ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

  • 2289 Replies
  • 240024 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1410 on: April 01, 2021, 05:21:14 AM »


I didn’t say remove all the air, I said remove 99.9%.  If you object to that, make it 90%.

How do you think that affects weight, or how fast an object falls?

Heavier/ lighter?  Faster/slower?
If you remove a lot of resistance to a dense mass, then that dense mass will overcome it much easier, obviously.
But the same thing still applies.
You still need above atmosphere for that to work because any dense mass needs something to push back against it, otherwise it would not fall.

So if we drop something in a chamber with most of the air removed, it should fall much slower?
Nope. It depends on what's above the object.

Very little air at the same pressure as underneath it.  ie dropping something in a vacuum chamber.
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1411 on: April 01, 2021, 05:37:05 AM »
Floating helium balloons say otherwise.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1412 on: April 01, 2021, 07:57:18 AM »
Floating helium balloons say otherwise.
No they don't.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1413 on: April 01, 2021, 07:59:10 AM »
Good rebuttal.
Chaulk full of information as usual.

Care to draw us a picture of this action you claim?
« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 08:03:39 AM by Themightykabool »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1414 on: April 01, 2021, 08:17:19 AM »
Good rebuttal.
Chaulk full of information as usual.

Care to draw us a picture of this action you claim?
It's as good as what you put up by trying to use helium balloons without actually reading what I said.

I'll put it up again for you to see where you went wrong.

If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.


So, now you decided to use a helium balloon.
A helium balloon works because the air below is more plentiful than above and a helium balloon is gases that are broken down into less dense molecules, meaning they are crushed up because they cannot be crushed down into denser molecules below.


However...if you were to break down the air below to be the same as the helium then the balloon will be pushed down by the air above because it will overcome the broken down air below.


Read it...absorb it and come back to me when you've done so.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1415 on: April 01, 2021, 09:56:34 AM »
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.

So according to you, if you took a long cylinder and dropped a heavy steel piston that fit with an airtight seal into it, it wouldn't drop down and compress the air, it would just magically hover there?

Because in that case the air would have nowhere to go, it couldn't 'return' to the top.

You don't think these things out before you say them, do you?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1416 on: April 01, 2021, 10:15:50 AM »
if "air" pushes things down, why don't helium balloons get pushed down?
how does "air" differ from "atmosphere"?

define these things.
you're not saying anything.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1417 on: April 01, 2021, 12:26:58 PM »


I didn’t say remove all the air, I said remove 99.9%.  If you object to that, make it 90%.

How do you think that affects weight, or how fast an object falls?

Heavier/ lighter?  Faster/slower?
If you remove a lot of resistance to a dense mass, then that dense mass will overcome it much easier, obviously.
But the same thing still applies.
You still need above atmosphere for that to work because any dense mass needs something to push back against it, otherwise it would not fall.

So if we drop something in a chamber with most of the air removed, it should fall much slower?
Nope. It depends on what's above the object.

Very little air at the same pressure as underneath it.  ie dropping something in a vacuum chamber.
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.

The question is whether the object is pushed down with more or less force, if there is very little air present?

I mean there’s only one logical answer to that, but I’m still curious if you can actually say it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1418 on: April 01, 2021, 12:48:05 PM »
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.

So according to you, if you took a long cylinder and dropped a heavy steel piston that fit with an airtight seal into it, it wouldn't drop down and compress the air, it would just magically hover there?

Because in that case the air would have nowhere to go, it couldn't 'return' to the top.

You don't think these things out before you say them, do you?
You've now set up a different scenario. It pays to actually read and absorb what I say so you don't come up with this stuff and set yourself back.


In this scenario you have the piston at the top of the cylinder and underneath, air.
In that scenario your cylinder stays at the very top. It really is that simple.

And you are correct. Air would have nowhere t go beneath it because the top is already taken up by the piston.

You're getting there so tread carefully.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1419 on: April 01, 2021, 12:48:51 PM »
if "air" pushes things down, why don't helium balloons get pushed down?
how does "air" differ from "atmosphere"?

define these things.
you're not saying anything.
If you aren't a robot then you should read what I actually put to you.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1420 on: April 01, 2021, 12:51:16 PM »


The question is whether the object is pushed down with more or less force, if there is very little air present?

I mean there’s only one logical answer to that, but I’m still curious if you can actually say it.
If there's very little air present then the object will encounter little resistance to its mass and therefore fall much faster than if it  would against higher stacked pressure.
What's the issue?

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1421 on: April 01, 2021, 01:09:51 PM »
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.

So according to you, if you took a long cylinder and dropped a heavy steel piston that fit with an airtight seal into it, it wouldn't drop down and compress the air, it would just magically hover there?

Because in that case the air would have nowhere to go, it couldn't 'return' to the top.

You don't think these things out before you say them, do you?
You've now set up a different scenario. It pays to actually read and absorb what I say so you don't come up with this stuff and set yourself back.


In this scenario you have the piston at the top of the cylinder and underneath, air.
In that scenario your cylinder stays at the very top. It really is that simple.

And you are correct. Air would have nowhere t go beneath it because the top is already taken up by the piston.

You're getting there so tread carefully.

Well, surprisingly you are wrong. Again.  ::)

The piston would move down because air is compressible.

You really need to at least have a basic understanding of how the world works before you start pontificating about how you think it does.

*

JackBlack

  • 23451
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1422 on: April 01, 2021, 02:38:30 PM »
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.
The problem is that there is more pressure below. That more pressure below means that the object should be pushed up, not down.

Just like with magnets, if you orient the 2 inward flowing regions together, the high pressure on the outside will force the magnets together, rather than push them apart as it is observed to do in reality.


Floating helium balloons say otherwise.
No they don't.
Yes, they do. They clearly show that air behaves in the manner that simple logic dictates it should. It pushes objects up due to the pressure being greater the lower you are.

A helium balloon works because the air below is more plentiful than above and a helium balloon is gases that are broken down into less dense molecules, meaning they are crushed up because they cannot be crushed down into denser molecules below.
Bringing in a helium balloon doesn't magically change the air around it.

If it is the air around it doing the pushing, it doesn't matter if the balloon is full of helium, air, CO2, water or lead. The air will push it the same.
This means either the air above is stronger and manages to push it down, regardless of what it is filled with, or it can't, and as simple logic dictates, the pressure being greater below will result in the air pushing the object upwards.

If you need to actually discuss what is inside the balloon, that means you are implicitly appealing to gravity, where gravity acts to pull the mass of the balloon and whatever is inside it down. And then it is a fight between the force of gravity pulling the balloon down and the force of the air pushing the balloon up.

Read it...absorb it and come back to me when you've done so.

You've now set up a different scenario.
Yes, to show you that your claim does not match reality.

In this scenario you have the piston at the top of the cylinder and underneath, air.
In that scenario your cylinder stays at the very top. It really is that simple.
The problem is that in reality, it doesn't.
Instead it compresses the air below and moves down. This again clearly shows that it isn't the air magically pushing things down, just like it isn't the air magically pushing magnets around.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1423 on: April 01, 2021, 06:53:53 PM »
The scientific concern is that the theory is incomplete and there’s more work to be done, which is quite normal.

That is a concern - yes, though as you said it is "normal" for our theories to be incomplete and inaccurate (in various regards).

The serious concern I spoke of is very different.  It is the presupposition (which has slowly mutated into belief and even worship over time) of an unscientific (non-emperical) entity - the "field".

It is unacceptable in physics (and philosophy, of which physics is a branch) for something to act upon nothing.  If the "field" is real, then physicists have been remiss in their duties (and/or incompetent) to discover and make scientific progress understanding it for centuries now.

Quote
Flat Earthers tend to claim none of it is real.  Big difference.

Gravitational fields (or gravitons, if you wish) are not real, as far as anyone knows or ever has known (scientifically or otherwise).  The perspective on shape of the earth doesn't enter into it.

It is relatively clear how this fiction entered science and who is responsible for it.

Quote
Einstein came up with special relativity because of the results of the Michelson Morley experiment and because Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism were not compatible with Galilean relativity at velocities approaching the speed of light.

Every physicist worth their salt since newton has recognized the unscientific and philosophically unsound nature of gravitation - just as newton did when he first invoked (not invented) it.  It is not so much that what you wrote above about relativity isn't correct, it is more that it doesn't contradict what I said.  Relativity was created, in part, to break newton's magic spell of gravitation and make it, finally, scientific.  Without an aether (space-time) that physically exists to "warp" this cannot be done.  Which is why einstein said that if aether is disproven, so is relativity.

Quote
Sounds like science to me

It may SOUND that way, however science has strict and rigorous definitions.  Science is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method and colloquially to the body of knowledge which that method produces (with the sole caveat of natural law, established through repeated measurement alone)

One cannot hope to understand, discuss, or practice science if their definitions are wrong.  The vast majority of people do not have or use the correct (working) definitions.

Quote
Erm, no.  Theories of light propagating through luminiferous aether were superseded by relativity.  Newton was a proponent of some kind of aether.

This is just what we are taught.  The history is more nuanced.  Relativity doesn't supersede aether, it depends on it (from einstein's lips no less)

Quote
What you find acceptable or not is irrelevant.

It is not simply my determination, it is one necessitated by the very definition of science (and the rules of philosophy/logic which it is bound by). I agree, my personal feelings are not what is relevant.

Quote
Measurements and observations are what matter, remember?

No, that is only useful to establish natural law.  In science, what matters is experiment! Experiment is NEVER mere observation/measurement, nor can it ever be.

Quote
Aether theories of light were largely abandoned when they no long fit the available data.

That is again, merely what we are taught (today).  The history tells a different story, for those with an interest in such stories.

Quote
Funny that relativity is one of the main reasons that aether was done away with then.

Not so much funny as sad.  Once again, this is what we are taught today - but it is incorrect.

Quote
Not sure I follow this?

The simplest form of sophistry is the nagging child endlessly repeating "why".  Sophistry is a type of anti-philosophy designed to "unmake" conversations and philosophical progress. Sophistry is intrinsically connected to SOPHISTication. In this case, you are saying that because I recognize (and am claiming/stating) that magnetic fields are a mystery that therefore everything that we know about magnets (or perhaps, anything else) is also not understood.  It is to unmake knowledge, and to remove the necessity of further evaluation or discussion.  It is to be avoided and curtailed wherever found.

Quote
Scientific models are representations of the thing being studied (can just be a simple equation).  You build a model from your hypothesis and test predictions against experiments or observations.  How is that not following the scientific method?

Excellent question, very much at the heart of our discussion.

The scientific method does not involve models in any step.  The use thereof today is to limit experimentalism (for multiple reasons, one of the chief ones being money). One may (and arguably should, if not must) employ models to generate hypothesis, but experiment happens out here in the reality we hope to understand (and no place else)!  As I said above, experiment is NEVER mere observation/measurement - nor can it ever be.

Quote
Yet you say you’re not even sure what Scepti is talking about. How can you say its a more sound concept?

Yes.  Because scepti's conception involves a material (emperical, unlike "fields" which are composed of mystery) cause, it is vastly more sound than the current lack of composition offered by the "field" (a scientific "placeholder" for science that was expected to come in the future - a deviation from the scientific method)

Quote
You know we have quantum mechanics, right?

I do! And you know why they call it that and not quantum physics right?

Quote
Quote
If scepti was correct, we would!

Quote
He’s not.

Like I said, the only way to determine that scientifically is by experiment.  Of course, the hypothesis needs to be valid and properly defined first in order to take any further steps.

Quote
And that would fine if he didn’t keep on about everyone else mindlessly believing what we’re told, which is kind of insulting.

Virtue untested is no virtue at all! If we are educated, and we know (and perhaps more importantly, know how we know, with conviction, and can convey that to others), then we shouldn't take such insults too seriously.

In fairness, our "education" process largely turns out parrots.  That is the purpose and result of conditioning by rote (under the guise of education).  It was because we needed more factory workers - more indians and less chiefs.  There is a great (great in explanation, terrible in terms of speechwriting/reading) speech that explains it all by woodrow wilson if you are interested.

Quote
And what do you suggest we do with all that experimental data?

There is nothing wrong with the latter, it just isn't science.  It's meta-science, and its only scientific purpose is the generation of hypothesis that can be experimentally validated or refuted.  We are not talking about mathematical formalization/generalization of data - that is all well and good (though the language you "translate"/represent scientific knowledge into/with is somewhat irrelevant)

Quote
You should check out his explanation for the sun and moon.

I may do that!  They are quite mysterious and most certainly not at all the things our creation mythology (disingenuously/erroneously taught as science from childhood) purports.

Quote
Nobody has to post anything at all, but if someone wants an honest discussion of their ideas, they should explain what they mean.

I agree!  As I said, if they want anyone else to understand their perspective they will have to do just that.  However, as I also said, it is easier said than done - especially when there is an inherent resistance to it caused by "education".  The committed will keep trying, though sadly may still fail to understand for a variety of reasons.  I agree it is significantly dependent on scepti's ability and success at explaining to us / helping us understand them.

Quote
What if imagine from the perspective of my own experience designing and testing things including pressure and vacuum systems?

That is a great place to start!  I think that scepti has done a mostly adequate job of addressing the "vacuum" issue.  They have said (or I have inferred from deduction) that the vacuum chamber cannot keep this, proposed/conceived, small matter out.  I agree that, at least in theory, it may be possible to test the "magnetic fields wane in strength under extreme low pressure" claim.  It also may be beyond our precision and ability to both evacuate a chamber sufficiently and measure a small change in the magnetic strength caused by it - ESPECIALLY if the "magneton" responsible doesn't have any difficulty entering and exiting a "fully evacuated" chamber from our perspective, if such a thing were possible.  It is important to recognize that what Scepti is saying about the evacuation is fundamentally correct and consistent with modern science.  When the vacuum pump creates an relative pressure imbalance, it does not suck the air/matter out of the container.  It allows the air inside the container to push outwards on its own.  This pushing happens as the gasses themselves expand to fully fill the (vacuum) container once more - always.  This is one way of describing/conceptualizing why "perfect vacuum" is unattainable, even in theory (at least the way we're commonly going about it).

Quote
But I also accept that what I personally understand barely scratches the surface of what’s been determined.  And that’s really the biggest difference between our positions.

I hope that isn't the case.  I hope Scepti shares this humility, as the alternative of pride is vastly worse (and more costly).

Quote
I give Scepti the benefit of the doubt that he means what he says, and isn’t just here for a laugh.

It is certainly possible, many come here for that specific purpose. Again, I hope not - but time will tell (for me, I recognize some have put in significant time and already come to that conclusion)

Quote
Maybe there is nothing more than he says?

Which is why I suggested that the discussion best turn to a scientific one.  Hypothesis and experiment - that will sort it out.  We can talk and imagine and model endlessly with little to no progress.  Empericism is the way out of the cul-de-sac.

Quote
A globe denier, but not a flat earther?  So what shape do you think it is?  And how do you reconcile that with your respect for science?

I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is, because like all people I lack the verified and verifiable data to make such a determination.

The shape of the surface of bodies of water at rest (under natural conditions and barring irrelevant meniscus effects) is flat, level, and horizontal.  This is a well established law of hydrostatics that has stood unchallenged for centuries. In order to refute it, and to make the globe posit even conceivable in emperical science, something other than that would need to be directly measured repeatedly and rigorously (namely a sustained convex curve required by the globe model).  The fact that no such measurements exist should be enough to concern any empirical scientist.  Whenever water is measured at rest (with the caveats above, only mentioned to curtail irrelevant pedantry) it only has the one shape. That's why it's a law.

Quote
If you want to call photons a component of air, then it almost makes sense.  Although then maybe we can include gravitons too?  I don’t think that’s what denpressure is all about though.

It sure sounds like it to me, though that is merely my interpretation/rationalization.  Even the things the gas is made of is breaking down and recombining.

Quote
Ignoring the actual definition of air though.

Perhaps.  For the purposes of discussion, we can use any definition we wish as long as its meaning is shared.  Scepti has shared that air includes the things that air breaks down into, and I don't personally have any issue with that (inside this conversation nor outside of it) - do you?

Quote
You might be surprised just how much air we can evacuate in ultra high vacuum chambers.

Of course! Not as good as "space" though.  They should bring a container of that back for study (they should have and would have done it decades ago if it were possible)!

Quote
It’s not very clear what you mean, but it sounds like you think you get to decide what counts as science and what doesn’t?

By the definition of science (and the other technical vernacular of the scientific method, like hypothesis and experiment etc.), yes - WE do!

Quote
Scientists of years gone by also reasoned that such a fluid must be non interacting or very nearly non interacting with matter.  Unlike Scepti’s atmospheric stacking business.

That's true! However inertia remains a mystery... Drag caused by an interacting fluid would tie things up nicely - but so would other speculations (like the spin of all atoms creating a "gyroscopic" resistance to change in motion).  Scientists (people) are always wrong, and it never hurts to try again with old and new ideas alike.

Quote
No we don’t.  The notion of light being a simple wave is about 100 years out of date.

Only as taught to us in school.  In reality, that's not the case.  Waves can only exist in a media and are typically composed of that media to boot.  The "exception" for light is more or less indefensible, philosophically and scientifically.  Light does things impossible for matter, but easy/commonplace for pressure waves within that matter (instantaneous acceleration, reflection etc.)

Quote
Not that it’s completely dead, as some scientists are revisiting it.

As they ought, and I wish them the best of luck!

Quote
But they do so taking into account  everything we’ve since learned about relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. 

If they remain bound to equation and do not find the path back to experimentalism they will remain confused and lost. God does not play dice with the universe.

Quote
Light is not a wave according to current theory.

There are few, even theoretical, physicists that would agree with you.  Most proclaim that it is both a wave and a particle, or at least that it exhibits the behavior of both.  One of the most successful new conceptions considers the wave and the particle moved by that wave separate and distinct, it has been used to corporate and military success.  The proof is always in the pudding if you ask me!

Quote
It’s strong evidence that air has nothing to do with it.  The existence of a medium is an assumption.

It's a deduction! It also has lots of support, but like I said - it depends largely on interpretation of evidence / experiment - not the data itself!

Quote
People who fully understand the subject?

People who are competent physicists, both historically and contemporarily - yes. But who cares about accolades or pedigree?  Those never prevented any previous generations from being hopelessly wrong for centuries.

Quote
If Scepti wants to amend his ideas to something that could potentially be compatible with reality that’s up to him, but he doesn’t appear interested.

Well they clearly feel that the reality you speak of is non-real.  If there really is any contradiction (experimentally especially) I have yet to see it.  What did you have in mind?

Quote
So prediction isn’t part of the scientific method, apart from it being a vital part of the scientific method?

Prediction is required in the hypothesis.  Hypothesis is validated/invalidated by experiment alone.  There is no "predict" step.  A hypothesis can be a mere guess (not really a "prediction" the way you are using the word)

Quote
But once a model has been validated we have pretty high confidence it can be used for practical applications.   This is where applied science comes in.

I like pudding! If things are useful, let's use them!  It is a logical fallacy that all bayesians fall for/suffer from that useful = correct.  Useful is different from correct, and models are different from science.  Models are created for specific and limited use.  Use them and enjoy the pudding!

Quote
It’s cleared up your position a bit, but I still don’t agree with a lot you say.

Nor should you! I would hate for you to have to change your username!

Like Scepti, it will only take time and your earnest interest to clear up my position further.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 07:02:01 PM by jack44556677 »

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1424 on: April 01, 2021, 08:59:22 PM »
Thanks for keeping your last post short and sweet, jack.  :o  Not!

You can deny the earth is a globe all you like, it doesn't change the fact it's shape has been verified to an extremely high standard. You've waffled on about hydrostatics and water being flat, so you obviously haven't heard of "global hydrostatic equilibrium?"

Gravity is warped space-time.

The planets of our solar system, prove the existence of gravity. The closer a planet is to the sun, the more circular is it's orbit of the sun. The further out from the sun you go, the more eliptical is the orbit of planets. This is because of the gravity exerted on the motion of the outer planets, by the inner planets closer to the sun. This is the field of orbital mechanics.

Gravitational fields are very real. What do you call the force keeping you on the ground? Bouyancy? Universal acceleration?  ;D ;D ;D 

*

JackBlack

  • 23451
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1425 on: April 02, 2021, 12:06:02 AM »
The scientific concern is that the theory is incomplete and there’s more work to be done, which is quite normal.
That is a concern - yes, though as you said it is "normal" for our theories to be incomplete and inaccurate (in various regards).
The serious concern I spoke of is very different.
No, it is ultimately exactly that. We don't know everything.
You just wrap it up to pretend it is a bigger issue for magnetism and the like.

Quote
Flat Earthers tend to claim none of it is real.  Big difference.
Gravitational fields (or gravitons, if you wish) are not real
Gravity, and gravitation certainly are real. There is still the exact question of how, but again, that applies to everything.

You want to try to attack fields specifically, even though all forms of interaction between matter needs fields of some kind, even if that "field" is just space time.

But ultimately, even your objection to "mysterious fields" which we don't what they are made of, applies to EVERYTHING!
Like I pointed out before, ultimately, we don't know what matter is made of.
What is an electron? What is it made from? How is it any more real than a field?

The vast majority of people do not have or use the correct (working) definitions.
Are you sure that it isn't you who is incorrect?

This is just what we are taught.  The history is more nuanced.  Relativity doesn't supersede aether, it depends on it (from einstein's lips no less)
No, relativity and quantum mechanics supersedes aether.
The point is light does not need a medium.
There doesn't need to be some magical medium for light to travel in as waves.
Space-time is nothing like the aether of the past.

Quote
Aether theories of light were largely abandoned when they no long fit the available data.
That is again, merely what we are taught (today).  The history tells a different story, for those with an interest in such stories.
No, the actual history tells us pretty much that.
There were 2 main competing models of light, both correctly predicted/explained the results of some experiments, while others did not or resulted in contradictions.

The simplest form of sophistry is the nagging child endlessly repeating "why".
Which is effectively what you are doing with magnets.

The scientific method does not involve models in any step.
Except the step where you make a model based upon the observed phenomenon, and then the step where you use that model to make predictions.
And then the step where you try to falsify that model by testing those predictions.

Models are a key part of science.

It is also quite important when you want your hypotheses to be correct, and fit in with everything.

Yes.  Because scepti's conception involves a material (emperical, unlike "fields" which are composed of mystery) cause, it is vastly more sound than the current lack of composition offered by the "field" (a scientific "placeholder" for science that was expected to come in the future - a deviation from the scientific method)
No more than by claiming it uses magical, material pixies. It doesn't make it sound. It is wild speculation built upon nothing more than a desire to try to pretend everything is caused by air; and it is far less sound that the current models because it is refuted by simple observations.
So no, his wild speculation is not more sound than our current understanding.

This is also quite rich when you claim that this medium of his is pure mystery which we don't know anything about.

I do! And you know why they call it that and not quantum physics right?
It is called quantum physics as well.
It is called that as "mechanics" is more narrow that "physics".
But it is certainly part of physics. Just like plenty of other things which don't have the word "physics" in their name.

Like I said, the only way to determine that scientifically is by experiment.
Such as the one I suggested, which shows he is wrong.

They are quite mysterious and most certainly not at all the things our creation mythology (disingenuously/erroneously taught as science from childhood) purports.
You mean you dislike what you are "taught" and thus reject it as fantasy/incorrect.
Just how do you know they are not what is taught, which is based upon plenty of evidence?


It is important to recognize that what Scepti is saying about the evacuation is fundamentally correct and consistent with modern science.
Except where he tries to pretend a vacuum needs to be perfect in order to be a vacuum and where he claims that the molecules magically expand so there is no free space between them.

I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is
Then how can you deny it is a globe?

because like all people I lack the verified and verifiable data to make such a determination.
I think there is plenty of verified data clearly showing it is a globe.

The shape of the surface of bodies of water at rest (under natural conditions and barring irrelevant meniscus effects) is flat, level, and horizontal.
No it isn't.
The shape of the surface of bodies of water at rest, ignoring surface tension effects, at an extremely small scale, are indistinguishable from flat.
Notice a very key part you overlook, at an extremely small scale.

The other key part is that you aren't actually determining that it is flat, but merely that it doesn't have any detectable curve.
The 2 are vastly different, and if you truly understood science the way you claim to, you know that it is impossible to prove something, but only possible to disprove.
The only way to show Earth is actually flat is to show that there is no measurable curvature over the entire surface. Not just a measuring that it isn't measurable at one location, but a measurement which spans the entire distance.
This is because without such a measurement you have no way of distinguishing between it actually being flat, or reality, where the radius of curvature is so great, and the curvature so small, you can't detect it.

So the best you can do with any measurement of a small region is show that the curvature is less than some amount based upon the experimental error.

But we have plenty of observations of large regions of Earth, where the observation is over a large enough distance to indicate the surface is curved.
This is simplest done by observing a distant enough object, where the bottom is obscured by the water, even though the object and observer are both above the water.

I know you wish to assert that that isn't actually evidence, as it could just be light magically bending to make Earth appear round, but that goes right back on you, how do those observations of water being flat account for that, and other possibilities? How do you know the water actually is flat, rather than actually being curved and just appearing flat?

This is a well established law of hydrostatics that has stood unchallenged for centuries. In order to refute it
No it isn't, and simple observations refute it.
The fact that you need to add qualifiers in shows just how limited such a "law" is.

The actual law is that the surface is of equal energy so a water molecule moving along the surface would not change energy.
This then doesn't need the exceptions from surface tension, or the extremely small area. And doesn't even need it to be at rest.

Surface tension would cause a flat surface (over a small distance) to be of unequal energy. For example, the surface near the water-glass interface would be at a lower energy than that near the middle, away from the glass. This causes the water to move towards the glass, and thus curve.
If you replace the glass with a hydrophobic material, then the water near the interface is at higher energy, and it loses energy by moving towards the middle.

You can even demonstrate it with a large enough tank rotating, where the water adopts a roughly parabolic surface.

This shows that water is not magically trying to be flat. Instead, it tries to have the surface at equal energy.

The fact that no such measurements exist
You mean the fact that you need to ignore such measurements shows your position is not one of science, but just wilful rejection of reality.

Of course! Not as good as "space" though.  They should bring a container of that back for study (they should have and would have done it decades ago if it were possible)!
For what purpose?
Especially given that you would need to have any equipment directly connecting to the vacuum already attached, as trying to open any container would mean you no longer have that vacuum.
And even merely storing it will be quite difficult as most containers will leak to some extent.

That's true! However inertia remains a mystery... Drag caused by an interacting fluid would tie things up nicely
No it wouldn't.
That would result in the older idea of the natural state being v=0, as the fluid would resist motion through it, rather than changes in motion.
Inertia, what is actually observed, is that objects resist change in motion.

Quote
No we don’t.  The notion of light being a simple wave is about 100 years out of date.
Only as taught to us in school.
No, in reality as well.
You not liking that will not change that fact.
Light does not behave as a classical wave.

The "exception" for light is more or less indefensible, philosophically and scientifically.
Good thing it isn't just for light. It is for all matter.
All matter is capable of undergoing the same phenomenon as light. But the more massive the matter, the less significant the wave nature becomes.
But some which are routinely used would be neutron and electron diffraction.
They even use electrons to image samples.

Light also has some properties fundamentally incompatible with pressure waves, such as the ability to be polarised.

Quote
It’s strong evidence that air has nothing to do with it.  The existence of a medium is an assumption.
It's a deduction!
At best it is induction, not deduction.
It is noting some wave like properties, and assuming that must be a wave as well, and must have a medium to propagate in.

If there really is any contradiction (experimentally especially) I have yet to see it.
Because you keep ignoring it.
The simple polarity of magnets contradicts his idea.
But there are plenty of other examples if you read through what he has written and how other have responded.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1426 on: April 02, 2021, 05:07:05 AM »
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.

So according to you, if you took a long cylinder and dropped a heavy steel piston that fit with an airtight seal into it, it wouldn't drop down and compress the air, it would just magically hover there?

Because in that case the air would have nowhere to go, it couldn't 'return' to the top.

You don't think these things out before you say them, do you?
You've now set up a different scenario. It pays to actually read and absorb what I say so you don't come up with this stuff and set yourself back.


In this scenario you have the piston at the top of the cylinder and underneath, air.
In that scenario your cylinder stays at the very top. It really is that simple.

And you are correct. Air would have nowhere t go beneath it because the top is already taken up by the piston.

You're getting there so tread carefully.

Well, surprisingly you are wrong. Again.  ::)

The piston would move down because air is compressible.

You really need to at least have a basic understanding of how the world works before you start pontificating about how you think it does.
The piston will only move down if there is something to move it, otherwise it doesn't move down.Maybe you need to pay more attention.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1427 on: April 02, 2021, 05:09:26 AM »
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.
The problem is that there is more pressure below. That more pressure below means that the object should be pushed up, not down.


That depends on the object.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1428 on: April 02, 2021, 05:58:34 AM »
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.

So according to you, if you took a long cylinder and dropped a heavy steel piston that fit with an airtight seal into it, it wouldn't drop down and compress the air, it would just magically hover there?

Because in that case the air would have nowhere to go, it couldn't 'return' to the top.

You don't think these things out before you say them, do you?
You've now set up a different scenario. It pays to actually read and absorb what I say so you don't come up with this stuff and set yourself back.


In this scenario you have the piston at the top of the cylinder and underneath, air.
In that scenario your cylinder stays at the very top. It really is that simple.

And you are correct. Air would have nowhere t go beneath it because the top is already taken up by the piston.

You're getting there so tread carefully.

Well, surprisingly you are wrong. Again.  ::)

The piston would move down because air is compressible.

You really need to at least have a basic understanding of how the world works before you start pontificating about how you think it does.
The piston will only move down if there is something to move it, otherwise it doesn't move down.Maybe you need to pay more attention.

What aspect of air pushes things down?

We have static pressure
Dynamic pressure

Youve introduced some sort of denp displacement pressure as well as a magnetic vortex crush pressure.

Show how these new two pressures function.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1429 on: April 02, 2021, 06:28:15 AM »
If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.

So according to you, if you took a long cylinder and dropped a heavy steel piston that fit with an airtight seal into it, it wouldn't drop down and compress the air, it would just magically hover there?

Because in that case the air would have nowhere to go, it couldn't 'return' to the top.

You don't think these things out before you say them, do you?
You've now set up a different scenario. It pays to actually read and absorb what I say so you don't come up with this stuff and set yourself back.


In this scenario you have the piston at the top of the cylinder and underneath, air.
In that scenario your cylinder stays at the very top. It really is that simple.

And you are correct. Air would have nowhere t go beneath it because the top is already taken up by the piston.

You're getting there so tread carefully.

Well, surprisingly you are wrong. Again.  ::)

The piston would move down because air is compressible.

You really need to at least have a basic understanding of how the world works before you start pontificating about how you think it does.
The piston will only move down if there is something to move it, otherwise it doesn't move down.Maybe you need to pay more attention.

What aspect of air pushes things down?

We have static pressure
Dynamic pressure

Youve introduced some sort of denp displacement pressure as well as a magnetic vortex crush pressure.

Show how these new two pressures function.
Let's ramp this up.

Warping space is simply atmospheric displacement by any object placed into it.

Why the warp?
Because you alter the stacking system by that object
.
You see, warped space is used  for what you're told, is space. A void and you're expected to understand that that void of nothing, can warp.
You accept it because...well....it's a narrative to follow without ridicule, so why not.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1430 on: April 02, 2021, 06:39:57 AM »
You claim its caused by the very tangible air.
So validate the claim.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1431 on: April 02, 2021, 06:46:56 AM »
You claim its caused by the very tangible air.
So validate the claim.
How would you like me to validate the claim?

How can you validate your claim against it?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1432 on: April 02, 2021, 06:55:54 AM »
I didnt make any claims.
You did.
Validate them.

Tangible air.
What are the properties of tangible air that gives these independent variables of "predictble falling rate" and "magnetic vortex crushing friction"?


Try a picture
Try defining atmosphere
Try an experiment where other variables are isolated.
Shouldnt be hard.

*

JackBlack

  • 23451
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1433 on: April 02, 2021, 03:22:55 PM »
The piston will only move down if there is something to move it, otherwise it doesn't move down.
Which shows your model doesn't explain reality.
In reality, the piston moves down.
Science understands that the air is not the reason why things fall down.
Instead gravity is. That explains why the piston moves down.

Maybe you need to pay more attention.

If there's very little above and the same below, the object will be pushed down, as long as the push down results in air returning to the top by that push, other wise the object stops.
The problem is that there is more pressure below. That more pressure below means that the object should be pushed up, not down.
That depends on the object.
Only if you admit there is something dependent on the object which is trying to move it down, like gravity.

If it is just the air around it, then it doesn't matter what the object is or what it is made of.
If it is just the air around it causing the motion, all that matters is that the pressure and thus force is greater below and thus it will be pushed up.

You are relying upon gravity to pretend gravity isn't real.

You can even show this by turning the system on its side, or looking at the wind.
You can even simulate gravity in this way.

First, just with a system on its side, with a high pressure source of air, we can observe that objects are pushed away from the high pressure, regardless of if it is a helium filled balloon or a steel ball bearing. The high pressure always pushes an object away.

Now, to simulate gravity, instead of using a high pressure flow of air, we use an enclosed container and accelerate it, like a car accelerating.
We can hang a mass from the roof, and we observe that as the car accelerates forwards, the mass appears to move backwards.
But if instead we hang a helium filled balloon from the floor, we observe that it moves forwards, not backwards.
So gravity behaves like inertia, not like air pressure.

How can you validate your claim against it?
By observing an object fall, defying the pressure gradient of the atmosphere, showing it isn't falling due to air pushing it down.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1434 on: April 02, 2021, 04:26:42 PM »
Thanks for keeping your last post short and sweet, jack.  :o  Not!

Unconvinced asked many good questions which deserved adequate response.

Quote
it doesn't change the fact it's shape has been verified to an extremely high standard.

So we are taught to believe, yes.  When you get into the details, you find that it hasn't.

Quote
You've waffled on about hydrostatics and water being flat, so you obviously haven't heard of "global hydrostatic equilibrium?"

I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate any "waffling".

The equations were surreptitiously changed without validation (i.e. un/anti-scientifically).  This is at best negligence, and at worst fraud.

Water's surface has only ever been meausured to be flat, level, and horizontal at rest (under natural conditions and barring irrelevant menisuc effects) Until measurement of the convex curvature (required by the globe model) exists, the globe will continue to be an unscientific posit that directly conflicts with the aforementioned natural law from hydrostatics.

Quote
Gravity is warped space-time.

In your faith/belief (conditioned by rote under the guise of education), yes.  In science, there is no "space time" to warp in the first place - nor is there any "gravity" to do the warping.

Quote
The planets of our solar system, prove the existence of gravity.


We have essentially no idea what those lights in the sky are.  Our creation mythology is just that.  Newton famously posited no hypothesis, and chalked up the motions to God almighty.  Lights in the sky don't "prove" anything in science.  Only experiment can do that.  Natural law can be established, but there is no inherent reason that such behavior in the sky would have any/much relevance to the behavior down here on earth.  Natural law deals with what, not why/how.

Quote
This is the field of orbital mechanics.

Yes, a highly spurious and consistently unsound "discipline". Let michio kaku explain it to you : there is almost no less dependable/correct "science" than astrophysics/cosmology.  They fully admit that they don't even use the scientific method :( (chiefly because they can't). The reason that they keep creating MORE speculative fiction (dark matter, super-de-duper massive "black holes", inflation etc.) is because the existing fiction doesn't work (not for our "solar system" and not outside of it either).

Quote
Gravitational fields are very real.

If that were at all true, they could be measured, rigorously defined, manipulated and most importantly experimentally demonstrated to exist.

Quote
What do you call the force keeping you on the ground?

If you must have a "force", that force is called weight.  Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter and is not "imbued" by fictional/non-real fields that defy explanation, measurement, and description.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2021, 05:28:46 PM by jack44556677 »

*

JackBlack

  • 23451
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1435 on: April 02, 2021, 08:09:58 PM »
Quote
it doesn't change the fact it's shape has been verified to an extremely high standard.
So we are taught to believe, yes.  When you get into the details, you find that it hasn't.
No, when we get to the details, we find that it has been verified quite well, and you have a bunch of people who hate what shape it is and do whatever they can to reject the evidence.

Water's surface has only ever been meausured to be flat, level, and horizontal at rest (under natural conditions and barring irrelevant menisuc effects)
There you go repeating the same lie.
Again, why not present it honestly?
YOU have one ever measured the surface of calm water at rest on a small scale and found that it matches both a flat Earth and a round Earth.

Importantly, the surface of water has never been measured to not match that of a round Earth.

But observations over a long distance clearly indicate that the surface is curved.

You do not have any natural law of hydrostatics to back you up.
You have a blatant misrepresentation of it.

Your continued dismissal of surface tension shows this.
Surface tension is part of hydrostatics and shows that water does not magically remain flat nor adopt a flat shape.

The actual law of hydrostatics explains this meniscus.

Until you can actually show that water will magically be flat, including the effects of surface tension (or as you dismiss them, "irrelevant minisuc effects"), and to a level of accuracy which refutes the globe model, your objection to the globe will remain unscientific nonsense.

In science, there is no "space time" to warp in the first place - nor is there any "gravity" to do the warping.
That is entirely your opinion.
Space and time certainly are real, and the evidence indicates they are related.
Gravity is not doing the warping of space time, it IS the warping.

We have essentially no idea what those lights in the sky are.
No, YOU have no idea because you choose to remain ignorant of what we can learn about them.
They are not simply lights in the sky.
We have sent probes to them, landing on some of them.


If that were at all true, they could be measured, rigorously defined, manipulated and most importantly experimentally demonstrated to exist.
You mean such as measuring the gravitational acceleration at any location, which also demonstrates their existence?
Again, your objection applies to literally everything.

Try demonstrating that anything actually exists, rather than just being figments of your imagination.

Again, you are trying to set up an impossible standard and only using it to attack what you like.

If you must have a "force", that force is called weight.  Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter and is not "imbued" by fictional/non-real fields that defy explanation, measurement, and description.
We have been over this before. The fact that weight varies with location shows that weight is not intrinsic to matter.
Instead mass is intrinsic, with something acting on the mass to cause weight.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1436 on: April 02, 2021, 10:50:30 PM »
The piston will only move down if there is something to move it, otherwise it doesn't move down.
Which shows your model doesn't explain reality.
In reality, the piston moves down.

The piston would only move down if there is a force from above, however small that can be added to by the piston itself or by another energy means to fill the space the piston leaves...otherwise it stays put.

*

JackBlack

  • 23451
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1437 on: April 03, 2021, 12:30:14 AM »
The piston will only move down if there is something to move it, otherwise it doesn't move down.
Which shows your model doesn't explain reality.
In reality, the piston moves down.

The piston would only move down if there is a force from above, however small that can be added to by the piston itself or by another energy means to fill the space the piston leaves...otherwise it stays put.
The piston only moves down if there is a downwards force.
It doesn't need to come from above.

Again, the fact it moves down shows your claim that it is all from the air is wrong.
The fact that the pressure inside the tube is larger than the ambient air, due to it needing to support the weight of the piston, shows your claim that the air pushes things down is wrong.
The fact that you can't get the same thing to happen with the system being held sideways again shows your claim that the air pushes things down is wrong.

If it was actually the air pushing things, the greater pressure would push the piston up. And due to the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, it would push everything up.

We have been over this repeatedly.

You have no explanation at all for why the air magically pushes things down in direct defiance of the pressure gradient of the atmosphere.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1438 on: April 03, 2021, 05:21:40 AM »

The piston only moves down if there is a downwards force.
It doesn't need to come from above.

If it doesn't come from above there is no pushing down. As simple as that.

*

JackBlack

  • 23451
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1439 on: April 03, 2021, 02:38:39 PM »

The piston only moves down if there is a downwards force.
It doesn't need to come from above.

If it doesn't come from above there is no pushing down. As simple as that.
But there can still be pulling down. It is as simple as that.
Not everything needs to be pushed down from above, and especially not from the air above.

Again, the fact that the piston compresses the air below shows quite simply that it is not the air pushing it down; that there is something separate to the air that is causing it to move down. Sane people accept this is gravity.