ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

Quote

Your stance is based solely on adherence to idols

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

Coming to a flat Earth forum to argue for your globe  among like minded people and spend it regurgitating everything set out for you on a platter does you no favours.
It may make you feel smart and it may make you feel it puts you on a higher pedestal among the few alternate Earth theorists already on here but your brain is not even tested.

You choose the simple path when taxing your brain would be far better.
No one is asking you to believe.

Push aside your platter and try and understand alternatives. Don't fight it. Embrace it, even if you do it as your very own experiment.
Just play devils advocate and see where it gets you.
You'll have a far better chance of understanding stuff if you go down the simple route to understand from my point of view, as one such thought process.
And then there's the others.

Or you can just carry on saying the globe is your correct model and that's that.
If that was me, I'd be gone from here instead of spending all my time telling people it's a globe because I have all the ammunition at my fingertips.
You just might enjoy it and all you have to do is to conquer your fear of internet forum peer pressure name calling you for thinking outside of the box, which you know you'd get.

Are you afraid to have a go?

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

There is no edge on my Earth model.

If it is infinite then why is it that some people had managed to circumnavigate the Earth? Setting off from point A and then returning to point A.

I don't know about infinite in terms of Earth itself..

As equipment and technology advanced so more and more evidence started to accumulate which supported the theory that the Earth is a globe.

Such as?

While flat Earth belief survived the number of people who continued to support it dwindled. So flat Earth theory became more of a conspiracy theory and less of a serious scientific theory.

The many can always beat the few down with a stick. It definitely does not mean anything that pushes towards a mass opinion being the true opinion.
If 500 people who believe in an invisible god then meet up with 10 people who talk to their own invisible god...which one's will be cast out as nutters?

I am quite willing to consider any theory which I find logically correct.  And by logical I mean able to support everything that I have seen in the sky during my life.

No you're not.
Your mind is set in concrete in your globe because that's where your indoctrination is saturated. Your comfort is right there. Your safety net is in that following.
To dare to point a toe out of that and you know it will be stamped upon to set you right back into that circle.

So far flat Earth theory is consistent only in its inconsistencies since different flat Earthers seem to believe different models.

It's called alternate thinking. Alternate models. Alternate mindset.

  Some say the Sun and Moon are just a few miles across and 3000 miles above the earth.

Many think it's 93 million miles away    and they think 3000 miles is nuts.
That actually makes me smirk.

  You on the other hand insist the Sun and Moon are not even real but some sort of holographic projection instead.

Absolutely because it makes perfect sense to me.

Flat Earth theory is therefore far more confusing than it is simplifying.

It depends on how you look at it.

What are people new to flat Earth theory supposed to think?

Just think outside the box and try and reason everything but never do so with a global adherence. You must place that aside, even if it's just temporary.

Is that what 'logical' is all about? I think not.

One person's logic is another persons conundrum.

The modern heliocentric model meanwhile explains everything very clearly and consistently and is therefore logical.

Of course it does.
Time travel theories can explain everything but it doesn't make them a reality.

  It has nothing to do with indoctrination because I have a brain of my own which is capable of making its own intepretations.

Prove it, because I don't see any of that.

If you can explain to me why your theory is more logically correct universally compared to anything else then please do.

It's down to you what you want explaining and what you are willing to take from it.

  I don't know enough about your model though to make that decision.  No one seems to apart from you.

Of course you don't and likely won't ever know anything if your stance is to ridicule or simply brush anything aside whilst arguing for your globe.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2021, 04:48:19 AM

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

Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS. You need a pull.

Cut out that smut and try and be serious.

Quote

The break is the culmination of friction/heat and the expansion of the molecular make up within the link

Quote

Everything is crush or squeeze

Aren't these two statements contradictory?  The break is the culmination of expansion of molecular bonds which is to pull apart.  Correct.



 Then in the next sentence you say everything is being crushed or squeezed which is being pushed together or compression.

Quote

The more push the more expansion

Pushing does not cause expansion.  It causes compression.

So which is it?

Try engaging your brain before your typing fingers.

For something to expand it has to push against something. There is no pull.
Here's a simple example.
If I place a balloon between two bricks and then push air into that balloon, that balloon will expand by molecules inside of it being crushed,squeezed into that space enough to stretch the membrane and those bricks will be pushed apart.

See how they both work. No pull, all push and crush, compress and expand due to friction/vibration and energy applied in the push.

You do not have the ability to think outside of the books on the platter.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 20, 2021, 01:03:14 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2021, 04:48:19 AM

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

Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS. You need a pull.=

Cut out that smut and try and be serious.

How about you cut it out?
I am being serious. The simple chain cannot hold itself together without it pulling itself together.

Now stop with the repeated pathetic distraction and dismissal and explain what magic holds the link together such that as you push the right hand side to the right, the left side also moves to the right.

The break is the culmination of friction/heat and the expansion of the molecular make up within the link..especially at the breaking point.

Because it wasn't capable of pulling itself together.
But the other side still is.

There's nothing in there that pulls.

Again, how do the links hold themselves together without a pull?

You choose the simple path when taxing your brain would be far better.

No, we chose the honest path, where we accept what is supported by evidence, rather than dismissing it as nonsense because we hate it.

Quote from: Solarwind

I am quite willing to consider any theory which I find logically correct.  And by logical I mean able to support everything that I have seen in the sky during my life.

No you're not.

Yes we are.
The problem for you is that you are unable to show a fault with the globe model and unable to support your nonsense at all.

Many think it's 93 million miles away    and they think 3000 miles is nuts.

Because 3000 miles is far too close.

Just think outside the box and try and reason everything but never do so with a global adherence. You must place that aside, even if it's just temporary.

And we have, plenty of times, and you still failed to justify your position.

It's down to you what you want explaining and what you are willing to take from it.

You have been provided with plenty of examples of things for you to explain and just continually dodge them because you can't, only to turn around lying to everyone by claiming that you have explained it already.

Try engaging your brain before your typing fingers.

More advice for you to follow.
But try to put it to use actually trying to explain things, rather than just looking for a way out.

Here's a simple example.

You have already been provided with a simple example, a single link in a chain.
But you refuse to address it because you know it shows you are wrong.

But even with your balloon, why does the surface of the balloon remain intact? Why doesn't it just separate and fall apart as you try inflating it?
Why does it eventually reach a point where it pops and then it does fall apart.

So see how even that example of yours still requires pulling.
Being able to show a push in the system doesn't mean that no pulling is involved.

You do not have the ability to think outside of the books on the platter.

The one with no ability to think outside of a limited scope here is you. You have no ability to think out of your own delusional model.

@jackblack

The idea that there is only push, and no pull, is at least commonplace if not central in traditional (ie. material collision / billiard ball based) physics.  Don't get bogged down in the details (especially over an arbitrary sign/direction change).  Call it centripetal, call it centrifugal - do you really care which (and if you do, SHOULD you)?  It's the same in this situation - call it pull, call it push - whatever.

The traditional view was that because there is no clear mechanism for "pulling" in conventional physics (via billiard balls), it is proposed that in actuality - there is only pushing.  It is a fine, and scientifically sound perspective.

Magnetic attraction (and other forms of attraction) may pose some difficulty, but they are mysterious in any conception and so pose roughly equivalent difficulty. (when convection/air is not involved / the cause)

@jackblack

The idea that there is only push, and no pull, is at least commonplace if not central in traditional (ie. material collision / billiard ball based) physics.

That is an extremely limited section of physics that does not explain solid materials, like the links in the chain.
As soon as you get to that, pulling is important.

Billiard balls are only a tiny portion of conventional physics.

Don't get bogged down in the details (especially over an arbitrary sign/direction change).

That would be more applicable if he was using his claim that there is no such thing as pull to claim gravity can't exist as it uses a pull.

The traditional view was that because there is no clear mechanism for "pulling" in conventional physics (via billiard balls), it is proposed that in actuality - there is only pushing.  It is a fine, and scientifically sound perspective.

There is nothing sound about that.
While billiard balls can work to explain gases and to some extent liquids, they cannot explain solids, nor fully explain liquids.
The simplest way to demonstrate that is to set up a collection of billiard balls to act as a solid object. But now try to push one side of it, and notice that it does not move like a solid at all.
This shows that there is something fundamentally missing.

You can even do it with the chain link example I provided, where you model a single link in the chain with a collection of billiard balls, and see that pushing the right side to the right, just results in the right side moving.

Fortunately, with everyday objects we have other things we can use, such as springs.
Attach the billiard balls together with springs in a hexagonal lattice and then it is far better at modelling solids, where we can see how pushing on one side results in the springs pulling the other balls along.

This massive flaw should easily show it is not scientifically sound at all.
The only way for it to be sound, is if these simple billiard ball physics could explain everything that we have observed.

Magnetic attraction (and other forms of attraction) may pose some difficulty, but they are mysterious in any conception and so pose roughly equivalent difficulty. (when convection/air is not involved / the cause)

Yes, like the attraction in solids. But them being "mysterious" doesn't mean you get to just ignore them.
And I wouldn't call them mysterious.

Quite simply Sceptimatic, based on logic and nothing else, explain to me explicitly how the day and night cycle and the seasons cannot be explained by a rotating globe orbiting the Sun.  I go out into my garden and I see the Sun move across the sky from east to west.  In winter the Sun is high in the sky, in winter it is low.   

What is not explained fully and simply by our current model?

Just answer that question.

You simply want to be different.  Regardless of whether mainstream physics is right or wrong you seem to think it is clever to break ranks and devise your own version of physics with its own laws etc etc. If you think being different makes you some how better than everyone else then explain why. Not the case with me.  If what I am told in science works and can explain and predict everything I need it too in the real world (which it can and does) then that is good enough for me.

I base what I think on evidence.  You base what you think on what you believe and also a belief that being different is somehow better.  No its not But if your brain cannot handle mainstream physics and you need to try and simplify everything so your brain can comprehend it then fair enough.

In the meantime, just answer the question above.  Nothing else.  Just answer my question.  The one in bold lettering just to avoid any confusion.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2021, 03:56:25 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 20, 2021, 01:03:14 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2021, 04:48:19 AM

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

Again, my simple diagram shows that is BS. You need a pull.=

Cut out that smut and try and be serious.

How about you cut it out?
I am being serious. The simple chain cannot hold itself together without it pulling itself together.

How in the hell can something pull itself together?
Seriously have a real deep think about it.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 20, 2021, 12:15:47 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2021, 04:38:47 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 20, 2021, 03:52:32 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2021, 02:10:41 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 19, 2021, 03:56:03 AM

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


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

And this is even more important in a string/rope where if you tried to push the ends, it would just collapse, so we know it isn't the air magically pushing the other end.

There's no pulling. It's all friction grip and push. It is impossible to pull.

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

Pushed apart, as I showed you before Jacky defaced it.

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

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

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

The break is the culmination of friction/heat and the expansion of the molecular make up within the link..especially at the breaking point.
The more push the more expansion and the more friction and the more, squeeze.

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

I believe, by this mumbojumbo, we are facing another sceppism where he is purposefully misusing the english language.
It will be another 100pg before he reveals more.
Anyone else?



What is "friction"?
In the sense of the one link that uas ripped appart.



Whsr is expansion?
In the sense of the one link that has ripped appart?

Quite simply Sceptimatic, based on logic and nothing else, explain to me explicitly how the day and night cycle and the seasons cannot be explained by a rotating globe orbiting the Sun.  I go out into my garden and I see the Sun move across the sky from east to west.  In winter summer the Sun is high in the sky, in winter it is low.   

What is not explained fully and simply by our current model?

Just answer that question.

How about you explain how you get a summer high sun and a winter low sun on your ball in space.
Let's deal with it.
Don't be copy and pasting. I want it nice and simple from you. Remember, I'm a simpleton.

What is "friction"?
In the sense of the one link that uas ripped appart.

Compression and vibration of matter.
In terms of the link it means the inner matter of each link to either side of the snapped link is compressing that link and pushing it apart.

Whsr is expansion?
In the sense of the one link that has ripped appart?

As above, at first until the link starts to break. It basically has it matter expand due to the compression and vibration pushing against it. It causes heat which causes expansion of the matter withing and around the link to be broken.
The expansion inside the link is pushing the link apart aided by the push of all links in that chain.
A chain reaction if you want.


I'll make this a bit more simple and understandable.
Remember when I tried to explain the train wheel and steel tyre?
Remember how I said it had to be heated up to expand it to fit.
Expansion has to be a push of molecular matter into each other in that steel tyre, causing it to expand due to massive compression as a result of that expansion.


It's how everything works. How atmosphere works and even water.
There's no gravity pull needed...at all.....ever.

How about you explain how you get a summer high sun and a winter low sun on your ball in space.
Let's deal with it.
Don't be copy and pasting. I want it nice and simple from you. Remember, I'm a simpleton.

No. You answer my question.  I made it clear and simple so even a simpleton like you should be able to understand it.

Quote

How about you explain how you get a summer high sun and a winter low sun on your ball in space.
Let's deal with it.
Don't be copy and pasting. I want it nice and simple from you. Remember, I'm a simpleton.

No. You answer my question.  I made it clear and simple so even a simpleton like you should be able to understand it.

You can't answer that question, can you?
You'd have to look it up and copy and paste it because you do not have the ability to explain it in simple terms.
Prove me wrong.
Parroting does not make you smart.

I don't need to copy or paste anything.  I am told that the Earth is a rotating globe and orbits the Sun 93 million miles away.  That fully accounts for everything I observe.  You know.  The Sun moves across the sky from east to west.  You can see that as well as I can.  How can you prove it is not the Earth rotating that causes that motion we observe.

If a theory explains satisfactorily what we observe then why should we need any other theory or model?  You don't need to be smart.  You just need to use your eyes.  I don't care how a theory is put together. If it explains what I see then that is enough.  Obviously not for you though.

How in the hell can something pull itself together?

By the individual parts of it pulling on each other to form a coherent structure.

Now stop dodging and explain it.
Explain how the chain holds itself together without this pulling you hate so much.

Quote from: Themightykabool

Whsr is expansion?
In the sense of the one link that has ripped appart?

As above, at first until the link starts to break. It basically has it matter expand due to the compression

Quite the opposite. It expands due to the tension (i.e. pulling force) it is under. But as this pulling force was too great for it, it snapped.

Quote from: Solarwind on February 21, 2021, 01:41:31 AM

Quite simply Sceptimatic, based on logic and nothing else, explain to me explicitly how the day and night cycle and the seasons cannot be explained by a rotating globe orbiting the Sun.  I go out into my garden and I see the Sun move across the sky from east to west.  In winter summer the Sun is high in the sky, in winter it is low.   

What is not explained fully and simply by our current model?

Just answer that question.

How about you explain how you get a summer high sun and a winter low sun on your ball in space.

And there you go with more dodging.
Can you explain how the current predicts that this shouldn't happen?
If not, you have failed and are just trying to burry your opponents with BS and make them waste their time.

The high sun in summer and low sun in winter is caused by the planets axial tilt. That's also why we have seasons and why places that are very far north and south experience sunlight and the lack of sunlight for weeks at a time with no sunrise or set.

It's very simple and fits with the model we are taught in school.

I don't need to copy or paste anything.  I am told that the Earth is a rotating globe and orbits the Sun 93 million miles away.  That fully accounts for everything I observe.

You do not know what you're observing, so try and be honest.
You are told that this is what you observe. You're told. You were schooled into it and follow that schooling to the letter.
You were told. You do not know what you observe to be the truth.

  You know.  The Sun moves across the sky from east to west.  You can see that as well as I can.  How can you prove it is not the Earth rotating that causes that motion we observe.

Easy. Logic.
Masses of water and our own motion senses/sensors.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest we are spinning on a globe. Nothing...except to be told of this nonsensical magic is supposed reality.
You are massively massively indoctrinated. Saturated to all hell in your globe.
Most of us were. Most still are.
Your mindset is stuck (pardon the pun) to what you believe is your globe.
Spinning and wobbling around in a space vacuum.
It absolutely beggars belief that older people don't question this.

If a theory explains satisfactorily what we observe then why should we need any other theory or model?

Because it doesn't explain anything satisfactorily.
It just appears to because the story told is the story mapped to cater for everything we see, even if that story relies on magical reasoning like gravity and vacuums of space and gaseous planets and so on and so on and so on.............etc.

You don't need to be smart.  You just need to use your eyes.

Eyes are one excellent sense but it needs a bit of logical smartness to marry up what they see to a potential reality and distinguish it from story told magic.

  I don't care how a theory is put together. If it explains what I see then that is enough.  Obviously not for you though.

Of course you accept it. It's the easy way.
A nice safety net among your peers who think like you in adherence to what was placed into that thought process.....or else be ridiculed to dare to do any other....like I explained earlier..

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 21, 2021, 03:23:10 AM

How in the hell can something pull itself together?

By the individual parts of it pulling on each other to form a coherent structure.

How?

The high sun in summer and low sun in winter is caused by the planets axial tilt. That's also why we have seasons and why places that are very far north and south experience sunlight and the lack of sunlight for weeks at a time with no sunrise or set.

It's very simple and fits with the model we are taught in school.

Axial tilt?
Explain how the axial tilt works for the seasons.
I'll start you off.

A spinning ball going around a massive sun, as we're told.

Ok, so how does the tilt work in this vacuum of space...as we're also told?

Well now a geocentric model is a different story than a flat earth. Geocentric models do work, more or less it's just that we like to simplify things and we have no good explanation for the epicycles of planets.

We can make accurate predictions with a heliocentric model but I would agree that claiming we know the sun is 93 million miles away is a bit of a joke.

As for things pulling themselves together, all elastic bands do this, so do magnets but they can push or pull and the science is actually incredibly complicated. We don't really understand how magnets work, like we don't really understand how gravity works. However we observe the effects.

Quote from: Eren on February 21, 2021, 04:24:28 AM

The high sun in summer and low sun in winter is caused by the planets axial tilt. That's also why we have seasons and why places that are very far north and south experience sunlight and the lack of sunlight for weeks at a time with no sunrise or set.

It's very simple and fits with the model we are taught in school.

Axial tilt?
Explain how the axial tilt works for the seasons.
I'll start you off.

A spinning ball going around a massive sun, as we're told.

Ok, so how does the tilt work in this vacuum of space...as we're also told?

Draw a dot on a basketball and hold it next to a light. Then tilt the basketball, the angle of the light in relation to the dot will change. This is very simple stuff.

When the sun is at a 90° angle at noon it causes the most heat. That's why it's hot in summer and why places near the equator are hot and why places near the poles are cold.

I'm not sure what you mean by how does an axial tilt work in a vacuum. The tilt of the earth, or basketball in this situation has nothing to do with a vacuum. Its a purely geometric problem.

As for things pulling themselves together, all elastic bands do this, so do magnets but they can push or pull and the science is actually incredibly complicated. We don't really understand how magnets work, like we don't really understand how gravity works. However we observe the effects.

Observing effect does not prove anything.
Observing a ball being dropped is not observing gravity. It's being told it is gravity and that's that.
Magnets are easily proven if the proper thought process went into it.
It's the simple things that can show the potential truth.

As for elastic bands, they are just another chain link of molecules. No pull involved.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 21, 2021, 04:31:21 AM

Quote from: Eren on February 21, 2021, 04:24:28 AM

The high sun in summer and low sun in winter is caused by the planets axial tilt. That's also why we have seasons and why places that are very far north and south experience sunlight and the lack of sunlight for weeks at a time with no sunrise or set.

It's very simple and fits with the model we are taught in school.

Axial tilt?
Explain how the axial tilt works for the seasons.
I'll start you off.

A spinning ball going around a massive sun, as we're told.

Ok, so how does the tilt work in this vacuum of space...as we're also told?

Draw a dot on a basketball and hold it next to a light. Then tilt the basketball, the angle of the light in relation to the dot will change. This is very simple stuff.

When the sun is at a 90° angle at noon it causes the most heat. That's why it's hot in summer and why places near the equator are hot and why places near the poles are cold.

I'm not sure what you mean by how does an axial tilt work in a vacuum. The tilt of the earth, or basketball in this situation has nothing to do with a vacuum. Its a purely geometric problem.

Why a tilt in the first place, is what I'm saying.

Let me make this clearer.
We are told we have a north pole and a south pole and yet they sit at a supposed 23.5 degree angle and then spin around a central sun.

Why the tilt?

Why not a simple spin like on a basketball players finger around that light bulb?

Of course observing a ball being dropped doesn't prove gravity exists. It would be incredibly foolish to assume it does.

I've read a little bit about the accelerating earth theory and have to admit I was impressed by how clever it is.

Dropping a ball proves that the ball falls at roughly 9.8 metres per second squared, nothing else.

Could you explain how magnets pull then? I'm not exactly full bottle on it.

I have no idea why the earth is tilted. We came to the 23.5° tilt because it matches our observation of the sun.

Of course observing a ball being dropped doesn't prove gravity exists. It would be incredibly foolish to assume it does.

I've read a little bit about the accelerating earth theory and have to admit I was impressed by how clever it is.

Dropping a ball proves that the ball falls at roughly 9.8 metres per second squared, nothing else.

Could you explain how magnets pull then? I'm not exactly full bottle on it.

I have no idea why the earth is tilted. We came to the 23.5° tilt because it matches our observation of the sun.

A tilt makes no sense, right?
Of course, it fits observations as we're schooled into but it does not make any rational sense.

As for magnets.
My theory is simply a atmospheric vortex that creates a consistent push from the centre of Earth, outwards (not on a spinning globe, obviously).

I'll make this simple.

Imagine your plug hole is the centre of your Earth. You push out the plug that is stopping a high pressure meeting lower pressure.
You now allow that to be filled.
You compress the air in the waste hole by the denser water being pushed down it by the above atmosphere.
The water cannot fully push the compressed air out in one go so the air pushes back and pushes the water to the sides and creates a vortex.

The vortex is string at the plug hole and much weaker as it spans out, but still there.

Now, it's all about trapping atmosphere into certain materials that can create an imbalance in that vortex., or basically putting the plug in.


Remember how you sat in the bath and you took out the plug then let it fall back towards the plug hole till you heard a big clunk where the water pressure pushed it into the lower pressure  outlet.

Think of it like a magnet.
Now imagine being under that and trying to push that plug out. A massive repelling, right?


Create a vortex on a grand scale and you can create all kinds of movements and attractive/repellant forces, all created by one energetic push.


No gravity required in any of this.
Just pressures due to energy friction/vibrational,frequencies.

Quote from: Eren on February 21, 2021, 04:53:20 AM

Of course observing a ball being dropped doesn't prove gravity exists. It would be incredibly foolish to assume it does.

I've read a little bit about the accelerating earth theory and have to admit I was impressed by how clever it is.

Dropping a ball proves that the ball falls at roughly 9.8 metres per second squared, nothing else.

Could you explain how magnets pull then? I'm not exactly full bottle on it.

I have no idea why the earth is tilted. We came to the 23.5° tilt because it matches our observation of the sun.

A tilt makes no sense, right?
Of course, it fits observations as we're schooled into but it does not make any rational sense.

As for magnets.
My theory is simply a atmospheric vortex that creates a consistent push from the centre of Earth, outwards (not on a spinning globe, obviously).

I'll make this simple.

Imagine your plug hole is the centre of your Earth. You push out the plug that is stopping a high pressure meeting lower pressure.
You now allow that to be filled.
You compress the air in the waste hole by the denser water being pushed down it by the above atmosphere.
The water cannot fully push the compressed air out in one go so the air pushes back and pushes the water to the sides and creates a vortex.

The vortex is string at the plug hole and much weaker as it spans out, but still there.

Now, it's all about trapping atmosphere into certain materials that can create an imbalance in that vortex., or basically putting the plug in.


Remember how you sat in the bath and you took out the plug then let it fall back towards the plug hole till you heard a big clunk where the water pressure pushed it into the lower pressure  outlet.

Think of it like a magnet.
Now imagine being under that and trying to push that plug out. A massive repelling, right?

Create a vortex on a grand scale and you can create all kinds of movements and attractive/repellant forces, all created by one energetic push.

So two spinning objects having a relative tilt makes no sense, but a magic, invisible, unfelt atmospheric vortex does?

I mean come on, you aren't even trying here. 

I don't think it's irrational, we can only observe the world and come to the simplest conclusions that explain what we observe. Of course the change in the angle of the sun during summer and winter could be caused by the sun moving up and down relative to the earth if we are using the heliocentric model. That would also explain our observations but there's no reason, from what we currently understand about our solar system for it to do it.

We also have to understand that the earth doesn't change the direction of it's tilt, that would be irrational and absurd. The currently accepted model says that it keeps the same tilt but as it orbits the sun the tilt relative to the sun is changed based on the position if the earth. Again easily demonstrated with two balls.

The rest of your post is incredibly complex, and interesting, I would add. I admit I will need some time to get my head around it.

One issue that stands out is that if things are pushed down by the atmosphere from my understanding of things your body position would determine your weight.

Like aerodynamics, the atmosphere pushes on things relative to their shape and speed at which they are travelling through it. I'd think that lying down your weight would be much greater than standing up as when you're standing up the atmosphere can only push down on your head and shoulders. Lying down the atmosphere could push on a far greater surface area which should cause an increase in weight. Unless I am missing something.

I don't think this is a joke to you, this was what I was looking for thanks for your responses.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 21, 2021, 05:21:29 AM

Quote from: Eren on February 21, 2021, 04:53:20 AM

Of course observing a ball being dropped doesn't prove gravity exists. It would be incredibly foolish to assume it does.

I've read a little bit about the accelerating earth theory and have to admit I was impressed by how clever it is.

Dropping a ball proves that the ball falls at roughly 9.8 metres per second squared, nothing else.

Could you explain how magnets pull then? I'm not exactly full bottle on it.

I have no idea why the earth is tilted. We came to the 23.5° tilt because it matches our observation of the sun.

A tilt makes no sense, right?
Of course, it fits observations as we're schooled into but it does not make any rational sense.

As for magnets.
My theory is simply a atmospheric vortex that creates a consistent push from the centre of Earth, outwards (not on a spinning globe, obviously).

I'll make this simple.

Imagine your plug hole is the centre of your Earth. You push out the plug that is stopping a high pressure meeting lower pressure.
You now allow that to be filled.
You compress the air in the waste hole by the denser water being pushed down it by the above atmosphere.
The water cannot fully push the compressed air out in one go so the air pushes back and pushes the water to the sides and creates a vortex.

The vortex is string at the plug hole and much weaker as it spans out, but still there.

Now, it's all about trapping atmosphere into certain materials that can create an imbalance in that vortex., or basically putting the plug in.


Remember how you sat in the bath and you took out the plug then let it fall back towards the plug hole till you heard a big clunk where the water pressure pushed it into the lower pressure  outlet.

Think of it like a magnet.
Now imagine being under that and trying to push that plug out. A massive repelling, right?

Create a vortex on a grand scale and you can create all kinds of movements and attractive/repellant forces, all created by one energetic push.

So two spinning objects having a relative tilt makes no sense, but a magic, invisible, unfelt atmospheric vortex does?

I mean come on, you aren't even trying here.

Hardly unfelt.
The thing is we are well away from the main vortex.
We are moving around towards the middle to outer of the sink and being able to navigate that with our own energies.
Planes do it by using the higher strength of the vortex to sail along on it to reduce fuel and go quicker.

Yeah to be fair you could apply the same argument towards gravity "magic and invisible" we do feel the force.

I don't think it's irrational, we can only observe the world and come to the simplest conclusions that explain what we observe. Of course the change in the angle of the sun during summer and winter could be caused by the sun moving up and down relative to the earth if we are using the heliocentric model. That would also explain our observations but there's no reason, from what we currently understand about our solar system for it to do it.

We also have to understand that the earth doesn't change the direction of it's tilt, that would be irrational and absurd. The currently accepted model says that it keeps the same tilt but as it orbits the sun the tilt relative to the sun is changed based on the position if the earth. Again easily demonstrated with two balls.

On face value it does seem easily demonstrated but when looked at in a realistic way of using the actual ball in rotation around the light as well as affixed to that light in terms of tilt, realistically it would not change.

Get hold of a globe and hold it in your outstretched arms away from a central light.
Now sidestep around that light until you do one full circle, holding that globe in your outstretched arms .
This would depict reality.

Walking around with a globe and turning yourself as you do, is nonsensical. It does not show anything real because it means you are manipulating the globe and space  when there is no way to realistically make that work.

The rest of your post is incredibly complex, and interesting, I would add. I admit I will need some time to get my head around it.

One issue that stands out is that if things are pushed down by the atmosphere from my understanding of things your body position would determine your weight.

 I'd think that lying down your weight would be much greater than standing up as when you're standing up the atmosphere can only push down on your head and shoulders. Lying down the atmosphere could push on a far greater surface area which should cause an increase in weight. Unless I am missing something.

No. Your body position does not change your weight. You displace the same atmosphere  standing as you would laying down flat.
All you're doing it changing the area configuration.
Basically you are pushing up more compression of atmosphere through your mass by standing, as in height but less area.
By laying down you are pushing much less height into atmosphere but you are pushing more area over your horizontal body mass.
Basically it changes nothing in terms of pressure back onto you. Same measured weight.

I don't think this is a joke to you, this was what I was looking for thanks for your responses.

I have no issue with answering questions from my side.
I'm used to jokes and attempted ridicule off many so I won't panic if there's hidden meaning in your stuff.