ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

  • 1904 Replies
  • 39943 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #930 on: March 08, 2021, 02:24:33 AM »


But are you bothered by you own internal inconsistencies?


What inconsistencies?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #931 on: March 08, 2021, 02:31:27 AM »
But are you bothered by you own internal inconsistencies?
What inconsistencies?
The one he pointed out and you ignored.
If others cannot explain something "simply" then you dismiss it as nonsense, yet you cannot explain your nonsense "simply", but still accept it.

For example, can you explain (simply) the polarity of magnets? If not, why don't you dismiss your claims as nonsense?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #932 on: March 08, 2021, 03:37:22 AM »
But are you bothered by you own internal inconsistencies?
What inconsistencies?
The one he pointed out and you ignored.
If others cannot explain something "simply" then you dismiss it as nonsense, yet you cannot explain your nonsense "simply", but still accept it.

For example, can you explain (simply) the polarity of magnets? If not, why don't you dismiss your claims as nonsense?
If I can't explain it enough for people like you to understand then I have to try and find a way to do that....but equally you people need to try your best to understand the set up from my side by understanding my overall theory of Earth which leads up to this.

Very few people have even got close.
Jane is one person that grasped a fair bit because she allowed herself to take out a fair chunk of other bias.


People like you spend far too much time jumping on one thing and then calling it dishonest and pathetic and all the rest of whatever comes out of your typing minds.
Don't get me wrong, you are welcome to carry that on but you create your own issues by doing it and you learn little to nothing about my set up.




Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #933 on: March 08, 2021, 04:15:07 AM »
You sre dishonest until you start drawibg some pictures and takinh photos of your tu-tube experiment

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #934 on: March 08, 2021, 05:18:18 AM »
You sre dishonest until you start drawibg some pictures and takinh photos of your tu-tube experiment
You stick to that and you're welcome to that thought.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #935 on: March 08, 2021, 06:22:20 AM »
Dodgdgodge.
The dodge ball champion continues his reign.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #936 on: March 08, 2021, 07:30:49 AM »
Regardless of what we do or don't believe, we all experience the same things.  If hold a pebble in my hand and let it go it falls.  How I explain that and how anyone else (including Sceptimatic) explains it is really irrelevant.  Things do what they do and that is really all that is important I think. 

So if Scepti wants to dismiss gravity as silly nonsense and attribute what we experience as gravity to some sort of atmospheric pressure then that's his prerogative.  As long as he understands his own explanations and they help him to understand the world better for him then what is the harm in that?

I once had difficulty understanding the photoelectric effect until a physics tutor I had at the time said think of it in terms of your pay slip.  Net pay (the energy of the photon released) = Gross pay (the incident photon energy) minus tax (the energy coefficient of the material concerned). 
« Last Edit: March 08, 2021, 07:37:54 AM by Solarwind »

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #937 on: March 08, 2021, 07:36:05 AM »
Things fall at a predictable rate.
I used this instead of gravity because he doesnt like the word.

However
The last few months (yes months) have been getting him to understand basic geometry.
Triangles and circles.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #938 on: March 08, 2021, 07:39:48 AM »
Absolutely they do.  And I agree atmospheric pressure is a bit more random and locally variable.  So if things falling were due to atmospheric pressure then I'm pretty sure the weight of things would vary considerably more across different parts of the world.  And even more local variations at the same height.  Also our weight would vary from day to day as atmospheric pressure varies. 
« Last Edit: March 08, 2021, 07:48:37 AM by Solarwind »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #939 on: March 08, 2021, 08:17:27 AM »
Understand the strength of atmospheric pressure and you understand the displacement of it and that return pressure back upon each dense mass.

People who simply think of wind blowing or walking in a breeze, will always struggle like hell to understand it.
The same reason people don't understand what is happening in a  so called vacuum chamber.

*

Stash

  • 7308
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #940 on: March 08, 2021, 10:13:23 AM »
How far from it? How do you define a near vacuum?
I don't.
Extreme low pressure is the best I can describe.
A vacuum is the absence of all attached matter in the terms of what you people accept.
This cannot happen, so a vacuum is a nothing meaning for reality.


 
Quote from: Stash

Does cutting down on the pressurized vibration of matter inside the container make a magnet weaker?
If it's extreme....yes.

What would you define as "extreme"? Given what normal at say sea level atmospheric pressure is, about 1 mbar, what would be the point where a magnet would weaken?
When pressure becomes so low that it cannot create much  pressure agitation.

Do humans have the ability to create a chamber that is extreme enough to make it so pressure becomes so low that it cannot create much pressure agitation? In other words, can we simulate an "extreme" low pressure according to your definition?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #941 on: March 08, 2021, 11:00:42 AM »
Quote
Understand the strength of atmospheric pressure

What causes pressure in the atmosphere do you think?  I would say gravity but obviously you deny gravity exists so what's your alternative?

You like simple explanations.. suitable for kids.  So here is an example that I found.

https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/atmospheric-pressure/604037

Reading through this you will see mention of another of your favourite words.  Compression.  So what do you think is causing the compression.  I'll give you a clue.  It begins with g.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2021, 11:04:19 AM by Solarwind »

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #942 on: March 08, 2021, 12:21:26 PM »
But are you bothered by you own internal inconsistencies?
What inconsistencies?
The one he pointed out and you ignored.
If others cannot explain something "simply" then you dismiss it as nonsense, yet you cannot explain your nonsense "simply", but still accept it.

For example, can you explain (simply) the polarity of magnets? If not, why don't you dismiss your claims as nonsense?
If I can't explain it enough for people like you to understand then I have to try and find a way to do that....but equally you people need to try your best to understand the set up from my side by understanding my overall theory of Earth which leads up to this.

Yes, you definitely need a way of simply and clearly explaining your ideas if you ever want anyone to grasp them. 

What do you think is stopping you from presenting it in a simple and clear manner?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #943 on: March 08, 2021, 12:37:15 PM »
Like a drawing.

*

JJA

  • 4202
  • Math is math!
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #944 on: March 08, 2021, 01:10:56 PM »
How far from it? How do you define a near vacuum?
I don't.
Extreme low pressure is the best I can describe.
A vacuum is the absence of all attached matter in the terms of what you people accept.
This cannot happen, so a vacuum is a nothing meaning for reality.

You are telling people who have worked with vacuums that they don't exist.

It's not the craziest thing you have claimed, but it's certainly up there.  If you can't understand it, it's not real, is that it?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #945 on: March 08, 2021, 01:39:31 PM »
If I can't explain it enough for people like you to understand then I have to try and find a way to do that....but equally you people need to try your best to understand the set up from my side by understanding my overall theory of Earth which leads up to this.
I have, the problem is that it is full of so many internal contradictions and has no chance of matching reality. But I still let you try to show that that is wrong by explaining these problems.

Simple logic shows that magnets, if they worked like you claim, would function fundamentally differently to how they are observed.
This should be enough to show your "explanation" for how magnets work cannot be correct as it predicts fundamentally different results.
At the very least, it shows there is a fundamental problem with your model of how magnets work.

I am doing my best to understand how magnets work using air, but I find what you say impossible to reconcile with the observed behaviour of magnets.
Simple logic tells me that with a flow of air you have one section flowing outwards, pushing anything there away, and another section flowing inwards, pushing anything towards the magnet.

Even ignoring the the different magnetic properties of materials, this is irreconcilable with the observed interactions of 2 magnets.
The above should result in 2 of these outward flows repelling each other as they push each other away and 2 of the inwards flows attracting each other as the air pushes them towards each other so they "attract" one another.
The more complex way would be if you have an outwards flow and an inward flow. For this I think it would depend upon which flow is stronger, with a weaker overall interaction than the above arrangement.
If the outwards flow is stronger, it should push the other magnet away. If the inwards flow is stronger it should "attract" the other magnet.

This means if you have 2 magnets, with one stronger than the other, when you have them set up to have the 2 inwards flows pointing towards each other, they "attract".
If you turn both magnets around 180 degrees, then the 2 outwards flows are pointing towards each other, they repel.

From either of those set ups, if you turn the weaker magnet, then it would be the same as if you didn't, but with a weaker interaction.
Note that this means if you have it set up with them attracting, and turn both magnets around, it will still repel.

So overall, if you turn both magnets around, you switch between repulsion and attraction.
If you turn a single magnet around, it depends on if you turn around the strong or weak magnet.
Turning around the weak magnet will either weaken or intensify the interaction, turning around the strong magnet switches it like turning around both.

Doing my best to understand, using what you have said and simple logic, that is what your model indicates should happen.
And you are yet to point out any part of that understanding which is wrong.
If you think part of this understanding is wrong, please point out what part you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, explaining simply how it should work.

The problem comes when you compare this prediction with reality.
In reality, there does not appear to be an attractive and repulsive pole. Instead there appears to be 2 poles, where opposite poles attract and like poles repel.
If you take 2 magnets and put different poles towards each other, they attract. If you turn both around 180 degrees, they still attract. If you turn either magnet around (but not both), then they repel. From this repelling arrangement, if you turn both around, they still repel.

Jane is one person that grasped a fair bit because she allowed herself to take out a fair chunk of other bias.
The main distinction between me and Jane is that Jane didn't point out all the problems.
She knew it didn't have any chance of matching reality due to all the problems with it, including how it contradicts reality and itself. But she just wanted to know everything your model had, rather than wanting a model to match reality.

People like you spend far too much time jumping on one thing and then calling it dishonest and pathetic and all the rest of whatever comes out of your typing minds.
No, I notice a key part of your model not matching reality.
I call your continual avoidance of that issue dishonest and pathetic and all the rest. For your model, it simply means it is wrong.

There are plenty of examples of this. The polarity of magnets is just the most recent.
Any time there is a problem with your model where it fails to match reality you do whatever you can to dodge this issue, even when it shows your model must be fundamentally wrong.
One tactic you use is to try to switch between different topics.
Yet you then tell me and others to just stick to one.

Understand the strength of atmospheric pressure and you understand the displacement of it and that return pressure back upon each dense mass.
Understand the pressure gradient and you understand that the atmosphere pushes things up, not down, as well as trying to crush it inwards, not down.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #946 on: March 09, 2021, 02:48:59 AM »
Do humans have the ability to create a chamber that is extreme enough to make it so pressure becomes so low that it cannot create much pressure agitation? In other words, can we simulate an "extreme" low pressure according to your definition?
The strength of the chamber is one thing. The ability to push against the external atmosphere with a pump to allow natural decompression of matter inside the chamber is also massively key.

We can simulate a very low pressure but not what you see inside a simple bell jar. That's not even close.
You need something that can create the pressures that are closer to the dome ceiling.
Super fluids/gases.



*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #947 on: March 09, 2021, 02:50:39 AM »
Quote
Understand the strength of atmospheric pressure

What causes pressure in the atmosphere do you think?  I would say gravity but obviously you deny gravity exists so what's your alternative?

You like simple explanations.. suitable for kids.  So here is an example that I found.

https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/atmospheric-pressure/604037

Reading through this you will see mention of another of your favourite words.  Compression.  So what do you think is causing the compression.  I'll give you a clue.  It begins with g.
How about you explain how gravity causes pressure.
Just explain it in your own words...nice and simple.

Don't go off on a frenzied dig at me, just explain what's going on.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #948 on: March 09, 2021, 03:00:54 AM »


Yes, you definitely need a way of simply and clearly explaining your ideas if you ever want anyone to grasp them. 

What do you think is stopping you from presenting it in a simple and clear manner?
I think I am presenting it in a simple and clear manner. The issue is in people piecing a little bit of the jigsaw from my side and to hold that piece in position to then add to it.

What I see is, people do that then discard it and go off on a tangent, then come right back to the first piece again.
I lose interest in those people and interest in further explanations.
I need to see a person grasp stuff and then we can move on.

A person grasping a little and then going into a big dig of " you're lying, you don't know sheet" and all the rest of it, then come back at me with, read up on it .

It just becomes pointless.

I await a person who is willing to actually go past the silver platter explanations of mainstream ideal, handed out by so called officials/authority...and go into alternate mode. That's the best way of understanding.


Anyone who hangs onto gravity without actually knowing what it is but accepts it for ease of life journey, will likely not legitimately try to understand alternates to that mindset.


I've come across many like you who make out you are trying to grasp stuff and then join the little play ground crowd of bullies who then go into nah nah frenzy.

Maybe you're the same, maybe you're not.
Let's see what you've got as well.

It has to work both ways and your mindset of " oh well, if you don't want to, it;'s up to you" carry on, gets you nowhere with me.

If you're genuine then ask the right questions and stick to it before you move on. Do it for you, not for anyone else.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #949 on: March 09, 2021, 03:03:26 AM »


You are telling people who have worked with vacuums that they don't exist.

It's not the craziest thing you have claimed, but it's certainly up there.  If you can't understand it, it's not real, is that it?
They don't exist.
If you want to re-engage then deal with low pressure and tell me how it works from your side.
Can you do that?

Explain it from start to finish and let's see what you have.
I'll question you on it.

By all means do your usual of " oh here we go, he wants us to do all the work" carry on...and if so, just take a back seat with me.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #950 on: March 09, 2021, 03:05:17 AM »
If I can't explain it enough for people like you to understand then I have to try and find a way to do that....but equally you people need to try your best to understand the set up from my side by understanding my overall theory of Earth which leads up to this.
I have, the problem is that it is full of so many internal contradictions and has no chance of matching reality. But I still let you try to show that that is wrong by explaining these problems.

Simple logic shows that magnets, if they worked like you claim, would function fundamentally differently to how they are observed.
This should be enough to show your "explanation" for how magnets work cannot be correct as it predicts fundamentally different results.
At the very least, it shows there is a fundamental problem with your model of how magnets work.

I am doing my best to understand how magnets work using air, but I find what you say impossible to reconcile with the observed behaviour of magnets.
Simple logic tells me that with a flow of air you have one section flowing outwards, pushing anything there away, and another section flowing inwards, pushing anything towards the magnet.

Even ignoring the the different magnetic properties of materials, this is irreconcilable with the observed interactions of 2 magnets.
The above should result in 2 of these outward flows repelling each other as they push each other away and 2 of the inwards flows attracting each other as the air pushes them towards each other so they "attract" one another.
The more complex way would be if you have an outwards flow and an inward flow. For this I think it would depend upon which flow is stronger, with a weaker overall interaction than the above arrangement.
If the outwards flow is stronger, it should push the other magnet away. If the inwards flow is stronger it should "attract" the other magnet.

This means if you have 2 magnets, with one stronger than the other, when you have them set up to have the 2 inwards flows pointing towards each other, they "attract".
If you turn both magnets around 180 degrees, then the 2 outwards flows are pointing towards each other, they repel.

From either of those set ups, if you turn the weaker magnet, then it would be the same as if you didn't, but with a weaker interaction.
Note that this means if you have it set up with them attracting, and turn both magnets around, it will still repel.

So overall, if you turn both magnets around, you switch between repulsion and attraction.
If you turn a single magnet around, it depends on if you turn around the strong or weak magnet.
Turning around the weak magnet will either weaken or intensify the interaction, turning around the strong magnet switches it like turning around both.

Doing my best to understand, using what you have said and simple logic, that is what your model indicates should happen.
And you are yet to point out any part of that understanding which is wrong.
If you think part of this understanding is wrong, please point out what part you think is wrong and why you think it is wrong, explaining simply how it should work.

The problem comes when you compare this prediction with reality.
In reality, there does not appear to be an attractive and repulsive pole. Instead there appears to be 2 poles, where opposite poles attract and like poles repel.
If you take 2 magnets and put different poles towards each other, they attract. If you turn both around 180 degrees, they still attract. If you turn either magnet around (but not both), then they repel. From this repelling arrangement, if you turn both around, they still repel.

Jane is one person that grasped a fair bit because she allowed herself to take out a fair chunk of other bias.
The main distinction between me and Jane is that Jane didn't point out all the problems.
She knew it didn't have any chance of matching reality due to all the problems with it, including how it contradicts reality and itself. But she just wanted to know everything your model had, rather than wanting a model to match reality.

People like you spend far too much time jumping on one thing and then calling it dishonest and pathetic and all the rest of whatever comes out of your typing minds.
No, I notice a key part of your model not matching reality.
I call your continual avoidance of that issue dishonest and pathetic and all the rest. For your model, it simply means it is wrong.

There are plenty of examples of this. The polarity of magnets is just the most recent.
Any time there is a problem with your model where it fails to match reality you do whatever you can to dodge this issue, even when it shows your model must be fundamentally wrong.
One tactic you use is to try to switch between different topics.
Yet you then tell me and others to just stick to one.

Understand the strength of atmospheric pressure and you understand the displacement of it and that return pressure back upon each dense mass.
Understand the pressure gradient and you understand that the atmosphere pushes things up, not down, as well as trying to crush it inwards, not down.
Break that down into one thing at a time and I'll deal with it.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #951 on: March 09, 2021, 03:19:09 AM »
Quote
How about you explain how gravity causes pressure.
Just explain it in your own words...nice and simple.

Sure.  Molecules making up the atmosphere are pulled down towards Earth surface by gravity.  That is why atmosphere is more dense at surface level.  Because upper layers are pushing down on lower levels creating more pressure at the surface.

Prove me wrong.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #952 on: March 09, 2021, 03:54:18 AM »
Quote
How about you explain how gravity causes pressure.
Just explain it in your own words...nice and simple.

Sure.  Molecules making up the atmosphere are pulled down towards Earth surface by gravity.
Explain the pull down towards Earth.
If it's gravity then explain what the gravity pull is.


Quote from: Solarwind
  That is why atmosphere is more dense at surface level.

More dense due to a pull?

Quote from: Solarwind
  Because upper layers are pushing down on lower levels creating more pressure at the surface.

Prove me wrong.
How are upper layers pushing down on lower layers to create more pressure?

If it's gravity then show me how and why it works to now become a push, whereas is was a pull, previous, by your reckoning.

*

sokarul

  • 18476
  • Discount Chemist
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #953 on: March 09, 2021, 03:59:13 AM »
While you wait for a response why not explain how an atom, which is measured in the nanometer range, can expand to be meters in size.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #954 on: March 09, 2021, 04:23:48 AM »
At ground level there is more atmosphere above us than there is below us. All of that air is being pulled down towards the Earths core (and centre of gravity) so we experience more pressure at surface level than we would in the stratosphere.

Imagine lying down and having one person lying on top of you.  You would feel the weight of that person lying on top of you as pressure.  Now imagine ten people lying on top of you.  How much pressure do you feel compared to people higher up the pile.

Now think of divers.  Divers experience greater pressures the deeper they dive because they have more water above them being pulled down by gravity. 


Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #955 on: March 09, 2021, 07:06:39 AM »


Yes, you definitely need a way of simply and clearly explaining your ideas if you ever want anyone to grasp them. 

What do you think is stopping you from presenting it in a simple and clear manner?
I think I am presenting it in a simple and clear manner. The issue is in people piecing a little bit of the jigsaw from my side and to hold that piece in position to then add to it.

What I see is, people do that then discard it and go off on a tangent, then come right back to the first piece again.
I lose interest in those people and interest in further explanations.
I need to see a person grasp stuff and then we can move on.

A person grasping a little and then going into a big dig of " you're lying, you don't know sheet" and all the rest of it, then come back at me with, read up on it .

It just becomes pointless.

I await a person who is willing to actually go past the silver platter explanations of mainstream ideal, handed out by so called officials/authority...and go into alternate mode. That's the best way of understanding.


Anyone who hangs onto gravity without actually knowing what it is but accepts it for ease of life journey, will likely not legitimately try to understand alternates to that mindset.


I've come across many like you who make out you are trying to grasp stuff and then join the little play ground crowd of bullies who then go into nah nah frenzy.

Maybe you're the same, maybe you're not.
Let's see what you've got as well.

It has to work both ways and your mindset of " oh well, if you don't want to, it;'s up to you" carry on, gets you nowhere with me.

If you're genuine then ask the right questions and stick to it before you move on. Do it for you, not for anyone else.

Okay, lets get back to your concept of magnetism then!

I read carefully everything you said,  and I am wondering if my understanding of your concept correct -

There is atmosphere consisting of molecules around the magnet.  Degraded bits of these atmospheric molecules (like hydrogen), get pushed through the structure of the magnet.  They go in one side and are pushed out the other side (from high to low back to high pressure), then circle back along the sides of the magnet in order to go back into the magnet in a loop. 

Is this right?  If not, can you clarify to make it so?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #956 on: March 09, 2021, 07:48:26 AM »
While you wait for a response why not explain how an atom, which is measured in the nanometer range, can expand to be meters in size.
It can't.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #957 on: March 09, 2021, 07:51:17 AM »
At ground level there is more atmosphere above us than there is below us. All of that air is being pulled down towards the Earths core (and centre of gravity) so we experience more pressure at surface level than we would in the stratosphere.

Imagine lying down and having one person lying on top of you.  You would feel the weight of that person lying on top of you as pressure.  Now imagine ten people lying on top of you.  How much pressure do you feel compared to people higher up the pile.

Now think of divers.  Divers experience greater pressures the deeper they dive because they have more water above them being pulled down by gravity.
Is gravity a pull? Or is it a push, as far as you're concerned?

You say push and pull, so explain the pull and push.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #958 on: March 09, 2021, 07:55:29 AM »
As far as I'm concerned gravity is a pull.   I am standing on the Earth because the centre of gravity (centre of the Earth) is pulling me towards it.  However the surface of the Earth itself is pushing back against that with equal magnitude.  So there is no resultant force and so I go nowhere. A state or equilibrium exists.

If a sink hole was to suddenly open up beneath me I would fall into it.  The equilibrium would be broken so I would be pulled nearer to the centre of gravity. I would continue to fall until I reached another solid surface (bottom of the hole for example).  Further I fall the faster I will fall.

The rate of acceleration due to gravity is always the same regardless of where you are on Earth.  How would you explain that using atmospheric pressure because the pressure of the atmosphere varies with both height and locally.  Hence we have wind and weather.  Isobars are regions of equal air pressure.  So according to you as air pressure varies so too would our weight.

Gravity, in our experience up to now is only ever an attractive force though.  A an attractive force which exists between two masses. 
« Last Edit: March 09, 2021, 07:59:59 AM by Solarwind »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #959 on: March 09, 2021, 07:55:46 AM »


Okay, lets get back to your concept of magnetism then!

I read carefully everything you said,  and I am wondering if my understanding of your concept correct -

There is atmosphere consisting of molecules around the magnet.  Degraded bits of these atmospheric molecules (like hydrogen), get pushed through the structure of the magnet.  They go in one side and are pushed out the other side (from high to low back to high pressure), then circle back along the sides of the magnet in order to go back into the magnet in a loop. 

Is this right?  If not, can you clarify to make it so?
Sort of, yes.