Read what he said and absorb it all if you want to argue for him.

*

JJA

  • 4213
  • Math is math!
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #157 on: January 30, 2021, 03:28:23 PM »
Quote from: JJA
Which is it, do objects of the same volume have the same volume or not?

Yes they do.

You say yes here.

Quote from: JJA
Does a 1 cubic meter of stone takes up the same amount of space as 1 cubic meter of water?  Do they have the same volume?
No.

You say no here.

Quote from: JJA
You have changed your answer back and forth several times now. Just answer the question I asked, yes or no.

I have never changed it. It's you that can't marry up what I am saying.

You change your answer depending on how the question is asked. I'm beginning to think you have no idea what volume is.

One cubic meter is the same as one cubic meter.  That's what volume is, a measurement of space.

You are getting it mixed up with density which might explain your confusion about pressure and displacement and other simple concepts.

You still haven't explained how 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone can have different volumes when they are the exact same size.

Does a 1 inch bar of stone and a 1 inch bar of lead have different lengths?
Read it all carefully and ask your friends.

That's not an explanation, that's avoiding the question.

How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #158 on: January 30, 2021, 03:34:49 PM »
Read what he said and absorb it all if you want to argue for him.
I did. Perhaps you should try.
A cube with a side length of 1 m occupies a space, i.e. volume of 1 m^3.
So if 2 objects occupy the same amount of space, they have the same volume.


Them having the same volume means that if there is no air trapped inside them, then they displace the same volume of air when they move.
It also means if there is air trapped inside, they displace MORE air when they move.

So again, if displacement of air is causing their resistance to motion, the lower density object should resist more according to you. In reality, it resists less.
This shows your nonsense is wrong.

And again, you have no basis for why the air should magically resist motion while nothing else should.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27566
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #159 on: January 31, 2021, 01:52:16 AM »

How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
Let me put this to you.
How does a 1 cubic metre sponge and 1 cubic metre of stone have different volumes. Answer this correctly and you won't need to ask the questions you do.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27566
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #160 on: January 31, 2021, 02:00:39 AM »

A cube with a side length of 1 m occupies a space, i.e. volume of 1 m^3.
So if 2 objects occupy the same amount of space, they have the same volume.
2 of the exact same objects or different objects? Be specific Mr twister.
Quote from: JackBlack

Them having the same volume means that if there is no air trapped inside them, then they displace the same volume of air when they move.
If there's no air trapped inside then there is no volume in the objects.


Quote from: JackBlack

It also means if there is air trapped inside, they displace MORE air when they move.
No, they don't.

Quote from: JackBlack

So again, if displacement of air is causing their resistance to motion, the lower density object should resist more according to you. In reality, it resists less.
The higher density resists more. Stop twisting it gets you nowhere.

Quote from: JackBlack

This shows your nonsense is wrong.
It actually doesn't. It just shows that you are trying to twist things to suit your own agenda.
Quote from: JackBlack

And again, you have no basis for why the air should magically resist motion while nothing else should.
I have plenty of basis. I've given you it. The beauty of it is, even your books tell you about air resistance.
The problem is, it's massively skewed with a fictional other force called gravity which is only really used because it keeps alive the fictional space stuff and all the little shenanigans of why water stays on a spinning ball...and us....etc.

Pure utter nonsense but indoctrination is super strong.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #161 on: January 31, 2021, 02:11:21 AM »
How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
Let me put this to you.
How does a 1 cubic metre sponge and 1 cubic metre of stone have different volumes.
He is clearly talking about a continuous objects, not those with a bunch of holes in it.
Try again.
A cube with a side length of 1 m occupies a space, i.e. volume of 1 m^3.
So if 2 objects occupy the same amount of space, they have the same volume.
2 of the exact same objects or different objects? Be specific Mr twister.
The only one twisting here is you, trying to pretend the amount of space an object occupies magically is different to its volume.

If there's no air trapped inside then there is no volume in the objects.
Instead you just have the volume OF the object.

Quote from: JackBlack

It also means if there is air trapped inside, they displace MORE air when they move.
No, they don't.
You have already admitted that they do.
They need to displace the air around it as well the air inside it.
That means they displace more.

Quote from: JackBlack

So again, if displacement of air is causing their resistance to motion, the lower density object should resist more according to you. In reality, it resists less.
The higher density resists more. Stop twisting it gets you nowhere.
You are the one continually twisting it.
I know that in reality the higher density object resists more, because it has a greater mass.
The problem for you is that your delusional garbage indicates the exact opposite.

Quote from: JackBlack

This shows your nonsense is wrong.
It actually doesn't.
Yes, it does.
Unless you can explain how displacing less air causes a greater resistance, it shows that your claims are pure garbage with no connection to reality.

Quote from: JackBlack

And again, you have no basis for why the air should magically resist motion while nothing else should.
I have plenty of basis. I've given you it.
Where?


The beauty of it is, even your books tell you about air resistance.
No, it doesn't.
Our books do not tell us that air is magic.
Air is just another fluid.
It resists due to INERTIA, that thing you hate.

The problem is, it's massively skewed with a fictional other force called gravity
And again you show you have no idea what you are talking about.
Again, it is inertia, not gravity.
The fundamental reason air resists an object moving through it is because it has inertia.

Pure utter nonsense but indoctrination is super strong.
Yes, that does seem to be all you have, pure utter nonsense, but you have been so indoctrinated you will not see past it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27566
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #162 on: January 31, 2021, 02:39:56 AM »
How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
Let me put this to you.
How does a 1 cubic metre sponge and 1 cubic metre of stone have different volumes.
He is clearly talking about a continuous objects, not those with a bunch of holes in it.
Try again.

You need to try again and understand.
What do you mean by, continuous?

Understand that everything has porosity.

What I'm saying is right, so how about you explain this continuous.

*

JJA

  • 4213
  • Math is math!
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #163 on: January 31, 2021, 05:56:11 AM »

How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
Let me put this to you.
How does a 1 cubic metre sponge and 1 cubic metre of stone have different volumes. Answer this correctly and you won't need to ask the questions you do.

An object with holes in it like a sponge is not the same as something solid like stone or metal. You might as well ask if a cube and a hollow cube have the same volume or not.

I did not say porous stone, I did not say stone with holes in it. I did not say a hollow stone block.

A sponge and stone would have the same volume if I compressed enough sponges until there were no more holes in it.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27566
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #164 on: January 31, 2021, 06:29:23 AM »
An object with holes in it like a sponge is not the same as something solid like stone or metal.

Correct they aren't the same, so why try and tell me that they have the same volume?
Quote from: JJA
You might as well ask if a cube and a hollow cube have the same volume or not.

A cube?  You mean a cube with more mass than the hollow cube?
If so, they don't have the same volume.

Quote from: JJA
I did not say porous stone, I did not say stone with holes in it. I did not say a hollow stone block.
It doesn't matter what you say, The stone is porous and has volume.


Quote from: JJA
A sponge and stone would have the same volume if I compressed enough sponges until there were no more holes in it.
But we aren't talking about compressing enough sponges.
Twisting it to fit only confuses you.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #165 on: January 31, 2021, 12:35:55 PM »
How does 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of stone have different volumes when they are the exact same size?
Let me put this to you.
How does a 1 cubic metre sponge and 1 cubic metre of stone have different volumes.
He is clearly talking about a continuous objects, not those with a bunch of holes in it.
Try again.

You need to try again and understand.
You are the one who needs to understand.
2 objects, with the same volume, occupy the same volume.

What do you mean by, continuous?
The structure is approximately close packed so there are no large voids in it.

Understand that everything has porosity.
And you understand that for the vast majority of things, that porosity is irrelevant as pretty much nothing will fit inside it.
You need to understand that you can't just magically compress a molecule of nitrogen or oxygen or the like and have it fit inside the tiny void inside the crystal structure of solid steel or aluminium.

What I'm saying is right
What you are saying is pure garbage and self contradictory.

Again, if you want to appeal to that porosity and claim that these objects magically contain more air, then that means these lower density objects resist motion more.
But that is the exact opposite of what is observed.

If you want to ignore all the air trapped inside then you end up with the 2 objects having the same resistance.

And you still have no explanation for that resistance in the first place. Remember, the mainstream justification for air pressure existing in the first place is due to inertia, which is the very thing you are rejecting to pretend your BS makes sense.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27566
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #166 on: January 31, 2021, 10:05:42 PM »
You are the one who needs to understand.
2 objects, with the same volume, occupy the same volume.
You mean two objects with the same volume that displace the same amount of atmosphere?
If you're saying that, then, of course. I've already stated that.

Quote from: JackBlack

What do you mean by, continuous?
The structure is approximately close packed so there are no large voids in it.
Large voids or small voids. It doesn't matter. Porosity is porosity.


Quote from: JackBlack

Understand that everything has porosity.
And you understand that for the vast majority of things, that porosity is irrelevant as pretty much nothing will fit inside it.
Porosity is the atmospheric filled gaps.
As long as there are gaps you can always make something denser and equally make the object less dense, depending on how you apply different energetic pressures.


Quote from: JackBlack

You need to understand that you can't just magically compress a molecule of nitrogen or oxygen or the like and have it fit inside the tiny void inside the crystal structure of solid steel or aluminium.

Whatever gets trapped in the void, is what it is.

Quote from: JackBlack

What I'm saying is right
What you are saying is pure garbage and self contradictory.

Nope.

Quote from: JackBlack
Again, if you want to appeal to that porosity and claim that these objects magically contain more air, then that means these lower density objects resist motion more.

But that is the exact opposite of what is observed.
Resist motion?
Explain.

Quote from: JackBlack

If you want to ignore all the air trapped inside then you end up with the 2 objects having the same resistance.
Of course. But then again if I ignore all the people inside two planes I have two empty (of people) planes.

Basically, what are you getting at?


Quote from: JackBlack

And you still have no explanation for that resistance in the first place.
I have, you just spent hundreds of posts denying it.

Resistance is the leverage used by any dense object to repel a force applied to that object.


Quote from: JackBlack

 Remember, the mainstream justification for air pressure existing in the first place is due to inertia

, which is the very thing you are rejecting to pretend your BS makes sense.
Inertia has no meaning, unless you simply call it, resistance or leverage or at least use it in that context.


Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #167 on: February 01, 2021, 01:47:12 AM »
You are the one who needs to understand.
2 objects, with the same volume, occupy the same volume.
You mean two objects with the same volume that displace the same amount of atmosphere?
If you're saying that, then, of course. I've already stated that.
If you mean actual atmosphere, then yes. If you mean your fantasy where every object is full of atmosphere, then no.

Large voids or small voids. It doesn't matter. Porosity is porosity.
It does matter.
If the voids are large enough, water and air can go in.
If they are small enough, they can't.


Porosity is the atmospheric filled gaps.
In that case, not every object is pourous.

As long as there are gaps you can always make something denser
Sure, you can collapse it into a neutron star, or a black hole. But for everyday stuff, YOU CAN'T!
There is a limit to how much you can compress an object.
Likewise, with no pressure at all, there is still a minimum density to the solid. If you try to pull it apart, there is a limit before it loses cohesion and falls apart.
This is seen as tensile failures.

The only thing you can decompress like that is gas, which has large voids between the molecules.

Quote from: JackBlack

You need to understand that you can't just magically compress a molecule of nitrogen or oxygen or the like and have it fit inside the tiny void inside the crystal structure of solid steel or aluminium.
Whatever gets trapped in the void, is what it is.
And the point you are ignoring is that there is nothing in those voids.

Quote from: JackBlack
What you are saying is pure garbage and self contradictory.
Nope.
Then explain how displacing less atmosphere causes it to resist a change in motion more.


Quote from: JackBlack
Again, if you want to appeal to that porosity and claim that these objects magically contain more air, then that means these lower density objects resist motion more.
But that is the exact opposite of what is observed.
Resist motion?
Explain.
[/quote]
Stop playing dumb. You know exactly what is meant. It resists being accelerated. A force needs to be applied to accelerate it.

And that is another massive problem for your nonsense. It should be a force is needed to move it through the air, like how air resistance actually works. But as well as that, there is an entirely separate force required to accelerate it.


Quote from: JackBlack

If you want to ignore all the air trapped inside then you end up with the 2 objects having the same resistance.
Of course. But then again if I ignore all the people inside two planes I have two empty (of people) planes.
Basically, what are you getting at?
That even in the best case scenario for you, your garbage still fails massively.

Quote from: JackBlack

And you still have no explanation for that resistance in the first place.
I have, you just spent hundreds of posts denying it.
No, you haven't.
If you did, you would have provided it here.

Resistance is the leverage used by any dense object to repel a force applied to that object.
And just what is this supposed to be?
An attempt at a definition?
Because it certainly isn't an explanation.

Quote from: JackBlack

 Remember, the mainstream justification for air pressure existing in the first place is due to inertia, which is the very thing you are rejecting to pretend your BS makes sense.
Inertia has no meaning, unless you simply call it, resistance or leverage or at least use it in that context.
I have already explained how it has meaning.
It is not simply resistance. It is resistance to an acceleration, i.e. a change in motion.
It is a specific type of resistance.
It is something inherent to all matter.
And as soon as you accept it, it means accepting all your claims about air are pure BS.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27566
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #168 on: February 01, 2021, 04:13:49 AM »
Large voids or small voids. It doesn't matter. Porosity is porosity.
It does matter.
If the voids are large enough, water and air can go in.
If they are small enough, they can't.


Large or small they are already filled.
The only reason water or atmosphere don't get into smaller holes is because those holes are already filled with atmosphere or water, depending on the exposure to whatever pressure, be it atmospheric or water..

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #169 on: February 01, 2021, 12:19:29 PM »
Large voids or small voids. It doesn't matter. Porosity is porosity.
It does matter.
If the voids are large enough, water and air can go in.
If they are small enough, they can't.
Large or small they are already filled.
Repeating the same lies wont help you.
When they are small enough, such as in the crystal structure of steel and aluminium, they are empty. Air cannot fit.

One way to easily see this is in the ability of a substance to form am airtight container.
If you try to use a sponge, it wont work. The air and water go straight through it.
But if you try to use steel, it works just fine. If steel really was so porous it would just let the air through.

You simply cannot compress air enough (without turning it into neutron matter which takes tremendous force) to make it fit.


And again, none of that helps you with the key part of this thread.
You are claiming that air is the magical cause of inertia.
But if that was the case, displacing more air should cause more resistance. If your delusional nonsense is correct you displace more air when moving a lower density object, meaning it should resist more.
But in reality it resists less.
That is what you need to address.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27566
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #170 on: February 01, 2021, 09:00:47 PM »
Large voids or small voids. It doesn't matter. Porosity is porosity.
It does matter.
If the voids are large enough, water and air can go in.
If they are small enough, they can't.
Large or small they are already filled.
Repeating the same lies wont help you.
When they are small enough, such as in the crystal structure of steel and aluminium, they are empty. Air cannot fit.

One way to easily see this is in the ability of a substance to form am airtight container.
If you try to use a sponge, it wont work. The air and water go straight through it.
But if you try to use steel, it works just fine. If steel really was so porous it would just let the air through.


The air is already through and in. You're not understanding what I'm saying, as usual.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #171 on: February 01, 2021, 09:31:43 PM »
The air is already through and in. You're not understanding what I'm saying, as usual.
Me not accepting your BS, and clearly explaining why it is wrong doens't mean I'm not understanding.

Now stop with the pathetic deflection and address the actual issue.

According to your nonsense, when you move 2 objects of which occupy the same amount of space, moving the lower density object causes you to move more air, as you move the air around it as well as the air inside it.
So if the air is what is causing the resistance to motion, moving this larger amount of air means you should have more resistance.
But in reality, you have less.


And the other key point, why should the air resist it at all if it doesn't have inertia?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27566
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #172 on: February 01, 2021, 10:00:32 PM »
The air is already through and in. You're not understanding what I'm saying, as usual.
Me not accepting your BS, and clearly explaining why it is wrong doens't mean I'm not understanding.

Now stop with the pathetic deflection and address the actual issue.

According to your nonsense, when you move 2 objects of which occupy the same amount of space, moving the lower density object causes you to move more air, as you move the air around it as well as the air inside it.

The objects are not occupying the same space. Get your head around it.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #173 on: February 02, 2021, 01:26:50 AM »
The air is already through and in. You're not understanding what I'm saying, as usual.
Me not accepting your BS, and clearly explaining why it is wrong doens't mean I'm not understanding.

Now stop with the pathetic deflection and address the actual issue.

According to your nonsense, when you move 2 objects of which occupy the same amount of space, moving the lower density object causes you to move more air, as you move the air around it as well as the air inside it.

The objects are not occupying the same space. Get your head around it.
Again, stop with the semantic BS and address the actual issue.
Moving the object moves the air around it and the air you claim is inside it.
That means the lower density moves more air and thus should resist according to your nonesnse.

And again, without inertia there is no reason for the air to resist at all.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27566
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #174 on: February 02, 2021, 07:28:30 AM »
The air is already through and in. You're not understanding what I'm saying, as usual.
Me not accepting your BS, and clearly explaining why it is wrong doens't mean I'm not understanding.

Now stop with the pathetic deflection and address the actual issue.

According to your nonsense, when you move 2 objects of which occupy the same amount of space, moving the lower density object causes you to move more air, as you move the air around it as well as the air inside it.

The objects are not occupying the same space. Get your head around it.
Again, stop with the semantic BS and address the actual issue.
Moving the object moves the air around it and the air you claim is inside it.
That means the lower density moves more air and thus should resist according to your nonesnse.

And again, without inertia there is no reason for the air to resist at all.
Get this into your head and try and deal with it, only.
Spewing nonsense and mass wording just frustrates you.

Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space. Hopefully you can agree to this without twisting it.


I'll await your answer before I move on.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #175 on: February 02, 2021, 07:53:02 AM »

Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.

I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.   

:)

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27566
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #176 on: February 02, 2021, 08:52:20 AM »

Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.

I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.   

:)
Well let's deal with it.
If you see 2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?




*

Stash

  • 7337
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #177 on: February 02, 2021, 08:56:37 AM »

Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.

I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.   

:)
Well let's deal with it.
If you see 2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?

If I put each in a container of water, they would each displace the same amount of water. So I presume they each are displacing the same amount of air in the atmosphere as well, no?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27566
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #178 on: February 02, 2021, 09:25:33 AM »

Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space.

I'm waiting excitedly to hear about the non-visual area and the magical, invisible space.   

:)
Well let's deal with it.
If you see 2 painted cubes that look identical taking up the same area to your vision.... but on closer inspection you find one is a hollow metal box and the other is a full cube of metal , which one is displacing more air?

If I put each in a container of water, they would each displace the same amount of water. So I presume they each are displacing the same amount of air in the atmosphere as well, no?
No they wouldn't.


Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #179 on: February 02, 2021, 12:18:50 PM »
Get this into your head and try and deal with it, only.
Spewing nonsense and mass wording just frustrates you.
Two objects with the same VISUAL area may appear to take up the same visual space. Hopefully you can agree to this without twisting it.
I'll await your answer before I move on.
Again, stop with the semantic BS and deflection.

Deal with the issue raised, and then you can move on.

Explain how displacing more air causes less resistance.
But also how displacing more air causes more resistance.
That is what you need.

The lower density, when moved, displaces more air according to your nonsense, as it displaces the air around it as well as the air inside it.
You need to explain how this causes less resistance, when larger objects which displace more air, have a greater resistance.