ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

  • 2289 Replies
  • 191565 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #360 on: February 13, 2021, 12:46:41 PM »
What do you mean it depends on the mass of the object and is innate to the object?
[/quote]
They are all pretty simple English words.

It means that you need to apply a force to accelerate the object and that force is proportional to the mass of the object, and in fact that is one of the ways to determine the mass of the object. It being innate means it is a natural property of the mass.
To go any further would require an understanding of the Higg's field which causes mass.

Also, I've already told you it's mass against atmosphere, for mine.
Again, I don't care if you keep telling me it's mass against atmosphere. That explains nothing and goes directly against how aerodynamics work.

But let's deal with this gravity. I want to see how much you know, by explaining.
Like I said, stop with the pathetic deflections. It is time for you to start explaining your BS rather than trying to continually deflect to another topic.

Quote
Conversely for a helium filled balloon, its density is less than that of air and thus the buoyant force wins and the object floats up.
The helium filled balloon rises as the denser air around it falls down.

Correct. The helium balloon will continue to rise until it reaches an altitude where the density of the air surrounding the balloon matches the density inside the balloon. It is natures way to try to reach an equilibrium state.
Explain it with gravity.
I already did, back in this post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87840.msg2304268#msg2304268
and like I predicted, you just ignored it and asked for the explanation again.
Why do you continually ask for that which has already been provided?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #361 on: February 14, 2021, 01:11:59 AM »
What I want to know from Sceptimatic is how you can calculate your weight without using gravity.  Since according to him gravity as we understand it to be doesn't exist, how does he work out his weight. 

I have gone through the calculation for how I calculated my weight using my bathroom scales.  So I would like a similar explanation including work through with figures from Sceptimatic of how you can calculate the weight of a person or indeed anything without using the acceleration due to gravity.

He always asks us to explain things according to what we believe so that is exactly what I have done.  Over to you for yours now Scepti.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2021, 03:37:49 AM by Solarwind »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #362 on: February 14, 2021, 05:26:44 AM »
Quote
Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.

1.  Gravity produces a pressure gradient in a fluid.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Quote from: sobchak
2.  This pressure gradient results in a net upwards surface force on an immersed object.

Can you give me an example and explain what's going on with it?

Quote from: sobchak
3.  Gravity exerts a downward body force between any object and the earths center of mass.

Again, can you give me an example of this and explain what's happening?

Quote from: sobchak
4.  There are therefore two forces on a body submerged in a fluid under gravity.
How do the two forces work?
 
Quote from: sobchak
5.  The object goes up or down depending on which of these forces is dominant.

Can you give me an example and tell me how you know it to be the truth, according to you?

Quote from: sobchak
6.  For a helium balloon in the atmosphere, the net upward surface force is greater than the downward body force, so the balloon rises.
Explain what is happening to the helium balloon.



Quote from: sobchak
This isn’t that advanced.  The fact that you can’t even come close to understanding it is not at this point surprising, but is still a little sad.
Try and make me not so sad by explaining it in the reality you believe.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #363 on: February 14, 2021, 05:31:39 AM »
Quote
Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?
The whole premise of your Earth working as you seem to go along with, is this gravity. So, explain it.
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.

You sound like my grade 2 school teacher. Explain it. Explain how. Gravity has been explained to you a dozen times, in ways a child could comprehend. Each time you turn your upturned nose up and say, "that doesn't explain anything", when it always does.

"Your earth" is actually our Earth. We all live on it, sceptic. Oh, that's right, my homework you set for me, was to explain to you how a gravimeter works, wasn't it?  My last explanation wasn't good enough for you, was it?
Gravity has never been explained as to what it is, only what it supposedly does.
Your gravimeter has never been explained by you or anyone else, except to say that it works.
How about explaining what gravity is and explain what this gravimeter does to tell you it's gravity it's measuring?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #364 on: February 14, 2021, 05:48:25 AM »
Its always the same with Scepti.  Explain this, explain that etc...  Then whenever we do try to explain how things actually work he immediately comes back with whatever BS he can think of to dismiss our explanations as complete nonsense.

Then whenever we ask him to explain anything he comes back at us with whatever excuse he can think of to avoid having to explain anything of his own nonsense.  Normally it is something along the lines of 'It's already been explained'.  Yeah?  Where exactly? 

So Scepti - what does the term 'resultant force' mean to you?  Then think about how strong the downward pulling force on the helium balloon is compared to the upward buoyancy force and then decide which way the balloon is going to move.  Up or down?
Differences between forces and the resultant percentage left over as the major force.
Your gravity is nonsense.
You go on about gravity acting on mass. If this was so, gravity would pull (no such thing as pull) that mass down and the lesser mass would be much more easily pulled (no such thing as pull) down.




Quote from: Solarwind
Quote
This gravity makes no sense, at all.

Doesn't it?  Why not? Seems pretty straight forward to me and that isn't just based on what I am 'told'.
It's not straightforward, at all. You say it is because you simply follow the word as your proof, based on nothing other than fictional story adherence, to be fair.

Quote from: Solarwind
Which bit don't you understand?
None of it as any reality.

Quote from: Solarwind
We all experience this thing that everyone else apart from you calls gravity in our everyday life. I stood on my bathroom scales this morning and they told me I weigh... well too much! 15st 10lb.  Converted to kg that comes to 99.

So I know my mass (from the scales) and from that I can work out my weight. So I could use that information to work out the Earths acceleration due to gravity could I not?  For example if I take my mass (as measured by me using my scales) as 99kg and I am 'told' that g is 9.81m/s2.  So I exert a force (f) on the scales of f=99x9.81 = 971.2N. The universal gravitational constant is 6.67e-11 and the Earths mass is given as 6e24kg. 

So if we plug those numbers into the well known and accepted equation we are all told we get that the radius of the Earth squared is (6.67e-11*6e24*99)/971.2.  That gives us 4.07e13 and if we sqr root that we get the radius of the Earth in metres since we are using SI units.  That comes to 6,387,071.86m or 6,387km.  The quoted figure is 6,371km.  That is a % error of less that 1% which I don't think is bad do you?  Obviously since the mass and radius of the Earth are involved in the calculation if I changed either or both of those based on whatever you think they should be then that would also affect my mass and weight which I have personally measured. No book can tell me my weight so I have to measure that myself.  Just what figures do you accept for the mass and radius of your Earth? That's just basic information.
This is just a load of accepted gobbledegook.



Quote from: Solarwind
But you say that gravity doesn't exist, so in that case what exactly are my bathroom scales telling me?
What is causing my bathroom scales to read 99kg?
They're telling you that your mass is displacing atmosphere and the resulting displaced pressure is pushing right back onto you and the scales, overcoming some spring resistance to create a person made measuring scale.


Quote from: Solarwind
  Perhaps you could explain it to me and give me your figures to show me how you reach the same result. Without any reference to gravity of course.
No need for figures. You only need those if you want to measure pressures. As for explaining, it simply needs logical and the ability to see past the gravity bull crap, in my honest opinion.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #365 on: February 14, 2021, 05:49:23 AM »

Again, I don't care if you keep telling me it's mass against atmosphere. That explains nothing and goes directly against how aerodynamics work.


No, it doesn't.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #366 on: February 14, 2021, 05:56:18 AM »
Quote
This is just a load of accepted gobbledegook.

How is my measured weight (by me) just 'accepted gobbledegook' as you so eloquently put it?  And how is it that when I enter my measured weight into a widely recognised equation I get consistent figures for the known mass and radius of the Earth?  The only gobbledegook around here is made up of your totally unqualified wild claims.

It's always the same with you.  You demand people explain things to you and show you things and then when they do you just dismiss it all as 'accepted gobbledegook'.  Yet you cannot an/or will not back up anything that you claim with actual figures. 

Probably because you can't.  No surprises there then.

What is the mass and radius of the Earth according to you?

Quote
Quote
No need for figures. You only need those if you want to measure pressures. As for explaining, it simply needs logical and the ability to see past the gravity bull crap, in my honest opinion.

So how then do you measure weight using pressure?  Pressure is force / area by the way.  So pressure would be a downward directed force towards the ground.  What is causing that downward force if it isn't due to gravity?
« Last Edit: February 14, 2021, 06:02:12 AM by Solarwind »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #367 on: February 14, 2021, 05:59:19 AM »
What I want to know from Sceptimatic is how you can calculate your weight without using gravity.  Since according to him gravity as we understand it to be doesn't exist, how does he work out his weight. 

I have gone through the calculation for how I calculated my weight using my bathroom scales.  So I would like a similar explanation including work through with figures from Sceptimatic of how you can calculate the weight of a person or indeed anything without using the acceleration due to gravity.

He always asks us to explain things according to what we believe so that is exactly what I have done.  Over to you for yours now Scepti.
You already resist a lot of air pressure upon you by your own displacement of it, of your own dense mass.
You have no weight at all unless you have something in which to measure that displacement. Enter the person(s) made scales that have numbers on and a spring which will determining how much your body's dense mass is resisting the atmospheric pressure upon it.


It's all been explained if you care to look.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #368 on: February 14, 2021, 06:01:44 AM »
Quote
This is just a load of accepted gobbledegook.

How is my measured weight (by me) just 'accepted gobbledegook' as you so eloquently put it?  And how is it that when I enter my measured weight into a widely recognised equation I get consistent figures for the known mass and radius of the Earth.

It's always the same with you.  You demand people explain things to you and show you things and then when they do you just dismiss it all as 'accepted gobbledegook'.  Yet you cannot back up anything that you claim with actual figures. 

Probably because you can't.  No surprises there then.

What is the mass and radius of the Earth according to you?

Quote
Quote
No need for figures. You only need those if you want to measure pressures. As for explaining, it simply needs logical and the ability to see past the gravity bull crap, in my honest opinion.

So how then do you measure weight using pressure?  Pressure is force / area by the way.  So pressure would be a downward directed force towards the ground.  What is causing that downward force if it isn't due to gravity?
Let's make this abundantly clear. You have absolutely no clue what the mass of the Earth is. You absolutely do not. Your reliance is completely on authority and you appeal to it as and when you feel it's needed.

Don't lie to yourself and pretend you know the Earth's mass. It's ridiculous and I'm well within my rights to call it out.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #369 on: February 14, 2021, 06:08:11 AM »
Quote
Let's make this abundantly clear.

There is one thing that is abundantly clear to me. And that is that you cannot explain anything you claim.  I have shown you how I can make a very simple measurement with nothing other than a set of bathroom scales and then use that figure to calculate and verify the mass of the Earth, the gravitational acceleration and the radius of the Earth. All of which has been measured and re-measured many, many times. 

Quote
Don't lie to yourself and pretend you know the Earth's mass.

I have just calculated the Earths mass using my weight.  So how can I 'pretend' to know the Earths mass when I have just worked it out using some simple maths and something I have measured myself? 

Quote
Your reliance is completely on authority

No my reliance is based on using my brain to solve a problem and prove something to myself.

As I said, if I change the value of any of these it will immediately give me a different value for my weight.  Which I would then know is wrong because it would be different from my measured value.

What is abundantly clear to me is that you cannot bring yourself to understand that or accept it.  Instead you would rather stick to your guns and believe whatever crazy ideas exist only in your head.  I am certainly not the one lying to myself here.  Just go and play with your tubes instead eh.

« Last Edit: February 14, 2021, 06:16:11 AM by Solarwind »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #370 on: February 14, 2021, 06:27:40 AM »


I have just calculated the Earths mass using my weight.  So how can I 'pretend' to know the Earths mass when I have just worked it out using some simple maths and something I have measured myself? 

If you think you can measure the Earth's mass by weighing yourself then you must be called Earth's Mass, or is it, Earthsmass. Is that your name or am I close?


Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #371 on: February 14, 2021, 07:08:06 AM »
Quote
Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.

1.  Gravity produces a pressure gradient in a fluid.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Quote from: sobchak
2.  This pressure gradient results in a net upwards surface force on an immersed object.

Can you give me an example and explain what's going on with it?

Quote from: sobchak
3.  Gravity exerts a downward body force between any object and the earths center of mass.

Again, can you give me an example of this and explain what's happening?

Quote from: sobchak
4.  There are therefore two forces on a body submerged in a fluid under gravity.
How do the two forces work?
 
Quote from: sobchak
5.  The object goes up or down depending on which of these forces is dominant.

Can you give me an example and tell me how you know it to be the truth, according to you?

Quote from: sobchak
6.  For a helium balloon in the atmosphere, the net upward surface force is greater than the downward body force, so the balloon rises.
Explain what is happening to the helium balloon.



Quote from: sobchak
This isn’t that advanced.  The fact that you can’t even come close to understanding it is not at this point surprising, but is still a little sad.
Try and make me not so sad by explaining it in the reality you believe.

Why don't you go and actually try to learn this yourself, you lazy sod?

Maybe if you could be bothered to spend a fraction of the time on it that you spend repeating your nonsense, you might understand how it works, and why your ideas very clearly don't. 

Instead you use the product of advanced physics and engineering to arrogantly claim you know better than every single physicist and engineer who's lived for hundreds of years.


Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #372 on: February 14, 2021, 08:11:23 AM »
Quote
If you think you can measure the Earth's mass by weighing yourself then you must be called Earth's Mass, or is it, Earthsmass. Is that your name or am I close?

I more than think I can.  I have actually demonstrated I can.  If you weren't so obsessed with your own self-denial about simple concepts in science and your 'Sceptimatic is always right' state of mind then you would see that I have. 

There is this equation that we use and has been used for a long time now.  You need two masses and a distance between those masses.  As long as I have one mass I can calculate the other.  It's not hard. That's what we do in science. Just to re-iterate you have two constants (G and g) one of which is universal and one is specific to the Earth.  As long as I know my mass then I can work out both the mass of the Earth and the radius of the Earth.  Clearly you cannot get your head around that can you.  Working the same method backwards, can you not see if the Earths mass and radius were any different to what we are 'told' then I would get a discrepancy between the measured value for my weight and my calculated value. That would tell me something was wrong somewhere.  As it is there was a less than 1% difference in my calculation.

You seem to get very annoyed when people show how they can prove things very simply which go against your beliefs don't you.  You also seem to dismiss any experiment that you haven't dictated to us how to do or what to do. 

How do you work out your weight?  You talk about pressure.  OK so what is pressure? Force/Area.  In the case of weight that force is a downward (towards the ground) force. So where does the force come from if not from gravity?  Why does atmospheric pressure decrease with height? Weight is a force.  F=ma.  My mass is a physical property of me and will be the same where ever I am.  So why do astronauts in the ISS float?  Because they are further away from the Earth and hence F is less.

None of us are your servants.  It's not a case of you say jump and we say how high.  We give you the information that would otherwise help you actually learn something but no... Scepti would prefer to just sit there and live in denial.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2021, 08:44:07 AM by Solarwind »

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #373 on: February 14, 2021, 12:15:15 PM »
Again, I don't care if you keep telling me it's mass against atmosphere. That explains nothing and goes directly against how aerodynamics work.
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it explain nothing, just like I said.
Now again, care to try providing an explanation?
As a hint, we know that air provides a force based upon pressure and area.

1.  Gravity produces a pressure gradient in a fluid.
Can you explain what you mean by this?
Again, why continually ask for explanations for things that have been explained to you countless times.

Remember the thread which you fled from because you couldn't explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere (or anywhere)?
It was all explained there, complete with a little diagram to show what is needed to explain pressure gradient you couldn't explain.
Remember this:


Now stop playing dumb.

Your gravity is nonsense.
You go on about gravity acting on mass. If this was so, gravity would pull (no such thing as pull) that mass down and the lesser mass would be much more easily pulled (no such thing as pull) down.
No, your objection is nonsense.
If gravity acts on mass, i.e. creates a force, real or apparent, based upon the mass of the object, (just like the columbic force applies a force based upon the charge and so on), then the larger the mass, the greater the force. This means the greater mass would have a larger force acting on it than the lesser mass.

It's not straightforward, at all.
It is quite straight forward, but you hate it, and need to deny it at all costs, so you come up with whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend it must be wrong.
Just like you use whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid admitting your wild claims are pure garbage, even massively changing the topic, where you have now almost completely fled from your inability to defend your nonsense replacement for inertia (ending with a mere denial).


They're telling you that your mass is displacing atmosphere and the resulting displaced pressure is pushing right back onto you and the scales, overcoming some spring resistance to create a person made measuring scale.
See, this is an example of something which makes no sense at all and is not straight forward at all.
When you displace the atmosphere, it pushes back FROM ALL DIRECTIONS!
It doesn't magically push you down.
In fact, as the pressure is greater the lower down you are, it actually pushes you UP, in complete defiance of your BS.

In order to have your BS work, you need to explain how the air magically pushes things down.

As for explaining, it simply needs logical and the ability to see past the gravity bull crap, in my honest opinion.
And as has been made abundantly clear, your claims require a complete rejection of logic and reality and self-delusion.
You are yet to explain anything, probably because you can't.

Shall we go back to the most basic thing in your model, the pressure gradient, and see if you can explain that yet?
Again, what magic causes the increase in pressure as you go down your "stack"

You have no weight at all unless you have something in which to measure
As has been explained to you repeatedly, if that was the case we would float.
The fact that we don't, and instead fall to the ground, shows measuring is irrelevant.
We have weight regardless of it is measured.

It's all been explained if you care to look.
By mainstream science, which you reject (although I wouldn't say all, as there is always a step further back you can go).
Meanwhile, you have explained nothing.

Let's make this abundantly clear. You have absolutely no clue what the mass of the Earth is. You absolutely do not. Your reliance is completely on authority and you appeal to it as and when you feel it's needed.

Don't lie to yourself and pretend you know the Earth's mass. It's ridiculous and I'm well within my rights to call it out.
Again, this is because we are not paranoid and delusional.
If we really wanted to, we could determine the mass of Earth ourselves, the same way it was determined in the past.
So no, it is ridiculous for you to object to things like that, especially when you offer nothing in exchange.
Feel free to go and do the experiment yourself.

Now again, stop playing dumb, stop with the pathetic dishonest deflection, and explain your pure BS.
Explain how the air causes inertia such that all objects resist changes in motion based upon their mass, rather than another property actually related to the air with aerodynamics, such as volume or area? (and again, your garbage idea of volume which is in no way supported by reality, doesn't help, not unless you can show no objects are air-tight).

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #374 on: February 14, 2021, 12:27:31 PM »
I just wonder how, in the world of Sceptimatic you can learn anything that you cannot personally prove as being true.  For instance there's no point in reading books because according to him that would be just believing or accepting stuff that we are 'told'.

So where would we be if we made a decision that we were going to live our lives out in total denial of anything and everything that we could not personally prove ourselves?

« Last Edit: February 14, 2021, 12:29:41 PM by Solarwind »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #375 on: February 14, 2021, 09:17:39 PM »


Why don't you go and actually try to learn this yourself, you lazy sod?

Maybe if you could be bothered to spend a fraction of the time on it that you spend repeating your nonsense, you might understand how it works, and why your ideas very clearly don't. 

Instead you use the product of advanced physics and engineering to arrogantly claim you know better than every single physicist and engineer who's lived for hundreds of years.
Ok I'll try and learn.
First of all I need to actually know what I'm learning. I mean, learning.
I don't want stories of old, told as stories of new.
I don't want to be told gravity is, so there. I want to learn what this gravity actually is in real time.
I want to know what it is and how it can be explained to become the force to do what it supposedly does.


Nobody's explained it in any realistic terms.

It'sd absolutely fine to go on about advanced physics...but show what that is by dumbing it right down to the basics of explanation instead of simply copy/paste what is to be parroted.

And as for me claiming to know better. No I don't. You people make that claim about me due to frustrations of not being able to batter the stuff you follow, into my head. You then claim I know I think I know better than scientists of hundreds of years, rather than just saying...today.
It's always harking back.

Why?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #376 on: February 14, 2021, 09:56:08 PM »
Quote
If you think you can measure the Earth's mass by weighing yourself then you must be called Earth's Mass, or is it, Earthsmass. Is that your name or am I close?

I more than think I can.  I have actually demonstrated I can.  If you weren't so obsessed with your own self-denial about simple concepts in science and your 'Sceptimatic is always right' state of mind then you would see that I have. 

There is this equation that we use and has been used for a long time now.  You need two masses and a distance between those masses.
Ok, let's sort this out. I'll start and  you can correct me.

You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?

If you think I'm being childish and simple....yes I am, because this is how you're coming across with your explanations, as thought it was just like this.

In nice steps like explaining it to a retard like myself, please. Enlighten me as to how it all works and forgive me if I stop you and quiz you as you go.



Quote from: Solarwind
As long as I have one mass I can calculate the other.  It's not hard. That's what we do in science. Just to re-iterate you have two constants (G and g) one of which is universal and one is specific to the Earth.
 As long as I know my mass then I can work out both the mass of the Earth and the radius of the Earth.  Clearly you cannot get your head around that can you.  Working the same method backwards, can you not see if the Earths mass and radius were any different to what we are 'told' then I would get a discrepancy between the measured value for my weight and my calculated value. That would tell me something was wrong somewhere.  As it is there was a less than 1% difference in my calculation.
Ok what is the G and what Is the g when pertaining to Earth and this universe thing?

Remember, explain it to me like I'm a retard.


Quote from: Solarwind
You seem to get very annoyed when people show how they can prove things very simply which go against your beliefs don't you.  You also seem to dismiss any experiment that you haven't dictated to us how to do or what to do.
Nahhhhh, I really don't. I do smirk now and again and do get bemused. It's a rarity that I get flustered. I used to years ago.

 
Quote from: Solarwind
How do you work out your weight?  You talk about pressure.  OK so what is pressure? Force/Area.
Weight is a man made concept. Understand that first.
It's a man made measure.
It's measured on a scale.
You accept that atmosphere has mass, right?
You also accept that for that mass to build up to the sky it has to stack.
You also know that anything stacked onto another will make the below stacks more compacts than the above.
You also must understand that, if you place a dense mass into that atmospheric stack, that dense mass will be compressed and that dense mass will resist that atmospheric stacking it is part of and under.

Place a scale plate under that dense mass and you will see how much the resistance and displacement of that atmosphere, is, on a scale reading by a spring, or sorts, that resists the crush onto that dense mass and then shows up a man made scale reading.


Pretty simple really and explainable to those who wish to actually throw away the magical stuff.


Quote from: Solarwind
In the case of weight that force is a downward (towards the ground) force. So where does the force come from if not from gravity?
The ground, up, for objects using that ground.
Or the sea up, for any object using the sea/water as the foundation of resistance to stacked pressure upon that mass.

Quote from: Solarwind
Why does atmospheric pressure decrease with height?
Less amount of atmospheric stacking.

Quote from: Solarwind
Weight is a force.  F=ma.
And?

Quote from: Solarwind
My mass is a physical property of me and will be the same where ever I am.
Yep...but understand what your real mass is. However, although your mass will be the same, it's how that mass is spread out as pressure upon  is lessened, or if pressure was increased then it would be the opposite in terms of how smaller and compressed that mass becomes.

Quote from: Solarwind
  So why do astronauts in the ISS float?
They don't. It fictional.

Quote from: Solarwind
  Because they are further away from the Earth and hence F is less.
No, they are not. Astronauts are not in any space.
hey may be underwater pretending to be in so called space, or whatever...but not what we're coaxed in accepting, In my view.


Quote from: Solarwind
None of us are your servants.
You do not need to ever respond to me. You make that choice. Don;t be anything and just forget I exist and you won't need to worry or whine.

Quote from: Solarwind
  It's not a case of you say jump and we say how high.
Correct...and this massively applies to you and your posse of globalists.

Quote from: Solarwind
We give you the information that would otherwise help you actually learn something but no... Scepti would prefer to just sit there and live in denial.
When I get info that I believe will help me, I'll be sure to let you now.

First of all, offer me genuine reality, not parroted theory passed off as some kind of peer reviewed fact, cloaked back into a theory as a security mechanism.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #377 on: February 14, 2021, 09:57:24 PM »
Again, I don't care if you keep telling me it's mass against atmosphere. That explains nothing and goes directly against how aerodynamics work.
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it explain nothing, just like I said.

Explain what gravity actually is and why it does what you claim it does.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #378 on: February 14, 2021, 09:58:59 PM »
I just wonder how, in the world of Sceptimatic you can learn anything that you cannot personally prove as being true.  For instance there's no point in reading books because according to him that would be just believing or accepting stuff that we are 'told'.

So where would we be if we made a decision that we were going to live our lives out in total denial of anything and everything that we could not personally prove ourselves?
I'm managing just fine as it is, so I must be ok in the middle of this mish mash of truth and fiction.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #379 on: February 14, 2021, 11:15:34 PM »
Explain what gravity actually is and why it does what you claim it does.
Again, STOP DEFLECTING!

Try to explain and justify your BS, or see if you can actually provide any problem with gravity. Because so far all you have done is completely misrepresent it and dismiss it as nonsense.

If you think "it's mass against atmosphere" is an explanation, then just what do you find wrong with the explanation for gravity?

Perhaps before anyone even attempts to try to explain gravity to you, you explain just what you think an explanation is and what level would be acceptable, because there will ALWAYS be another question for any explanation.

For example, will you accept Newton's idea of a force-field where by any mass creates a gravitational field and any object in that field will experience a force based upon the mass and the strength of that field?

Would you accept Einstein's curvature of space time where every object is travelling through normalised space-time at a rate of c, and any object with mass or energy will distort spacetime, curving it based upon the mass/energy, and objects travelling through this distorted spacetime will have motion through time converted into motion through space due to this distortion?

If not, just what would you accept? Perhaps you can provide an example by way of how you would explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, or how air causes inertia.

I just wonder how, in the world of Sceptimatic you can learn anything that you cannot personally prove as being true.  For instance there's no point in reading books because according to him that would be just believing or accepting stuff that we are 'told'.

So where would we be if we made a decision that we were going to live our lives out in total denial of anything and everything that we could not personally prove ourselves?
I'm managing just fine as it is, so I must be ok in the middle of this mish mash of truth and fiction.
But you aren't learning anything, you are just continuing to cling to fiction.

And as for me claiming to know better. No I don't.
Yes you do. You claim that what we all accept is pure BS and that you can easily see through the nonsense and so on and realise it is all BS.
That is claiming you know better.
The problem is that you cannot justify that claim in any way.

You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?
There are a few different ways. The simplest is if you have a calibrated set of scales which measure weight, which depends upon mass and gravity (i.e. F=mg).
If you don't have them calibrated there are ways to do so, based upon measuring g independently from mass, such as free fall acceleration.

An alternative is to measure how much of a particular fluid it displaces which it floats in, which returns its mass as a function of the mass of the fluid.

Another is to measure its resistance to acceleration.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #380 on: February 14, 2021, 11:16:08 PM »
Quote from: Solarwind
You seem to get very annoyed when people show how they can prove things very simply which go against your beliefs don't you.  You also seem to dismiss any experiment that you haven't dictated to us how to do or what to do.
Nahhhhh, I really don't.
Oh yes you do, such as when you entirely ignore explanations which have been provided because you cannot find fault with them, and how you ignore logical arguments until you can think of some excuse to dismiss it, and how you dismiss so much evidence as fake merely because it shows you are wrong.
So you most certainly do. The only question is how annoyed you get.


Quote from: Solarwind
How do you work out your weight?  You talk about pressure.  OK so what is pressure? Force/Area.
Weight is a man made concept. Understand that first.
Or, how about you understand reality first.
Weight is a very real thing, which exists completley independent on man.
Again, the fact things fall shows weight is very real.
It is not a man-made concept.
The fact we measure weight doesn't magically mean it is man made.
We are simply measuring something in reality.
Understand that first, before spouting so much BS about it.

You accept that atmosphere has mass, right?
You also accept that for that mass to build up to the sky it has to stack.
You also know that anything stacked onto another will make the below stacks more compacts than the above.
Due to gravity, which you dismiss and try to replace with something else.
Again, clearly explained by the simple diagram you hate as it shows the massive flaw in your argument.
Here is a simple schematic of a stack of anything, including air or any other fluid, or solid objects:


The green layer is being pushed down by the layer above, with a force of F.
In addition to that, it has gravity acting on it, applying a force of W.
This means the layer below which is supporting it has a force of F+W acting on it. This is greater than F and thus the force and pressure is greater at this lower layer.

Notice how this requires gravity, which you outright reject.
You need to explain what causes this extra force of W.

If it is just the air and you don't have gravity or anything like it, then there is no extra force and the mass of that layer is irrelevant.
Without this force of W, you have F=G, and there is no increase in pressure.

We can easily see this by turning the stack on its side.
If you take a simple spring and compress or stretch it between 2 objects horizontally, the force is constant throughout.

You can even try this yourself with a slinky.
Get a slinky, lie it on a table and pull the ends of the slinky to the sides of the table. Then measure how elongated any section is. You will find it is the same along the length (within measuring and manufacturing tolerances).

But now, suspend it by hanging it from the top.
Now you find that the top is stretched out far more than the bottom.
This is because the bottom only has to hold up its small weight, while the top has to hold up the weight of the entire slinky.
This is different to the above diagram as it is now under tension rather than compression, however technically when noting the sign of the force, it still applies as now F and G are now upwards, rather than downwards in the diagram.

Again, this is all explained perfectly with gravity providing weight to all mass.
But your nonsense rejects that.
If it is just air pushing it down, there is no increase in force at all and the atmosphere should have the same pressure throughout.

So in your attempt to explain and justify an alternative to gravity you are implicitly appealing to it.

So can you explain this pressure gradient, just using your system, rather than appeal to clear evidence of gravity?

will resist that atmospheric stacking it is part of and under.
Why not above?

Place a scale plate under that dense mass and you will see how much the resistance and displacement of that atmosphere, is, on a scale reading by a spring, or sorts, that resists the crush onto that dense mass and then shows up a man made scale reading.
No, you will see the force of gravity pushing it down.
If you want to see the effect of the atmosphere, there are 2 options, one is to ensure the entire scale and the object are sealed in an airtight bag, with no air in there at all (or only a negligible amount). Then you see the air exert a force based upon the AREA of the scales, not the volume, not the mass.
The other option, to see the effect of the pressure gradient (i.e. the stack), you can compare the weight of the object in different fluids, or no fluid. With this you see the air applies an upwards force, not a downwards one.

This has all already been pointed out to you. Stop playing dumb.

Pretty simple really and explainable to those who wish to actually throw away the magical stuff.
Yes, when we throw away your magical nonsense and instead stick to the very real gravity it is trivial to explain.

But with your nonsense, you can't even explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere.

The ground, up, for objects using that ground.
And for objects in mid air?

Quote from: Solarwind
Why does atmospheric pressure decrease with height?
Less amount of atmospheric stacking.
You need to explain why this stacking causes a pressure gradient in the first place, without appealing to gravity.

it's how that mass is spread out as pressure upon  is lessened, or if pressure was increased then it would be the opposite in terms of how smaller and compressed that mass becomes.
But increasing pressure reduces your weight, not increases it, due to the buoyant force increasing.

It fictional.
There you go rejecting reality and evidence again.

When I get info that I believe will help me, I'll be sure to let you now.
By which I take it you mean when you get info that will help you attack reality that you hate and prop up your delusional nonsense?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #381 on: February 15, 2021, 12:03:49 AM »
Quote
Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?
The whole premise of your Earth working as you seem to go along with, is this gravity. So, explain it.
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.

You sound like my grade 2 school teacher. Explain it. Explain how. Gravity has been explained to you a dozen times, in ways a child could comprehend. Each time you turn your upturned nose up and say, "that doesn't explain anything", when it always does.

"Your earth" is actually our Earth. We all live on it, sceptic. Oh, that's right, my homework you set for me, was to explain to you how a gravimeter works, wasn't it?  My last explanation wasn't good enough for you, was it?
Gravity has never been explained as to what it is, only what it supposedly does.
Your gravimeter has never been explained by you or anyone else, except to say that it works.
How about explaining what gravity is and explain what this gravimeter does to tell you it's gravity it's measuring?

I'm not a scientist, so any answer you get from me will be a quote, or other people's ideas.

Simply put, "Gravity is a natural phenomenon. It is a natural phenomenon where things of mass or energy are brought towards each other."

More specifically, Newton's law of universal gravitation describes what gravity is, as, "A force. Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects."

Or alternatively, "Einstein's general relativity describes gravity is as a result of space time curvature."

In my own words, gravity is the phenomenon whereby density of a mass and proximity to a second mass determine the strength of attraction between those two objects.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #382 on: February 15, 2021, 12:12:53 AM »
Quote
Explain it with gravity.

You are the one who dismisses gravity as a load of c**p so you explain it with gravity.   When did I mention gravity?
Explain how gravity allows a helium balloon to rise into the sky.

1.  Gravity produces a pressure gradient in a fluid.

Can you explain what you mean by this?


Sure, but first can you let me know what you do and don't understand about this?  It has been explained to you by others, what did you understand and what is still eluding you? 

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: sobchak
2.  This pressure gradient results in a net upwards surface force on an immersed object.

Can you give me an example and explain what's going on with it?



Sure, imagine a solid object submerged in a liquid.  The liquid exerts a pressure over the entire surface of the object.  Now visualize that there is a pressure gradient in the fluid. This means the pressure on one side of the object will be lower than the pressure at the other side.  What will this difference in pressure through the fluid do to the object?  If you want, you can think about holding an object with pressure between your two hands - if you press equally with both hands, the object doesn't move, if you push harder with one side than the other, you are creating a difference in pressure between the sides, and what happens? the object will move.  That is due to the fact that even though you are pushing on both sides, the NET force is in one direction. 

In the case of the submerged object, if we want to find out what the force from the pressure differential will be, the heterogenous pressure in the fluid can be integrated over the entire surface area of the object to find the resulting net force vector.  Here, it will be normal to the direction of gradient and in the opposite direction of increasing pressure.  Or, more simply for the case of an object submerged in a fluid on Earth, up. 

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: sobchak
3.  Gravity exerts a downward body force between any object and the earths center of mass.

Again, can you give me an example of this and explain what's happening?


Sure, careful observation shows that two masses exert a pull on each other directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers of mass.  Therefore, as we understand it, any object (mass 1) will experience a pull downwards towards the earth (mass 2) with a predictable and calculable force. 

Quote from: sceptimatic
Quote from: sobchak
4.  There are therefore two forces on a body submerged in a fluid under gravity.
How do the two forces work?


The surface force is electrostatic in nature, made up by statistical repulsive interaction of the electron clouds of individual fluid molecules and the surface. 

Meanwhile, while the properties of the observed force between mass is well characterized and described, and the physics of its abstraction incredibly useful, the fundamental mechanism of how mass generates gravity remains undiscovered.  Still work to be done!

Quote from: sceptimatic

Quote from: sobchak
5.  The object goes up or down depending on which of these forces is dominant.

Can you give me an example and tell me how you know it to be the truth, according to you?

This exact buoyancy framework is used to describe the resulting forces on any body submerged in a fluid acting under a external field.  Maybe the most easily demonstration of this is in the calculation of settling rates for use in the design and execution of centrifugal separation.   I have done these, and the framework worked wonderfully.  I have also used our collective understanding of solid mechanics and fluid dynamics, which are the backbone of this analysis (and all of engineering), to calculate and investigate forces in structures under motion and load.  They too have worked beautifully, highly predictive and informative. 

As for my personal opinion of whether this is THE TRUTH,  I dont think it is possible to claim any one abstraction of reality is the total truth.  In my opinion, the physical framework we are currently using seems to be a reasonable approximation of reality, and is without any doubt incredibly predictive and useful.  Im totally open to it being falsified and replaced by something better though. 

Quote from: sceptimatic

Quote from: sobchak
6.  For a helium balloon in the atmosphere, the net upward surface force is greater than the downward body force, so the balloon rises.
Explain what is happening to the helium balloon.

See steps 1-6 in case you missed them last time. 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #383 on: February 15, 2021, 01:13:36 AM »
If you think "it's mass against atmosphere" is an explanation, then just what do you find wrong with the explanation for gravity?
Nothing if what you're saying is, gravity is mass against atmosphere. Is this what you're saying?


Quote from: JackBlack
Perhaps before anyone even attempts to try to explain gravity to you, you explain just what you think an explanation is and what level would be acceptable, because there will ALWAYS be another question for any explanation.

Yeah, I get this regularly. We'll explain when you do this and that. You can't explain it and you know it. Nobody can because it's ludicrous. It's a fictional addition to reality to create the magic required for your globe and space to work.

Quote from: JackBlack
For example, will you accept Newton's idea of a force-field where by any mass creates a gravitational field and any object in that field will experience a force based upon the mass and the strength of that field?

I'll accept a vortex that pushes anything towards the centre. Is this any good?


Quote from: JackBlack
Would you accept Einstein's curvature of space time where every object is travelling through normalised space-time at a rate of c, and any object with mass or energy will distort spacetime, curving it based upon the mass/energy, and objects travelling through this distorted spacetime will have motion through time converted into motion through space due to this distortion?
I'll certainly accept atmospheric warping by any mass within it and especially moving within it to actually warp it.


Quote from: JackBlack
If not, just what would you accept? Perhaps you can provide an example by way of how you would explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, or how air causes inertia.

How air causes resistance, you mean?

Quote from: JackBlack
You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?
There are a few different ways. The simplest is if you have a calibrated set of scales which measure weight, which depends upon mass and gravity (i.e. F=mg).
If you don't have them calibrated there are ways to do so, based upon measuring g independently from mass, such as free fall acceleration.

An alternative is to measure how much of a particular fluid it displaces which it floats in, which returns its mass as a function of the mass of the fluid.

Another is to measure its resistance to acceleration.
Ok, so now tell me how you measure Earth.
Dip it in water?
Put Earth on a scale plate?

« Last Edit: February 15, 2021, 01:15:52 AM by sceptimatic »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #384 on: February 15, 2021, 01:29:07 AM »
I'm not a scientist, so any answer you get from me will be a quote, or other people's ideas.
At least you're being honest.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
Simply put, "Gravity is a natural phenomenon. It is a natural phenomenon where things of mass or energy are brought towards each other."
Is the attraction, magnetic?
Is the attraction simply something you just don't know or haven't ever seen?
What about horizontal attraction?
One tiny non magnetic iron ball 1 foot away from a massive non magnetic iron ball. Do you think the tiny ball will simply attach to the larger one?
You know it wouldn't.

Just drop a tennis ball and that's enough to called gravity, real....right?


Quote from: Smoke Machine
More specifically, Newton's law of universal gravitation describes what gravity is, as, "A force. Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects."
So, basically we should be flung into the sun, or the moon should be, or the moon should be flung into us, or all the other so called stars and planets.
You know this in nonsense.



Quote from: Smoke Machine
Or alternatively, "Einstein's general relativity describes gravity is as a result of space time curvature."
Space time curvature?
Tell me in your own words what this actually means.
Space time first and then curvature in space and how this curvature works.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
In my own words, gravity is the phenomenon whereby density of a mass and proximity to a second mass determine the strength of attraction between those two objects.
Denpressure.
Any mass up against atmospheric mass to create a pressure/push upon that mass.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #385 on: February 15, 2021, 04:13:12 AM »
If you think "it's mass against atmosphere" is an explanation, then just what do you find wrong with the explanation for gravity?
Nothing if what you're saying is, gravity is mass against atmosphere. Is this what you're saying?
Not how it works.
Provide the standard for what you think is an acceptable explanation.
If you think your above nonsense is an explanation, just what is wrong with that provided for gravity which is vastly superior to that pile of nonsense of yours?

Quote from: JackBlack
Perhaps before anyone even attempts to try to explain gravity to you, you explain just what you think an explanation is and what level would be acceptable, because there will ALWAYS be another question for any explanation.
Yeah, I get this regularly.
Yet instead of providing any answer, you just dismiss any explanation provided as nonsense.

You can't explain it and you know it.
Until you provide an actual standard, that question is impossible to answer.
If you provide a ridiculously high standard, then no one can explain anything.
If you provide a reasonable standard, then I already have explained gravity.

So again, WHAT IS YOUR STANDARD?

I'll certainly accept atmospheric warping
The atmosphere has nothing to do with it.
It seems the only standard you have is if it agrees with you.

If you accept the atmosphere warping as an explanation then you have no reason to reject space warping as one.

And again, this just shows that you have an extremely dishonest double standard and have no interest in ever accepting an explanation for gravity and will never find any explanation acceptable, simply because it doesn't agree with your delusional nonsense.
Grow up.


Quote from: JackBlack
If not, just what would you accept? Perhaps you can provide an example by way of how you would explain the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, or how air causes inertia.
How air causes resistance, you mean?
[/quote]
As explained repeatedly, it is not merely resistance. It is specifically resistance to a change in motion.
That is what you need to explain.


Quote from: JackBlack
You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?
There are a few different ways. The simplest is if you have a calibrated set of scales which measure weight, which depends upon mass and gravity (i.e. F=mg).
If you don't have them calibrated there are ways to do so, based upon measuring g independently from mass, such as free fall acceleration.
An alternative is to measure how much of a particular fluid it displaces which it floats in, which returns its mass as a function of the mass of the fluid.
Another is to measure its resistance to acceleration.
Ok, so now tell me how you measure Earth.
Dip it in water?
Put Earth on a scale plate?
That was already explained to you.
The simplest way to realise is that weight on a scale is the weight of the object against Earth and the weight of Earth against the object.
It is given by F=GMm/r^2.
So by measuring gravitational attraction between small objects (e.g. Cavendish experiment) you can determine the value of G, and from that and the weight of an object on Earth and its known mass, you can determine the mass of Earth.

How about you stop deflecting from your own inability to explain anything and instead you start providing explanations.

Again, what magic causes your pressure gradient? What provides the necessary extra force if not gravity?
By what magic does air explain inertia (i.e. resistance to change in motion).

Is the attraction, magnetic?
No, it is gravitational.
Do you accept magnetism as real, or do you reject that as well and also want to pretend that is the air?

So, basically we should be flung into the sun, or the moon should be, or the moon should be flung into us, or all the other so called stars and planets.
You know this in nonsense.
We know your claim about it is pure nonsense.
This ties in with the other part of reality you are rejecting in this thread, INERTIA!
If Earth was stationary relative to the sun, it would be accelerated towards the sun and crash into it.
But it isn't.
Earth is moving, and not directly towards the sun.
So instead of falling into the sun, the gravitational pull of the sun just bends Earth's path. It does this in such a way to produce an elliptical orbit.
Kind of like how the tension (I know, pulling another thing you hate about reality) on a string will make an object at the end of it trace a circle if you swing it around. It is the same principle, the string pulls the object towards the centre, but its motion and inertia means it traces a circle instead of flying straight into your hand.

So no, reality isn't nonsense, just your rejection of it.
All you can do is dismiss it as nonsense, based upon more and more rejection of reality.
You have no actual argument against it.

Tell me in your own words what this actually means.
Did you forget where he clearly said that it wasn't his own words?

Quote from: Smoke Machine
In my own words, gravity is the phenomenon whereby density of a mass and proximity to a second mass determine the strength of attraction between those two objects.
Denpressure.
No, not denpressure, nothing like it.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #386 on: February 15, 2021, 04:15:05 AM »
Quote
Nahhhhh, I really don't. I do smirk now and again and do get bemused.

So do I whenever I read most if not all the 'theories' you come out with.  Your holographic theory for the Sun and Moon is the best.

I am not going to go to the trouble of re-quoting you on every single sentence like you have for me.  But I will reply to you on this

Quote
You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?

Tell me what the big block is made of first of all and then we'll take it from there.  For example if it was a specific material then I could find out its density, estimate its volume and then multiply together to calculate the mass.  Or I could get hold of a nice big spring balance and hang the big block of something from it and then use the known value of g to calculate the mass.

You didn't specify what equipment I have or haven't got available to me so there are two possible methods.   Obviously if this nice big block of something was say a metre cube of ice then I would already know what the mass was.

I don't know whereabouts in the world you are but where I come from we have GCSEs and A levels.  The difference between the two is that at GCSE level you are generally given all the information in a science exam for example that you need to solve a problem. You just need to know what to do with that information. At A level you are given some information you need to solve the problem but not all.  So what you are not given you have to work out. It requires a deeper level of understanding.  That of course is more resembling of the real world.  Which level would you say you are at?

So your block in the road problem.  Obviously the big block of whatever it is has a mass.  So there is a way of working it out to whatever level of accuracy is appropriate.  But unless there is a big label stuck to this block which says something along the lines of Mass= ... you would have to do some work of your own to work it out.  Or would you say 'Don't know and it is impossible for me to work it out' and leave it at that? 

Obviously if you lived in prehistoric times when very little was known about anything then it would be harder to work out.  However we don't live in prehistoric time and there is no need for us to pretend we do.  We can look stuff up which will help us solve the problem.  In a physics exam you are given a list of standard physical constants to help you.  So would you refuse to use that because you would have no way of proving the validity of those constants for yourself?

Finally just one more question.  Do you need to understand what gravity is in order to understand what gravity does?  I know... I know as far as you are concerned gravity is fictional.  Just humour me for once will you. I'm talking about the phenomenon that every one else in the world calls gravity.  Likewise do you need to understand how a car works in order to drive it?

« Last Edit: February 15, 2021, 04:39:58 AM by Solarwind »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #387 on: February 15, 2021, 09:14:21 AM »

As explained repeatedly, it is not merely resistance. It is specifically resistance to a change in motion.
That is what you need to explain.

Resistance is resistance, no matter how you try to dress it up.
If inertia is resistance then I'm onboard with inertia.
Is this the case?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #388 on: February 15, 2021, 09:17:54 AM »
Quote
Nahhhhh, I really don't. I do smirk now and again and do get bemused.

So do I whenever I read most if not all the 'theories' you come out with.  Your holographic theory for the Sun and Moon is the best.

I am not going to go to the trouble of re-quoting you on every single sentence like you have for me.  But I will reply to you on this

Quote
You are stood on a road and there is a big block of something 10 feet away from you. How do you tell how much mass it has?

Tell me what the big block is made of first of all and then we'll take it from there.  For example if it was a specific material then I could find out its density, estimate its volume and then multiply together to calculate the mass.  Or I could get hold of a nice big spring balance and hang the big block of something from it and then use the known value of g to calculate the mass.

You didn't specify what equipment I have or haven't got available to me so there are two possible methods.   Obviously if this nice big block of something was say a metre cube of ice then I would already know what the mass was.

I don't know whereabouts in the world you are but where I come from we have GCSEs and A levels.  The difference between the two is that at GCSE level you are generally given all the information in a science exam for example that you need to solve a problem. You just need to know what to do with that information. At A level you are given some information you need to solve the problem but not all.  So what you are not given you have to work out. It requires a deeper level of understanding.  That of course is more resembling of the real world.  Which level would you say you are at?

So your block in the road problem.  Obviously the big block of whatever it is has a mass.  So there is a way of working it out to whatever level of accuracy is appropriate.  But unless there is a big label stuck to this block which says something along the lines of Mass= ... you would have to do some work of your own to work it out.  Or would you say 'Don't know and it is impossible for me to work it out' and leave it at that? 

Obviously if you lived in prehistoric times when very little was known about anything then it would be harder to work out.  However we don't live in prehistoric time and there is no need for us to pretend we do.  We can look stuff up which will help us solve the problem.  In a physics exam you are given a list of standard physical constants to help you.  So would you refuse to use that because you would have no way of proving the validity of those constants for yourself?

Finally just one more question.  Do you need to understand what gravity is in order to understand what gravity does?  I know... I know as far as you are concerned gravity is fictional.  Just humour me for once will you. I'm talking about the phenomenon that every one else in the world calls gravity.  Likewise do you need to understand how a car works in order to drive it?
You just told me you know the mass of the entire Earth just by weighing yourself.
And now you're asking me what my block just 10 feet away from you , is made of.

The Earth is made of all kinds of different masses, so what are you playing at?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #389 on: February 15, 2021, 09:25:45 AM »
Quote
You just told me you know the mass of the entire Earth just by weighing yourself.
And now you're asking me what my block just 10 feet away from you , is made of.

The Earth is made of all kinds of different masses, so what are you playing at?

Ah Sceptimatic... you are funny.  Earth is made up of different masses?  Really?  It is certainly made up of different materials I'll give you that.  Have you never heard of such a thing as a composite material?   So tell me more about this big block of whatever lying in the road.  What is it made of? A big block of iron is going weigh more than a big block of polystyrene or wood is it not?  Because wood and iron are both more dense than polystyrene and you need to know the density and the volume of a 'big block' of something in order to calculate its mass.  Remember mass = volume x density yes?  So far all you've told me is that there is a big block of something in the road.  I can't calculate anything from that.  More information needed.  I have all the information I need already to calculate the Earths mass by just measuring my weight.  That's the difference. 

I can use information I have measured myself to verify known (or you would say given) information.  F=GMm/r2.  I know G and I can calculate F (my weight) and from that m (my mass) and so from that I can measure M (mass of the Earth) and r (radius of the Earth).  Since F is a function of M, m and r if I was to change M or r then that would also alter the value of F to something other than my measured value.  That's how I can verify that the figures for M and r that I am 'given' are correct. Why would anyone lie about the mass or the radius of the Earth?

This can work with any mass. Take a 1kg mass used in school science lab or a 10kg weight used in a gym.  They are called weights in the gym but it is actually a 10kg mass. Now place the 'weight' on some scales and from that you can read off the downward force (it's actual weight) in Newtons. Since we know g we can predict what the weight will be even before we use the scales to confirm our prediction. From there we can use the equation to work out r (radius of the Earth).  You can use whatever mass you like you will always get the same value for r.  However since I don't know anything about your big block in the road I cannot work out anything from that unless you provide me with some information about it.

There is only one Earth as far as I know so there is only one mass value associated with the Earth.  Just like there is only one of you and so you have a certain mass.  But you are made up of a myriad of different materials aren't you.  If you want to break it down to the atomic level you are made of a lot of oxygen, hydrogen, calcium, carbon atoms etc etc.  If someone asked you what your mass was you wouldn't say to them 'What mass do you want.. the mass of all the oxygen atoms or the mass of all the hydrogen atoms or calcium atoms or carbon atoms?' Well you could but you would get some very bemused expressions!

Does that help?

Quote
If you think I'm being childish and simple....yes I am, because this is how you're coming across with your explanations, as thought it was just like this.

A good teacher will always try to assess the level of their students knowledge so they can relate to them at a level appropriate to them.  So when you start to ask grown up questions about whatever it is that you want to try and prove then you will get grown up explanations.  But if you think the Earth has different masses for the different materials it is made up of... well that doesn't bode well does it.

« Last Edit: February 15, 2021, 01:40:11 PM by Solarwind »