ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

  • 2289 Replies
  • 195773 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 21742
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #510 on: February 20, 2021, 04:35:06 AM »
It has everything to do with what we're talking about because it shows gravity to be the nonsense that is is.
You mean it shows just how dishonest and desperate you are?
Are you asking me or telling me?
I'm telling, you. Just like I explained repeatedly.

Now again, can you explain what magic holds the chain together?
Can you explain what magic the chain uses in the diagram below such that the right side can move the left without pulling it?

Again, without a pull, the chain links would fall apart, just like the broken one in your diagram.

If not, have you figured out what magic causes the pressure gradient considering you reject gravity?
Or have you figured out a way to explain why the air magically pushes objects down in direct defiance of that pressure gradient?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #511 on: February 20, 2021, 04:38:47 AM »

Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS, but just for you, here is your diagram:


Notice all that pulling?
You need a pull to explain why the chain holds itself together.
Without that pull, that chain just falls apart.

And this is even more important in a string/rope where if you tried to push the ends, it would just collapse, so we know it isn't the air magically pushing the other end.
There's no pulling. It's all friction grip and push. It is impossible to pull.

So what happened to the one chain link that ripped apart?
Pushed apart, as I showed you before Jacky defaced it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #512 on: February 20, 2021, 04:44:16 AM »
Except that the conventional physical framework gives us near instantaneous communication using complex control of materials and energy.
Push one side, see a mirror image on the other...or absorption if the signal can not be contained.
No speed of light, just instantaneous reaction to action.


Quote from: sobchak
This is strong, strong evidence that it is a reasonable framework to represent of the world around us, no?
It depends on what the framework depicts as a known reality.


Quote from: sobchak
What does your alternative thoughts give?  Anything?  Giant unevidenced conspiracy theories requiring millions of people? unexplained and unexplainable facts?   Self imagined greatness?

This is your thoughts on me, not mine.

Quote from: sobchak
In terms of arguing against your alternative thoughts, the conventional framework is so far ahead.  Why would any rational person completely discount it?
So far ahead in terms of, what?
What is it ahead of and what is it that is ahead?

*

JackBlack

  • 21742
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #513 on: February 20, 2021, 04:46:05 AM »
Pushed apart, as I showed you before Jacky defaced it.
You mean before I showed you were all the pull was?

Yes, it was pushed apart, because that section couldn't pull itself together.
But all those other points are still pulling.
If they didn't the entire chain would be broken links.

Again, HOW DOES THE LINK HOLD ITSELF TOETHER?
How does the right side move the left side without pulling it?


And again:
Have you figured out what magic causes the pressure gradient considering you reject gravity?
Or have you figured out a way to explain why the air magically pushes objects down in direct defiance of that pressure gradient?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #514 on: February 20, 2021, 04:48:19 AM »
Do you feel pressure all around you?  I don't.  Talking about hair, have you ever seen one of those demonstrations with a Van de Graff generator where a person holds onto the conducting metal ball and their hair starts to stand on end?  Then when they let go of the ball their hair falls flat again.  Why do you think that is?

When anything is in freefall it always travels towards the ground.  Why is that?  If it was resistance in air creating the effect that I would call acceleration due to gravity, then why would it only be acceleration in the same direction?
For anything to fall, first it must be forced up by energy to then become the potential energy after that force is spent.
Think about it.


Quote from: Solarwind
Quote
The apple doesn't fall because you have it gripped in your fingers.

Let's say that I am holding an apple in my closed hand.  I turn my arm so my thumb is pointing up upwards (palm to the right).  I open my hand and the apple falls to the group.  I repeat the same experiment 100 times and each time the apple falls downwards.  Why?
Because you used your own energy and force to raise that apple against the pressure of atmosphere. Once you spend that force (release the apple) the dense mass of it that displaces that atmosphere and is then crushed down into the below stack and the stack below that....and so on and so on...it creates a resistance alla round it that is greater than the atmosphere below it.



Quote from: Solarwind
  Why does the apple never go upwards or even to the side?
The same reason it doesn't in water.


Quote from: Solarwind
If there is no such thing as gravity (remember you say gravity is fictional) always pulling the apple towards the centre of the Earth why does the apple always move the same way when I open my hand?
As above.
Also there is no such thing as pull. Only push.
That alone kills gravity.
I know I know...what do you mean there's no pull.
Just use your brain and understand that the word "pull" is meaningless . It has no physical  reasoning.

Push caters for everything by resistance.

do you push a wagon with a rope or pul it? pleas explain.
Bring up a wagon and I'll place pointers where it's all push. How's that?

For once we have a point of agreement!  I would also stipulate that for any connected mechanical system (like a wagon being moved), the fundamental force at play is always repulsive (a push away). 

When it's all looked at logically, it's all push.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #515 on: February 20, 2021, 04:55:12 AM »
Quote
When it's all looked at logically

Explain what you mean by logically.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #516 on: February 20, 2021, 05:06:29 AM »
Why do we need to think of the Earth as anything other than a globe?
You don't. I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm merely telling you it's nonsense from my side. If you take that as a direct hit on your personal thoughts then that's down to you.
Believe everything you want to believe and argue it for however long you feel. It changes nothing from my side, unless you have concrete proof. Then I'd prick up my ears.
Just bear in mind that I came from your land of belief on a plate, just because I was massively indoctrinated into it.
I called flat Earth and alternate Earth's, silly because I was pig ignorant and believed the mass adherence to an absolute nonsensical spinning ball around a big fiery near million mile sun in a space vacuum.

I sometimes feel like punching myself in the face for doing it.

It takes a massive.....massive......massive....massive....massive sit down and slap in the face to even dare to think differently to the accepted mass indoctrination...and it doesn't just start nor stop with questioning a global Earth.
This is why I can fight my corner and take what digs and garbage comes my way from the every changing posse of playground bullies and their hangers on.

Quote from: Solarwind

  Just because you don't happen to like the idea and you think you have come up with something better.   How is your version better?  Better for just you or better for everyone?
My version is better....to me.......to me........ You do not have to give it 1 second of your time. You can look at my name and ignore it and treat me like an absolute retarded imbecile who has zero knowledge...etc....etc, if you so wish. You are in control of that, so don't waste your time putting that out.

People struggle with me because they have this inbuilt mechanism, borne from social adherence to what authority dictates to them, giving them an almost free rein (in their mind) to follow a trend of using the handed words of ridicule to anyone who dares to question that and who will not conform to mass opinion.

Ring any bells?



*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #517 on: February 20, 2021, 05:09:59 AM »
It has everything to do with what we're talking about because it shows gravity to be the nonsense that is is.
You mean it shows just how dishonest and desperate you are?
Are you asking me or telling me?
I'm telling, you. Just like I explained repeatedly.

Now again, can you explain what magic holds the chain together?
Can you explain what magic the chain uses in the diagram below such that the right side can move the left without pulling it?

Again, without a pull, the chain links would fall apart, just like the broken one in your diagram.


Putting up a link does not tell any story.


How about you put up something that includes the link. Something you believe is pulling it all and I'll go through it all from start to finish.
I'll even go right down to molecular bonding if you feel the need to go that far.
From my side, obviously.
It's all chain link like, so it's pretty easy.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #518 on: February 20, 2021, 05:13:17 AM »
Quote
When it's all looked at logically

Explain what you mean by logically.
In my book, my logic is stripping down to the basics and seeing the reasoning and working.

Basically if I see the done jigsaw I'd break it down to logically see how it was best started to gain a finish that I accept....or don't...depending on what picture is given out based on, maybe, pieces jammed into the wrong pattern.


What's your idea of logic?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #519 on: February 20, 2021, 05:32:15 AM »
For once we have a point of agreement!  I would also stipulate that for any connected mechanical system (like a wagon being moved), the fundamental force at play is always repulsive (a push away). 

Not you too?!

Tensile loads are real, and they are absolutely everywhere.

Did you read the next sentence -

Within objects, material bonds create an attractive force, so you end up with tensile (pulling) forces within a material under load.

My point is that all contact mechanics are built from repulsive forces (pushing), not attractive forces (pulling).  Do you disagree?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #520 on: February 20, 2021, 05:33:54 AM »
Quote
In my book, my logic is stripping down to the basics and seeing the reasoning and working.

OK taking that as a definition of logic.  How then do you account for how pressure in the atmosphere is created. Or how the holographic images of the Sun and Moon in your model are created?  Stripping it down to the basics, what causes these holographic images to circle around in the sky?  How do we even see these images?

Explain your reasoning and working behind what you believe.  According to your logic of course.  Equally explain to me how the global model does not explain day and night or the seasons as we experience them.  Not based on your personal preference or belief but based on the logic. In other words forget anything to do with what we are told.  Base it purely on what we see. Is it logically possible to explain what we see regardless of our location on Earth by considering that we live on a rotating globe which is huge compared the size of us? 
« Last Edit: February 20, 2021, 05:53:30 AM by Solarwind »

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #521 on: February 20, 2021, 06:23:07 AM »
Do you feel pressure all around you?  I don't.  Talking about hair, have you ever seen one of those demonstrations with a Van de Graff generator where a person holds onto the conducting metal ball and their hair starts to stand on end?  Then when they let go of the ball their hair falls flat again.  Why do you think that is?

When anything is in freefall it always travels towards the ground.  Why is that?  If it was resistance in air creating the effect that I would call acceleration due to gravity, then why would it only be acceleration in the same direction?
For anything to fall, first it must be forced up by energy to then become the potential energy after that force is spent.
Think about it.


Quote from: Solarwind
Quote
The apple doesn't fall because you have it gripped in your fingers.

Let's say that I am holding an apple in my closed hand.  I turn my arm so my thumb is pointing up upwards (palm to the right).  I open my hand and the apple falls to the group.  I repeat the same experiment 100 times and each time the apple falls downwards.  Why?
Because you used your own energy and force to raise that apple against the pressure of atmosphere. Once you spend that force (release the apple) the dense mass of it that displaces that atmosphere and is then crushed down into the below stack and the stack below that....and so on and so on...it creates a resistance alla round it that is greater than the atmosphere below it.



Quote from: Solarwind
  Why does the apple never go upwards or even to the side?
The same reason it doesn't in water.


Quote from: Solarwind
If there is no such thing as gravity (remember you say gravity is fictional) always pulling the apple towards the centre of the Earth why does the apple always move the same way when I open my hand?
As above.
Also there is no such thing as pull. Only push.
That alone kills gravity.
I know I know...what do you mean there's no pull.
Just use your brain and understand that the word "pull" is meaningless . It has no physical  reasoning.

Push caters for everything by resistance.

do you push a wagon with a rope or pul it? pleas explain.
Bring up a wagon and I'll place pointers where it's all push. How's that?

For once we have a point of agreement!  I would also stipulate that for any connected mechanical system (like a wagon being moved), the fundamental force at play is always repulsive (a push away). 

When it's all looked at logically, it's all push.

No, you simply believe this, and have not used logic to arrive at this conclusion. 

Just as you have not used logic to arrive at the global conspiracy, the ice dome, the holographic sun and moon projections, the cell based universe, and the magic crystal tower at the north pole.

Your personal thoughts are not logical just because you declare them to be. 

   

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #522 on: February 20, 2021, 06:25:04 AM »
Quote from: sobchak
In terms of arguing against your alternative thoughts, the conventional framework is so far ahead.  Why would any rational person completely discount it?
So far ahead in terms of, what?
What is it ahead of and what is it that is ahead?

Utility, extension, and prediction.  The tests of any explanatory framework. 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #523 on: February 20, 2021, 06:34:00 AM »
Quote
In my book, my logic is stripping down to the basics and seeing the reasoning and working.

OK taking that as a definition of logic.  How then do you account for how pressure in the atmosphere is created. Or how the holographic images of the Sun and Moon in your model are created?  Stripping it down to the basics, what causes these holographic images to circle around in the sky?  How do we even see these images?

Explain your reasoning and working behind what you believe.  According to your logic of course.  Equally explain to me how the global model does not explain day and night or the seasons as we experience them.  Not based on your personal preference or belief but based on the logic. In other words forget anything to do with what we are told.  Base it purely on what we see. Is it logically possible to explain what we see regardless of our location on Earth by considering that we live on a rotating globe which is huge compared the size of us?
I could explain but it will be lost on you in terms of discarded as pointless, so I won't bother going that full on route.

What I will do is give you snippets to look at and see where we go from there.
What I mean by this is, what Earth is, is what we see and perceive in everyday life. It's just a case of marrying it all up.

So, I suggest you look up what is classed as a planetarium and see how that works.

Have a good look and then come back to me, then we can inch forward.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #524 on: February 20, 2021, 06:36:56 AM »
Quote from: sobchak
In terms of arguing against your alternative thoughts, the conventional framework is so far ahead.  Why would any rational person completely discount it?
So far ahead in terms of, what?
What is it ahead of and what is it that is ahead?

Utility, extension, and prediction.  The tests of any explanatory framework.
Maybe you need to elaborate on this.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #525 on: February 20, 2021, 07:38:22 AM »
Quote from: sobchak
In terms of arguing against your alternative thoughts, the conventional framework is so far ahead.  Why would any rational person completely discount it?
So far ahead in terms of, what?
What is it ahead of and what is it that is ahead?

Utility, extension, and prediction.  The tests of any explanatory framework.
Maybe you need to elaborate on this.

Sure. Letís start with your framework.

What can it be used for?  Specifically.  Give me an example of a problem that can be solved with it quantitatively.

Next, whatís missing in your framework, what are the possibilities to explain these shortcomings and how could they be tested?

Finally, what differential predictions does it make compared to other explanatory frameworks?

Start from there and we can go further.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #526 on: February 20, 2021, 07:59:32 AM »
Quote
I could explain but it will be lost on you in terms of discarded as pointless,

Don't flatter yourself Sceptimatic.  It really doesn't suit you.

Answering questions like this is just another way of you saying you cannot explain it.  Why is it that whenever anyone asks you to actually explain anything - even the really basic stuff to the rest of us - all you can do is throw back patronising comments like that?  You can't actually explain anything can you.

So at the risk of repeating myself again, please explain to me using logic alone how the traditional, global model does not explain night and day or the seasons.  Come on.. its not that hard.  I'm not interested in all this doctrination or 'what we are told' stuff.  I mean logically and back to the real basics.  How does it not work in your view?   Nothing you can say will be lost on me.

Quote
So, I suggest you look up what is classed as a planetarium and see how that works.

I designed and built a planetarium for my local astronomy club.  Which is enjoyed by all who visit it thanks very much. So I am very familiar with how they work.  Are you?
« Last Edit: February 20, 2021, 08:25:42 AM by Solarwind »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #527 on: February 20, 2021, 08:00:16 AM »
Quote from: sobchak
In terms of arguing against your alternative thoughts, the conventional framework is so far ahead.  Why would any rational person completely discount it?
So far ahead in terms of, what?
What is it ahead of and what is it that is ahead?

Utility, extension, and prediction.  The tests of any explanatory framework.
Maybe you need to elaborate on this.

Sure. Letís start with your framework.

What can it be used for?  Specifically.  Give me an example of a problem that can be solved with it quantitatively.

Next, whatís missing in your framework, what are the possibilities to explain these shortcomings and how could they be tested?

Finally, what differential predictions does it make compared to other explanatory frameworks?

Start from there and we can go further.
I still have no clue what you are on about.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #528 on: February 20, 2021, 08:06:27 AM »
For once we have a point of agreement!  I would also stipulate that for any connected mechanical system (like a wagon being moved), the fundamental force at play is always repulsive (a push away). 

Not you too?!

Tensile loads are real, and they are absolutely everywhere.

Did you read the next sentence -

Within objects, material bonds create an attractive force, so you end up with tensile (pulling) forces within a material under load.

My point is that all contact mechanics are built from repulsive forces (pushing), not attractive forces (pulling).  Do you disagree?

Sorry, I barely glanced at the following parts, as thereís plenty wrong with the first bit.  But, yes, I still strongly disagree.

The big problem is saying that the forces are fundamentally pushing.  Why fundamentally?  Youíre talking about very localised forces, that are very dependent on the method of fixing the parts, which you can change without altering the overall system.  And no, not all contact mechanics are compressive.  What about welding, brazing or adhesive?

In the case of pulling a wagon, you could swap out a chain or hook with a cable welded to it.  It doesnít fundamentally change what youíre doing, which is pulling a wagon.


Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #529 on: February 20, 2021, 08:07:27 AM »
Quote from: sobchak
In terms of arguing against your alternative thoughts, the conventional framework is so far ahead.  Why would any rational person completely discount it?
So far ahead in terms of, what?
What is it ahead of and what is it that is ahead?

Utility, extension, and prediction.  The tests of any explanatory framework.
Maybe you need to elaborate on this.

Sure. Letís start with your framework.

What can it be used for?  Specifically.  Give me an example of a problem that can be solved with it quantitatively.

Next, whatís missing in your framework, what are the possibilities to explain these shortcomings and how could they be tested?

Finally, what differential predictions does it make compared to other explanatory frameworks?

Start from there and we can go further.
I still have no clue what you are on about.

I can tell.

Start with answering the questions if you can and see if we can build brick by brick from there?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #530 on: February 20, 2021, 08:08:40 AM »


I can tell.

Start with answering the questions if you can and see if we can build brick by brick from there?
What question?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #531 on: February 20, 2021, 08:39:08 AM »


I can tell.

Start with answering the questions if you can and see if we can build brick by brick from there?
What question?

Your explanatory view of the physical world

- What can it be used for?  Specifically.  Give me an example of a problem that can be solved with it quantitatively.

- Next, whatís missing in your framework, what are the possibilities to explain these shortcomings and how could they be tested?

- Finally, what differential predictions does it make compared to other explanatory frameworks?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #532 on: February 20, 2021, 08:52:54 AM »
For once we have a point of agreement!  I would also stipulate that for any connected mechanical system (like a wagon being moved), the fundamental force at play is always repulsive (a push away). 

Not you too?!

Tensile loads are real, and they are absolutely everywhere.

Did you read the next sentence -

Within objects, material bonds create an attractive force, so you end up with tensile (pulling) forces within a material under load.

My point is that all contact mechanics are built from repulsive forces (pushing), not attractive forces (pulling).  Do you disagree?

Sorry, I barely glanced at the following parts, as thereís plenty wrong with the first bit.  But, yes, I still strongly disagree.

The big problem is saying that the forces are fundamentally pushing.  Why fundamentally?  Youíre talking about very localised forces, that are very dependent on the method of fixing the parts, which you can change without altering the overall system.  And no, not all contact mechanics are compressive.  What about welding, brazing or adhesive?

In the case of pulling a wagon, you could swap out a chain or hook with a cable welded to it.  It doesnít fundamentally change what youíre doing, which is pulling a wagon.

Maybe I am being unclear, or just incorrect. But my understanding is that between two independent objects, if you ignore gravity, magnetism, and weak nonionic van der waals forces, there will only be repulsive forces involved in contact mechanics. That is on each surface boundary there will only be repulsive forces, as these arise from electrostatic molecular interaction at the contact point that are completely repulsive in nature.

Internal forces instead depend on material bond energies, which under deformation can be either repulsive or attractive, so you can certainly generate internal attractive forces between any two continuous points in the object. 

So in the case of a chain, all exterior forces on the surface of each link will be repulsive,  (the contact force having a vector AWAY from the contact surface).  Meanwhile, within each link structure, there can indeed be tensile forces.

Does this make sense or have I just confused the matter further?  Happy to be incorrect as well, (well, maybe not happy, but totally okay with it), but cant think of a how an attractive surface force can actually be generated.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2021, 09:00:28 AM by sobchak »

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #533 on: February 20, 2021, 12:12:34 PM »

Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS, but just for you, here is your diagram:


Notice all that pulling?
You need a pull to explain why the chain holds itself together.
Without that pull, that chain just falls apart.

And this is even more important in a string/rope where if you tried to push the ends, it would just collapse, so we know it isn't the air magically pushing the other end.
There's no pulling. It's all friction grip and push. It is impossible to pull.

So what happened to the one chain link that ripped appart?

Was this answered or addressed?

So what happened to the one chain link that ripped appart?

Nm
It was addressed i see it now.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2021, 12:14:11 PM by Themightykabool »

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #534 on: February 20, 2021, 12:15:47 PM »

Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS, but just for you, here is your diagram:


Notice all that pulling?
You need a pull to explain why the chain holds itself together.
Without that pull, that chain just falls apart.

And this is even more important in a string/rope where if you tried to push the ends, it would just collapse, so we know it isn't the air magically pushing the other end.
There's no pulling. It's all friction grip and push. It is impossible to pull.

So what happened to the one chain link that ripped apart?
Pushed apart, as I showed you before Jacky defaced it.


Pushed appart from the hands friction gripping a pushing away from each other.

Ok good for THAT part
Whst about the part where the break happened?

Draw a dotted box around just the break.
What is happening at the break point?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #535 on: February 20, 2021, 12:49:05 PM »
Quote
Your stance is based solely on adherence to idols

I totally disagree.  I actually enjoy looking at different theories and models which explain how everything in the Universe works.  That's why I started making some investigations about how flat Earth theory/belief came about.  For example for those who lived during a certain era in the past I think it would have been perfectly reasonable - or logical to use your word - to think that the Earth was stationary and flat. Some people were happy and content to accept that as the right and only solution and I'm sure that you would find their reasons 'logical'

Others meanwhile continued to observe and scrutinise and gradually came to realise that some observations could not be fully explained satisfactorily if the Earth was a flat plane.  Was the Earth surface finite or infinite in terms of area? If it is finite then why has no one been able to find the 'edge'?  If it is infinite then why is it that some people had managed to circumnavigate the Earth? Setting off from point A and then returning to point A.

As equipment and technology advanced so more and more evidence started to accumulate which supported the theory that the Earth is a globe. While flat Earth belief survived the number of people who continued to support it dwindled. So flat Earth theory became more of a conspiracy theory and less of a serious scientific theory.

I am quite willing to consider any theory which I find logically correct.  And by logical I mean able to support everything that I have seen in the sky during my life. So far flat Earth theory is consistent only in its inconsistencies since different flat Earthers seem to believe different models.  Some say the Sun and Moon are just a few miles across and 3000 miles above the earth.  You on the other hand insist the Sun and Moon are not even real but some sort of holographic projection instead. Flat Earth theory is therefore far more confusing than it is simplifying. What are people new to flat Earth theory supposed to think? Is that what 'logical' is all about? I think not. The modern heliocentric model meanwhile explains everything very clearly and consistently and is therefore logical.   It has nothing to do with indoctrination because I have a brain of my own which is capable of making its own intepretations.

If you can explain to me why your theory is more logically correct universally compared to anything else then please do.  I don't know enough about your model though to make that decision.  No one seems to apart from you.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2021, 12:57:19 PM by Solarwind »

*

JackBlack

  • 21742
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #536 on: February 20, 2021, 01:03:14 PM »
When it's all looked at logically, it's all push.
Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS. You need a pull.

Putting up a link does not tell any story.
Yes it does, a very important story.
It is the link itself which requires pulling to hold itself together.
It shows that you are wrong.

Again, if there was no pull when a push is applied to that right side of the link indicated by the red arrow, then the right side of the link is pushed away leaving the rest behind.

You need a pull to explain why the left hand side (anything to the left of the black line) is moved along as well.

This is the entire point of limiting it to a single link.

When you are provided with multiple links in a chain you happily point out where the push is between the links of the chain, while completely ignoring where the pull is inside the links, and because you can show where some push is, you think that is the entire story.

If you like, here is a better version of your diagram, colour coded to show push and pull:

The regions indicated in green are the regions you happily discuss as you can show they are push.
The regions in blue you completely ignore because they require a pull, which you want to pretend doesn't exist.
It is theses regions in blue you need to discuss which is the very reason I provided a single link.
You need to explain how the link itself holds itself together such that it can transfer that force to the next link.
You need to explain how pushing the right side of the link to the right moves the left side of the link to the right when there is absolutely no way for it to push it.

I'll even go right down to molecular bonding if you feel the need to go that far.
It's all chain link like, so it's pretty easy.
i.e. you will continually push this problem of pulling back never actually addressing how anything solves it.
Trying to claim molecular bonding in the link is just more chain linking is not addressing the problem. You will still have links that you need to explain how they hold themselves together.

If you like, pretend it is an example of a single molecule or atom or whatever you want to pretend and explain how it holds itself together.

*

JackBlack

  • 21742
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #537 on: February 20, 2021, 01:27:13 PM »
I called flat Earth and alternate Earth's, silly because I was pig ignorant and believed the mass adherence to an absolute nonsensical spinning ball around a big fiery near million mile sun in a space vacuum.
Yet we can repeatedly demonstrate why your FE is pure nonsense and you are unable to show a single fault with the RE model and instead just repeatedly ridicule it.

We don't think FE is silly because we are ignorant or indoctrinated, but because we have honestly and rationally analysed the models and found them severely lacking, and have evidence some of which we have obtained ourselves, which clearly show the FE model is wrong.

My version is better....to me
And only to you.
To anyone who bothers to actually look at in honestly and rationally, they see it is severely lacking.
But you ignore all those problems, because of how much you hate the RE and how you so desperately need the RE model to be wrong.

People struggle with me
People "struggle" because you use whatever dishonest BS you can to try to prop up your complete failure of a model.
You refuse to provide explanations for quite simple things, only to then later claim you have explained it.
You continually ignore or dodge logical arguments, and dismiss any evidence that shows you are wrong as fake.

In my book, my logic is stripping down to the basics and seeing the reasoning and working.
Like stripping a chain down to the links and the connection between the links, and seeing that the connection between the links is a push, with each link "pushing" the next link along the chain, and also seeing that the individual links are a pull, where the pushed side of the link pulls the rest of that link along so it can push the next link along the chain.

Or stripping down the effect of the atmosphere on an object in it to the pressure, and how we have a higher pressure below than above, meaning this pressure will apply an upwards on all objects in the atmosphere.

Or stripping down the atmospheric stacking to see that in order for the pressure to increase their must be a force acting on each layer of air pushing/pulling it down, other than the layer of air above. And then, as there must be some force acting on the air to push it, it is likely that this same force acts on everything to push/pull it down.

Or stripping down inertia to objects resisting changes in motion based upon their mass, rather than the air which resists relative motion and pressure gradients.

I could explain but it will be lost on you in terms of discarded as pointless
You mean you can't actually explain it, so you will make up an excuse for why you aren't explaining it.

So, I suggest you look up what is classed as a planetarium and see how that works.
You mean complex artificial technology rather than any natural occurring phenomenon, and which produces a result nothing like what you need where everyone in the room can see the same ceiling with the same lights on it.

Also note that that is not a hologram, it is a projection.

Utility, extension, and prediction.  The tests of any explanatory framework.
Maybe you need to elaborate on this.
It is really quite simple, even a complete imbecile should understand.

Utility is the ability to actually do practical things with it, which to some extent relate to the latter 2 points.
For example, understanding the quantum world has allowed us to construct very small transistors which are in turn used to produce processors which power computers. This understanding has great utility as it has allowed us to construct computers and make lots of things so much simpler.

Extension is the ability to take something learned from one thing and apply/extend it to another thing, and this has significant implications for utility and is also based upon prediction.
For example, understanding electromagnetism has allowed us to construct large motors. The tests for it were quite small, with just simple wires with low currents. But we can extend that to more complex problems such as a winding in a motor.
This can also work in the opposite manner to show that a framework is limited in only applying to a specific set of circumstances/conditions and a more general (and complex) framework would cover more circumstances/conditions.

Prediction is the ability to calculate or determine what should happen based upon that framework. This prediction allows you to extend from the simple tests you have done to more useful and complex situations.

Applying this to what is being discussed, gravity, inertia and simple fluid dynamics has great utility, extension and prediction.
We understand gravity quite well from experiments conducted on Earth. This has allowed us to create aircraft and spacecraft, including those in orbit providing communication to remote areas and GPS and lots of pictures of Earth which are used for weather prediction. And this was only possible because we can predict what the effects of gravity, inertia and fluids are, including the forces involved and the direction and magnitude of these forces.

Conversely your model has no predictive or extension capability as you have no explanation for any of the forces involved, and your model repeatedly contradicts itself. Until you actually do the thing you have no way of knowing what should happen. For example, an object is in a pressure gradient, which way does it go? Well that depends upon which part of your magic is applying and which part applies will change to match the outcome. This complete lack of predictive capability means you cannot extend it to things you haven't tested yet and makes it entirely useless.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #538 on: February 20, 2021, 03:17:44 PM »

Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS, but just for you, here is your diagram:


Notice all that pulling?
You need a pull to explain why the chain holds itself together.
Without that pull, that chain just falls apart.

And this is even more important in a string/rope where if you tried to push the ends, it would just collapse, so we know it isn't the air magically pushing the other end.
There's no pulling. It's all friction grip and push. It is impossible to pull.

So what happened to the one chain link that ripped apart?
Pushed apart, as I showed you before Jacky defaced it.


Pushed appart from the hands friction gripping a pushing away from each other.

Ok good for THAT part
Whst about the part where the break happened?

Draw a dotted box around just the break.
What is happening at the break point?
The break is the culmination of friction/heat and the expansion of the molecular make up within the link..especially at the breaking point.
The more push the more expansion and the more friction and the more, squeeze.

There's nothing in there that pulls. Everything is crush or squeeze or  basically, push.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #539 on: February 20, 2021, 03:52:01 PM »
Quote
The break is the culmination of friction/heat and the expansion of the molecular make up within the link

Quote
Everything is crush or squeeze

Aren't these two statements contradictory?  The break is the culmination of expansion of molecular bonds which is to pull apart.  Correct. Then in the next sentence you say everything is being crushed or squeezed which is being pushed together or compression.

Quote
The more push the more expansion

Pushing does not cause expansion.  It causes compression.

So which is it?

« Last Edit: February 20, 2021, 03:55:39 PM by Solarwind »