ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

the environment being here on earth.
as a thing that falls at a predictable rate.

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

Did you read beyond the first three words I said?  What I said was I don't know if I can explain gravity in a way which doesn't 'go above your head'. Which I thought is obvious.  It depends on how much space there is in your little mind.

What sort of mental age group would you like me to set my explanation at so it doesn't go above your head?  I ask that because if you consider your mental age to be that of an adult then I will provide an explanation that any normal adult should understand. You wouldn't explain gravity to a 5 year old in the same way that you would to say a 17/18 year old.

In any case it seems irrelevant because my explanation would only be what I am telling them and you are forever saying we shouldn't just accept what we are told.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 27, 2021, 01:01:54 AM

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.

No, you claim I do. I don't think I come across as angry to any honest rational person.
It is just to those who keep getting refuted, like you.
To YOU I just appear angry and frenzied, because you need some pathetic excuse to keep dismissing these massive flaws in your ridiculous claims.

So you can't explain it.

No, he can, but you just continually reject everything you don't like.
You claim all sorts of blatant lies about gravity all because you cannot allow any part of it to be correct.

You can't even admit that gravity explains why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
Instead you lie and claim that with gravity (the very thing which causes the pressure gradient) there magically would be no gradient, yet you can find no fault with the explanation provided.

You either ignore them, or dismiss it as nonsense. What you are never able to do is show a fault with that explanation.

The one who can't explain things is you. You are yet to provide an explanation for loads of the massive problems with your model.

Again, why is there a pressure gradient in the atmosphere at all?
Again, without a force to keep that pressure gradient there (which means a force in addition to any force from the air) you will have the high pressure region compress the low pressure region to even out the pressure. That means without an extra force, even if you initially had a pressure gradient, it would vanish.
This is what you need to address. How this pressure gradient continues to exist, without anything producing it or sustaining it.

Likewise, again, why does the air magically push things down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient.
It is well known based upon countless experiments, that air and other fluids will push objects from a region of high pressure towards a region of low pressure.
That means the air in the atmosphere will push things up, from the high pressure below to the low pressure above. It will not push down.
Yet you falsely claim it does, even though you have no explanation for how or why.

You then go and contradict that by claiming some things are pushed up.
But if it is just air pushing it, there is no reason at all for it to push some things one way and other things the other way.
If you get a jet of air (i.e. a nice high pressure outlet) you will see this high pressure push everything away, regardless of if it is more or less dense than the air.

You simply can't explain ANY of these massive problems for your model.
These problems use simple logic to show your model defies reason.

Until you can actually explain them, your model is DOA.

Until you can explain just what is wrong with the explanation from gravity, you have no reason at all to reject it or say it is fantasy.
Gravity is vastly superior to your delusional nonsense.

the environment being here on earth.
as a thing that falls at a predictable rate.

You say, predictable. I assume you o mean your accepted 9.8 metres per second which you claim is in a vacuum.

Am I right on thinking this is what you are going on?


If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.
And if you are using any and all atmosphere from a drop near sea level to mountain high, etc, then there's no predictable rate of fall on all objects.


Unless you can clarify.

Quote

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

Did you read beyond the first three words I said?  What I said was I don't know if I can explain gravity in a way which doesn't 'go above your head'. Which I thought is obvious.  It depends on how much space there is in your little mind.

What sort of mental age group would you like me to set my explanation at so it doesn't go above your head?  I ask that because if you consider your mental age to be that of an adult then I will provide an explanation that any normal adult should understand. You wouldn't explain gravity to a 5 year old in the same way that you would to say a 17/18 year old.

In any case it seems irrelevant because my explanation would only be what I am telling them and you are forever saying we shouldn't just accept what we are told.

How about catering for a variation of age groups and mental abilities?
Or just explain what gravity is.

It seems you can't do it just by the immediate way you go on the attack and the defensive.

I know why you can't explain it and you know why. It's because you cannot explain a reality of something that does not exist.

Gravity is vastly superior to your delusional nonsense.

And yet you cannot explain it.

I can explain mine whether you agree or not. You absolutely cannot explain your side even with the back up of peers and reliance on authority.
That should tell you everything you need to know about the fiction of gravity.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 27, 2021, 10:37:48 AM

the environment being here on earth.
as a thing that falls at a predictable rate.

You say, predictable. I assume you o mean your accepted 9.8 metres per second which you claim is in a vacuum.

Am I right on thinking this is what you are going on?


If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.
And if you are using any and all atmosphere from a drop near sea level to mountain high, etc, then there's no predictable rate of fall on all objects.


Unless you can clarify.

Per second per second.

Theres two of them.

Yes

Very real and predictable and measruable.

Denying its existence is insanity as you can literally do this.

Not sure why you think this very real and measurable rhing doesnt exist

It has nothing to do with gravity.

If you drop something, it can be very predictable when it will hit the ground.

Maybe you can clarify what your standloint is because this is new in terms of denp - that things now dont fall in a predictable manner?


Amazing!!!

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 27, 2021, 09:12:37 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 27, 2021, 10:37:48 AM

the environment being here on earth.
as a thing that falls at a predictable rate.

You say, predictable. I assume you o mean your accepted 9.8 metres per second which you claim is in a vacuum.

Am I right on thinking this is what you are going on?


If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.
And if you are using any and all atmosphere from a drop near sea level to mountain high, etc, then there's no predictable rate of fall on all objects.


Unless you can clarify.

Per second per second.

Theres two of them.

Yes

Very real and predictable and measruable.

Denying its existence is insanity as you can literally do this.

Not sure why you think this very real and measurable rhing doesnt exist

It has nothing to do with gravity.

If you drop something, it can be very predictable when it will hit the ground.

Maybe you can clarify what your standloint is because this is new in terms of denp - that things now dont fall in a predictable manner?


Amazing!!!

Ok, per second per second means you have zero resistance to mass which means zero matter for mass to actually work in, yet it falls?


The gravity nonsense is just that. It makes zero sense.
The 9.8 m/s/s is a rough measurement based on a small drop in atmosphere, not in a vacuum.

Resistance is always a barrier and resistance to mass will determine the fall of that mass, whether it's a massive cannon ball or bowling ball or football or polystyrene ball or a air balloon/helium balloon, all of the same /similar dimension.

There is absolutely no set predictable rate for the fall of all.

Now you can argue that air resistance would change stuff. It certainly would and is the entire point as to why there is no overall predictable rate of fall.


Granted I can drop a few objects from head height or even house height...and by eye they will appear to hit the ground at the same time...especially if their dimensions are similar and mass is enough to overcome air resistance, in short order.

In a low pressure chamber you may get a similar thing with a drop against little air resistance but there will always be resistance to mass and a resistance build to mass over height distance.


A predictable rate of fall for a cannon ball in the same environment with the same effort applied, I'd agree with, in atmosphere.
Then you have a bowling ball which will have a different rate of fall.

Then a football will also have a different rate of fall.

All can be predicted under the right conditions after repeated testing but all will have separate outcomes of those predictions.

Atmospheric resistance sees to that.


Gravity sees to nothing because gravity does not exist.

I never said gravity.
I said things fall at a predictable rate.
They either do or dont.

Your word salad starts off denying that.
Then midway you confirm things do fall at a predictable rate.

Now youve added a phrase of "atmospheric resistance" to mean "predictable rate of falling" because you d9nt like my phrase?

Playing with words isnt going to help anyone.

Try and not contradict yourself.
It does or it doesnt.
Nothing to do with gravity or denP.
Things can fall predictbaly as youve described them - yes or no?

If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.

Except repeated experiments showing that.
Yes, there is some variability, as g is not constant all over Earth.

And if you are using any and all atmosphere from a drop near sea level to mountain high, etc, then there's no predictable rate of fall on all objects.

No, it is still predictable, it just isn't as simple.
But either way, what it certainly isn't, is the air magically pushing things down.

And yet you cannot explain it.

I can explain mine whether you agree or not.

And there you go with the same old pathetic lies.
You can't explain your nonsense.
If you could, you would have done so.
Instead you just do whatever you can to avoid it.

Again, gravity explains why objects fall just fine.
Matter distorts space time such that motion through time is converted into motion through space. i.e. it accelerates an object towards the mass.
This means everything on and near Earth is accelerated by gravity towards Earth.
This can be simply expressed as gravity applies a force to all objects towards the Earth, with the force proportional to the mass.

Likewise, gravity explains air pressure just fine.
The air is attracted to Earth, just like all other matter.
This causes it to fall to Earth, and press down on the air below.
As it does this is compresses the air below until the air below puts up enough resistance (happy, I even used your word) to stop the air above falling.
This resistance needs to match the weight of all the air above.
It is gravity that provides the needed extra force to create the pressure gradient.

Now compare that to your delusional garbage.
Things are pushed down by pure magic, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient of the atmosphere that should push them up. Except some things which are less dense than air and are instead magically pushed up by the air, for no reason at all.
And the pressure gradient simply exists without cause and with nothing to sustain it.

So it is quite clear which side has the explanation, and it isn't yours.

That should tell you everything you need to know about the fiction of gravity.

It certainty strongly indicates the reality of gravity, and tells me everything anyone really needs to know about your delusional BS.
You cannot explain your delusional BS as it has no basis in reality.

We both know why you aren't explaining it.
YOU CAN'T as your model is not based upon reality.
The pathetic excuses you have tried have failed and you know that I can easily show just what is wrong with them.
So instead you don't even attempt to explain it, you just claim to have already done so and claim to be able to do so.

If you could, you would stop asserting that you can explain it and claiming that you have explained it and instead start actually explaining it.

Ok, per second per second means you have zero resistance to mass which means zero matter for mass to actually work in, yet it falls?

No it doesn't.
In what way does acceleration mean no matter?

The gravity nonsense is just that. It makes zero sense.

No, just your claims about it.

But notice a key part of your claims, repeatedly appealing to atmospheric resistance, not the atmosphere magically pushing things down.
This variance in the rate of acceleration makes absolutely no sense in your "model".
Why is the downwards force based upon mass while the air resistance clearly isn't?
Again, this shows it isn't the air pushing things down.

I can explain mine whether you agree or not.

So being able to 'explain' something makes it better and more reliable or believable than something you can't explain does it?

I never said gravity.
I said things fall at a predictable rate.
They either do or dont.

Your word salad starts off denying that.
Then midway you confirm things do fall at a predictable rate.

Now youve added a phrase of "atmospheric resistance" to mean "predictable rate of falling" because you d9nt like my phrase?

Playing with words isnt going to help anyone.

Try and not contradict yourself.
It does or it doesnt.
Nothing to do with gravity or denP.
Things can fall predictbaly as youve described them - yes or no?

Explain the predictable rate and what it is that confirms this.
Or does that come back to fictional gravity?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 27, 2021, 09:12:37 PM

If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.

Except repeated experiments showing that.
Yes, there is some variability, as g is not constant all over Earth.

Repeated experiments showing what?

Quote

I can explain mine whether you agree or not.

So being able to 'explain' something makes it better and more reliable or believable than something you can't explain does it?

No, it doesn't have to make it believable it just means it is explained. Something which you are failing to do with gravity and instead want to sidestep it...which is fine but it does nothing for your model.

So if I can't explain every single thing about something, that makes it not true does it?  OK that includes your model then I guess.

We all still live in the same world into which we were born.  At the moment of our birth we knew nothing and could explain nothing. As we grow up we learn things about the world we live in. The accumulation of that learning is what we call 'knowledge'. If what we are told, read, watch or otherwise doesn't seem to make sense to us or provide a valid explanation for our own personal life experiences we ask questions.  Otherwise we accept it as a valid and true explanation.

When the day comes that our current theories and models of gravity do not provide a valid and true explanation of everything I attribute to gravity then I will try to find an alternative.  Up to now though that day hasn't come and so I don't find it necessary to search for that alternative explanation. Those models and theories of course are continually being tested and re-tested. That is what science is all about.

Your experience is no doubt the same as mine so why do you feel it necessary to find an alternative explanation?  Just to be different or does gravity behave somehow differently where you are compared to everywhere else?

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 27, 2021, 11:17:21 PM

I never said gravity.
I said things fall at a predictable rate.
They either do or dont.

Your word salad starts off denying that.
Then midway you confirm things do fall at a predictable rate.

Now youve added a phrase of "atmospheric resistance" to mean "predictable rate of falling" because you d9nt like my phrase?

Playing with words isnt going to help anyone.

Try and not contradict yourself.
It does or it doesnt.
Nothing to do with gravity or denP.
Things can fall predictbaly as youve described them - yes or no?

Explain the predictable rate and what it is that confirms this.
Or does that come back to fictional gravity?

Nope

Disregarding gracity entriely
Things fall at a preditcable rate.
Please let us know when it doesnt.


*** which "predictable" includes when taking vsribales such as wind rwsistance into account... because "predirable" by definition mwans we can forsee it happening.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 28, 2021, 01:03:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 27, 2021, 09:12:37 PM

If you are then there's nothing that offers you that reality.

Except repeated experiments showing that.
Yes, there is some variability, as g is not constant all over Earth.

Repeated experiments showing what?

Even a complete moron could understand what it is showing. Stop playing dumb.

Try dealing with the massive problems for your model.
Explain what magic keeps the pressure gradient in place in direct of all reason.
Explain what magic causes the air to push things down towards a region of higher pressure, again in direct defiance of all reason.

Again, until you actually have an explanation, your model is DOA.
You can't even get past square 1 in explaining why things fall.
Why should anyone accept your delusional nonsense instead of gravity which actually makes sense and is backed up by mountains of evidence?

Something which you are failing to do with gravity and instead want to sidestep it...which is fine but it does nothing for your model.

That's rich coming from you considering all you ever do is sidestep and make baseless (typically false) assertions.

So if I can't explain every single thing about something, that makes it not true does it?  OK that includes your model then I guess.

If you can't explain something it means you do not know the truth. Even if you can explain something it doesn't mean you're explaining a truth, unless you physically know what you're explaining, is the truth.

And yes, the same does apply to me.

We all still live in the same world into which we were born.  At the moment of our birth we knew nothing and could explain nothing. As we grow up we learn things about the world we live in. The accumulation of that learning is what we call 'knowledge'.

Learning is fine. Gaining knowledge from that, is fine. As long as what you're learning, is truth, otherwise you're not learning anything that has a bearing on physical reality. Unless that learning is in how to tell fantasy stories and dupe the masses.

If what we are told, read, watch or otherwise doesn't seem to make sense to us or provide a valid explanation for our own personal life experiences we ask questions.  Otherwise we accept it as a valid and true explanation.

Yep. And I ask questions and do not accept. You do accept and that's where we massively differ.

When the day comes that our current theories and models of gravity do not provide a valid and true explanation of everything I attribute to gravity then I will try to find an alternative.

I already have found the alternative to the fantasy story of gravity. It's called atmospheric pressure and it makes massive sense.

  Up to now though that day hasn't come and so I don't find it necessary to search for that alternative explanation.

Course you don't.
You adhere to authority figures. Official lines and don't want to question them because you know to do so would carry a massive unwanted stigma.

 Those models and theories of course are continually being tested and re-tested.

Real science is about real things. Real scientific theories are about testing for reality. That's fine.
The problem arises when pseudo-science comes to the fore or simply just utter fantasy, mis-info and dis-info, which is what I believe the globe and its trimmings, to be..

 That is what science is all about.

Not your science with a globe. It's not science.

Your experience is no doubt the same as mine so why do you feel it necessary to find an alternative explanation?

Because the one that I've been shown, is false. It's a load of bull, in my honest opinion and simple experiments and observations show it to be nonsense.

  Just to be different or does gravity behave somehow differently where you are compared to everywhere else?

Gravity doesn't exist to behave as anything.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 28, 2021, 02:55:53 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 27, 2021, 11:17:21 PM

I never said gravity.
I said things fall at a predictable rate.
They either do or dont.

Your word salad starts off denying that.
Then midway you confirm things do fall at a predictable rate.

Now youve added a phrase of "atmospheric resistance" to mean "predictable rate of falling" because you d9nt like my phrase?

Playing with words isnt going to help anyone.

Try and not contradict yourself.
It does or it doesnt.
Nothing to do with gravity or denP.
Things can fall predictbaly as youve described them - yes or no?

Explain the predictable rate and what it is that confirms this.
Or does that come back to fictional gravity?

Nope

Disregarding gracity entriely
Things fall at a preditcable rate.
Please let us know when it doesnt.


*** which "predictable" includes when taking vsribales such as wind rwsistance into account... because "predirable" by definition mwans we can forsee it happening.

Give me some explanations as to what's happening with masses.

Even a complete moron could understand what it is showing. Stop playing dumb.

I'm not playing dumb. Maybe I really am dumb.......you choose....or maybe you could offer explanations.


Can you?

Learning is fine. Gaining knowledge from that, is fine. As long as what you're learning, is truth, otherwise you're not learning anything that has a bearing on physical reality. Unless that learning is in how to tell fantasy stories and dupe the masses.

You are obsessed by being duped and distrusting everyone aren't you.  Why?  Is it a case of you think anyone who has different beliefs to you are trying to dupe you?

It's only a few posts ago that you said you accepted that the scientific community are not lying to us.  So which is it?  Duping/lying it kind of means the same thing?  Why would so many people want to dupe you?  What on earth happened to you in the past? Something terrible obviously if it caused you to lose all trust in humanity.

You are obsessed by being duped and distrusting everyone aren't you.

Nope, not everyone. Just what I'm arguing against.
However I have a mindset of believe nothing and question everything in terms of stuff that does not ring true.

In life with people I can accept a lot and trust those who deserve it.
As simple as that. No issues.

  Why?  Is it a case of you think anyone who has different beliefs to you are trying to dupe you?

Not at all.
I have absolutely nothing against you. I only know you as a forum name but I have ill will towards you and absolutely do not know your status in life in terms of stance and honesty.

However, I can surmise that you have been duped and you argue for something that you firmly believe is your truth.
I have no issue with that and have no issue if you stand up and tell me you know for a fact that you are right and you know or believe I'm wrong.

You are comforted by mass opinion and adherence to it by peer pressure to stay in line with the status quo. I get it but I do not follow it in many many aspects, yet I do in others.
 

It's only a few posts ago that you said you accepted that the scientific community are not lying to us.

I don't believe they are.
The one's that are deliberately handing out disinfo, are not doing science, in my opinion.The one's that are will be doing their utmost to unravel the science they partake in.

  So which is it?  Duping/lying it kind of means the same thing?

Those who deliberately give out mis-info or dis-info or deliberately dupe or lie or whatever name you think suits people who deliberately sway opinion without handing out truth's.

Why would so many people want to dupe you?

Dupe me?
I think the duping is a collective by those who have the power to do so.

  What on earth happened to you in the past?

I grew up and realised that stories claimed as fact, did not add up. I gained the ability to want to question it all and then gained the ability to see through some of the absolute junk we were all indoctrinated into.
That's what happened.

Something terrible obviously if it caused you to lose all trust in humanity.

I haven't lost all trust in humanity.
Don't mix up humanity with a section of people who want us to follow their stories with no reality on offer but thrown out as must adhere to, facts.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 28, 2021, 03:32:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 28, 2021, 02:55:53 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 27, 2021, 11:17:21 PM

I never said gravity.
I said things fall at a predictable rate.
They either do or dont.

Your word salad starts off denying that.
Then midway you confirm things do fall at a predictable rate.

Now youve added a phrase of "atmospheric resistance" to mean "predictable rate of falling" because you d9nt like my phrase?

Playing with words isnt going to help anyone.

Try and not contradict yourself.
It does or it doesnt.
Nothing to do with gravity or denP.
Things can fall predictbaly as youve described them - yes or no?

Explain the predictable rate and what it is that confirms this.
Or does that come back to fictional gravity?

Nope

Disregarding gracity entriely
Things fall at a preditcable rate.
Please let us know when it doesnt.


*** which "predictable" includes when taking vsribales such as wind rwsistance into account... because "predirable" by definition mwans we can forsee it happening.

Give me some explanations as to what's happening with masses.

they're falling.
if you have a stop watch and ruler, they're falling at a predictable rate.
what part of "predictable rate of falling" confuses you?

If you can't explain something it means you do not know the truth

And that means you don't know the truth.
So stop pretending you do.

You do accept and that's where we massively differ.

Yes, we accept the evidence that shows beyond any sane doubt that gravity is real, while you continue to reject it without any justification.
That is where we massively differ.
We care about the truth and having our beliefs match relaity.
You just care about rejecting the globe at all costs.

I already have found the alternative to the fantasy story of gravity. It's called atmospheric pressure

He meant an alternative which actually makes sense and actually works to explain reality rather than one that is DOA.
Again, simple logic and experiments show beyond any sane doubt that atmospheric pressure is not the reason things fall.
Your complete inability to address the massive issues raised by your claims also supports that fact.

Again, why does the air magically push things down?
What we observe the air to do repeatedly and consistently is push objects from a region of high pressure to a region of low pressure.
This occurs in all fluids.
As the pressure of the atmosphere is greater the lower you are, this means the air will push everything UPWARDS, not down.
Again, your nonsense defies simple logic and experimentation.
There is no reason at all for anyone to believe the air will magically push things down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient.
And it is even more nonsense when you claim that the air will only magically push some things down and instead it will then magically change its mind and push some things up.
You have never been able to actually address this massive flaw in your model.
The closest you have ever been able to get is by appealing to the object itself trying to go down, i.e. implicitly appealing to gravity.

Likewise, without gravity or something viable to replace it, there is no reason for a pressure gradient to exist in the atmosphere.
Instead, the high pressure at the bottom would push the low pressure air up, compressing it while decompressing itself to eliminate the pressure gradient.
But in reality, the pressure gradient remains, as it does in any fluid, with that pressure gradient based upon the weight of the fluid.

Again, until you can actually explain these issues, and other simple issues, like why reducing the air pressure increases weight, your model is DOA, and thus is not a viable alternative for gravity.

Continually ignoring these massive problem will not make them go away.
Instead it just shows that you know your model is garbage and are dishonestly pretending it is fine.

The problem arises when pseudo-science comes to the fore or simply just utter fantasy, mis-info and dis-info

Which is what you are continually spouting with your irrational attack on the globe you pretend is scientific.

It's a load of bull, in my honest opinion and simple experiments and observations show it to be nonsense.

As has been pointed out plenty of times, that "opinion" of yours is in no way honest.
It is based upon wilful rejection of reality and mountains and mountains of lies.

You are yet to provide a single thing which shows an actual fault with gravity or the RE model.
Instead all you do is dismiss it as nonsense and blatantly lie about it and/or reality.

I'm not playing dumb. Maybe I really am dumb

I find it impossible to believe someone could actually be as dumb as you are pretending to be.
You were asking a question which was answered in the tiny snippet of the post you were quoting.
You are just being dishonest to pretend gravity is nonsense and your nonsense is viable.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 28, 2021, 09:28:20 AM

Give me some explanations as to what's happening with masses.

they're falling.
if you have a stop watch and ruler, they're falling at a predictable rate.
what part of "predictable rate of falling" confuses you?

What is this predictable rate?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 28, 2021, 09:27:17 AM

If you can't explain something it means you do not know the truth

And that means you don't know the truth.
So stop pretending you do.

I'm certainly not pretending I do.
The problem you have is in not understanding that I don't give out anything I say for my theories, as fact.

I don't know the truth of what Earth is in it's entirety or anywhere close to that.
The things is, you do not know the truth of your Earth, you just accept it as truth because your indoctrination is strong and your adherence to mass acceptance of it, is also your comfort blanket, as it is with many.

If you can't explain something it means you do not know the truth

If you want to look at it like that then what is the truth about anything? Do we need to know the truth? Truth I would always say is relative and subjective not general and universal.

Which truth do you want to know.  The truth as it really is or as you would wish it to be?

 

Quote from: JackBlack on April 28, 2021, 03:28:08 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 28, 2021, 09:27:17 AM

If you can't explain something it means you do not know the truth

And that means you don't know the truth.
So stop pretending you do.

I'm certainly not pretending I do.

Yes you do.
Every time you make bold claims like saying Earth isn't a globe, that is you pretending to know the truth (even though it is an outright lie, which means you are also pretending that a lie is the truth).
If you didn't want to pretend to know the truth then the appropriate thing to say is you have absolutely no idea if Earth is round or not.

The things is, you do not know the truth of your Earth, you just accept it as truth because your indoctrination is strong and your adherence to mass acceptance of it, is also your comfort blanket, as it is with many.

And there you go with more pathetic lies.
Not everyone is as wilfully ignorant as you.
I know the truth of Earth due to observations I have made myself.
I don't need to be indoctrinated to accept the truth that Earth is round.

Just like I don't need to be indoctrinated to realise that gravity is real and your claims about it and your alternative are pure nonsense.

Again, what magic sustains this pressure gradient in your delusional model?
Why is the pressure gradient based upon the weight of the substance?
Why does the air then push objects down in direct defiance of this pressure gradient?

Quote

If you can't explain something it means you do not know the truth

If you want to look at it like that then what is the truth about anything? Do we need to know the truth? Truth I would always say is relative and subjective not general and universal.

Which truth do you want to know.  The truth as it really is or as you would wish it to be?

You make a very good point (in bold).
Do we need to know the truth.
The answer is, not in everything.
We can happily go about our lives regardless of whether any of us now the trueness of Earth, space, afterlife, gods...etc....etc....etc.


Having said that.....the search for a potential for the truth is always preferential for some, including myself.
That does not mean I'll find that truth but it does mean I can counter those that pass off, as truth, something in which they know they cannot verify to prove it.


This is the crux and this is where we're all at on these forums.

Every time you make bold claims like saying Earth isn't a globe, that is you pretending to know the truth (even though it is an outright lie, which means you are also pretending that a lie is the truth).
If you didn't want to pretend to know the truth then the appropriate thing to say is you have absolutely no idea if Earth is round or not.

But I do have a idea that Earth is not a spinning globe.
My alternate to that does not mean I'm pushing it out as factual.
So, no....I'm not lying.


If you pass of your Earth model as factual then you are lying.
Do you pass of your spinning global model as factual or do you simply ride on the back of authority that says it is?