ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 04, 2021, 03:10:26 PM

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!

Why do you limit yourself so much Jack?  Seems like a very small world you paint yourself into.

Jack:  The shape of the world is unknowable because water seems flat!

Also Jack:  there are no possible ways of measuring mass or gravitation! 

Could it be that you are just not clever enough to think of possible ways to measure the shape of the world besides looking at a pool of water?  Or that there could be ways of possibly measuring mass?

@jackblack part 1 of 2

Fields are no less scientific than other things, like matter.

I understand why you think this, but it is wrong.  Matter is manifestly real and tangible, and the quantumnists are deluded and wrong.  Fields are a placeholder for science that was expected to come. Until that science comes (which it never has, and never will), we are left with "spooky action at a distance" which is unscientific and anathema to physics.

when your definitions are so clearly wrong

What are my definitions, and in what way are they wrong?

Again, this can applied to literally everything.

You can apply ketchup to everything too, but that doesn't make it appropriate to do so.  The criticism is about fields, not "everything" as you desperately want it to be.

After all, what is matter ultimately made of?

The presumptive answer is atoms.  We can't see well enough at these scales to be certain, so we speculate.  Philosophically, the atom is the smallest division of matter. "Sub-atomic" things are a philosophical violation of the concept of the atom - though there may well be smaller (physical, tangible, emperical, and manifestly real) things, than what we mistook for atoms.

But any sane person realises that is pure nonsense.

So why do YOU keep saying this nonsense?

Fields do this by mediating interactions between matter.

The trouble being that "fields" don't exist.  If they did, then we could make a scientific argument for what they cause (and how they cause it). Currently we can't do that, and never will with our current (lack of) approach.

Do you mean aether?

No. The discussion was about the cause of the motions of the lights in the sky.

And that is just your biased opinion

No, it's just another fact.  You can read about it in newton's own hand if you wish.

It is based upon plenty of experiments.

Only when you don't properly understand what an experiment is.  There is a reason that newton didn't even bother to feign a hypothesis for gravitation.  He understood full well that it was not a scientific posit, and could never have experimental validation. Only god almighty could be responsible for its actions, which is why newton concluded that.

was why inertial mass was the same as gravitational mass. General relativity, with curved space time was actually able to address that issue.

That's incorrect, it was simply "carried over". The concept that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same is taken on faith, and as a "coincidence".  In fact, mass is fiction (non-real/ exists only in equation/can not be measured or defined)

This also explained other things, such as gravitational lensing of light.

There is no such thing.  Every experimental evaluation of the claim shows that clearly. Light's path can only be altered by direct interaction with matter.

Because the 2 make no sense at all being equated.

You are confused about what I said. The best thing to do when you don't understand is to ask questions! (The more specific the better the chance of getting a specific answer!)

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.

In science everything is dismissed as non-real until it is proven to be real (default skepticism, not default faith as you are exhibiting).  There is no "field"; it is a conceptual placeholder for science that was expected to come in the future and a deviation from the scientific method.  It is fine to posit something new, but until it is emperically proven to be real - it isn't.

Just what do you think an experiment is?

I don't just think it, I know it! And I know how I know it too!  I'd be happy to share that with you if you have the interest!

One of the simplest ways to define an experiment, would be an observation/measurement to test a hypothesis.

It isn't just (too) simple, it's incorrect!

So if you think that is consistent, you are claiming your position is self-contradictory.

I'm not following you.  What contradiction specifically are you speaking of?

Some key parts for magnetism are:
Like poles repel.
Opposite poles attract.
Paramagnetic materials are attracted to both sides of a magnet.

For most of those you have already been given conceptualizations that do not require paradox.  Sadly they didn't help you to imagine others on your own.  You seem too busy debunking, rather than imagining how something COULD be possible.

What scepti is suggesting requires directly contradicting one or both of these.

Possibly, though this isn't certain.  In terms of poles and magnetic attraction of paramagnetic and unmagnetised magnetic materials a cogent potential conception has already been given to you.

indicate that magnetism caused by fluids will have the outwards flowing sides repel and the inwards flowing side attract.

That is only one potentiality. There are others!  Use your imagination!

Stop playing dumb and ignoring this.

I'm doing neither, though it seems your conversation with scepti is "bleeding" into this one a little bit.

It is not simply empty space where any wild speculation can be provided.

The "field" in composition and mechanism is exactly that! And this is exactly the reason that almost anything that scepti suggests can't contradict it, by definition.

The observed behavior (currently attributed to "fields") could potentially, but imagined paradoxes can also be reconciled (through that same imagination, and also by establishing co-behavior/mechanism by measurement and experiment)

@jackblack part 2 of 2

No, looking into the data, honestly and without bias, you find that it shows beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.

There are some (precious few) data sets that suggest that, but only with abject appeal to authority (and most often the ingrained belief that the earth MUST be spherical conditioned by rote under the guise of education).  The rest (the ones verifiable/validatable independently) don't establish (nor seek to) the shape of the entire world.

such as pretending there is massive global conspiracy to try to pretend Earth is round.

The ones that claim that are most often RE acolytes.  Earnest flat earth researchers typically don't claim such silliness.

Yes, such as your claim, that water is magically flat.

Magic is best left out of science/knowledge. Water's surface at rest is flat/level/horizontal for a variety of reasons.  Or, rather, it can be conceptualized to be caused in a variety of ways.  However, the reason we know that water's surface at rest is flat/level/horizontal is not from any of those conceptions - it's from rigorous and repeated measurement (most notably in the discipline of hydrostatics)!

Especially considering in order to make that claim you already need to modify it to explicitly exclude things which show you are wrong.

No, that is commonplace with natural law. Things are "idealized", it's not a big deal.

You mean we can invalidate it

We could if it were invalidatable, yes.  As it stands, we haven't invalidated/refuted this law for as long as it has stood (centuries at least). We have only ever validated it. That's how natural law works!

It has been refuted by countless observations.
The surface of water has been repeatedly observed to NOT BE FLAT!

You can't merely "observe".  You need to MEASURE THE WATER'S SURFACE (not yelling, just too lazy to bold it). That is how the law was established in the first place, and the only way to refute it is to measure water's surface at rest doing something else!  If you have such measurement, share it! Otherwise you should recognize that you don't have it, and start into research/apologetics/rationalization as to why you don't have it.

No, not obviously.

It bloody well ought to be.  I recognize that it isn't in your case, and many others but that has to do with bias.

Try to clearly explain why the horizon drop doesn't measure the world.

One reason is that the horizon is not a physical place (it's an optical illusion).  Another is that you can't measure the world, or it's shape without MEASURING THE WORLD! It really is obvious.

Doing so will lead to the conclusion that the aether is not moving relative to the object

Right, which can be rationalized many ways (there is essentially never only one way to conceptualize or interpret something), one of which involves "aether-dragging" but this is all getting further away from the subject at hand.

Sound is effectively the same as true.

Not when used properly. Sound is short for "logically sound". Logically sound is fantastically different than true.

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

I generally agree, however there is no wrong way to come to a hypothesis - and wild speculation and models have their limited place in the scientific method (aka science) solely for this purpose.

It was an attack on the idea that there is randomness inherent in reality.

That's exactly what I said! Somehow you seem to be misunderstanding me...

Like I already told you, ALL MATTER!

No, waves exist within matter (exclusively).

In classical mechanics, particles do not diffract.

And cannot, yes.  The waves within them / they are riding (and/or comprised of) can though!

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.

Yes, very strong evidence in my view!

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

Exactly, the quantumnists are wrong.  That is evident in a variety of ways, but the phrase "God does not play dice with the universe" conveys it pretty well.

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.

This presumes an aether at the outset. Actually, the function of the mmx itself presumes an aether and to many is proof (strong evidence) of aether's reality.

The trouble is that is circular logic.

The problem is the 2 speeds contradicted each other, showing that idea of aether was untennable.

Not if you define the world as stationary! (Or if aether is dragged with it, and countless other potentials undoubtedly)

Do you mean they showed a correlation?

Of course! Statistics can't establish causality. Nothing but experiment can do that, and even then it is provisional (and typically doomed to expiration)

You then need to test that hypothesis/model.
That is the validation part of the model.

The trouble is it is done the same way, by circular logic.  The hypothesis was the number of workers in this steel union causes proportional deaths in the foreign country.  This was "proven" statistically though I doubt they went to the trouble of manipulating artificially the number in the union (though they may have done).  In any case, none of this is science.

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

It is validated the same way typically (as it is created), and is embarrassing circular logic.

Quote from: Unconvinced on April 04, 2021, 07:43:28 AM

“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). 

Who mentioned consensus? Another clue about where you first started this journey, perhaps?

Anyway my point is that all this is your interpretation of how those definitions are applied, and  that you do it selectively and inconsistently in order to claim that things you don’t agree with are not science.

As I said, one cannot hope to discuss, evaluate, or practice science if their definifions are wrong (as most are, due to miseducation).

So all the universities and science institutions have their definitions wrong, and you have it right?

One of the reasons we don't allow zeus or god or fairies into scientific theory is because it turns science into mythology.

The only reason they are mythical is lack of scientific evidence.  If Zeus appeared in the sky throwing lightning bolts around and fathering illegitimate Demigods, science would have to deal with that.  I’m sure it would cause quite a stir as well. 

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.

Experiments ONLY measure interactions.  Fields, like everything else are studied through their interactions.  If they are compromised of something else, maybe one day scientists could work out how to measure that, but that’s another question.  Just as if Zeus was real and making his presence felt, we wouldn’t need to understand how he worked to see him wrecking shit with thunderbolts. 

It is unscientific (which is to say, mythological) to propose non-real things as a cause in science.  Again, this is by definition!

Only because YOU say that fields aren’t real.  YOUR definition, because YOU think there must something else.  But that is just YOUR opinion.

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!

You have it completely backwards, and contradict your own argument about experimental evidence.

To repeat myself, experiments ONLY measure the observable effects.  That’s not getting ahead of ourselves, that’s a starting point. From there we can devise theories to explain gravitation, form testable hypotheses and think of new experiments to test that.  It’s a continuous process, and we know we don’t have a complete answer yet. 

As I said, every physicist worth their salt has known that "gravitation" is unscientific and philosophically unsound. 

You can say it as much you like, it’s doesn’t make it true.  Have you actually asked any physicists about it?

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.

Fundamental interaction is arguably more correct, mainly as we lack a complete theory, but fundamental force is the more common term.  The point is that real physicists don’t doubt its existence.

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.

Or maybe he never said anything close? Your chance to prove me wrong.

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.

It doesn’t describe exactly how to do each step.  Which is why I take issue with you saying that things not explicitly described in it aren’t scientific.  Although sometimes they are anyway.

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.

Since you’re so hung up on exact definitions, I find it quite amusing that you seem happy to make up your own and insert it into the scientific method, which you claim is rigid and immutable.

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.

You’ve answered your own question. Einstein applied the term to Spacetime, not some kind of fluid as it was in Aether theories of light.

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.

You are deciding what you think counts as real, based on whether it makes sense to you.  I don’t claim fields are unreal, you do.

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

Exactly.  So who are you to decide what’s not real?

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.

Don’t forget your own “natural law caveat”! Apparently you can make up whatever exceptions you like to suit an argument.  Science!

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.

I’ll take that as a no then.  You don’t have evidence for your claim.

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?).

Gas pressure acts on surface area, gravity on mass.  Gas pressure acts in all directions, gravity acts towards other masses.  Gas pressure can be contained with physical barriers, gravity can’t.  I could go on.

These are hardly obscure or highly theoretical differences, they are basic mechanics, readily observable. 

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)

I’ve looked and found only claims that don’t remotely fit the data. Anything specific in mind?

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. 

Well he did.

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.

It has been.  I only mentioned it because your “law of hydrostatics that stood for centuries” never happened.

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!

The oceans are demonstrably curved over a spherical earth. Archimedes was correct and you are literally making stuff up and trying to pass it off as a “natural law”.

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!

There are many ways to measure the shape of the world, from mapping the entirety of the surface (done), to looking up to distant reference points from many different locations (done), to photographing it from space (done).  All show it’s undoubtedly a globe.  But you were only talking about measuring the curvature of a body of water, which anyone can do by looking at the horizon and applying a bit of basic geometry.  Every time someone does it, they refute your made up “law”.

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.

And maybe why some of them become Flat Earthers?

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.

Einstein and Schrodinger were early pioneers of quantum physics.  There were no “religious quantumists” to criticize, unless you suggest they were including themselves?   They found that at this scale, things behave completely differently to classical physics, which didn’t appear to make any logical sense.  This provoked much furious debate about the implications of it all.

But that didn’t stop Einstein contributing greatly to the field by publishing revolutionary papers on the subject.  Einstein certainly didn’t claim it was all unscientific, or reject evidence he didn’t like.

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

Photons, electrons, and everything else at that scale as far as I understand it.

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]

How am I lost, if I understand that treating light as a wave isn’t really the full picture?  If equations are useful, we can use them to do useful things.  What’s the problem?

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.

As opposed to gravity, which you dismiss despite all the very clear evidence.  Seems you allow ideas about Aether a lot of leeway.

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!

It can be if those people put serious time and effort into learning the subject to gain sufficient level understanding.

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."

No. Laypeople who don’t have  detailed knowledge of what they are talking about.  They don’t need to be in “priesthood”, they just need to put the effort into properly learning the subject.

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?

Like fluid mechanics and how it doesn’t work anything like how he says? 

In science we use experiment to determine what is consistent with reality. All the rest is poetry and imagination (as planck said).

How ironic.

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

I already did, repeatedly. Remember this diagram:

Or would you prefer the more simpler one with just the single link you can't explain?

There is a force pushing the right hand side of the link to the right.
But at best (and this being generous) that pushing force can only affect the dark region of the link. You need a pulling force where the right of the link pulls the left.
It has also been explained how trying to appeal to smaller links won't help your case, as it just pushes the problem back.


Now again, going to stop avoiding the real issue?
How your air magically pushes things down in direct defiance of the pressure gradient?
Are you capable of honestly and rationally justifying your position, or are you only capable of these repeated dishonest dodges?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 04, 2021, 03:10:26 PM

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.

No, in reality, it is what he stated.
It is your blind faith and wilful ignorance that pretends the opposite.
But that faith and ignorance has no bearing on reality.

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.

Stop repeating the same pathetic lie. It won't make it true. It just shows that you are choosing to remain wilfully ignorant.
You ignoring all the evidence and pretending it doesn't exist doesn't magically make it not exist.

One day we will perhaps have an answer to that. Today, it is merely an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.

See above.
The fact that weight varies with location shows it is not intrinsic.
Mass is the intrinsic property.

It requires no magic (like "gravitation" and "mass"

Which don't require magic at all.
But suggesting there is some inante property to matter, which magically varies without cause, and which magically pushes this matter in a particular direction, violating a fundamental assumption of science, that of anisotropy, which is yet to be violated, sure seems to.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 04, 2021, 04:01:59 PM

Fields are no less scientific than other things, like matter.

I understand why you think this, but it is wrong.

I don't merely think it, I know it.
It is a factual statement.
Ultimately, we do not know what anything is made of.

If you wish to disagree, instead of spouting a bunch of sophistry about fields, explain clearly just what matter is made of, without leaving any question of why.
Unless you can do that, your attack of fields is entirely irrational and biased.

Quote

Again, this can applied to literally everything.

You can apply ketchup to everything too, but that doesn't make it appropriate to do so.

I don't care if you don't think it is appropriate. The same argument you are making can be applied to literally everything, and it is just as correct.
The criticism is equally valid for everything.
Stop pretending it is just for fields.
While you continue it is just for fields it shows your dishonesty and bias.

Quote

After all, what is matter ultimately made of?

The presumptive answer is atoms.

No it isn't. That has long since be overturned.
And regardless, it doesn't address the question it just leaves open the question of what atoms are made of.

Can you actually explain what things are made of, without just leaving it to be more questions?
If not, your argument that we don't what X is made of therefore X is not scientific applies to all matter.

So why do YOU keep saying this nonsense?

You are the one spouting the nonsense, not me. I am showing that it is nonsense.

Quote

Fields do this by mediating interactions between matter.

The trouble being that "fields" don't exist.

That is your belief, with no basis in reality.

If they did, then we could make a scientific argument for what they cause (and how they cause it).

Again, this same argument can be applied to everything, that means according to you nothing exists.
Again, that is pure nonsense.

Quote

Do you mean aether?

No. The discussion was about the cause of the motions of the lights in the sky.

No, it was about what Newton claimed caused gravity. I can find no evidence that he ever thought it was God. But I have found sources indicating aether, where the aether between 2 objects was more rarefied and that caused the aether on the outside of the objects to push it together.

Quote

And that is just your biased opinion

No, it's just another fact.  You can read about it in newton's own hand if you wish.

And can you provide that, where Newton clearly states that gravity is not scientific?
Also, even if you can, that still doesn't make it fact. It just means that Newton agrees with your opinion.

In order to make that baseless claim of yours a fact, you would need to refute the massive body of science on gravity, which shows quite clearly that it is scientific.

Quote

It is based upon plenty of experiments.

Only when you don't properly understand what an experiment is.

You mean only when I don't accept your ridiculous claims about experiments you keep on making to pretend all the science you hate is not real science.
You are yet to explain just what magically makes it not an experiment. Instead you just continually assert that it isn't based upon experiments and isn't scientific.

There is a reason that newton didn't even bother to feign a hypothesis for gravitation.

Except those he did, like I pointed out in the other thread, which you just ignored.

Quote

was why inertial mass was the same as gravitational mass. General relativity, with curved space time was actually able to address that issue.

That's incorrect, it was simply "carried over". The concept that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same is taken on faith, and as a "coincidence".

There you go with more blatant lies.
The concept of it being the same is based upon experiments showing that in a gravitational field objects accelerate at the same rate regardless of mass and density and so on, until you get to the buoyant force or air resistance causing a problem.
This shows that the 2 are the same. The big question was why.
General relativity with curved space time explains that by reframing gravity, not as a force, but as bending of space time such that an objects motion through time is converted to motion through space. This directly leads to the outcome that all objects would accelerate at the same rate in the same region of warped space-time.
So previously it was a coincidence which couldn't be explained. But with GR, it is a logical consequence.

In fact, mass is fiction (non-real/ exists only in equation/can not be measured or defined)

Another blatant lie.
Mass certainly appears to be real, with quite real affects and various methods exist to measure it. Sure, you might claim that these are indirect and not actually measuring mass, but the same would apply to basically all measurements.
For example, how would you measure weight directly?
Note, this means you need a magical device which just directly tells you weight. It can't rely upon say the compression of a spring, which then actually measures the compression of the spring, or the change in electrical resistance as you compress a resistive material.

Again, your position is a dishonest position of sophistry where you pretend that things you don't like are real, by dishonestly an impossible standard to it, which you don't apply to things you are happy with.

Quote

This also explained other things, such as gravitational lensing of light.

There is no such thing.

Rejecting reality wont magically change it.

Quote

Because the 2 make no sense at all being equated.

You are confused about what I said.

No, I'm not.
If you truly think I am confused, the best thing to do is to clarify your position, rather than just accuse me of being confused and suggest I ask questions.

In science everything is dismissed as non-real until it is proven to be real

If that was the case, everything would still be dismissed as being non-real, as science can't prove anything is real.
The only "proof" science can actually do is proving something isn't real, due to a contradiction.
This is because science relies primarily upon inductive reasoning, which while it can strongly support something existing, it cannot prove it.
This again shows you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to science, especially with your position of extreme sophistry.

Quote

Just what do you think an experiment is?

I don't just think it, I know it! And I know how I know it too!  I'd be happy to share that with you if you have the interest!

No, you clearly aren't happy to share that.
It is clear you have no idea what an experiment actually is due to just how many experiments you dismiss.
I am not going to ask you what you know an experiment is when you clearly don't know.
Instead I will only ask what you think it is.

And I did ask just that. Yet instead of provide just what you think it is, you acted all high and mighty and didn't bother answering.
If you were happy to share what you think an experiment is, you would have done so.
If you need people to just blindly accept that you know what an experiment is before you tell them, it shows you aren't happy to give people answers, you are just happy to be treated like a omniscient god.

Quote

One of the simplest ways to define an experiment, would be an observation/measurement to test a hypothesis.

It isn't just (too) simple, it's incorrect!

Says you, but you can't explain why.
Your repeated dismissals truly are pathetic.

I'm not following you.  What contradiction specifically are you speaking of?

You claim that prediction is not part of science, yet then claim it is. You can't get much more contradictory than that.

For most of those you have already been given conceptualizations that do not require paradox.

From actual science, yes.
From Scepti's model, not at all.

Instead I have been provided with attempts at excuses which simply don't work, and I have explained why.

Quote

What scepti is suggesting requires directly contradicting one or both of these.

Possibly, though this isn't certain.

Unless you can explain how, it certainly does.

You claiming your excuse that I have already shown to not work, is not addressing this contradiction.

That is only one potentiality.

No, that is a direct logical conclusion based upon what we already know about how fluids work.

I'm doing neither

You certainly are.
You continually play dumb and ignorant to pretend that we don't have any idea at all and thus any wild speculation is sound.
In reality, this wild speculation is contradicted by what has been shown by experiment.

You are playing dumb and ignorant by continually ignoring that.
Just like when you pretend we have no evidence that Earth is round or that water curves.

The "field" in composition and mechanism is exactly that!

We aren't simply discussing fields, we are discussing magnetism.
But even limiting it to fields, it still isn't that.
It is only when you want to try discussing ultimately what ANYTHING is made of and ultimately what ANY mechanism is, that you get to just that, and that applies to things like matter and collisions as well.

And because we aren't simply talking about this sophistry and instead are talking about what we already have a quite well established body of knowledge, based upon rigorous experimentation, is the reason why wild speculation can't just be taken as just as good.

There are some (precious few) data sets that suggest that

No, there are plentiful datasets that strongly indicate that, leading any sane, honest person, to rationally conclude that Earth is round.
There is no need for any appeal to authority.
The only way out is to think that nature itself is conspiring to pretend Earth is round.

The ones that claim that are most often RE acolytes.

Such as you?
Because you require such a conspiracy, involving nature itself.
The FE position needs such as conspiracy.
The only other option is someone being truly ignorant of all the available data.

Magic is best left out of science/knowledge.

So stop bringing it in with your magically flat water.

Water's surface at rest is flat/level/horizontal for a variety of reasons.

It is level for one simple reason, minimising energy.
Noting that this level is an equipotential surface where water will not gain or lose energy by traversing the surfacing.

it's from rigorous and repeated measurement (most notably in the discipline of hydrostatics)!

You mean from your pathetic set of measurements which need to ignore it not being flat, and need to be done at such a small scale or with such large error you cannot measure the curve?
I wouldn't call those rigorous.

Hes plead spamming.
Theres no actual point being made.

It actually refers to  quantum entanglement  in its original context, not to fields, not to gravity and not to anything else you wish to dream up.

As far as I know, that is true! However, quantum entanglement is not the first nor sole example of the philosophically unsound and unscientific "spooky action at a distance" that physicists have been trying to do away with since newton invited his magical god gravity (epicurus', in point of fact) into emperical science.

Hes plead spamming.
Theres no actual point being made.

There are LOT's of points being made, but the words must be read and understood for that!

If you don't understand, you should ask questions!

I am not involved in any silly debate games. This is just a discussion.  There is no judge nor is their any "pleading". 

My words are to help the earnest understand what is being discussed, as well as my perspective.

No, that is commonplace with natural law. Things are "idealized", it's not a big deal.

It is a big deal when you are trying to take a measurement on a fairly short distance and apply it to a massive one.

As it stands, we haven't invalidated/refuted this

Again, ingoring reality wont help you.
And again, it has never been a natural law.
The natural law is the water is level, not flat.

You can't merely "observe".  You need to MEASURE THE WATER'S SURFACE

An observation is a measurement.
There are quantitative measurements and qualitative measurements.
We don't need to get an exact number.
All we need to refute your baseless claim that the surface of water is magically flat is a qualtitative measurement which shows it isn't.
And that has been done, countless times.
You not liking it because it shows you are wrong does not magically negate that.

Quote

No, not obviously.

It bloody well ought to be.

You wanting it to be obvious so you don't need to justify your baseless position does not make it so, nor does it mean it ought to be.
Again, it is YOUR bias that is the issue here, not ours.

Instead, it is obvious that you are wrong.

One reason is that the horizon is not a physical place

It certainly seems to be.
Yes, it is a different place for each location, but it is still a physical place, on Earth, located some distance away.
It is not an optical illusion like you falsely claim.

Another is that you can't measure the world, or it's shape without MEASURING THE WORLD! It really is obvious.

So your justification for why it isn't a measurement of the world is that it isn't a measurement of the world.
Doesn't that seem a bit circular to you?
Lets try this, it IS a measurement of the world. Therefore it IS a measurement of the world.
Happy now?

Again, it is a measurement of Earth, you are measuring the angle between 2 points on earth.
You seem to just want to dismiss all these measurements which show you are wrong. That isn't being scientific. That is being religious.

Right, which can be rationalized many ways

You need to rationalise the contradiction not just 1 part of it.
You need to explain how the aether is moving relative to you while being stationary relative to you.

Quote

Sound is effectively the same as true.

Not when used properly. Sound is short for "logically sound". Logically sound is fantastically different than true.

There you go not knowing what words mean.
Are you sure you aren't confusing it for logically valid?
Valid means the conclusion follows from the premises.
Sound means that it is valid, and the premises are true (and can be shown to be true).
And with logic, if you start with true premises and use logically vaild reasoning, you MUST end up with a true conclusion.
So if a conclusion is of a sound argument that means it is true.

It is impossible for something to be sound and false.
If it is false either the logic used to support it is invalid as you can reach a false conclusion from true premises; or the premises were not true.
Either way, it isn't sound.

Now do you understand why I say sound is effectively the same as true?
The distinction is that sound applies to the argument as a whole, while true and false applies to the conclusion and the premises separately.

Wild speculation, where you have no idea if the premise is true or not at best gets logically valid ideas or internally consistent ideas. It cannot get you sound ideas.

I generally agree, however there is no wrong way to come to a hypothesis

There is if you continue to ignore things which show it is wrong.

Quote

It was an attack on the idea that there is randomness inherent in reality.

That's exactly what I said! Somehow you seem to be misunderstanding me...

No, you said the exact opposite.
As clearly shown in the section I quoted, where you stated it is a criticisim of their religious ideologies/philosophies.
That is not saying it is an attack of the idea that there is randomness inherent in reality.
Especially considering you were saying that in contrast to something equivalent to what I said.

No, waves exist within matter (exclusively).

That is your baseless claim you are yet to support.
Observations of matter show it has wave nature.
Not merely waves propagating in the matter, but the matter itself acting as a wave.
This means it isn't a case of light being an exception.

Yes, very strong evidence in my view!

Strong enough to refute the classical balistic model of light, but not the quantum mechanical one.

Quote

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

Exactly, the quantumnists are wrong.

No, YOU are wrong.
Matter is observed to have wave like nature. This is not simply a case of wild speculation. It is observations from experiment.
This shows that you are wrong about your idea of what a wave is an what matter is, and your claim that light is magically an exception, rather than it being like all particles.

the phrase "God does not play dice with the universe" conveys it pretty well.

That certainly conveys your position:
"I hate this idea so I'm going to reject it, not for any rational, evidence based reason, but because I hate it."
But that is not scientific at all.

This presumes an aether at the outset.

Yes, and that is one of the problems with the experiment. But it works as part of a proof by contradiction, where you assume the aether exists, and reach a contradiction to show it can't.

That means it isn't circular.
I'm not using this to show aether exists. I am using it to show it doesn't.

Not if you define the world as stationary

There you go ignoring what was said.
It has no bearing on which you say is moving.
Under the aether model, one measured a speed of aether relative to Earth and the other measures no speed.
It doesn't matter if Earth is stationary, which would then require a both moving and stationary aether, or if the aether is stationary, which then requires both a moving and stationary Earth, or both move at some speed. There is a contradiction.
In order to not have a contradiction, you need to have the speed of the aether realative to Earth be the same for both.

Of course! Statistics can't establish causality.

And that means they didn't prove it, nor was what they did anything like science.

The trouble is it is done the same way, by circular logic.

Not in science. You can't use the same set of data you used to make your hypothesis to test it.
You need a different set of data.
So that is not science and is nothing like how science is actually done (the science you hate and reject).

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2021, 05:16:34 AM

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

I already did, repeatedly. Remember this diagram:

Or would you prefer the more simpler one with just the single link you can't explain?

There is a force pushing the right hand side of the link to the right.
But at best (and this being generous) that pushing force can only affect the dark region of the link. You need a pulling force where the right of the link pulls the left.
It has also been explained how trying to appeal to smaller links won't help your case, as it just pushes the problem back.


Now again, going to stop avoiding the real issue?
How your air magically pushes things down in direct defiance of the pressure gradient?
Are you capable of honestly and rationally justifying your position, or are you only capable of these repeated dishonest dodges?

There is absolutely nothing in your pictures that show pull.
It's all push.

If you want to delve deeper into the actual make up of the link then understand that expansion or contraction is the key to the stress or breaking of the links. This means a push in any and all directions of force.

There is absolutely nothing in your pictures that show pull.
It's all push.

See what I mean? Instead of explaining how it works with pull, you just dismiss it and instead claim it is all push.
If you actually could justify your position of how it is all push, you would explain how the right side manages to push the left side to the right.
The fact that you don't explain how it works magically with only a push shows you likely know that it relies upon a pulling force and just don't want to admit it.

Likewise, the fact you keep latching onto it rather than dealing with the bigger issue of your model shows that you likely know that your model is garbage with no hope of matching reality.

Again, how does the air push things down in direct defiance of the pressure gradient in the atmosphere?
We know for a fact that the pressure below an object is greater than the pressure above.
This is even more apparent when the object creates a seal in a tube and compresses the air below with its weight, until the pressure difference can counter the weight.
If it was only the air, this greater pressure below will push the object up.

Likewise, if it is only the air, it doesn't matter what the object is made of, it will be pushed up by the greater pressure below.
This means a lead weight should be pushed up just like a helium filled balloon.

In order to have it match reality you need to have a force act on the mass of the object to generate its weight. (and that applies to the air as well).
The air still pushes all objects up, but now it needs to overcome this weight force.
And the buoyant, upwards force from the air is based upon the density of air and the volume of air displaced. Meanwhile the downwards force is proportional to the density of the object and its volume.
That means an object denser than air has the weight win, and it falls, while an object less dense than the air has the buoyant force win and go up.

Having this force acting on mass, rather than pretending it is all the air, actually explains what is observed in reality.
Just the air doesn't.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2021, 09:32:34 PM

There is absolutely nothing in your pictures that show pull.
It's all push.

See what I mean? Instead of explaining how it works with pull, you just dismiss it and instead claim it is all push.
If you actually could justify your position of how it is all push, you would explain how the right side manages to push the left side to the right.
The fact that you don't explain how it works magically with only a push shows you likely know that it relies upon a pulling force and just don't want to admit it.

I explained perfectly well.
You refused to accept it.
I can't force you to, so this is where you're at.

Likewise, the fact you keep latching onto it rather than dealing with the bigger issue of your model shows that you likely know that your model is garbage with no hope of matching reality.

I don't believe it is garbage but I certainly believe gravity is absolute garbage.

Again, how does the air push things down in direct defiance of the pressure gradient in the atmosphere?

Because it pushes up, as I explained before.
below pushes above and above pushes below. Push and resistance both ways, equally, overall.
Applied energy = returned energy, equally.

We know for a fact that the pressure below an object is greater than the pressure above.

Yep but only because it's got a greater resistance by compression from the above.
Remember this?

This is even more apparent when the object creates a seal in a tube and compresses the air below with its weight, until the pressure difference can counter the weight.

Can you explain exactly what you mean with this?

If it was only the air, this greater pressure below will push the object up.

Pressure below can only push an object up for two reasons.

1. The object is forced up physically.
2. The object is aided by massive expansion of atmosphere by breakdown of gases. For example, a helium balloon and basket or a hot air balloon and basket, etc.

Likewise, if it is only the air, it doesn't matter what the object is made of, it will be pushed up by the greater pressure below.

Objects stay on the ground because the object itself displaces the atmosphere above and around it which clamps right back onto the objects mass and keeps it on the ground.
It sits within the stacking system.
I explained all this but you make out I didn't.

This means a lead weight should be pushed up just like a helium filled balloon.

No.
I explained why.

In order to have it match reality you need to have a force act on the mass of the object to generate its weight. (and that applies to the air as well).

The force is atmospheric pressure.
It's a push on push or push against resistance to push. Whichever way you want it.
Dense mass displacing atmospheric mass.

The air still pushes all objects up, but now it needs to overcome this weight force.

When an object sits on the ground, untethered, the object is resisted by the foundation, be it water or ground or a liquid that is dense enough to hold it from sinking.
If the object sits above ground without tether, it is holding enough broken down gases to become less dense and more expanded, meaning it will be crushed up to meet its gaseous volume at whatever height that is, in the stack.
Whatever holds it will be breached and fall back to the ground because it overcomes below resistance aided by above push, in equal terms.

@jackblack part 1 of 2

Quote from: JackBlack on April 04, 2021, 04:01:59 PM

Fields are no less scientific than other things, like matter.

I understand why you think this, but it is wrong.  Matter is manifestly real and tangible, and the quantumnists are deluded and wrong. 

Interesting opinion.  Im wondering though how do you reconcile this opinion with the incredible leaps we are currently making with quantum computing?

For example -

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1666-5?utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=3_nsn6445_deeplink_PID100052172&utm_content=deeplink

Here a modern 53 quantum bit computing structure was able to solve an incredibly difficult problem in about 10 minutes.  That same problem would take the worlds largest supercomputer (at the time, it was in 2019) over a year to solve, or would take 50 TRILLION core-hours on cloud servers and consume one petawatt hour of energy! 

I would ask how you imagine such an incredible machine could exist if the theory behind its operation is deluded and wrong?  Did the engineers just guess how to do things and somehow ended up luckily with a 1.5 trillion times computational speed-up?  Is the whole thing a sham and part of the greater science conspiracy that would be required for your worldview?

Or do you just ignore things like this, cocoon yourself into into a little box where you try not to deeply consider things that conflict with your beliefs and opinions?

Genuinely interested.   

I explained perfectly well.

Stop lying.
You asserted it was all push and dismissed it.
If you actually had an explanation you would have provided it.

I can't force you to admit you don't' have an explanation, nor force you to do the impossible by making one up and providing, so this is where YOU are at. Blatantly lying to pretend to have explained something, because you can't actually explain it.

And using this distraction to avoid your inability to explain why things fall.

Because it pushes up, as I explained before.

If the air pushes up, that means it pushes the object up not down.
If you want to claim the object magically pushes up you need to explain what causes it to push up in the first place.

Again, it is quite simple, the pressure is greater below. That will push the object up.
To claim otherwise is claiming that you can have the air defy the pressure gradient in the atmosphere and spontaneously a region of high pressure, without cause.

Remember this?

Your diagram which you proivide and pretend it explains something when it doesn't at all?
Yes, I remember it quite well.
It doesn't help you explain why the air pushes things down. The air at the bottom is compressed and will push up.

While we are bringing up old images, remember this one:

The one that clearly shows you need something other than the atmosphere to pressure gradient in the first place?
As otherwise (i.e. without W) F=G and the force and pressure is constant?

Can you explain exactly what you mean with this?

That has already been explained, stop playing dumb.
If you place a heavy object in a tube such that it creates a seal against the wall of the tube, and the other end of the tube is sealed, it will fall down to some extent and compress the air below it.

Pressure below can only push an object up for two reasons.
1. The object is forced up physically.
2. The object is aided by massive expansion of atmosphere by breakdown of gases. For example, a helium balloon and basket or a hot air balloon and basket, etc.

1. Do you mean by the air below?
If so, that isn't surprising. If not, that isn't the air pushing it up, that is something else pushing it up.
As for 2. No, pure nonsense, any compressed air can do it.

For example, you can compress the air by pushing the object down, and then when you let go, the compressed air below pushes it back up.

The only way the air can push an object down is if the pressure below is less than the pressure above.

Objects stay on the ground

Forget the ground. Again, if you want to go down that path, the same applies to a wall and a ceiling and you are even worse shape.

I explained all this but you make out I didn't.

You mean you ignored the actual issue and tried to explain something else, with that explanation just causing you more problems.

Quote from: JackBlack

This means a lead weight should be pushed up just like a helium filled balloon.

No.
I explained why.

No, you continually avoided the explanation.
Again, if it is just the air, then both objects are effected equally.
You need something other than the air to explain why the lead weight falls and the balloon rises.

The force is atmospheric pressure.

The point is you need a force OTHER than atmospheric pressure.
It clearly is not what is causing objects to fall.

When an object sits on the ground

Deal with an object in mid air, with nothing touching it other than the air.

Again, going based upon how air is repeatedly observed to work, if that was the only force at play, as the pressure is greater below, the air would push the object up, not down. And it would push every object up.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 07, 2021, 02:55:04 AM

Because it pushes up, as I explained before.

If the air pushes up, that means it pushes the object up not down.

Only if the object is broken down and expanded to become less dense than the molecules below, which are more tightly packed and try to crush the object but only achieve a crush up.
I explained this but clearly you didn't pay attention, as usual.

If you want to claim the object magically pushes up you need to explain what causes it to push up in the first place.

I did.
The below more dense atmospheric matter crushes it up.
It's like sitting in the bath with your wet bar of soap and trying to squeeze it in your cupped hands.
Same thing with atmosphere and objects with less dense mass against the mass below.

Again, it is quite simple, the pressure is greater below. That will push the object up.

The pressure is only greater below because of the stacked atmosphere above.
Every stack pushes the next from ground up by resistance to push.
The more compressed and more molecules are at the bottom.
The lesser are at the top due to mass breakdown and expansion with less layers making up a molecule, whereas below there are many more layers to each molecule and compressed.

To claim otherwise is claiming that you can have the air defy the pressure gradient in the atmosphere and spontaneously a region of high pressure, without cause.

Each stack of molecules defy the pressure below.

Maybe this will jog your memory, once again.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 07, 2021, 02:55:04 AM

Remember this?

Your diagram which you proivide and pretend it explains something when it doesn't at all?
Yes, I remember it quite well.
It doesn't help you explain why the air pushes things down. The air at the bottom is compressed and will push up.

The air at the bottom resists by push, which is why it is so compressed and under the highest psi upon us.
By pushing up it uses leverage of the ground which is its foundation to push back against the many many many stacks above, all of different states on push and compression to decompression.

While we are bringing up old images, remember this one:

The one that clearly shows you need something other than the atmosphere to pressure gradient in the first place?
As otherwise (i.e. without W) F=G and the force and pressure is constant?

Yes I remember this one very well.
Take out the nonsensical G and replace it with the F (force) or R (resistance) or P (push). They all do the very same thing.
G is just a nothing added i n to make it appear that this push/resistance/force requires something magical.
It does not.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 07, 2021, 02:55:04 AM

Can you explain exactly what you mean with this?

That has already been explained, stop playing dumb.
If you place a heavy object in a tube such that it creates a seal against the wall of the tube, and the other end of the tube is sealed, it will fall down to some extent and compress the air below it.

If there's no push from the top there's no movement.
If you have a minor bit of atmosphere trapped at the top, only then will you have a small bit of push which will move the object down a little.
If you were to add in a tiny pinhole at the side then your object, aided by the small bit of atmosphere above will cause a push back up of that air below, slowly but surely until your object touches the bottom, because the pressure above builds.
It's a classic equal and opposite reaction to action.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 07, 2021, 02:55:04 AM

Pressure below can only push an object up for two reasons.
1. The object is forced up physically.
2. The object is aided by massive expansion of atmosphere by breakdown of gases. For example, a helium balloon and basket or a hot air balloon and basket, etc.

1. Do you mean by the air below?
If so, that isn't surprising. If not, that isn't the air pushing it up, that is something else pushing it up.
As for 2. No, pure nonsense, any compressed air can do it.

For example, you can compress the air by pushing the object down, and then when you let go, the compressed air below pushes it back up.

If you compress the air you are adding energy that wasn't there in the first place. So naturally you can push it up.

The only way the air can push an object down is if the pressure below is less than the pressure above.

Yep and this is where the above atmosphere plus the actual object itself overcomes the resistance below.
The same with the tube you mentioned, only this would be much quicker with the same object used, due ]to a push all around and a reaction alla round from below that takes it's place above to add to the downward force..

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 07, 2021, 02:55:04 AM

Objects stay on the ground

Forget the ground. Again, if you want to go down that path, the same applies to a wall and a ceiling and you are even worse shape.

Nope.
A ceiling means you need energy to be applied to the object to hold it there, or you need to break down the gases within the object to get it to stay on a ceiling or on a wall. Hence why window clamps work very well...also known (wrongly, in my honest opinion). as suction cups.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 07, 2021, 02:55:04 AM

I explained all this but you make out I didn't.

You mean you ignored the actual issue and tried to explain something else, with that explanation just causing you more problems.

Nope. Just like I'm really putting in the effort once again, this is what I've done on many occasions, only for you to deny I have.
I'm trying to be nice and give you a break by seeing if you can accept I'm giving you answers/explanations from my side, whether you deny them or not.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 07, 2021, 02:55:04 AM

Quote from: JackBlack

This means a lead weight should be pushed up just like a helium filled balloon.

No.
I explained why.

No, you continually avoided the explanation.
Again, if it is just the air, then both objects are effected equally.
You need something other than the air to explain why the lead weight falls and the balloon rises.

Everything is affected equally. Nothing can work unless this is the case.
Action and then immediate, equal reaction has to be the case at all times.
You only get out of something for what you put into it. Nothing more and nothing less.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 07, 2021, 02:55:04 AM

The force is atmospheric pressure.

The point is you need a force OTHER than atmospheric pressure.
It clearly is not what is causing objects to fall.

No you don't need another force and in my honest opinion, it is exactly what makes things rise and fall or move horizontally.
Basically nothing works unless this is the case. Imo.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 07, 2021, 02:55:04 AM

When an object sits on the ground

Deal with an object in mid air, with nothing touching it other than the air.

It depends on the object.

Give me some objects and I'll give you the scenarios and what is happening.

Again, going based upon how air is repeatedly observed to work, if that was the only force at play, as the pressure is greater below, the air would push the object up, not down. And it would push every object up.

No.
The air is all stacked.
It's like having (analogy) a stack of blankets.
The bottom blanket is not going to push the rest, up. It will resist the stack of blankets, though but it will be under the most pressure with the top blanket being under the least, if we take the blankets as being a stacked atmosphere analogy.

To push the rest up it would require energy greater than what is above.
If you were to inflate a balloon under the bottom blanket then you would create a push up of all the atmosphere above and around.
What you would be doing would be filling the balloon with some of the bottom blanket.
You would be compressing it into the balloon at that point which would make a hump. It would warp that stacking system at that point.
This would create an equal and opposite effect of having all blankets pushing back harder at that point due to that warping (bump).

And I'm under no illusions about how you will dismiss it all and claim I haven't explained.
This is for those who want to actually take the time to understand my points, so feel free to do what you wish.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 04, 2021, 03:10:26 PM

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!

No, jack. I don't need conditioning to observe a ship heading out to sea, vanishing from the bottom up, and not sinking. I also don't need conditioning to measure the horizon dip, when I climb a high mountain and look out at the horizon out to sea. No conditioning and no faith required. Just good ol common sense.

Oh, and we already have an answer to what weight is, verified by the astronauts which walked on the moon. I've been in university Laboratories where gravity on earth is measured using lasers. We can even measure the gravitational force of an atom. So, please don't waffle on like a crack head that we dont know what weight is, and how gravity affects mass and weight. Your buoyant force is too laughable for words, but might go some way to explaining why your head is stuck in the clouds.

Quote from: jack44556677 on April 06, 2021, 07:20:40 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 04, 2021, 03:10:26 PM

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!

No, jack. I don't need conditioning to observe a ship heading out to sea, vanishing from the bottom up, and not sinking. I also don't need conditioning to measure the horizon dip, when I climb a high mountain and look out at the horizon out to sea. No conditioning and no faith required. Just good ol common sense.

Oh, and we already have an answer to what weight is, verified by the astronauts which walked on the moon. I've been in university Laboratories where gravity on earth is measured using lasers. We can even measure the gravitational force of an atom. So, please don't waffle on like a crack head that we dont know what weight is, and how gravity affects mass and weight. Your buoyant force is too laughable for words, but might go some way to explaining why your head is stuck in the clouds.

Your appeals to what you believe are your authority, are mammoth.

Only if the object is broken down and expanded to become less dense than the molecules below

No, again it would have NOTHING to do with the object.
If it is the air pushing, it is entirely the air that determines it, not the object.
If you are appealing to the object you are effectively admitting that it is NOT the air.

Again, if it is just the air, the higher pressure below will push an object up regardless of what the object is made of.

I explained this but clearly you didn't pay attention, as usual.

No, as usual, you just spouted a bunch of nonsense which did not address the issue at all.
What you need to do is address the actual pressure gradient and how the air magically violates it.

The below more dense atmospheric matter crushes it up.

So you are saying the air below pushes the object up?
And then you are claiming pure nonsense of this magically then causing the air to push the object down, for no reason at all?

The pressure is only greater below because of the stacked atmosphere above.

It doesn't matter why it is greater below. The point it is greater below and that will push the object up.
And you still can't explain why it is greater below.

Quote from: JackBlack

To claim otherwise is claiming that you can have the air defy the pressure gradient in the atmosphere and spontaneously a region of high pressure, without cause.

Each stack of molecules defy the pressure below.

And that is another massive problem. You have no way to justify the existence of this pressure gradient.
Your model continually contradicts how air is repeatedly observed to behave.
You need a force acting on the air to cause the pressure gradient, and that force has to be something OTHER than the air.

The air at the bottom resists by push, which is why it is so compressed and under the highest psi upon us.
By pushing up it uses leverage of the ground which is its foundation to push back against the many many many stacks above, all of different states on push and compression to decompression.

This would make it the same pressure throughout.

It is just like horizontally, we don't magically see a pressure gradient against a wall.

Yes I remember this one very well.
Take out the nonsensical G and replace it with the F (force) or R (resistance) or P (push).

There is no nonsense in my diagram, just simple logic you can't refute.

G=F+W.
If W is 0, because all there is is the air pushing down, then F=G and there is no pressure gradient.

That is a simple fact that you cannot escape.

It doesn't matter what you want to label them, the fact remains that without a force in addition to the air above pushing down, there will not be a pressure gradient.

That means you need some force, like gravity, to explain the pressure gradient in the first place.

If there's no push from the top there's no movement.

Again, pure nonsense.
If there is a net force on the object, there is movement. It doesn't matter where that force comes from.

The problem for you is that your model can't explain why it gets pushed down.
You also seem to be trying to equate this much simpler example to a barometer, which you likewise can't explain.

It's a classic equal and opposite reaction to action.

Not in the slightest.

If you compress the air you are adding energy that wasn't there in the first place. So naturally you can push it up.

And the air below is compressed even normally, meaning it has that energy to push the object up.
So naturally the more compressed air below will push an object up.

Quote from: JackBlack

The only way the air can push an object down is if the pressure below is less than the pressure above.

Yep and this is where the above atmosphere plus the actual object itself

Again, by appealing to the object itself you are appealing to gravity or a force just like it which is acting on the object trying to move it down, rather than just the air.
Again, if it actually was pushed down by the air, and the air replaces gravity, the object doesn't matter.

A ceiling means you need energy to be applied to the object to hold it there

Which shows your argument is pure garbage.
Your argument is that the object uses its foundation to resist the air. But there is no justification for why that foundation needs to be below the object, rather than to the side or above. This means you also have no justification for why it requires a force (not energy) to hold it up, but not down.
This is especially important given the pressure gradient will try to push the object up.

Just like I'm really putting in the effort once again

No, you are just ignoring the same issues again and again, without actually addressing them and repeatedly contradicting yourself.

Until you actually address the issues, I'm not going to accept that you have provided an explanation, as you haven't.
For example, you need to either explain how the AIR ALONE pushes an object down even though the pressure below is greater and thus the net force from the air pushes the object up.
Or if you are going to continually appeal to the object itself, then you need to directly and explicitly admit that it is not the air pushing the object and instead it is some other force which can overcome the net upwards force from the air.
Because you are appealing to the object itself, you are claiming there is some force, other than the air, making this object try to move down. So the air is trying to make it move up with some force (lets call it the buoyant force), while some other force (lets call it gravity) tries to make the object move down.
If the former wins, such as is the case with a helium filled balloon, the object goes up. If the latter wins such as with a lead weight, the object goes down.
This additional force acting directly on the object works to explain reality, but means it isn't just the air.

You can't have it both ways.
Either it is just the air, and you can't appeal to this extra force trying to make the object go down, and thus can only appeal to the air meaning the force is the same regardless of what the object is made of; or you use this additional force, and that means you can't honestly claim it is just the air.

You appeal to gravity (without calling it that) while claiming it is fake and that everything is caused by the air and being incapable of explaining it with just the air.

That is the big issue you continually deflect from and refuse to put in the effort and honesty to address.

Everything is affected equally. Nothing can work unless this is the case.

Which means that both the lead weight and helium balloon will be pushed up by the atmosphere.

No you don't need another force and in my honest opinion

Then stop appealing to the object itself, and explain how just the air manages to push the object down in direct defiance of the pressure gradient.

Again, just baselessly dismissing the problem and ignoring the issue and asserting the same baseless, refuted claim, is not explaining anything.

It depends on the object.

No, if it is just the air pushing it, it doesn't depend on the object at all.

The air is all stacked.

Yes, because of gravity. And this stacked atmosphere causes it to push objects up, causing them to apparently weigh less.
Just like if you put it in water it weighs even less.

Don't bother appealing to an analogy which relies upon gravity in its explanation to try to pretend you have an explanation.

All that does is restate the problem you can't address.

Again, it is the same problem as in the diagram you seem to hate and dismiss as nonsense even though you have no rational objection to it:

Without a force acting on the object, other than the force from the layer above, there is no pressure gradient.
If it is just the force above, you have the same pressure throughout (or if it isn't a fluid, the same force throughout).

You need a force acting on each layer, on each blanket, to have that pressure increase and to keep that pressure there. If that force magically turned off, the bottom layer would expand, pushing the above layers up, and this would continue until the pressure/force is constant throughout.

Again, this can easily be seen by turning the entire system on its side.

You need a force like gravity to explain reality.

And I'm under no illusions about how you will dismiss it all and claim I haven't explained.

You mean how I will clearly show how you still haven't addressed the issues and thus haven't actually explained anything?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 07, 2021, 10:28:11 AM

Quote from: jack44556677 on April 06, 2021, 07:20:40 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 04, 2021, 03:10:26 PM

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!

No, jack. I don't need conditioning to observe a ship heading out to sea, vanishing from the bottom up, and not sinking. I also don't need conditioning to measure the horizon dip, when I climb a high mountain and look out at the horizon out to sea. No conditioning and no faith required. Just good ol common sense.

Oh, and we already have an answer to what weight is, verified by the astronauts which walked on the moon. I've been in university Laboratories where gravity on earth is measured using lasers. We can even measure the gravitational force of an atom. So, please don't waffle on like a crack head that we dont know what weight is, and how gravity affects mass and weight. Your buoyant force is too laughable for words, but might go some way to explaining why your head is stuck in the clouds.

Your appeals to what you believe are your authority, are mammoth.

You mean like the authority of my own eyesight and own observations, corroborated by science? Yep. Mammoth. You're trying hard to reinvent the wheel, aren't you, but you just can't get it to turn.

You mean like the authority of my own eyesight and own observations, corroborated by science? Yep. Mammoth. You're trying hard to reinvent the wheel, aren't you, but you just can't get it to turn.

Your eyes see what you are conditioned to believe you see.

You simply follow that process.
You get told you're looking over a big ball and ships said down it. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind on that. That has to come from your own self and I think you're too far into the global storyline to dare to waver from it.

And fair enough. Many are like you.

I wouldn't expect devout churchgoers to renounce their god so I wouldn't expect you to renounce yours with your global mind.

Your eyes see what you are conditioned to believe you see.

Projection much?

The observations are quite objective. The RE explains them just fine, the FE needs to resort to all sorts of nonsense and still fails.

Just like gravity explain the motion of objects just fine, while your magic air can't.

A nice simple question to get you started:
What causes an object to fall?
Is it purely the air pushing it down, or is there some other force or property of the object which makes it go down?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 07, 2021, 08:19:35 PM

You mean like the authority of my own eyesight and own observations, corroborated by science? Yep. Mammoth. You're trying hard to reinvent the wheel, aren't you, but you just can't get it to turn.

Your eyes see what you are conditioned to believe you see.

You simply follow that process.
You get told you're looking over a big ball and ships said down it. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind on that. That has to come from your own self and I think you're too far into the global storyline to dare to waver from it.

And fair enough. Many are like you.

I wouldn't expect devout churchgoers to renounce their god so I wouldn't expect you to renounce yours with your global mind.

No, you're asking me to denounce my own eyesight. You know I was an artist before my career change? Now art is a hobby. My eyes are only conditioned to observing what they can see. Sometimes they need sunglasses.

My eyes do not magically only see what I learned about the world, in school. You're not asking me to change my mind, you're asking me to change my eyes. Does globe earth denial work better if I strap a pair of kaleidoscopes to both eyes?

The sun is not moving across the sky. The sun is perfectly stationary but only appears to move from our perspective relative to here on earth.

It is only us on a fixed position on the earth which is rotating. Kind of like being in a car and driving past a building. Not the best analogy, but the car with you in it is moving, not the building.  Everything is relative.

Here, I'll prove it to you. Make yourself a sun dial in your backyard, or on your house roof, sceptimatic, and every hour, from sunrise to sunset, trace the shadow cast by your dial. Let me know what results you get.

Which shows your argument is pure garbage.

Ok, feel free to carry this on.

No, you are just ignoring the same issues again and again, without actually addressing them and repeatedly contradicting yourself.

There's no contradictions from my side but definitely inability to grasp from your side.

A nice simple question to get you started:
What causes an object to fall?
Is it purely the air pushing it down, or is there some other force or property of the object which makes it go down?

Yes it is purely the air pushing it down for the mass to overcome the atmospheric resistance below which is immediately added to the push down as it's pushed out of the way and back up the sides of the object.

It's all about putting your mind to work on it instead of going into reject mode because it doesn't suit.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 08, 2021, 12:49:06 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 07, 2021, 08:19:35 PM

You mean like the authority of my own eyesight and own observations, corroborated by science? Yep. Mammoth. You're trying hard to reinvent the wheel, aren't you, but you just can't get it to turn.

Your eyes see what you are conditioned to believe you see.

You simply follow that process.
You get told you're looking over a big ball and ships said down it. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind on that. That has to come from your own self and I think you're too far into the global storyline to dare to waver from it.

And fair enough. Many are like you.

I wouldn't expect devout churchgoers to renounce their god so I wouldn't expect you to renounce yours with your global mind.

No, you're asking me to denounce my own eyesight. You know I was an artist before my career change? Now art is a hobby. My eyes are only conditioned to observing what they can see. Sometimes they need sunglasses.

My eyes do not magically only see what I learned about the world, in school. You're not asking me to change my mind, you're asking me to change my eyes. Does globe earth denial work better if I strap a pair of kaleidoscopes to both eyes?

The sun is not moving across the sky. The sun is perfectly stationary but only appears to move from our perspective relative to here on earth.

It is only us on a fixed position on the earth which is rotating. Kind of like being in a car and driving past a building. Not the best analogy, but the car with you in it is moving, not the building.  Everything is relative.

Here, I'll prove it to you. Make yourself a sun dial in your backyard, or on your house roof, sceptimatic, and every hour, from sunrise to sunset, trace the shadow cast by your dial. Let me know what results you get.

Do I lay the dial flat?

Will it record 24 hours?
Tell me how it works on your globe, seeing as you have one on your roof.