ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

  • 2289 Replies
  • 240025 Views
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1440 on: April 03, 2021, 02:55:35 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.

Great
Pushing down
How does my hair not get pushed down with the force equivalent of my whole body?
The air has to bypass my hair or it must push ONLY on my body.
What property of air does this.


We can never get past the begining until you do

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1441 on: April 04, 2021, 03:31:59 AM »


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?

The issue is what happens to the force of the downward pressure with almost no air.  Does it stay the same? 

I see you only mention air resistance to a falling object, nothing about the force you claim gives it weight and makes it fall in the first place.

So what happens to the weight of an object in (almost) vacuum if it’s not falling?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1442 on: April 04, 2021, 03:38:37 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.
But there can still be pulling down. It is as simple as that.
No there can't.
When looked at logically, nothing can pull. Everything must be pushed by either compression or expansion.There is no place for pull, except to use as a word to face value differentiate motions, for clarity.

Quote from: JackBlack
Not everything needs to be pushed down from above, and especially not from the air above.
Yep, everything needs to be pushed down from above. It's just understanding why, which you don't because you follow gravity, so it's understandable.


Quote from: JackBlack
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.
Of course the piston compresses the air below. It's mass is sitting on that very top stack and does so because there is no air above it nor ability for air to be pushed up the sides of it to take place above, hence why the piston stays put.

Have a think on it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1443 on: April 04, 2021, 03:46:03 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.

Great
Pushing down
How does my hair not get pushed down with the force equivalent of my whole body?
The air has to bypass my hair or it must push ONLY on my body.
What property of air does this.


We can never get past the begining until you do
You rarely do get much past the beginning because you always end up back at the beginning.

I keep hoping you are just playing games.

Your hair does get pushed down. It does so because each hair displaces its own mass of atmosphere, however small.
Your head is another object that displaces atmosphere, just as your shoulders are.

Your hair is separate right to the foundation of your skin and skull.

Soooo, the only force on your skull is the force of push from your hair strand, minus the volume.

Sooo, as you can see, very little resistance but resistance all the same.

If you can't grasp this then I can't explain any more to you and you may need to ask someone else.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1444 on: April 04, 2021, 03:55:20 AM »


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?

The issue is what happens to the force of the downward pressure with almost no air.  Does it stay the same? 

I see you only mention air resistance to a falling object, nothing about the force you claim gives it weight and makes it fall in the first place.

So what happens to the weight of an object in (almost) vacuum if it’s not falling?
For anything to work it must have equal and opposite force.

Air cannot push down unless something is pushed up to aid it,


Let's use that piston and the scenarios.


1. If the piston is sealed at the sides, meaning no air can be pushed up (returned) and there is no air above the piston, then the piston sits on the air already under it and does not move.

2. If the piston has an air gap at the side then the air below it will transfer up the side and take its place above the piston in a continuous action and reaction motion of air versus dense mass (object/piston).
This means the air above can push the piston down by the pistons own dense mass of displacement of that air below which now cannot resist it, so the piston falls to the bottom, albeit slowly, depending on the gap at the edges of it against the container walls.


Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1445 on: April 04, 2021, 05:59:26 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.

Great
Pushing down
How does my hair not get pushed down with the force equivalent of my whole body?
The air has to bypass my hair or it must push ONLY on my body.
What property of air does this.


We can never get past the begining until you do
You rarely do get much past the beginning because you always end up back at the beginning.

I keep hoping you are just playing games.

Your hair does get pushed down. It does so because each hair displaces its own mass of atmosphere, however small.
Your head is another object that displaces atmosphere, just as your shoulders are.

Your hair is separate right to the foundation of your skin and skull.

Soooo, the only force on your skull is the force of push from your hair strand, minus the volume.

Sooo, as you can see, very little resistance but resistance all the same.

If you can't grasp this then I can't explain any more to you and you may need to ask someone else.

Stack some boxes ontop of eah other
Push them down from above.
Each box is pushed by the trasnferancs of force from the box above it, the stack, to your arm pusbing down.

Unless you can identify to us the unmeasurable property of air that passss through objects, it can not be air.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1446 on: April 04, 2021, 07:43:28 AM »
Not going to answer every point, as this is already very long.


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".

“Unscientific” only according to YOU.  The is no presupposition or belief, let alone “worship”, only scientific theories to fit the available evidence.  Your language gives away your bias.  Not very scientific.

Quote
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.

Again, “unacceptable” according to YOU.  “Remiss in their duties” according to YOU.  These are YOUR opinions, nothing more.

You talk about following the scientific method, but nowhere in the scientific method does it say you have to like what comes out.  The universe doesn’t care what you personally find “acceptable”.

Quote
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.

Still somewhat unknown, but measurable effects of gravity are very much known.  Only Flat Earthers and sometimes Geocentrists have a problem with it.

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

Yeah, evidence and those constructing and testing theories to fit the evidence.



Quote
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.

Simply untrue.  Gravity is one of the fundamental forces of nature. I doubt you could find a single physicist who disputes this.

Quote
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.

Mainly the part about relativity being devised because Newton was “unscientific”.  When did Einstein ever say that?

Quote
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.

The scientific method is a general set of principles, not a rigid set of instructions.  Exactly how each step is conducted depends on the situation.  But I can’t find any definition that describes some kind of “natural law caveat”.  If you’re going to appeal to strict  definitions, you probably shouldn’t be adding clauses yourself.

Quote
Relativity doesn't supersede aether, it depends on it (from einstein's lips no less)

Except Einstein used the word to describe something very different from Aether theories of light.

Quote
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.

Necessitated, only according to YOU.  Where is the part of the scientific method that rules out answers that don’t make sense to you?

Quote
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.

There are many areas of scientific research where controlled lab experiments aren’t possible or practical.  That’s why definitions are always clear that they are general principles.  You would dismiss entire fields of study as “unscientific” because of the exact wording Francis Bacon used centuries ago?

It never seems to be actual scientists banging on about scientific method, just people who want to reject things they don’t like.

Quote
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.

You’re partly right, it’s not just observation/measurement.  It’s observation/measurement to test a hypothesis.  The key part is not about running experiments in a controlled environment, it’s about testing a falsifiable hypotheses.  Models have a place in the process, both to describe a hypothesis to be tested and all to describe what’s already been scientifically determined. 

Quote
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.

Oh really?  And you have evidence for that do you?  To contrast with the mountains of scientific evidence that they are just what we are taught.

Sounds like a bunch more supported opinion and rejection of verified science to me.  I assume you need to mix in some conspiracy theory with your science to reject the accepted understanding of the sun and moon?

Quote
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.

There’s a vast body of experimentally determined knowledge about magnets, gravity and gas pressure spanning hundreds of years and countless experiments that Scepti’s explanations directly contradict.  Not sure why we need to reinvent the wheel?

Quote
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.

Or you haven’t looked or choose to ignore the data. There’s plenty of data to show the earth can only be a globe. 

Quote
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.

Archimedes disagreed when he said “ The surface of any fluid at rest is the surface of a sphere whose center is the same as that of the earth.”

That was over 2000 years ago.

Quote
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.

It is not, and has never been a law.  It’s just something that Flat Earthers say.

Apart from a whole load of images from space that unambiguously show the earth is spherical and water “finds its level” relative to the center of it, you can measure the curvature directly yourself.  You just need to be at sufficiently high elevation looking over a large enough body of water to measure the horizon drop.  Because despite what one Samuel Rowbotham once said, the horizon does not always “rise to eye level”.

Quote
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!

Again, YOUR interpretation of these definitions and YOUR determination of whether those definitions are met.

Quote
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

Say what?  It’s specifically the lack of observable drag that made them reason it was non interacting.

Quote
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.)

This makes no sense at all.  You are objecting to the idea of normal waves propagating in nothing, even though that’s not the current understanding.  Again you complain about “what we are taught in school”. Did you have a particularly shit science education?

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

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

Interesting that you support this. As far as I can tell, it’s entirely hypothetical and model based. No experiments have been carried out.  So isn’t it “unscientific”?

Quote
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.

Interesting use of a Einstein quote as at the time he was suggesting that the universe should be causally deterministic.  ie that with enough information about prior states, you could predict everything with equations.

Quote
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!

Wavelike properties does not equal being a wave, and certainly not like other waves you want to compare to.  For practical purposes it can be useful to treat it as one or the other though depending on the situation.

Quote
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!

It’s a hypothesis, and one that no one has been able to verify.  Many have tried and so far all have failed. 

Quote
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.

I didn’t mention accolades or pedigree, I said those who fully understand the subject.  That means knowing the established theory completely, including being able to do the maths, knowing the relevant experiments that have been conducted and why the conclusions have been accepted.  IMO this is a prerequisite of even being to challenge theories that have been rigorously tested.  Laypeople reading fringe science blogs written by other laypeople is nearly enough.

Quote
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?

Literally everything we know about gravity, magnetism and gas pressure is what I have in mind.  It’s taking some very creative interpretations from you just to fit what you believe (where gravity is a lie).

Quote
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)

So prediction is part of a step in the scientific method, but not a part of the scientific method?

Quote
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!

Erm? What?


Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1447 on: April 04, 2021, 08:02:01 AM »


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?

The issue is what happens to the force of the downward pressure with almost no air.  Does it stay the same? 

I see you only mention air resistance to a falling object, nothing about the force you claim gives it weight and makes it fall in the first place.

So what happens to the weight of an object in (almost) vacuum if it’s not falling?
For anything to work it must have equal and opposite force.

Air cannot push down unless something is pushed up to aid it,


Let's use that piston and the scenarios.

Why not the scenario I asked about?  If that wasn’t clear, just an object in a vacuum chamber. Does it have weight?

Fine, we’ll do yours then.

Quote
1. If the piston is sealed at the sides, meaning no air can be pushed up (returned) and there is no air above the piston, then the piston sits on the air already under it and does not move.

If there’s no air pressure from above, why isn’t it moving up from the force of air pressure below? You need a downward force to counteract the air pressure.  Something not gravity, but not air pressure?

Quote
2. If the piston has an air gap at the side then the air below it will transfer up the side and take its place above the piston in a continuous action and reaction motion of air versus dense mass (object/piston).
This means the air above can push the piston down by the pistons own dense mass of displacement of that air below which now cannot resist it, so the piston falls to the bottom, albeit slowly, depending on the gap at the edges of it against the container walls.

This is your regular explanation for things falling. How does this explain what happens on a vacuum chamber?

My question is, do things still have the same weight, if we remove most of the air?  An obvious question to ask of your idea that weight comes from air pressure.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1448 on: April 04, 2021, 08:44:15 AM »
There are two known pripertues of air pressure

Static
Dynamic


Sceppy is proposing additional two
Predictable rate of fall
And
Magnetic vortex crushing friction


Either these are additional or cam be measured in orginal two
Well scpepy?
Whata going on here?
Care to finish your own thoughts gor once?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1449 on: April 04, 2021, 09:27:10 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.

Great
Pushing down
How does my hair not get pushed down with the force equivalent of my whole body?
The air has to bypass my hair or it must push ONLY on my body.
What property of air does this.


We can never get past the begining until you do
You rarely do get much past the beginning because you always end up back at the beginning.

I keep hoping you are just playing games.

Your hair does get pushed down. It does so because each hair displaces its own mass of atmosphere, however small.
Your head is another object that displaces atmosphere, just as your shoulders are.

Your hair is separate right to the foundation of your skin and skull.

Soooo, the only force on your skull is the force of push from your hair strand, minus the volume.

Sooo, as you can see, very little resistance but resistance all the same.

If you can't grasp this then I can't explain any more to you and you may need to ask someone else.

Stack some boxes ontop of eah other
Push them down from above.
Each box is pushed by the trasnferancs of force from the box above it, the stack, to your arm pusbing down.

Unless you can identify to us the unmeasurable property of air that passss through objects, it can not be air.
Read what I said and absorb it. Don't set yourself back to square one, it does you no favours.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1450 on: April 04, 2021, 10:30:52 AM »
Why not the scenario I asked about?  If that wasn’t clear, just an object in a vacuum chamber. Does it have weight?

If placed on a scale plate, yes it will read a weight measurement.
Not because it's in a vacuum but because it's still in a pressurised system, albeit a lower one...but so is the actual scale.
That scale still takes up its own dense mass of air already inside that chamber before it was evacuated.
The very same goes for the dense mass of the object upon that scale.



Quote from: Unconvinced
Fine, we’ll do yours then.

Quote
1. If the piston is sealed at the sides, meaning no air can be pushed up (returned) and there is no air above the piston, then the piston sits on the air already under it and does not move.

If there’s no air pressure from above, why isn’t it moving up from the force of air pressure below? You need a downward force to counteract the air pressure.  Something not gravity, but not air pressure?

Because it's already up. It's already sitting on the stack with zero pressure release past it due to no pressure above to push against.


Quote from: Unconvinced
Quote
2. If the piston has an air gap at the side then the air below it will transfer up the side and take its place above the piston in a continuous action and reaction motion of air versus dense mass (object/piston).
This means the air above can push the piston down by the pistons own dense mass of displacement of that air below which now cannot resist it, so the piston falls to the bottom, albeit slowly, depending on the gap at the edges of it against the container walls.

This is your regular explanation for things falling. How does this explain what happens on a vacuum chamber?

My question is, do things still have the same weight, if we remove most of the air?  An obvious question to ask of your idea that weight comes from air pressure.
No.
All things measure whatever their dense mass is of atmospheric pressure they displace upon that scale plate to show a measurement.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1451 on: April 04, 2021, 11:09:29 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.

Great
Pushing down
How does my hair not get pushed down with the force equivalent of my whole body?
The air has to bypass my hair or it must push ONLY on my body.
What property of air does this.


We can never get past the begining until you do
You rarely do get much past the beginning because you always end up back at the beginning.

I keep hoping you are just playing games.

Your hair does get pushed down. It does so because each hair displaces its own mass of atmosphere, however small.
Your head is another object that displaces atmosphere, just as your shoulders are.

Your hair is separate right to the foundation of your skin and skull.

Soooo, the only force on your skull is the force of push from your hair strand, minus the volume.

Sooo, as you can see, very little resistance but resistance all the same.

If you can't grasp this then I can't explain any more to you and you may need to ask someone else.

Stack some boxes ontop of eah other
Push them down from above.
Each box is pushed by the trasnferancs of force from the box above it, the stack, to your arm pusbing down.

Unless you can identify to us the unmeasurable property of air that passss through objects, it can not be air.
Read what I said and absorb it. Don't set yourself back to square one, it does you no favours.

Its been read
It makes no sense.
Specific questions have been given to you which you avoid and dodge.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1452 on: April 04, 2021, 02:02:41 PM »
“Unscientific” only according to YOU.

Well, no - not only according to me - but the number of people who recognize/claim it is irrelevant to the point. It is by definition that we determine what is scientific and what is not (not arbitration or "democracy"/consensus).  As I said, one cannot hope to discuss, evaluate, or practice science if their definifions are wrong (as most are, due to miseducation).

Quote
Your language gives away your bias.  Not very scientific.

People make poor scientists! You misunderstand me though. The verbiage I chose is to (attempt to, clearly) convey the reality. Humans are subjective and belief based creatures.  We can't seem to help it, and it appears biological / a part of our design.  One of the reasons we don't allow zeus or god or fairies into scientific theory is because it turns science into mythology.  The same is true of fields.  If an emperical scientist proposes that a field (or zeus, or fairies) is real - they need to get to work figuring out what it is comprised of (and measuring that!) and how it interacts with other matter. It is unscientific (which is to say, mythological) to propose non-real things as a cause in science.  Again, this is by definition!

Quote
The universe doesn’t care what you personally find “acceptable”.

Exactly! (Though I encourage you to check out norm mcdonalds response to this quip from ndt). The universe doesn't care that we believe there are "fields" in reality.  It doesn't care if our equations are useful for us, and doesn't notice when we (inevitably, historically) recognize they are wrong.  It doesn't force us to make scientific progress or study science at all.  In order to study science, and recognize what is scientific and what is not requires the proper definitions which the vast majority do not have.

Quote
Still somewhat unknown, but measurable effects of gravity are very much known.

We're not there yet, you're getting ahead of yourself.  How can we discuss effects if our cause is non-real? I can argue that god is the cause (as newton did), and it is a defensible position in many ways but it isn't science.  I am not sharing an opinion with you, though it may take some time to recognize that!

Quote
Only Flat Earthers and sometimes Geocentrists have a problem with it.

As I said, every physicist worth their salt has known that "gravitation" is unscientific and philosophically unsound.  Many of them learn it by studying newton, who is forthright about that fact.  Others recognize it by studying the scientific method (aka science)

Quote
Yeah, evidence and those constructing and testing theories to fit the evidence.

That isn't what happened, and isn't the scientific method.  You can't propose a non-real entity in a hypothesis - this is a critical difference that separates science from mythology.

Quote
Gravity is one of the fundamental forces of nature. I doubt you could find a single physicist who disputes this.

Lol, or it was before it wasn't a force anymore!  Don't take my word for anything.  Do some research, or don't - up to you.

Quote
Mainly the part about relativity being devised because Newton was “unscientific”.  When did Einstein ever say that?

He said it many ways, but I am not sure they ever used that particular verbiage.  It is not very cool for a physicist to go kicking dead phycisists in their graves, and professional courtesy calls for you to "massage"/sugar-coat that at least a little bit.  The issues with gravitation are long standing, and part of any adequate training in physics.

Quote
The scientific method is a general set of principles

Nope.  It's a technical process for conducting science.  It can also be used to discern science from pseudoscience/mythology/religion masquerading as it!  It is true that there are many fringes/caveats, but the bones are the same since bacon.

Quote
If you’re going to appeal to strict  definitions, you probably shouldn’t be adding clauses yourself.

The definition is a personal working definition, and ought to suffice for the discussion unless you have some issue with it.  Do you disagree that natural law is a part of science?  I make a caveat for it, but we could declare it merely "empericism" and not science (the scientific method) if you wish.

Quote
Except Einstein used the word to describe something very different from Aether theories of light.

Why do you think that? He was using a word that had a known meaning among physicists at the time, and in at least one speech/lecture is explaining explicitly that aether and relativistic "space time" must be the same thing.  He said it many other ways too, confirming what he meant by it.

Quote
Where is the part of the scientific method that rules out answers that don’t make sense to you?

It isn't about "making sense", it's about being real.  You cannot claim that a non-real thing is acted upon or causes action upon anything manifestly real. It is anathema to all physics, and philosophically unsound.

Many, if not most things in reality don't "make sense". The truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction is obliged to possibilities.

Quote
There are many areas of scientific research where controlled lab experiments aren’t possible or practical.

True.  The lab merely makes (or is hoped to) control and seperation of variables more easy.  You can absolutely do experiments outside of a stuffy lab.

Quote
You would dismiss entire fields of study as “unscientific” because of the exact wording Francis Bacon used centuries ago?

I would dismiss mythology masquerading as science, yes. We all should! However, I would never advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

Quote
It never seems to be actual scientists banging on about scientific method, just people who want to reject things they don’t like.

Don't forget the meta-scientists (philosophers mostly), like karl popper and many others!  Practicing scientists today are largely too busy trying to scrape a crust together than to study the skeleton or history of their disciplines.

Quote
It’s observation/measurement to test a hypothesis.

Again, by definition, this is incorrect.  The ONLY test of hypothesis in science is done by experiment.  There are no exceptions.

Quote
Models have a place in the process, both to describe a hypothesis to be tested and all to describe what’s already been scientifically determined.

Roughly consistent with what I said.  They are useful (and depending on your personal conception, potentially necessary) in the hypothesis generation step.  Other than that, they are tools for specific use. If they are useful, use them! But don't delude yourself into thinking that useful means correct or that models are a part of science/the scientific method (beyond what was just discussed).

Quote
Oh really?  And you have evidence for that do you?  To contrast with the mountains of scientific evidence that they are just what we are taught.

There is no "scientific evidence", except the provisional proof gained from experiment; and that is best characterized as knowledge/scientific knowledge.  In the caveat of natural law (often referred to as such - "scienfitic evidence") it is merely measurement - though adding the adjective "scientific" is to convey that adequate rigor and repetition has been applied to the measurements.  No amount of mere measurement will ever help you prove what is going on in reality - for that you need experiment! So says the very definition of science itself!  The critical importance and requirement of experiment in science cannot be overstated.

Quote
There’s a vast body of experimentally determined knowledge about magnets, gravity and gas pressure spanning hundreds of years and countless experiments that Scepti’s explanations directly contradict.
 

Ok, share one you have in mind! From where I'm sitting, there is only "empty space" in the current view and nothing scepti is suggesting conflicts with the lack thereof (how could it?).

Quote
Or you haven’t looked or choose to ignore the data. There’s plenty of data to show the earth can only be a globe.

So we are taught, yes.  Looking deeper into that data, you will find the problems with it (or much more commonly, you never will - because you'll never check and IF you do you will likely do so under extreme bias; a mere "debunker" allied with abject appeal to authority)

Quote
Archimedes disagreed when he said “ The surface of any fluid at rest is the surface of a sphere whose center is the same as that of the earth.”

I doubt they ever said this.  However, this is another reason idolatry (aka credential worship) is to be avoided.  Every claim needs to be validated thoroughly, regardless of source.  Everybody makes mistakes, and we are all products of our upbringing.

Quote
That was over 2000 years ago.

Perhaps we can forgive the blunder more readily then as a result?

Quote
It is not, and has never been a law.

The wonderful thing about natural law (and science), is it is demonstrable! We can verify and validate this law today as they did hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago!  What we can't do, and have never done, is refute it!  That's why it's still a natural law today!!! The only way to refute natural law is to measure water's surface doing something differently (repeatedly and rigorously).  I am certain that you will be surprised if you ever bother to do it!

Quote
the horizon drop.

The horizon drop doesn't measure the shape of the world, obviously.  To measure the shape of the world - you have to DO that!

Quote
Say what?  It’s specifically the lack of observable drag that made them reason it was non interacting.

Right, by which they concluded that it must be weakly interacting.  The inertial resistance to change in motion could fit well with a weakly interacting fluid which interacts more with increasing density.  Highly theoretical speculation, I agree.

Quote
This makes no sense at all.


When we don't understand, the best way to move forward is to ask questions!

Quote
Did you have a particularly shit science education?

Most certainly! We most all did.  Very few of us ever become actual scientists, and this is one of the many reasons that they don't bother teaching it properly at the lower levels (below grad school typically).  It's also the reason for widespread/ubiquitous scientific illiteracy.

Quote
Interesting that you support this. As far as I can tell, it’s entirely hypothetical and model based. No experiments have been carried out.  So isn’t it “unscientific”?

Until verified/validated by rigorous and repeated experiment, yes. But in terms of generating hypothesis, imagination, and proposing something philosophically sound and physical/emperical for something that isn't (the "field") is a major step back towards science for physics at large.  We won't escape the cul-de-sac of theory and (endless) discussion/mathematical analysis without experimentalism taking the reins once more.  I am not a rational positivist, and I like poetry and imagination.

Quote
Interesting use of a Einstein quote as at the time he was suggesting that the universe should be causally deterministic.  ie that with enough information about prior states, you could predict everything with equations.

Sort of (it certainly isn't NOT that).  It's really more a criticism of the quantumnists and their religious ideologies/philosophies.  Shrodinger was the best at that though.

Quote
Wavelike properties does not equal being a wave, and certainly not like other waves you want to compare to.

It's an exception, and one no doubt ingrained in you.  What has wavelike properties but is not a wave?  Is this a riddle?

Quote
For practical purposes it can be useful to treat it as one or the other though depending on the situation.

Right, but when the equations are more real (to you) than the reality you hope to understand is when you are truly lost.  Useful conceptions are not correct, as you just explained in other words.

Quote
It’s a hypothesis, and one that no one has been able to verify.  Many have tried and so far all have failed.

In order to experimentally validate the hypothesis (and for the hypothesis to be "valid" depending on specific criteria used to determine that) we must be able to measure and manipulate aether.  It is tricky to do so, but there are those that conclude we have already done so in a variety of ways (misattributed to other things currently).  It largely has to do with interpretation of evidence (and experiment), rather than the data itself.

Quote
I didn’t mention accolades or pedigree

No, you merely meant it - unless you are saying that "those who fully understand the subject" can be anyone at all (credential-less).  I doubt you honestly meant that, but I hope you did!

Quote
Laypeople reading fringe science blogs written by other laypeople is nearly enough.

And there it is! Laypeople who aren't in the priesthood proper (with the accolades/pedigrees to prove it) couldn't ever hope to understand - isn't that right? How dare they challenge the priesthood! "They are not fit to judge the mighty art which I hath wrought."

Quote
Literally everything


I find that "literally everything" and "nothing" have a lot in common.  Let's start simple; we've gone over the vacuum bit, what's the next "irreconcilable paradox" on the list of "literally everything" to discuss?

Quote
So prediction is part of a step in the scientific method, but not a part of the scientific method?

Not really the way you are using the word.  What the hypothesis really has to have is not exactly a prediction, but a proposed causal relationship between an IV and a DV.  It can be interpreted that that will always be a prediction of some kind, and that is semantically sound.  The prediction could be a mere guess - is every guess a prediction? If so, then I suppose I concede to your "point"?

Quote
Erm? What?

A statistician once "proved" (mathematically of course) a causal relationship between the number of steel workers in a union in one country to the number of deaths due to murder in a foreign country.

They did it to prove a point. Statistics can be (and often is) abused.

One of these abuses is in the field of science, where statistical correlation and usefulness are often mistaken for correctness/accuracy/truth/consistency with actual manifest objective reality. 

In science we use experiment to determine what is consistent with reality. All the rest is poetry and imagination (as planck said).
« Last Edit: April 04, 2021, 02:12:00 PM by jack44556677 »

*

JackBlack

  • 23451
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1453 on: April 04, 2021, 03:00:59 PM »
But there can still be pulling down. It is as simple as that.
No there can't.
When looked at logically, nothing can pull.
You are yet to demonstrate that there can't be any pull.
And all your attempts at trying to demonstrate that claimed fact of yours ends in you just ignoring everything you can't explain in terms of a push.

Until you can actually address those situations and explain just how it is all caused by a pushing force, I will dismiss your outright lie, as just that, an outright lie.

When looked at logically, there is NOTHING prohibiting pulling, so I will continue to use. I don't care that you don't like forces which "pull" because they destroys your claims.
Showing you are wrong is not enough for me to discard it, because I actually care about the truth.

But even then, you are still ignoring the main problem.
In reality, the piston falls and compresses the gas.
This only occurs when it is vertical.
If you instead turn it upside down, the piston falls and that results in the gas decompressing.
If you hold it sideways, the piston stays put.

This is just like our old friend the mercury barometer you are still yet to explain.
The problem for you is that they so clearly demonstrate that it is not the air pushing things down. Instead weight is caused by a force OTHER than air, such as gravity.
The resting position of the piston/barometer is then based upon the balance between pressure and gravity.

Of course the piston compresses the air below. It's mass is sitting on that very top stack and does so because there is no air above it
This makes no sense at all.
You are claiming the only reason things are pushed down is BECAUSE of the air above.
So if there is no air above, that means it can't compress it.
There is nothing pushing it down.

But who really cares if it is a mass?
Again, you are claiming it is the air pushing it down. That means the mass of the piston is irrelevant.
You need the air above to apply a force to push it down.

If it is just the air, and the air below is at a greater pressure than the air above, it will push the piston UP. It will not magically cause the air below to be compressed more.
That makes no sense at all and defies simple logic.
You are claiming that even though the pressure below is greater than the pressure above, the piston will be pushed down and compress the air below even further.

Have a think on it.
I have. You should try.
Follow your own advice and actually think about the nonsense you are spouting.

Actually try having a proper think about it to see if it actually makes sense, rather than just spouting whatever nonsense you can come up with to save your failed model.

For anything to work it must have equal and opposite force.
And your "explanation" simply doesn't have it.

1. If the piston is sealed at the sides, meaning no air can be pushed up (returned) and there is no air above the piston, then the piston sits on the air already under it and does not move.
No, if there is no air above, then we just have the air below.
The air below pushes up on the piston, and this results in an equal and opposite force on the air below.
But importantly, this means there is a net upwards force on the piston, and the piston will be pushed upwards and out of the tube.
The only way to stop this, is if there is some other force acting on the piston, such as gravity or the air above.

Again, what you are claiming defies all reason.
You are claiming you can have an object happily sitting still, with a MASSIVE force being applied to one side of it, trying to push it in a particular direction, with no force to counter it.
Any sane person can easily realise that under such a situation, where a massive force is being applied to a single side of an object, without any other force, it will move that object.

This is the basis of how a firearm works.
For the purpose of a firearm, the ambient air pressure is negligible. But the pressure generated from combustion is quite significant and applies a massive force to the projectile, propelling it out of the firearm.

But according to your insanity, the bullet should just sit there, even under that tremendous pressure.

Again, you have thrown all logic out the window in an attempt to save your failed model.

Read what I said and absorb it. Don't set yourself back to square one, it does you no favours.
Follow your own advice.
Read what we have said and absorb it.
We are not setting ourselves back to square one.
You just refuse to leave it, as you continually refuse to address the issues which show your model doesn't work.

In order to leave square 1, you need to actually start explaining how your model works, and addressing the issues raised.
Such as how having a greater force below pushing up results in the object moving down, in direct defiance of simple logic.

Until you actually start doing that, you will remain at square 1.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1454 on: April 04, 2021, 03:10:26 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.

Credibility and making sense go hand in hand, jack. Try to remember that.

When you get into the details of the earth, of which you obviously haven't, you find its shape is an open and shut case. There are no details for anybody to wonder about.

Water level is perpendicular to the direction of earths gravitational pull or push at any location.

Weight. Now, what magical force do you come up with to explain all matter imbued with weight? Oh, that magical force would be called "gravity", yes? Have you forgotten what happens to Weight during free fall?

*

JackBlack

  • 23451
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1455 on: April 04, 2021, 04:01:59 PM »
Well, no - not only according to me - but the number of people who recognize/claim it is irrelevant to the point.
That's right.
Regardless of if it is just you, or also several other people, it won't magically make your opinion a fact.
Fields are no less scientific than other things, like matter.

As I said, one cannot hope to discuss, evaluate, or practice science if their definifions are wrong (as most are, due to miseducation).
So why do you continue to try to do so, when your definitions are so clearly wrong due to your extreme bias against what science has shown which you don't like?

If an emperical scientist proposes that a field (or zeus, or fairies) is real - they need to get to work figuring out what it is comprised of (and measuring that!) and how it interacts with other matter.
Again, this can applied to literally everything.
As such, by your standard, NOTHING is scientific.
After all, what is matter ultimately made of?

So if you truly want to hold to this position, you need to claim that literally nothing is scientific.
Even things like a table, which can easily be observed and interacted with in reality, can't be scientific, as we do not know what it is ultimately made of.

But any sane person realises that is pure nonsense.

You don't need to know exactly what something is made of in order for it to be scientific.
Instead, in order to be scientific, it needs to be testable, and repeatable, and thus observable in some way.
The other important aspect is falsifiability.
Fields do this by mediating interactions between matter.

Gods and the like are not. A key part they fail on is the falsifiability.
If you didn't get the result you predicted, will, that was just God not giving you what you wanted, rather than God not being real.

I can argue that god is the cause (as newton did)
Do you mean aether?
Because I can't find anywhere where he suggests it.
But you ignore the key point, they aren't discussing the CAUSE of gravity. They are discussing gravity itself.

As I said, every physicist worth their salt has known that "gravitation" is unscientific and philosophically unsound.
And that is just your biased opinion, which you make, because you hate the RE.
It is not a position based upon fact.
Gravitation, contrary to your hate based opinion, is scientific. It is based upon plenty of experiments. It is repeatable, observable and testable.
The only way in which you can have a consistent position and claim it is unscientific is if you claim EVERYTHING is.

The issues with gravitation are long standing, and part of any adequate training in physics.
And the big one, which made it distinct from the other fundamental forces, was why inertial mass was the same as gravitational mass. General relativity, with curved space time was actually able to address that issue. This also explained other things, such as gravitational lensing of light.

No the main "long standing" issues are those in common with the other fundamental forces and the issue of dark matter/gravity changing with distance.

Why do you think that?
Because the 2 make no sense at all being equated.
They are fundamentally different.

You cannot claim that a non-real thing is acted upon or causes action upon anything manifestly real.
And you can't simply dismiss something as non-real because you don't like it or because you don't know everything about it.
There is nothing scientific about that dismissal.

Quote
It’s observation/measurement to test a hypothesis.
Again, by definition, this is incorrect.  The ONLY test of hypothesis in science is done by experiment.  There are no exceptions.
Just what do you think an experiment it?
Because from what you say, you seem to have no idea.
One of the simplest ways to define an experiment, would be an observation/measurement to test a hypothesis.

Roughly consistent with what I said.
But directly contradicting your claim that they have no place in science.
So if you think that is consistent, you are claiming your position is self-contradictory.

Ok, share one you have in mind!
You have already been provided with plenty and just repeatedly ignored it.
Some key parts for magnetism are:
Like poles repel.
Opposite poles attract.
Paramagnetic materials are attracted to both sides of a magnet.

A key part for air and other fluids is that they exert a force based upon pressure and area.
If an object is inside a fluid, then the force is based upon the pressure gradient across it where it is pushed from the high pressure side towards the low pressure side.

What scepti is suggesting requires directly contradicting one or both of these.
His entire idea of a replacement for gravity directly defies everything we know about how fluids work.
Instead of accepting that things are pushed from high pressure to low pressure, he instead claims that the air will magically push an object down, pushing from the low pressure side to the high pressure side; except when it decides to not do that for things like helium filled balloons.

Likewise, his idea for magnets, as repeatedly explained to you requires violating that, as what we know about fluids indicate that magnetism caused by fluids will have the outwards flowing sides repel and the inwards flowing side attract.
This applies if you put 2 magnets together, in contrast to like poles repelling and opposite poles attracting; and it would also apply to putting paramagnetic materials near a magnet, where the inwards flowing side with a low pressure region should attract them and the high pressure region from the outwards flowing side will push them away.

Stop playing dumb and ignoring this.

What he is suggesting goes directly against what has already been established beyond any sane doubt by science. It is not simply empty space where any wild speculation can be provided.

So we are taught, yes.  Looking deeper into that data, you will find the problems with it
No, looking into the data, honestly and without bias, you find that it shows beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.
It is only looking into the data with extreme bias, with a hatred for the RE (or the like), that you pretend there are problems, such as pretending there is massive global conspiracy to try to pretend Earth is round.

If you want to claim there are problems with it, how about you try to provide some, without just going with the sophistry of "we can't know anything".

Every claim needs to be validated thoroughly, regardless of source.
Yes, such as your claim, that water is magically flat.
Especially considering in order to make that claim you already need to modify it to explicitly exclude things which show you are wrong.

Quote
It is not, and has never been a law.
The wonderful thing about natural law (and science), is it is demonstrable! We can verify and validate this law today
You mean we can invalidate it, just like they did long ago.
Your claim has NEVER been a natural law.
It is based upon wilful ignorance and is refuted by plenty of observations, including those you try to exclude from your "law" because you know it shows your "law" is just a wild claim.

What we can't do, and have never done, is refute it!
Ignoring the refutations of your baseless claim (not a natural law), doesn't mean it hasn't been refuted.
It has been refuted by countless observations.
The surface of water has been repeatedly observed to NOT BE FLAT!

You not liking that fact will not change that fact.
You repeatedly ignoring it just means your position is based upon wilful rejection of reality.

The horizon drop doesn't measure the shape of the world, obviously.  To measure the shape of the world - you have to DO that!
No, not obviously.
Try to clearly explain why the horizon drop doesn't measure the world.
After all, it is measuring the angle to a part of the world, from another part, which measures the world.

Right, by which they concluded that it must be weakly interacting.  The inertial resistance to change in motion could fit well with a weakly interacting fluid which interacts more with increasing density.
No, it doesn't,
They reasoned it doesn't interact with matter because it doesn't have that drag.
That drag would not account for inertia.
Even if it was just weakly interacting, it would still attempt to prevent relative motion, it would not resist change in motion.
The simplest way to see this is an object moving relative to this magical aether which you then try to slow down or stop, i.e. make it stationary relative to the aether.
The drag idea would provide no resistance to this.
This means you should be able to find the motion of this aether trivially by trying to accelerate an object in every possible direction (in sequence) with a negligible force, and seeing which one then has no force required to accelerate it.
And do this with objects which are moving relative to each other.

Doing so will lead to the conclusion that the aether is not moving relative to the object, regardless of the motion of the object, which would cause most people to discard that model.

Until verified/validated by rigorous and repeated experiment, yes. But in terms of generating hypothesis, imagination, and proposing something philosophically sound and physical/emperical for something that isn't (the "field") is a major step back towards science for physics at large.
This again shows you have no idea what sound is.
Wild speculation is not sound.
Sound is effectively the same as true.
In order for it to be sound, it has to be supported by evidence.
Instead, it is refuted by evidence.

Wild speculation, which ignores what we already know about reality is not scientific in any way.

It's really more a criticism of the quantumnists and their religious ideologies/philosophies.
So you think appealing to a god was a criticism of religious ideas?
Are you sure that is the path you want to go down?
It was an attack on the idea that there is randomness inherent in reality.

It's an exception, and one no doubt ingrained in you.  What has wavelike properties but is not a wave?  Is this a riddle?
Like I already told you, ALL MATTER!
For example, electrons and neutrons, which are routinely used in diffraction, and in case you don't know, diffraction is a wave property.
In classical mechanics, particles do not diffract. At best, you get reflection from it bouncing off things, but you do not get diffraction.
Instead, diffraction is a property limited to waves, and initially was one piece of evidence used to support the idea that light was a wave.

This means electrons, something pretty much only ever thought of in classical mechanics as a particle, a fundamental building block of matter, has wave nature.
So no, it isn't just light.
It also includes electrons and neutrons as a bare minimum.

A key take away of quantum mechanics is that ALL particles have wave nature.

If you didn't keep ignoring reality, you would already know this and not need to ask the same questions and make the same false statements.

In order to experimentally validate the hypothesis (and for the hypothesis to be "valid" depending on specific criteria used to determine that) we must be able to measure and manipulate aether.
No, you don't. At least not directly.
For example, you can measure your speed relative to the aether, as was done with the aberration of starlight and MMX.
The problem is the 2 speeds contradicted each other, showing that idea of aether was untennable.

Now the attempts to try to keep aether alive try to do whatever they can to keep it indistinguishable from relativity.

A statistician once "proved" (mathematically of course)
So they showed their conclusion by starting with true statements and using mathematical principles to show their conclusion?
If not, that isn't proving anything mathematically.

Do you mean they showed a correlation?
If so, that would be the generating a hypothesis/model step.
You then need to test that hypothesis/model.
That is the validation part of the model.

Making a model from available data is not testing and validating the model.

So that doesn't apply to what was stated.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2021, 04:08:06 PM by JackBlack »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1456 on: April 05, 2021, 12:11:13 AM »
But there can still be pulling down. It is as simple as that.
No there can't.
When looked at logically, nothing can pull.
You are yet to demonstrate that there can't be any pull.

I have but it's naturally objected to by you and many and I have no issue with that.
We were all brought up to use push and pull as differences  in interaction with objects.
You push or pull a door.
You push or pull a cart.
You push or pull a lever.

You pull a tug of war rope.
etc, etc, etc, etc.

But when it's looked at a bit deeper, pull is not a realistic force, at all. It's just a word that describes what appears to be the opposite of push, on face value.


I showed you how that works and you tried to counter it. I failed to see your counter as being legit just as you fail to see my mention of just push not being legit.

You are welcome to that but it won't change my mind because it's plain to see from my side that push can be the only force that can interact any matter by energy applied.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2021, 12:13:46 AM by sceptimatic »

*

JackBlack

  • 23451
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1457 on: April 05, 2021, 02:34:26 AM »
I have but it's naturally objected to by you and many and I have no issue with that.
No, you haven't.
All you have done is brought up examples of where a push occurs.
You are yet to explain how various forces are transferred without a pull.

But when it's look at a bit deeper than your superficial analysis, there always seems to be pulling forces at work as well.

If you wish to disagree, there are plenty of examples you have been provided with which you continue to deflect from.
The simplest being a single link in a chain, which you continually refused to address because you have no way to explain it in terms of push, as it needs a pulling force.


But again, all of that is just a deflection from the far bigger issue, your claims directly contradict reality.
If your model was correct, the piston would be pushed up, just like everything should be due to the greater pressure below.
But in reality, the piston falls and compresses the piston and does so until it reaches a balance, where the net force due to the pressure difference across it is balanced by its weight.

Again, this shows that weight is not caused by air.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1458 on: April 05, 2021, 04:42:49 AM »
I have but it's naturally objected to by you and many and I have no issue with that.
No, you haven't.
All you have done is brought up examples of where a push occurs.
You are yet to explain how various forces are transferred without a pull.

But when it's look at a bit deeper than your superficial analysis, there always seems to be pulling forces at work as well.


Show me.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1459 on: April 05, 2021, 04:47:39 AM »
If your model was correct, the piston would be pushed up, just like everything should be due to the greater pressure below.
But in reality, the piston falls and compresses the piston and does so until it reaches a balance, where the net force due to the pressure difference across it is balanced by its weight.

Again, this shows that weight is not caused by air.
Nope.
The only way the piston can be pushed up is if the energy applied below is greater than above.
In the scenario given the piston simply rests on the below mass/ stacking of air.
There is no applied energy to push that air, up, so all it does is resist.

Pay attention to what I explained earlier and you won't need to go through this.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1460 on: April 05, 2021, 04:48:07 AM »
No You show US!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1461 on: April 05, 2021, 05:37:12 AM »

*

JackBlack

  • 23451
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1462 on: April 05, 2021, 02:15:05 PM »
I have but it's naturally objected to by you and many and I have no issue with that.
No, you haven't.
All you have done is brought up examples of where a push occurs.
You are yet to explain how various forces are transferred without a pull.

But when it's look at a bit deeper than your superficial analysis, there always seems to be pulling forces at work as well.
Show me.
Don't play dumb. You have been provided with countless examples, including one in that very post which you chose to remove because you know you can't honestly address it.
Here it is again:
The simplest being a single link in a chain, which you continually refused to address because you have no way to explain it in terms of push, as it needs a pulling force.
You cannot explain how a simple chain link holds itself together and moves as part of a chain without needing a pulling force.
Instead you ignore that pulling force and treat the individual link as pure magic which just magically holds itself together and moves as one, and then just focus on the part that isn't in dispute, that the previous link in the chain pushes on this link.
Until you can actually explain the link itself, your claims that everything is push is pure nonsense.

Another example from earlier in this thread would be magnets, where you still haven't explained how they magically produce the observed polarity with only using air.

But again, that is all just a distraction from your bigger failure, your complete to describe why things fall with the air.


The only way the piston can be pushed up is if the energy applied below is greater than above.
For example, if the pressure below is greater than the pressure above, as in your example.
This means it is applying a greater force and thus greater energy.
That means that it should be pushing the object up.

The air doesn't need extra energy applied. It already has that energy in the form of pressure.

But if you want to go down that rabbit hole again, what is providing energy to the air above to push things down?
And then in the contradictory case, what is providing the energy to the air below to push the helium filled balloon up?

Before you say that the energy was provided by lifting the object, the same applies to the air. It has been compressed, that compression (even to only atmospheric pressure) is providing energy to it. And it doesn't matter how it is compressed.
So that leaves you back just dealing with pressure, where the pressure is greater below meaning the object is pushed up.

Pay attention to what I explained earlier and you won't need to go through this.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice and pay attention to what I explained earlier.

If the pressure is greater below, that means the air pushes the object up, not down.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1463 on: April 06, 2021, 01:13:12 AM »

You cannot explain how a simple chain link holds itself together and moves as part of a chain without needing a pulling force.
I certainly did but you decided to overlook the bigger picture for your own version and then claimed I didn't explain, like you always do. Feel free to do that as much as you want but you waste a lot of your own input.

A chain cannot pull or be pulled.
It's all push.

If you look at it n simple face value appearance you would naturally just go with the flow of the word "pull" because that's what you and I were taught.

Push is the only way a force can make any impact to become a force, at all..

*

JackBlack

  • 23451
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1464 on: April 06, 2021, 02:53:35 AM »
I certainly did
There you go using the same old pathetic tactics. As you cannot justify your position, you just outright lie and claim you already did.

In this case the bigger picture isn't the issue. The smaller picture. The smaller picture you kept ignoring which clearly shows a pull is required.
You want to completely ignore that small picture of an individual link, all so you can focus on the bigger picture of how the links interact with each other so you can pretend there is no pull.
But all that does is show that there is a push. It doesn't nothing to address the pull you keep on pretending doesn't exist.

Now stop with the pathetic lies and deal with the issues. If you want to claim there is no pull, don't just lie and say you have already explained it, either provide a link to this non-existent explanation or provide the explanation again.
If you had actually explained it, that would be trivial; like how I continually provide you with the explanation for why your model does not match reality at all and has no chance of ever doing so, which you keep on ignoring.

Alternatively, if you don't want to try to defend that lie of yours, deal with the issue at hand and explain how the air magically manages to push an object in direct defiance of the pressure gradient of the atmosphere.

Again, if the pressure is greater below an object, that means it will push it up. The air can't push things down, not unless the pressure above is greater.
You need an extra force acting on the object to overcome this pressure gradient and push/pull it down. This is even more important in the example we were previously discussing most recently, where the piston makes a seal against a tube, and in falling down it compresses the air below.
You need some force to cause that compression.

Sane people accept that that force is gravity. But you want to pretend it is all the air, even though you have no way to explain how the air magically pushes down in direct defiance of the pressure gradient. And you continually refuse to address this issue, just like all the other issues that show beyond any doubt that your model is fundamentally flawed.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1465 on: April 06, 2021, 03:15:56 AM »

You cannot explain how a simple chain link holds itself together and moves as part of a chain without needing a pulling force.
I certainly did but you decided to overlook the bigger picture for your own version and then claimed I didn't explain, like you always do. Feel free to do that as much as you want but you waste a lot of your own input.

A chain cannot pull or be pulled.
It's all push.

If you look at it n simple face value appearance you would naturally just go with the flow of the word "pull" because that's what you and I were taught.

Push is the only way a force can make any impact to become a force, at all..

Agreed. Gravity is a pushing by virtue of the warping of space around an object. The closer you are to the object, the stronger the push from the warped space. More mass equals more warped space around that mass than a smaller mass.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1466 on: April 06, 2021, 04:25:22 AM »

You cannot explain how a simple chain link holds itself together and moves as part of a chain without needing a pulling force.
I certainly did but you decided to overlook the bigger picture for your own version and then claimed I didn't explain, like you always do. Feel free to do that as much as you want but you waste a lot of your own input.

A chain cannot pull or be pulled.
It's all push.

If you look at it n simple face value appearance you would naturally just go with the flow of the word "pull" because that's what you and I were taught.

Push is the only way a force can make any impact to become a force, at all..

Within thw bigger picture are super tiny pictures.
Theres a whole engineering discipline around it called finite element.
Sorry, reality disagrees with you.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1467 on: April 06, 2021, 05:16:34 AM »
I certainly did
There you go using the same old pathetic tactics. As you cannot justify your position, you just outright lie and claim you already did.

In this case the bigger picture isn't the issue. The smaller picture. The smaller picture you kept ignoring which clearly shows a pull is required.
You want to completely ignore that small picture of an individual link, all so you can focus on the bigger picture of how the links interact with each other so you can pretend there is no pull.

Show me the pull. Explain where the pull is and I'll happily show you there isn't one.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1468 on: April 06, 2021, 07:20:40 AM »
When you get into the details of the earth... you find its shape is an open and shut case. There are no details for anybody to wonder about.

That is your faith, informed from conditioning by rote under the guise of education, yes.  In reality, it is the opposite.  The data you presume to exist, due to miseducation, doesn't.

Quote
Water level is perpendicular to the direction of earths gravitational pull or push at any location.


Once again, in your models and belief - yes.  In reality, whenever water's surface at rest is measured it is flat, level, and horizontal.  You have no measurements to the contrary, nor does anyone. That is why this law of hydrostatics has stood unchallenged for centuries. If you want to refute it, you (or anyone) must measure the sustained convex curvature of waters surface at rest required for the globe posit to be possible at all. This has never been done in all of human history, and whenever water's surface at rest is measured - it only has the one shape.  Please do not use the "meniscus defense", as it is desperate non-sequitur.

Quote
to explain all matter imbued with weight

One day we will perhaps have an answer to that. Today, it is merely an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.  Most natural laws are this way; "scientific bedrock" more or less.

Quote
Have you forgotten what happens to Weight during free fall?

No! Nothing happens to the weight. It's the same as it ever was.  It is an intrinsic and inexorable property of the matter itself.

Ultimately we will have to discuss the difference between the object's intrinsic weight and the effective weight (weight with the buoyant force factored in), but it's all pretty straightforward and easy to understand. It requires no magic (like "gravitation" and "mass" which exist only in equation and are in no way real/definable/measurable/manipuable), and magic is best left out of science!

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1469 on: April 06, 2021, 08:09:47 AM »
measuring water over far distances is a thing.
sorry
you are wrong


crows nests on boats and light houses
bridges
canals