ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

Lol.  Is that what we are doing in this thread? Attacking?

Yes, this entire thread started as an attack on the RE, and Scepti still tries to make it one.
Because of that you want to support him, and even stated you loathe to admit that I have a valid point.
If you were just trying to understand, you would have no reason to loathe to admit that. You would just happily accept that I had a valid point to improve understanding and clarify a significant problem for his model.

I still think your point is somewhat valid.

Why only some what?

Quote

Yet his claims outright defy them.

Possibly, though I'm not certain about that yet.

Why?
The denial of the known laws regarding how fluids work is quite apparent.

Their most recent answer to me (assuming I am understanding it properly) was that the varying density of the matter is the cause of the gradient.

But all that really says is that there is a gradient, it doesn't explain why?

The most dense matter pushes the less dense matter up above it (etc.), and the layers above them exert pressure (I think, uniformly as we / the laws expect) on each layer which ultimately effects the layer on the bottom (as well as the top, however the "top" has less cumulative pressure due to its lesser density/matter).

Pressure doesn't care about how much matter or density is there.
This explanation would only explain it temporarily, as the more dense mater expands to push the less dens matter up and compress it.
That would then result in no pressure gradient.

I think they are describing the process of falling, and cause thereof, in different terms - but not necessarily a contradictory one.

It is a direct contradiction. He claims the air pushes objects down in direct defiance of the known pressure gradient of the atmosphere, and in direct of the known behaviour of fluids where the fluid pushes from the high pressure region towards the low pressure region.

That is inherently contradictory.

The reason for the density seperation is not fully explained in any case

This depends on just how you define "fully explained".
As we have been over repeatedly, a strict definition means NOTHING is, so bringing it up is irrelevant.
But for a simple definition, gravity and its effects, and the behaviour of fluids fully explain why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.

but I agree that that pressure gradient exists in one singular media (not mixed, as all air tends to be)

It exists in all media.

I don't think they are contradicting archemides' principle

I never said he did. I said he is contradicting the very basics of how fluids work.
But that principle is based upon 2 separate forces, one trying to make things fall and one trying to make things rise.
But to some extent, he does directly contradict that.
He claims an object is pushed down by displacing air, that the more air it displaces, the more it is pushed down. He claims that heavier objects are heavier because they displace more air. He claims that if you take 2 objects of the same apparent volume, but of different weight, that difference is due to the lighter object being more porous and thus displacing less air.

Whereas Archimedes' principle states that the more of a fluid an object displaces, the more the fluid pushes the object up. The only exception would be to have a fluid with a negative weight or 0 weight, but we know that air does have a weight as we can condense it and weigh it.

and are saying the air is pushing down (and all directions?) in an attempt to crush the balloon.

He claims it magically pushes most objects down, for no reason at all.

The balloon can only resist the pressure of the surrounding fluid so much, and this dictates whether or not the object will rise

No it doesn't. It would dictate whether or not the object is crushed or not.
If the object can resist, it retains its volume. If it can't, it is crushed by the air.
This is because the pressure is pushing inwards.

Rising or not comes down to the pressure gradient, which pushes things up.
And that then means you need a force acting on the object to resist that, which can't just be the air.

If the weight of the object is great enough to resist the buoyant force, it falls. If it isn't, it rises.

If it contradicts archimedes principle then I might agree with you that it "breaks laws"

There is far more than just that 1 principle.
Showing it doesn't violate 1 doesn't mean it doesn't violate any.

Possibly, though I think the claims about gravity actually being pressure which is misunderstood are worthy of seperate consideration in any case

And trying to explain gravity through a fluid fundamentally different to air which permeates all matter would be a fundamentally different discussion.

The "everything is push" perspective is a great example because it is similar to considering archemides principle using only pressure.  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with doing so, and it is still a conception that can describe what we observe.

We have been over this before. There is plenty that cannot be explained just by using push.
Not unless you want to invoke objects making fields and then those fields pushing things.
Solids are a simple example where you need a pull. Especially with the distinction between a solid, a liquid and a gas and tensile/cohesive forces dependent upon the material.

Many such conceptions are not right (I.e. Indicitave of / consistent with actual reality) - but this does not preclude them from being useful or logical/consistent/sound.

If something is not consistent with reality, by definition it isn't sound. Sound requires it to be true.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 22, 2021, 09:05:17 PM

Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.

No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.

No, it hasn't.
There's a reason why it's still passed about as a theory.
That's the beauty about so called scientists doing this nonsense. They pass it out as a theory so they can change it all at a later date when something happens that renders it as fictional as some already knew.


You have absolutely no clue but you think reliance on stories as your facts, are valid to me.

They're not...not by a long long way.

Quote

All you have to do is to explain what gravity is

That is like explaining what time is.

So you can't explain it....right?

You're in acceptance of it because you were told it is fact and you use it as your fact...right?

Fundamentally wrong because air can be isolated as a variable and shown to have no effect affect

Fundamentally weong because if the push were from top down would show the most push at the top.
My hair would never stand up.

He has ignored these with a simple wave of the hand.

None were ignored and all were answered but you chose to ignore what was said as me not explaining. That's on you, not me.

Quote

No.
I don't believe gravity is a thing, other than a meaningless word.

Agree on the first, but gravity is undoubtedly a word with a meaning.  Just look it up in the OED for that meaning.  What is meaningless and essentially irrelevant to everyone else is whether you choose to acknowledge that meaning.  I don't think anyone has ever suggested gravity is a 'thing' that you can reach out and touch.

Sceptimatic you simply like playing with words so you can (in your mind at least) keep winning arguments and discussions. That in turn perhaps makes you feel somehow special in whatever way you are looking for.  Maybe you like to think you are right all the time while everyone else has been brainwashed, indoctrinated or whatever word you want to use.

I use what words best describe my side of things. My thoughts. My musings. My hypotheses....against words which I do not agree with. It's as simple as that.

Don't take the indoctrinated and brainwashed stuff to heart. I include myself in with this. We are all under t for varying reasons.

And finally I certainly don't think I'm anyone special. No more special than the next person. I have a different mindset than many in some aspects but generally the same as most in many aspects of ongoing life.

I certainly don't think I'm right and everyone is wrong. I think I have my reasons to go against some stuff  but proving it in a real physical way is only possible with some stuff but mostly it relies on searching in the logical filing cabinet of the brain which many of us refuse to do when presented with stuff that is just easier to just follow.
When I pass stuff off as factual, then you have a case if I can't back it up. Until then I merely have a process I follow by my own logic and thought, along with small experiments.

Up until the early 20th century gravity was regarded as a force between any two objects with mass.  In 99% of situations that description worked.  But then Einstein re-modelled gravity so that it became not a force but a curvature of space-time.  This of course is when it all starts to go over your head and so you immediately slam the door and refuse to accept anything to do with it. In other words whenever you meet anything you don't understand you enter that deep, dark tunnel of denial.

A force between two objects with mass is fine....but explaining the force is what I want to know. I explain it from my side but it's never explained from the global side.

As for changing it to warped space-time.
What in the hell is warped space-time?

I can explain mass warping atmosphere by simple mass displacement of it. Simple and easy to explain for those who are willing to listen.
The problem is, gravity is merely mentioned as mass attracting mass but no reason for it.
It's used in a so called vacuum of mass attracting mass, in so called space...but what space can you warp and where does time come into it?

You want me to explain gravity to you..   Fine,OK I will. Or should I say I will describe my understanding of gravity. But first you explain to me everything you know about this dome of yours.

Can you explain it in a simple way instead of saying it's over my head?

I've explained plenty on the dome but it's waved away...and fair enough....but....waving it away does not mean me not explaining it from my side.

If someone who had spent their career in geodysics came up to you and said 'Hey Sceptimatic - the Earth really is a sphere!' you would no doubt say 'OK prove it - I won't believe it you unless you can prove it. If you can't prove it then you must be lying.'

No.
If they can't prove it then I'd say they have no business in calling it factual.
You lot argue with me as if you are privy to the facts but the truth is you are merely regurgitating what has been trained into you. It's a human trait.
We're a bunch of mimics who do have the ability to step outside of that, set in our ways, box, yet most choose not to.

I don't spout off facts unless I know them to be facts, or somethin shows a massive potential for facts over other arguments supposedly contrary to them.

I have no doubt that no matter what figures or data they put in front of you, you would not accept any of it as proof.

That all depends on what the figures and data actually represent in terms of legitimate physical proof as an end product..

But could you provide any better proof that your belief of the world is right and theirs is wrong?

No.
I can't present any proof that my world is correct but I can present proof that the spinning globe is wrong.
However, me presenting the simplicity of it, is never enough for changing any mind of someone who is unconditional to the global model we were massively indoctrinated into.

  Proof at least beyond water looking level.  Which of course it does over the sort of distances we can see directly.

You say at least beyond water looking level.
Why do you need to take this out of the equation?
It's a simple simple simple physical proof that we do not live on a spinning globe. Nothing about it tells us anything other than, it sits in its surroundings and conforms to the barriers that keep it there, with an end product of a level surface to the eye on a mild day, plus a level surface by spirit level or by many other means.

For people to actually argue that it acts on a convex curve as level and without massive disruption is a classic case of unconditional acceptance of a story that allows fictional forces to supposedly set it out as a truth but always hidden behind the word, theory....just in case change is required to brainwash again.

What I would like to know is why you are so sure in your mind that all those involved in science professionally (or should I say anyone in 'authority') and who tell us the Earth is spherical are lying.

I don't think they're all lying.
I don't think you're lying.
You can't go into so called space and look back.
You can only follow set out procedures with well rehearsed answers to fit the jigsaw picture you were given as your supposed facts.
Some are lying in mammoth proportions and some are merely following the sort of protocol of that for monetary gain.

That's my opinion and you are under no obligation to do anything other than laugh at it if you feel the need.

Why would they have a need to lie?

Why does anyone feel the need to lie about anything?

  Is that your mindset?  People are lying if they say anything other than what you believe?

That's your mindset. You decide to think this. I simply question stuff.

You could spend all year telling me what you've studied in books and I could be willing to let you teach me what you learned from those books.
If you teach me that they're all factual without you even knowing this is the case, then you're doing nothing more than giving me your belief system that what you are reading, is fact, which I can then go on to teach someone else as my fact based on me accepting that you are telling me facts......and so on.

If someone comes along one day and asks us to show them the facts, not just tell them, then what do we say?
Do we tell them we only know what we were taught?
Only know what we read up on?
Go bezerk and try and belittle the person into just acceptance, just as we have?

Some people are in awe of quiz masters. Many people will naturally feel inferior to them and would likely have no qualms about accepting, as truth, anything told by them.
Yet the quiz masters are merely regurgitating exactly what they read. What is fed into them.

All the answers are their truth's but only the truth's in many cases based on acceptance by reading and word or mouth...not physical reality of proof.

Yet those people are claimed to be geniuses for nothing more than regurgitation.

Take another scenario. You and I head up to the top of the leaning tower of Pisa, each carrying a cannonball.  On the count of 3 we both release the cannonballs (making sure there is no one standing at the bottom first of course) and then observe what happens.  We observe both cannonballs fall to the ground.  No surprises there.  Your cannonball is made of lead while mine is made of aluminium.  Yet they both hit the ground at the same time.

They don't.
You think they do because the height and resistance to the mass, is small but the resistance to that mass is still there and the more dense mass will always out do the less dense mass.
The cannon ball will always hit the ground first against a similar sized aluminium ball.

However, the drop is so small and resistance to above push, the results are not as easy to see by eye.
Flatten out the very same balls into equal sized small plates and drop them flat side down, then you get to see the acting resistance to the mass change to a degree where, by eye, you will notice.





 

The conventional explanation of why the cannonballs fall to the ground is gravity.  But you would disagree.  What evidence then is available purely from what we observe that indicates that gravity is not the cause of the cannonballs falling?

The feel of resistance to mass by atmospheric pressure is displaces is a massive indication...and by porosity of any mass.


There's absolutely nothing that shows gravity.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 23, 2021, 04:21:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 22, 2021, 09:05:17 PM

Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.

No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.

No, it hasn't.

You not liking relaity wont magically change it.

Now why don't you stop with the pathetic deflection and address the massive issues which show your claims to be pure garbage?

Again, what magic causes the atmosphere to have a pressure gradient when you claim it is just the air pushing down?
Again, what magic causes the atmosphere to push objects down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient?

Quote from: JackBlack on April 23, 2021, 04:21:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 22, 2021, 09:05:17 PM

Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.

No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.

No, it hasn't.
<snip>

Why?  Because you say so?  It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted.  Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.

Mike

I can't present any proof that my world is correct but I can present proof that the spinning globe is wrong.

Really, how can you do that? That makes you the first person in history then who can. That must surely make you feel very proud of yourself and justly so. If only that were true. In reality all you can do is present what you think is proof and individual 'proofs' have a nasty habit of being based heavily on personal interpretation and belief.

Such as the old favorite of flat Earth believers insisting that the flat horizon provides 'proof' that the Earth is flat.  Which of course it doesn't.

They don't.
You think they do because the height and resistance to the mass, is small but the resistance to that mass is still there and the more dense mass will always out do the less dense mass.
The cannon ball will always hit the ground first against a similar sized aluminium ball.

So is watching them fall at the same rate the same as thinking they do then? In my mind I can make a hammer and a feather fall at the same rate but in reality I know they wouldn't due to air resistance. This is something you can easily check out for yourself. You don't need cannonballs.

Perhaps that is where you are going wrong.  You think air resistance and gravity are one and the same thing. Which of course they are definitely not.

Why does anyone feel the need to lie about anything?

Exactly.  So all the scientists, engineers, geophysicists, cartographers etc etc who say the Earth is an oblate spheroid are not lying then are they. As is your own admission..

I don't think they're all lying.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 24, 2021, 12:02:13 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 23, 2021, 04:21:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 22, 2021, 09:05:17 PM

Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.

No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.

No, it hasn't.
<snip>

Why?  Because you say so?  It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted.  Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.

Mike

Name one.

Quote

I can't present any proof that my world is correct but I can present proof that the spinning globe is wrong.

Really, how can you do that? That makes you the first person in history then who can. That must surely make you feel very proud of yourself and justly so. If only that were true. In reality all you can do is present what you think is proof and individual 'proofs' have a nasty habit of being based heavily on personal interpretation and belief.

Such as the old favorite of flat Earth believers insisting that the flat horizon provides 'proof' that the Earth is flat.  Which of course it doesn't.

There's a good few things but water level is one thing that nails it.
There's no real need to argue for anything else...but, it's all about debate and bringing up as many inconsistencies, which is easy for anyone other than those who are severely indoctrinated into a system.

Quote

They don't.
You think they do because the height and resistance to the mass, is small but the resistance to that mass is still there and the more dense mass will always out do the less dense mass.
The cannon ball will always hit the ground first against a similar sized aluminium ball.

So is watching them fall at the same rate the same as thinking they do then? In my mind I can make a hammer and a feather fall at the same rate but in reality I know they wouldn't due to air resistance. This is something you can easily check out for yourself. You don't need cannonballs.

Exactly. In your mind you can make a hammer and feather fall at the exact same rate but in reality it wouldn't happen without the use of manipulated footage/special effects/CGI....etc..


 

Perhaps that is where you are going wrong.  You think air resistance and gravity are one and the same thing. Which of course they are definitely not.

Atmospheric pressure is the reason for why everything happens. Gravity is just a word made up to keep fictional space vacuums alive so is integrated into the workings of atmosphere as a massive dupe.

There's a reason why it can't be explained and a reason why it's always cast out as a theory.
It does not exist.
It's fantasy and serves a purpose for fantasy stories...no for reality.

Quote

Why does anyone feel the need to lie about anything?

Exactly.  So all the scientists, engineers, geophysicists, cartographers etc etc who say the Earth is an oblate spheroid are not lying then are they. As is your own admission..

Quote

I don't think they're all lying.

Like I said; I don't think they're all lying. Most are just following protocol and picking up a pay cheque.
I'd hazard a guess that many would know something wasn't right with many things, yet I can't prove that any more than you can prove the opposite.

There's a reason why it can't be explained and a reason why it's always cast out as a theory.
It does not exist.
It's fantasy and serves a purpose for fantasy stories...no for reality.

It depends on what you mean by 'explained'.  There are quite a few things about your own theory that you don't seem to be able to explain either fully or at all. That doesn't seem to stop you believing them though does it.  You say you have but no one seems to be able to find those explanations.  I could take a leaf out of your book and say I could explain a few things about gravity to you but they may not be to your liking. But they would be explanations nonetheless.

As for all the rest, that is ultimately just your opinion. At no point in any of your posts have you ever actually come up with anything new or ground breaking.  Just different ways of explaining what we already know and experience.  I can see it now in the historical timeline of major scientific progress.  Late 17th Century: Newton publishes his law of universal gravitation.  Early 20th century: Einstein publishes his General Theory of relativity, remodelling how physicists view gravitation. Early 21st Century: Sceptimatic overturns the both Newton and Einstein by casting out gravity and explaining 'everything' through atmospheric pressure.  And discarding the existence of the Universe at the same time.  Wow.  That really is another level!

There's a reason why it can't be explained and a reason why it's always cast out as a theory.

I don't think anyone has 'cast out' any theory of gravity..  apart from you.

Atmospheric pressure is the reason for why everything happens.

Really.. the reason why everything happens eh.  Wow that is a pretty broad and wide sweeping statement.  And where did the atmosphere come from in the first place then?  Did it just magically appear at some point in the past?

He is right , he doesn't deserve this.

So you would believe someone who claims that the Sun and Moon are nothing but holographic reflections on the surface of a dome, coming from some Earth based crystal tower that no one has ever seen would you?   Someone with imagination like that deserves everything that is thrown at him.

Sceppy always carries on about people just give the mainstream accepted answers to his 'questions'.

You think mainstream science is just about accepting mainstream answers do you?  Have you noticed how much the 'accepted answers' in mainstream science have been changed and been modified over the years? How has that come about...  as new evidence comes to light.  Sceptimatic might claim that he 'knows' the Earth is not a globe.  But that is just his opinion based on his own beliefs that have been sculpted from the same evidence that is available to you and me. None of they physicists that I know would claim to 'know' anything for 100% certainty. 

Even the ancient Greeks using the limited resources available to them were able to figure out what shape the Earth was.  They didn't have any 'mainstream accepted answers' to go by. Instead they used their unprejudiced minds to work it out for themselves.  Those who did historically believe the Earth was flat almost without exception came from the less well educated sections of society. Nowadays science has moved on a bit and is looking for the answers to slightly more complex questions.

It is always difficult to tell in forums whether someone is genuine in their beliefs based on what they say or whether they are purposely trying to play 'devils advocate' and deliberately throwing way out theories into the circle.

I'm all for 'alternative thinkers' as Sceppy has described himself several times. I would be the first to say we don't know 100% for sure how every aspect of nature works. It would be a boring life if there was nothing left for us to work out. We didn't write the rules or laws of nature after all. We can only try to understand more about them through observation and experiment.

We all experience what we call gravity.  Asked to explain gravity fully though is difficult. Did Neanderthal man experience gravity as we do today?  Of course he did. Could he explain what he observed? Of course it couldn't. He would throw a spear to kill a dear and notice that it followed a curved path through the air towards its target.  He would notice that the harder he threw it the further it would travel and the greater angle he threw it into the air, the higher it would go.  He could then use this knowledge to better his chances of killing the dear and therefore providing dinner for his family.

How does a force manifest itself between two objects with mass?  Newton described it as a force while Einstein used curvature or warping in the fabric of space-time to describe it.  All we know is that we can change magnitude of the gravitational attraction either by altering the masses or altering the distance between them.  Or both. Whether you would describe what we refer to as gravity as a force or a 'warping' is down to the individual I guess. For everyday situations we can use Newtons equations or Einsteins and get the same answer.

The effect of 'gravity' however is not purely down to atmospheric pressure though as gravity exists everywhere in the Universe while atmospheric pressure does not exist everywhere in the Universe.  Sceptimatic would dismiss that outright though because he is of the opinion that nothing exists beyond the Earths atmosphere.  Every man to his own. His philosophy of life seems to be rely only on what you can prove to yourself to define what is true and real.  How his crystal tower producing holographic reflections to account for the existence of the Sun and Moon in the sky fits into that philosophy I have got no idea.

There's a good few things but water level is one thing that nails it.

Yes, it nails that Earth is round.
Again, the fact that the water obscures the view to the bottom of a distant object, even though both the observer and the object are well above the water, shows that the water is curved.

You not liking that will not change that fact.

You not being able to measure the insignificant curvature in your sink will not change that fact.

There's no real need to argue for anything else...but, it's all about debate and bringing up as many inconsistencies

Yes, as we bring up all the times with your delusional claims, which you are completely incapable of addressing.
You are yet to bring up an actual inconsistency with the globe. Instead you just brings up lies and strawmen.

in reality it wouldn't happen without the use of manipulated footage/special effects/CGI....etc..

Or tools to eliminate the effect of air resistance and buoyancy, e.g. a vacuum chamber. (them not being perfect doesn't mean they don't exist, it still produce a completley insignificant difference in fall time, which would occur anyway due to the release not being perfectly identical doesn't change it either).

Atmospheric pressure is the reason for why everything happens.

No, that is just your baseless lie which you continually use to reject anything that shows you are wrong.
You are yet to explain how it explains basically anything.

There's a reason why it can't be explained and a reason why it's always cast out as a theory.

It can be explained, you just reject the explanation.
The reason it is stated as a theory, is because unlike you most scientists are honest.
Science produces theories, which are the best explanations we have of how the world works.

If you want to claim it doesn't exist, show a problem with it, or provide a better alternative. Such as one which can actually explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, or why objects fall towards a higher pressure.
You know, something your delusional BS can't.

Again, why is there a pressure gradient in the atmosphere?
Why do things fall towards the higher pressure? (Except those things which instead go up)

If it was all just the atmosphere, the higher pressure below would push everything upwards, including the air above, until the pressure was uniform. The only way to sustain such a pressure gradient is to pump the air from the top of the stack to the bottom, and then have a continual upwards flow of air, which would need to continually accelerate.
But this would only help with the gradient. That would still cause all objects to be blown upwards by the air.

Now compare it with gravity, gravity attracts everything towards Earth. The simplest way to state that is a force based upon the mass of the object directing it towards Earth.
This explains why the vast majority of things fall.
If there was no air, everything would fall.
But there is air, so the air tries to fall to Earth, but it hits the air below.
This pressurises the air below due to all the weight of the air above. Just like as repeatedly shown in the diagram.
If you consider 3 layers:
The top layer pushes down on the middle layer with some force.
The middle layer transfers the force down to the bottom layer, pushing it down.
But in addition to the force above, this middle layer is also being forced down by gravity.
This means the middle layer is pushing the bottom layer down more than the top layer is pushing the middle layer down.
That means the bottom layer is under a greater pressure than the middle layer.
So that explains the pressure gradient.

But now that there is a pressure gradient, we can now explain why some objects fall and others float.
Each object is immersed in the air.
The air has a greater pressure at the bottom than the top. The pressure pushes on the object. This means the object is pushed up.
Doing some simple math you find out that the buoyant force is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid.
That is given by the volume displaced and the density of the air.
So each object in the air has 2 forces, gravity pulling it down with a force based upon its weight, and the buoyant force pushing it up.
If the buoyant force is greater, it is pushed up. If the weight is greater, the net force is downwards.

And this applies to any fluid, explaining why the apparent weight of an object is reduced when it is immersed in a fluid.


So when gravity explains it so well, with you unable to find a fault with it, and you completely incapable of explaining even the most basic things why would anyone accept your delusional nonsense?

Quote

There's a reason why it can't be explained and a reason why it's always cast out as a theory.
It does not exist.
It's fantasy and serves a purpose for fantasy stories...no for reality.

It depends on what you mean by 'explained'.  There are quite a few things about your own theory that you don't seem to be able to explain either fully or at all.

I'll likely never explain my theory in full. There's far too much about Earth that I won't be able to explain and pass off as anything factual.
To do that I would need to physically prove everything and I can't...but I admit I can't.
It still doesn't stop me theorising and doing simple little experiments that give me potentials.

This isn't about you or anyone else. It's about my own stuff. You people ask me about it and I try and explain it from my side. You people don't get it or make out you do and then totally don't.
All I know is, my experiments prove there is no spinning globe in a space vacuum.
What you decide it proves, is entirely up to you.

Feel free to spit on what I say and feel free to adhere like a limpet to your globe and every added extra, over time.
I think it's absolute nonsense but don't take that as a personal dig. It's the global set up that I have a dig at, nt those who choose to believe it.
All I will say is, I find it odd how people who've had the time to actually logically look at the global set up, don't massively question it.....but, I could also see how people who accept authority figures as purveyors of the stories relating to whatever, can adhere to them as their truth's and happily pass that on as a matter of ongoing tutorials to willing participants.

That doesn't seem to stop you believing them though does it.

I have to believe there's something to what I think, otherwise what is the point of thinking?
Until my thoughts become unsustainable, only then will I tread a detoured path.

To get to this stage has been a detoured journey through small and simple experiments borne out of the questioning of something that I bought into for many many of my young years. The globe you adhere to now.
I used to be a globe believer and now I'm not. Not because I decided it wasn't for me but because I actually started to nibble away at it to realise things just didn't add up in so many ways.

You say you have but no one seems to be able to find those explanations.  I could take a leaf out of your book and say I could explain a few things about gravity to you but they may not be to your liking. But they would be explanations nonetheless.

If I have my theory and nobody else seems to have the same theory then it's likely you won' find it other than from me....right?
As for you explaining gravity. Let's have it. Explain it and let me see where you go with it to be something meaningful and provable from your side......or...... accept that you are reliant on the story without proof.



 

As for all the rest, that is ultimately just your opinion.

We all have opinions. Life is about opinions.
I've stated many many times about my opinion, so what's the issue?

At no point in any of your posts have you ever actually come up with anything new or ground breaking.

So therefore why are you arguing against me?

  Just different ways of explaining what we already know and experience.

So there there's no need for you to argue against me.
If what I'm saying is just different wording then I must be speaking of something you believe to be truth.

  I can see it now in the historical timeline of major scientific progress.  Late 17th Century: Newton publishes his law of universal gravitation.  Early 20th century: Einstein publishes his General Theory of relativity, remodelling how physicists view gravitation. Early 21st Century: Sceptimatic overturns the both Newton and Einstein by casting out gravity and explaining 'everything' through atmospheric pressure.  And discarding the existence of the Universe at the same time.  Wow.  That really is another level!

Of course t would be another level.
Anyone who has a theory against what the old timers came out with, would be on another level.
None of what the old timers have said, is proven to be a truth. They are just theories passed off as truth's.

Quote

There's a reason why it can't be explained and a reason why it's always cast out as a theory.

I don't think anyone has 'cast out' any theory of gravity..  apart from you.

Gravity is cast out as a theory. It's not cast out as an absolute truth. It's hidden behind that word, theory.
It's what's classed as contingency methods just in case they need to come up with other stuff as they regularly have done over time.

Quote

Atmospheric pressure is the reason for why everything happens.

Really.. the reason why everything happens eh.  Wow that is a pretty broad and wide sweeping statement.

It is but I believe it's a reality.
You see, when you think of atmospheric you think of the sky.
However, I think of it as part of the entire cell system in massively different densities that take on visual mass differences from solids to liquids to gases, from out perceivement.

A big vibrating cell with a big vibrating energy from its centre.

  And where did the atmosphere come from in the first place then?  Did it just magically appear at some point in the past?

It simply grows as all cells do and then dies as all cells do.
One day ur cell will die.
It's dying right now.
It's also replenishing as it dies.

Just like we do as babies....our cells replenish and as we get older they die more and replenish. They break down and rebuild but by less and less each time a full growth has been achieved, just like we do as babies to adult and as adults we break down slowly but surely until we disappear and are replaced by similar.


I believe we are just one cell full of cells as part of something much bigger.
It makes perfect sense to me and what I see of Earth shows me the decay and replenishing as our man made time goes on.


I know I know...how absurd, eh?

We should just be a big ball of rock and water and a titchy bit of an envelope of atmosphere just spinning in a vacuum and kept going by a big 93 million mile, near one million mile diameter ball of super fire/heat that just happens to travel through the vacuum and keep us all nice and comfy for living.


That's the absurdity.

Gotta love the double standard.

You think mainstream science is just about accepting mainstream answers do you?  Have you noticed how much the 'accepted answers' in mainstream science have been changed and been modified over the years?

Exactly, they've been changed more times than a babies nappy.

How has that come about...  as new evidence comes to light.

New evidence? Maybe...or the theories/misinfo/disinfo has been rumbled and shown up...maybe.

  Sceptimatic might claim that he 'knows' the Earth is not a globe.  But that is just his opinion based on his own beliefs that have been sculpted from the same evidence that is available to you and me. None of they physicists that I know would claim to 'know' anything for 100% certainty. 

Just remember that.
If you're not certain of anything then nothing can be pushed out as fact.

Even the ancient Greeks using the limited resources available to them were able to figure out what shape the Earth was.

Is there any documentation of that time to show us how it was all worked out?
I mean real workings of those people of that time?

  They didn't have any 'mainstream accepted answers' to go by.

People are gullible today, in many many ways. Bigger mainstream stories sold by many script writers, told by many script readers
Imagine in teh times where word of mouth became wise words from a wise man who told interesting stories to those who simply fed off them?
Pass it on, pass it on.
And so it came to pass.

Instead they used their unprejudiced minds to work it out for themselves.

Unprejudiced minds?
I suppose any person who can tell a story of originality may be looked upon as having an unprejudiced mind, only in terms of not being influenced by outside sources.
However, they themselves would be bestowing their stories onto others to take as their facts and actually creating the very thing that appears to be not attributed to the original teller.

  Those who did historically believe the Earth was flat almost without exception came from the less well educated sections of society.

Why would anyone believe Earth was flat due to being less well educated?

Do you mean they looked around them and saw flatness and level water...etc and logically understood that it made sense to be flat in a way, amid lumps and bumps?

Or the educated who were told they were spinning about in a vacuum on a big wobbling misshaped ball around a massive ball of fire......etc?


I'd say we go back to the story teller with that one. The supposed unprejudiced story teller  to the masses of eventual global folklore.

Nowadays science has moved on a bit and is looking for the answers to slightly more complex questions.

Hmmm, moved on a bit but still adamant on shoving old names from times gone by, to the fore when it comes to the set up of how a globe supposedly was and supposedly still is, with a bit of tweaking, of course.

This isn't about you or anyone else. It's about my own stuff. You people ask me about it and I try and explain it from my side. You people don't get it or make out you do and then totally don't.

No, we do get it, and then clearly explain how what you are claiming doesn't match reality.
Us realising your nonsense does not match reality does not mean we don't grasp it.
We show that we do understand it, and then show that that does not match reality.

All I know is, my experiments prove there is no spinning globe in a space vacuum.

No, that is just your repeated lie.
You are yet to provide anything which refutes the spinning globe.

What you decide it proves, is entirely up to you.

All I will say is, I find it odd how people who've had the time to actually logically look at the global set up, don't massively question it

What you should find odd is why you reject it, even though you have no basis to do so.
Those who have had time to actually look at it honestly and logically, have questioned it and found it matches reality.
Again, there is a big difference between questioning, which is what honest, rational people would do, where they accept the logical answers from the globe that match reality; and your outright rejection at all costs.

Likewise, people accept gravity because it actually explains reality and is backed up by evidence, unlike your nonsense which can't explain reality at all, and which is backed by nothing.

Gravity is cast out as a theory. It's not cast out as an absolute truth. It's hidden behind that word, theory.

You mean it is honestly presented as a scientific theory rather than being claimed as an absolute truth.

I thought you liked such honesty, but no, instead you pretend everyone treats it as a perfect fact which must be backed up by absolute proof which no one can simply dismiss as fake, which then allows you to continually dismiss all the evidence as fake and lie and claim gravity isn't real, while apply a completley different standard to your delusional nonsense.

Scientific theories are the closest things to facts you will get for anything more complicated than a direct observation.

Again, gravity explains what we observe so well.
Your delusional garbage can't even explain why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere, or why things fall in direct defiance of that pressure gradient.

Why should anyone accept your delusional garbage when you can't even address those simple issues and instead need to continually deflect and hide from them?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 25, 2021, 10:39:16 PM

This isn't about you or anyone else. It's about my own stuff. You people ask me about it and I try and explain it from my side. You people don't get it or make out you do and then totally don't.

No, we do get it, and then clearly explain how what you are claiming doesn't match reality.

You clearly don't get it. I know this by how you act on it.

You clearly don't get it. I know this by how you act on it.

You mean you falsely accuse me of not getting it, due to me repeatedly showing that you are wrong, and you being completely incapable of addressing the issues I raise, so you just lie and insult me and dismiss me instead of even attempting to address these issues.

Again, if it was simply a case of me not getting it, you would explain your BS and answer the simple questions which you are completely incapable of doing.

Again, me clearly explaining why your nonsense is wrong doesn't mean I don't get it.

You continually being completely incapable of explaining how there is a pressure gradient and how the air magically pushes objects down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient and in direct defiance of simple logic and reason, shows quite clearly that I do understand and that your claims are pure garbage.

Again, why is there a pressure gradient?
Simple experiments on fluids show that they will naturally act to eliminate any pressure gradient in them.
So why does the air magically not eliminate that pressure gradient?
Why doesn't the high pressure air at the bottom push the lower pressure air up to compress and thus pressurise the low pressure air above and depressurise the high pressure air at the bottom?
If it was just the air, that is exactly what we would expect.

Instead, what is observed is that the pressure gradient that exists is based upon the weight of the fluid, as if it isn't the air pushing down but instead something other than the air gives the fluid its weight and thus pressurises the fluid due to the fluid below needing to support the weight of the fluid above.

Again, this shows your model is pure BS. Until you can actually explain this pressure gradient, your model will remain pure BS.

Likewise, simple experiments clearly demonstrates that if you have a pressure gradient on an object, the air will push the object from the high pressure side towards the low pressure side, like what occurs with the wind. This is also backed up by the simple logic of the high pressure side applying a greater force than the low pressure side, causing a net force on the object.
That means the pressure gradient of the atmosphere should push everything up. But you claim that the air magically defies all reason and instead magically pushes things down.

Again, this shows your model is pure BS. Until you can actually explain how the air can push things down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient, your model will remain pure BS. And no, that doesn't mean you can just appeal to an object sitting on the ground with no air below it. You need to explain how the air pushes an object in mid-air or against a wall or against a ceiling down, in direct defiance of this pressure gradient.
And then once you manage to do that, you need to directly contradict yourself and explain how it then magically pushes some things up.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2021, 01:04:09 AM

You clearly don't get it. I know this by how you act on it.

You mean you falsely accuse me of not getting it, due to me repeatedly showing that you are wrong, and you being completely incapable of addressing the issues I raise, so you just lie and insult me and dismiss me instead of even attempting to address these issues.

Again, if it was simply a case of me not getting it, you would explain your BS and answer the simple questions which you are completely incapable of doing.

Again, me clearly explaining why your nonsense is wrong doesn't mean I don't get it.

You continually being completely incapable of explaining how there is a pressure gradient and how the air magically pushes objects down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient and in direct defiance of simple logic and reason, shows quite clearly that I do understand and that your claims are pure garbage.

Again, why is there a pressure gradient?
Simple experiments on fluids show that they will naturally act to eliminate any pressure gradient in them.
So why does the air magically not eliminate that pressure gradient?
Why doesn't the high pressure air at the bottom push the lower pressure air up to compress and thus pressurise the low pressure air above and depressurise the high pressure air at the bottom?
If it was just the air, that is exactly what we would expect.

Instead, what is observed is that the pressure gradient that exists is based upon the weight of the fluid, as if it isn't the air pushing down but instead something other than the air gives the fluid its weight and thus pressurises the fluid due to the fluid below needing to support the weight of the fluid above.

Again, this shows your model is pure BS. Until you can actually explain this pressure gradient, your model will remain pure BS.

Likewise, simple experiments clearly demonstrates that if you have a pressure gradient on an object, the air will push the object from the high pressure side towards the low pressure side, like what occurs with the wind. This is also backed up by the simple logic of the high pressure side applying a greater force than the low pressure side, causing a net force on the object.
That means the pressure gradient of the atmosphere should push everything up. But you claim that the air magically defies all reason and instead magically pushes things down.

Again, this shows your model is pure BS. Until you can actually explain how the air can push things down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient, your model will remain pure BS. And no, that doesn't mean you can just appeal to an object sitting on the ground with no air below it. You need to explain how the air pushes an object in mid-air or against a wall or against a ceiling down, in direct defiance of this pressure gradient.
And then once you manage to do that, you need to directly contradict yourself and explain how it then magically pushes some things up.

It's been explained. Pay attention instead of always being angry.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 26, 2021, 04:31:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2021, 01:04:09 AM

You clearly don't get it. I know this by how you act on it.

You mean you falsely accuse me of not getting it, due to me repeatedly showing that you are wrong, and you being completely incapable of addressing the issues I raise, so you just lie and insult me and dismiss me instead of even attempting to address these issues.

Again, if it was simply a case of me not getting it, you would explain your BS and answer the simple questions which you are completely incapable of doing.

Again, me clearly explaining why your nonsense is wrong doesn't mean I don't get it.

You continually being completely incapable of explaining how there is a pressure gradient and how the air magically pushes objects down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient and in direct defiance of simple logic and reason, shows quite clearly that I do understand and that your claims are pure garbage.

Again, why is there a pressure gradient?
Simple experiments on fluids show that they will naturally act to eliminate any pressure gradient in them.
So why does the air magically not eliminate that pressure gradient?
Why doesn't the high pressure air at the bottom push the lower pressure air up to compress and thus pressurise the low pressure air above and depressurise the high pressure air at the bottom?
If it was just the air, that is exactly what we would expect.

Instead, what is observed is that the pressure gradient that exists is based upon the weight of the fluid, as if it isn't the air pushing down but instead something other than the air gives the fluid its weight and thus pressurises the fluid due to the fluid below needing to support the weight of the fluid above.

Again, this shows your model is pure BS. Until you can actually explain this pressure gradient, your model will remain pure BS.

Likewise, simple experiments clearly demonstrates that if you have a pressure gradient on an object, the air will push the object from the high pressure side towards the low pressure side, like what occurs with the wind. This is also backed up by the simple logic of the high pressure side applying a greater force than the low pressure side, causing a net force on the object.
That means the pressure gradient of the atmosphere should push everything up. But you claim that the air magically defies all reason and instead magically pushes things down.

Again, this shows your model is pure BS. Until you can actually explain how the air can push things down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient, your model will remain pure BS. And no, that doesn't mean you can just appeal to an object sitting on the ground with no air below it. You need to explain how the air pushes an object in mid-air or against a wall or against a ceiling down, in direct defiance of this pressure gradient.
And then once you manage to do that, you need to directly contradict yourself and explain how it then magically pushes some things up.

It's been explained. Pay attention instead of always being angry.

There you go deflecting and insulting yet again.
I'm not angry.
Calling you out on your BS does not require me to be angry.


You have NEVER explained these trivial issues, because your model simply can't.
As you can't explain it, you instead just repeatedly assert that you already have.
Again, if you actually could explain it, you would.

So again, what magic causes the pressure gradient in the atmosphere in direct defiance of simple logic and what is repeatedly observed with how air pressure works?
What magic causes the air to push things down towards a higher pressure, again in direct defiance of simple logic and what is repeatedly observed with how air pressure works?

Stop just claiming you have explained it and actually explain it or admit you can't.

There you go deflecting and insulting yet again.
I'm not angry.
Calling you out on your BS does not require me to be angry.

Stop just claiming you have explained it and actually explain it or admit you can't.

You come across as angry all the time. Calm down and try and get a grip and also get it into your head that my answers are not to your liking but are answers, anyway....meaning, I do explain and your refusal to acknowledge that is entirely your own issue and frustration.
You have to deal with that but my advice would be to pay attention more instead of waiting like a bull to a waving rag to just jump in in a frenzy.

You come across as angry all the time.

To you, because I keep on refuting you.

get it into your head that my answers are not to your liking but are answers

No, they aren't. They do not address the issues raised at all. As such, they are not answers, they are deflections.

So my refusal to acknowledge them is entirely your own issue, not mine.

my advice would be to pay attention more instead of waiting like a bull to a waving rag to just jump in in a frenzy.

Perhaps you should try following your own advice and actually pay attention to what the issue is and try to actually address it.

Again, how do you explain the continued existence of the pressure gradient?
Why hasn't the air just removed this pressure gradient?
Just what acts to keep this pressure gradient in place?

Again, how do you explain how the air magically pushes things down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient?
Why doesn't the greater pressure below push things up as high pressure are observed to push things towards lower pressure.

Can you explain it in a simple way instead of saying it's over my head?

I don't know.  I can explain it in a simple way which is consistent with my experience of it.  Whether that goes over your head or not I cannot say. My experience of what I call gravity is exactly the same as yours. Gravity is just a label.  I could decide to call a car something other than 'car' and then say cars don't exist.  Same thing. What you call it, attribute it to and how you interpret it is entirely up to you.

All I know is, my experiments prove there is no spinning globe in a space vacuum.

I'm sure they do prove it to you.  Would those same 'experiments' prove it to me as well?  I don't know because I don't know what your experiments were or how to do them. The existence of birds, trees and flowers 'prove' Gods existence to some who believe in that interpretation of creation.

rose is a rose by any other name...


call it "predictable rate of falling" if you don't like gravity.

but whatever it's called, it's not coming from above.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2021, 09:08:50 PM

You come across as angry all the time.

To you, because I keep on refuting you.

But you don't. You think you do, but you don't.
You just appear angry and a bit frenzied.

Quote

Can you explain it in a simple way instead of saying it's over my head?

I don't know.  I can explain it in a simple way which is consistent with my experience of it.  Whether that goes over your head or not I cannot say. My experience of what I call gravity is exactly the same as yours. Gravity is just a label.  I could decide to call a car something other than 'car' and then say cars don't exist.  Same thing. What you call it, attribute it to and how you interpret it is entirely up to you.

So you can't explain it.
That's fine.

rose is a rose by any other name...


call it "predictable rate of falling" if you don't like gravity.

but whatever it's called, it's not coming from above.

Predictable rate of falling as in, what environment?