ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

  • 2289 Replies
  • 191572 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1560 on: April 16, 2021, 02:57:21 AM »
Possibly he did the one qhere he stood on a scale in an elevator and DIDNT see the weight change when elevator ACCELLERATED during start-stop.

Or hes the only person in history never to feel Gs on a rollercoaster.
What are Gs?

Explain what's happening on the roller coaster to create these Gs?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1561 on: April 16, 2021, 02:59:51 AM »
Green bag of rocks weigh less than blue bags of rocks due to absorption of photons.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1562 on: April 16, 2021, 03:20:28 AM »
Green bag of rocks weigh less than blue bags of rocks due to absorption of photons.
Good for you.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1563 on: April 16, 2021, 03:26:31 AM »
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.

This, like everything else is just a bunch of stuff you say.  What makes you think that’s actually how things work?
By observation and simple experiments.

Oh really. What experiments have you done?
Many.

No details then?  After all your hundreds of pages of posts telling us about how you know better than everyone else in the world, won’t you give us poor indoctrinated fools a clue how you came to your conclusions?

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1564 on: April 16, 2021, 03:39:53 AM »
By observation and simple experiments.
You mean like observing things fall, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient, clearly showing it isn't the air making them fall?
Clearly showing your model is pure garbage?

Mass obviously exists.
The fact that objects fall also shows that weight obviously exists, without any need for any scale.

Now again, stop with the pathetic semantic BS and deal with massive problem you need to continually deflect from.

Quote from: JackBlack
And yet again, you have tried to run off on a train of semantics to avoid the main point.
Not at all.
I'm simply telling you that weight is
I.e. you are running off on a pathetic tangent to try to avoid the actual issue.
Rather than address the issue, you do whatever you can to deflect from it, such as by continually spouting semantic BS.

Quote from: JackBlack
Once more, as clearly shown in this diagram:

That diagram should read
Again, it doesn't matter what semantic BS you want to play, you need a force in addition to the air.
It doesn't' matter what you want to call that force.
It doesn't matter if you want to pretend it isn't gravity and it isn't weight.
That has no bearing on the fact you need an additional force.

That is the issue you need to deal with.

Again, it doesn't matter what semantic BS you want to play, you need a force in addition to the air.
Quote from: JackBlack
Again, it doesn't matter what semantic BS you want to play, without that force of W, which has to act on the layer of air/whatever, in addition to the force from the air around it, you don't get a pressure gradient.
The force is atmospheric pressure
You don't seem to be good at understanding extremely simple concepts.
Again, if it is just the atmosphere, you don't get a pressure gradient.

If it is just the atmosphere, then the top layer pushes the middle layer down with a force of F,
This middle layer then tries to move down but is stopped by the layer below, it transfers this force and applies a force of F to the bottom layer.
There is no pressure gradient as there is no extra force acting on the middle layer.

Again, this is exactly what is observed for a sideways force, the pressure is constant throughout. There is no magical force acting on each layer in this sideways stack to increase the pressure, so it remains constant.

Unless you have a force acting on each layer of air, in addition to the air around it, you don't get a pressure gradient.

That means you can't appeal to atmospheric pressure to explain the pressure gradient.

And a pressure gradient in my case is the stacking system, so there is a pressure gradient.
I know there is a pressure gradient. That is the problem for your BS. You can't explain the pressure gradient.
Until you have an explanation for just what magic keeps this pressure gradient in tact, rather than the air balancing itself out, your claims will remain pure BS and you will remain at square 1.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1565 on: April 16, 2021, 04:24:11 AM »
Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
Nope. Force equals mass x acceleration

This is why objects moving at constant velocity feel no force.
No such thing as a constant velocity without force.
I mopped the floor with you last time you claimed that. Let’s not do it again.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1566 on: April 16, 2021, 07:19:35 AM »
Possibly he did the one qhere he stood on a scale in an elevator and DIDNT see the weight change when elevator ACCELLERATED during start-stop.

Or hes the only person in history never to feel Gs on a rollercoaster.
What are Gs?

Explain what's happening on the roller coaster to create these Gs?

Extra accelleration.

The concept is not required to sustain your denP.
Predictable rate of fall is there whether its measured or not.

Roller coasters are real.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1567 on: April 16, 2021, 07:22:20 AM »

Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
Nope. Force equals mass x acceleration

This is why objects moving at constant velocity feel no force.
No such thing as a constant velocity without force.

Theoritcally - yes.
Practically - no.
No system is perfect and there are always resistive forces to overcome.
It doesnot prove anything against existence of accelleration.
So whats your point?

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1568 on: April 16, 2021, 07:32:17 AM »
Youve been asked many times


Define atmospheric pressure amd how/if it differs from regular air pressure

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1569 on: April 16, 2021, 09:00:16 AM »


No details then?  After all your hundreds of pages of posts telling us about how you know better than everyone else in the world, won’t you give us poor indoctrinated fools a clue how you came to your conclusions?
I don't know better.
I have my theories.
I have my musings.
I have my own mindset on how I see things.

The thing is, what I go with, you people do not agree; and that's fair enough.
I do not agree with the globe for reasons given and it bugs people like you, which is why you come out with this gunk.

Feel free to carry it on, mind you. I have no issue with digs and such but your frustrations only become worse when you realise it serves little purpose.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1570 on: April 16, 2021, 09:20:32 AM »
By observation and simple experiments.
You mean like observing things fall, in direct defiance of the pressure gradient, clearly showing it isn't the air making them fall?
Clearly showing your model is pure garbage?
Clearly you don't think like me.
Clearly you don't believe in logic.
Clearly you believe atmosphere can simply envelope a ball and just stay there with no encasement, at all.

That's what magical fantasy suggests, which is what you go with and you're welcome to it.
Mine fits, yours does not.



Quote from: JackBlack

Mass obviously exists.
The fact that objects fall also shows that weight obviously exists, without any need for any scale.
Things falling has nothing whatsoever to do with weight and everything to do with mass.


Quote from: JackBlack


You don't seem to be good at understanding extremely simple concepts.
Again, if it is just the atmosphere, you don't get a pressure gradient.
I've already explained the pressure gradient by stacking.
Each stacked layer is less compact than the one below.
Alllllllllllll the way up.


Quote from: JackBlack

If it is just the atmosphere, then the top layer pushes the middle layer down with a force of F,
This middle layer then tries to move down but is stopped by the layer below, it transfers this force and applies a force of F to the bottom layer.
There is no pressure gradient as there is no extra force acting on the middle layer.
Each singular stacked layer pushes and resists the one above.
Each layer of molecules are more condensed than the layer above those layers.
This means more compression at sea level and less compression at the top with ever lessening compression all the way up to that top.


Quote from: JackBlack

Again, this is exactly what is observed for a sideways force, the pressure is constant throughout.
 There is no magical force acting on each layer in this sideways stack to increase the pressure, so it remains constant.
A sideways force is can be the effects of an object placed into the atmosphere to compress it at that area which can create a ripple/wave/crash effect.
The sea will give you massive clues to this.
There is no constant pressure, anywhere. It's forever changing because the central energy never stops moving which always creates different strengths of force.



Quote from: JackBlack

Unless you have a force acting on each layer of air, in addition to the air around it, you don't get a pressure gradient.
Keep thinking on these lines.


Quote from: JackBlack

That means you can't appeal to atmospheric pressure to explain the pressure gradient.
I certainly can and I do and I will continue to do so.
It fits perfectly. You just don't have the thought process to understand why.

Quote from: JackBlack

And a pressure gradient in my case is the stacking system, so there is a pressure gradient.
I know there is a pressure gradient. That is the problem for your BS. You can't explain the pressure gradient.
I just have but I'm more than sure you'll dismiss it, which is fine and always expected.



*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1571 on: April 16, 2021, 09:23:08 AM »

I mopped the floor with you last time you claimed that. Let’s not do it again.
Next time dip it in the bucket and use a detergent. Don't do a dry run and expect to clean up.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1572 on: April 16, 2021, 09:24:12 AM »
Possibly he did the one qhere he stood on a scale in an elevator and DIDNT see the weight change when elevator ACCELLERATED during start-stop.

Or hes the only person in history never to feel Gs on a rollercoaster.
What are Gs?

Explain what's happening on the roller coaster to create these Gs?

Extra accelleration.

The concept is not required to sustain your denP.
Predictable rate of fall is there whether its measured or not.

Roller coasters are real.
Extra acceleration by what means?
Tell me what happens so I can understand it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1573 on: April 16, 2021, 09:25:38 AM »

Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
Nope. Force equals mass x acceleration

This is why objects moving at constant velocity feel no force.
No such thing as a constant velocity without force.

Theoritcally - yes.
Practically - no.
No system is perfect and there are always resistive forces to overcome.
It doesnot prove anything against existence of accelleration.
So whats your point?
If you have any resistant force you cannot have constant velocity without force.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1574 on: April 16, 2021, 09:33:25 AM »
Youve been asked many times


Define atmospheric pressure and how/if it differs from regular air pressure
Atmospheric pressure is a range of pressures from the ground up. From sea level, up.
It's a change and breakdown of molecular matter within that atmosphere.

Go back to the gobstopper analogy in terms of using one for sea level to dome atmosphere.

Take out so many layers from that one molecule holding more molecules compressed within.
Stack them by having below layers peel away from a molecules to sit above which will have molecules with a layer less as they stack, not to mention the fill in of layers not quite compressing back into a molecules but instead adhering to it, just like a sink full of washing up bubbles, as another simple analogy.

No free space. No gaps between.

Have a good think on it.
I'm sure you'll use washing up bubbles as molecules and pretend you don't grasp it, which will set you right back once again.

I'm too familiar with how you work.


Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1575 on: April 16, 2021, 09:34:32 AM »
Possibly he did the one qhere he stood on a scale in an elevator and DIDNT see the weight change when elevator ACCELLERATED during start-stop.

Or hes the only person in history never to feel Gs on a rollercoaster.
What are Gs?

Explain what's happening on the roller coaster to create these Gs?

Extra accelleration.

The concept is not required to sustain your denP.
Predictable rate of fall is there whether its measured or not.

Roller coasters are real.
Extra acceleration by what means?
Tell me what happens so I can understand it.

By means of up and down.
You ever seen a rollercoaster?
Youre making yourself out to be real ignorant.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1576 on: April 16, 2021, 09:35:07 AM »

Weight is a force. Mass is independent of any force.
Nope.
Weight is a set of numbers attributed to the resistance of mass against its atmospheric displacement, on a person made scale.
Nope. Force equals mass x acceleration

This is why objects moving at constant velocity feel no force.
No such thing as a constant velocity without force.

Theoritcally - yes.
Practically - no.
No system is perfect and there are always resistive forces to overcome.
It doesnot prove anything against existence of accelleration.
So whats your point?
If you have any resistant force you cannot have constant velocity without force.

Ok
Weve agreed.
See how communication works?
Where we use words with commonly understood definitoons and then repeat back qhat the other was saying in our own words to convey common understanding.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1577 on: April 16, 2021, 09:43:27 AM »
Possibly he did the one qhere he stood on a scale in an elevator and DIDNT see the weight change when elevator ACCELLERATED during start-stop.

Or hes the only person in history never to feel Gs on a rollercoaster.
What are Gs?

Explain what's happening on the roller coaster to create these Gs?

Extra accelleration.

The concept is not required to sustain your denP.
Predictable rate of fall is there whether its measured or not.

Roller coasters are real.
Extra acceleration by what means?
Tell me what happens so I can understand it.

By means of up and down.
You ever seen a rollercoaster?
Youre making yourself out to be real ignorant.
So you can't tell me why it accelerates going down?
If you can't then just say you can't.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1578 on: April 16, 2021, 09:45:32 AM »


Ok
Weve agreed.
See how communication works?
Where we use words with commonly understood definitoons and then repeat back qhat the other was saying in our own words to convey common understanding.
So now you know that constant velocity is not a thing.
There is no need to use it in any scientific way.
It is fine if it's used in a fictional fantasy of something but it has no place in reality.

You know this and so does many.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1579 on: April 16, 2021, 10:07:40 AM »


Ok
Weve agreed.
See how communication works?
Where we use words with commonly understood definitoons and then repeat back qhat the other was saying in our own words to convey common understanding.
So now you know that constant velocity is not a thing.
There is no need to use it in any scientific way.
It is fine if it's used in a fictional fantasy of something but it has no place in reality.

You know this and so does many.


No  we agreed on the one concept as part of the point.

Constant velocity is a thing.
The application of force to maintain constant velocity is also a thing.
You failing basic physics is also a thing and not reliant on denP.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1580 on: April 16, 2021, 10:09:49 AM »
Possibly he did the one qhere he stood on a scale in an elevator and DIDNT see the weight change when elevator ACCELLERATED during start-stop.

Or hes the only person in history never to feel Gs on a rollercoaster.
What are Gs?

Explain what's happening on the roller coaster to create these Gs?

Extra accelleration.

The concept is not required to sustain your denP.
Predictable rate of fall is there whether its measured or not.

Roller coasters are real.
Extra acceleration by what means?
Tell me what happens so I can understand it.

By means of up and down.
You ever seen a rollercoaster?
Youre making yourself out to be real ignorant.
So you can't tell me why it accelerates going down?
If you can't then just say you can't.

I can
And anyone whos seen a rollercoadter could too.
You asking a stupid question is why i wont.

But maybe i will - things accellerate down because of the "predictable rate of fall".
Things fall.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1581 on: April 16, 2021, 10:26:10 AM »



No  we agreed on the one concept as part of the point.

Constant velocity is a thing.
The application of force to maintain constant velocity is also a thing.
You failing basic physics is also a thing and not reliant on denP.
You agreed you could not have constant velocity if you have resistance to force.

Now you disagree?

Tell me how you can have constant velocity, then.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1582 on: April 16, 2021, 10:27:29 AM »


I can
And anyone whos seen a rollercoadter could too.
You asking a stupid question is why i wont.

But maybe i will - things accellerate down because of the "predictable rate of fall".
Things fall.
Things fall, how and why?

You seem to be struggling.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1583 on: April 16, 2021, 10:55:31 AM »


No details then?  After all your hundreds of pages of posts telling us about how you know better than everyone else in the world, won’t you give us poor indoctrinated fools a clue how you came to your conclusions?
I don't know better.
I have my theories.
I have my musings.
I have my own mindset on how I see things.

The thing is, what I go with, you people do not agree; and that's fair enough.
I do not agree with the globe for reasons given and it bugs people like you, which is why you come out with this gunk.

Feel free to carry it on, mind you. I have no issue with digs and such but your frustrations only become worse when you realise it serves little purpose.

I only asked about the experiments you said you did and thought it funny that suddenly you resort to one word answers. 

I don’t really care that you are obviously wrong about all this, I’m just curious why you believe it?

So you didn’t do any experiments then?

PS I have nothing more to do with the other people here than I do with you.  There’s no “you people”.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1584 on: April 16, 2021, 11:23:02 AM »



No  we agreed on the one concept as part of the point.

Constant velocity is a thing.
The application of force to maintain constant velocity is also a thing.
You failing basic physics is also a thing and not reliant on denP.
You agreed you could not have constant velocity if you have resistance to force.

Now you disagree?

Tell me how you can have constant velocity, then.

You really are stupid.

A car hits 100km/h constant velocity.
Air drag slows the car down unless the driver maintains the added gas force needed to cancel out drag and maintain 100.

There
Constant V is achieved while satisfying your criteria and maintaining my original statement.

Be less stupid.

Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1585 on: April 16, 2021, 11:30:29 AM »


I can
And anyone whos seen a rollercoadter could too.
You asking a stupid question is why i wont.

But maybe i will - things accellerate down because of the "predictable rate of fall".
Things fall.
Things fall, how and why?

You seem to be struggling.

How and why doesnt matter for this particular part except that it does.

At this particular point of time, we re discussing  weight and why poka dot bags of rocks arent more popular.

Although we do seem to be transitioning to velocity...


Either way
If you want to discuss how and why things fall
We can start by defining atmospheric pressurre.
What is it?
Is it different from air pressure?
What about static and dynamic?

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1586 on: April 16, 2021, 03:09:29 PM »
I don't know better.
You act like you do.
You act like everyone is a complete moron that just can't understand anything.
You act like you know everyone else is wrong.
Even though you cannot justify any of your claims.

I do not agree with the globe for reasons given and it bugs people like you, which is why you come out with this gunk.
Except those "reasons" are pure garbage based upon a complete strawman of the globe and "backed up" by just more lies and strawmen.

It seems to be more that you actually do not agree with the globe due to an irrational hatred of it, and make up excuses to pretend you have reasons, when you clearly have none.

Clearly you don't think like me.
No, unlike you, I actually care about the truth and reason, and evidence.
You are quite happy to just throw that out the window and go with wild speculation, refuted by logic and reason, and so on.

Clearly you believe atmosphere can simply envelope a ball and just stay there with no encasement, at all.
This directly ties back to the issue we have been discussing.

It shows the problem with your garbage.
With your garbage there is no reason for any pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
This would cause the high pressure atmosphere below to push all the atmosphere above up and away, meaning you need something to contain the gas and keep that CONSTANT pressure in.

But in reality, when you start using logic, you realise there is a force acting on all matter to try to move it towards Earth (i.e. down).
This will create a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
The atmosphere is the container.
All the weight of the atmosphere above is what causes the high pressure at the surface.

So no, I'm not the one clinging to magical fantasy. That would be you.

Your garbage does not fit reality at all, as you cannot explain the pressure gradient.
You claiming that you need a container shows you either have no idea what you are talking about or are blatantly lying to pretend there is a problem when there is none.

I've already explained the pressure gradient by stacking.
No, you haven't.
You have effectively just restated the fact that there is a pressure gradient.
You have not explained it at all.
You need to explain WHY there is a pressure gradient.

Again, gravity explains this pressure gradient just fine. Your nonsense doesn't.

Each singular stacked layer pushes and resists the one above.
And it pushes and resists the one below.
There is no preferred directionality and no way to build up a pressure gradient.

Each layer of molecules are more condensed than the layer above those layers.
Again, this is the observation you can't explain.

Again, the force diagram is quite simple, without that force W, the force pushing each layer down is the same.
You can't get the lower layers more compressed unless you add an extra force.
Remember, you are claiming that

Quote from: JackBlack

Again, this is exactly what is observed for a sideways force, the pressure is constant throughout.
 There is no magical force acting on each layer in this sideways stack to increase the pressure, so it remains constant.
A sideways force is can be the effects of an object placed into the atmosphere to compress it
There you go ignoring the point again.
Once more, if your nonsense was true, and the force is magically increased without any extra force, then we should observe the same for a sideways force, where the pressure increases as you get closer to a wall.
Instead, there is no increase in pressure sideways.
This shows that air doesn't just magically create a pressure gradient.

Quote from: JackBlack

Unless you have a force acting on each layer of air, in addition to the air around it, you don't get a pressure gradient.
Keep thinking on these lines.
I will, until you refute it, as that is what logic indicates.
You can keep thinking the opposite, and I will keep calling you out on your BS.

Quote from: JackBlack

That means you can't appeal to atmospheric pressure to explain the pressure gradient.
I certainly can and I do and I will continue to do so.
Well technically you can try to appeal to it but it wont convince any rational, honest person as it simply doesn't work.
The fact remains that that without an extra force, the pressure remains constant. You cannot get this extra force from the air, that is the force already present which doesn't explain the pressure gradient.

If you want to try to appeal to the air around it pushing it, you need to explain how that magically causes it to push the air below down more, and that is something you simply can't do. The closest you have ever come to explaining it is by implicitly appealing to gravity by appealing to the mass of the air/object itself trying to go down.

Again, the simple diagram you continually avoid and try to escape with semantic BS shows you are wrong.

You need that extra force W, which isn't come from the air (the only vertical forces coming from the air around are F and -G), in order to get a pressure gradient.

If you reject that force, you end up with this:

Where there is no pressure gradient.

It fits perfectly. You just don't have the thought process to understand why.
You mean I have the thought process to understand it is pure BS.
That is your problem not mine.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2021, 03:11:45 PM by JackBlack »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1587 on: April 17, 2021, 01:03:04 AM »


No details then?  After all your hundreds of pages of posts telling us about how you know better than everyone else in the world, won’t you give us poor indoctrinated fools a clue how you came to your conclusions?
I don't know better.
I have my theories.
I have my musings.
I have my own mindset on how I see things.

The thing is, what I go with, you people do not agree; and that's fair enough.
I do not agree with the globe for reasons given and it bugs people like you, which is why you come out with this gunk.

Feel free to carry it on, mind you. I have no issue with digs and such but your frustrations only become worse when you realise it serves little purpose.

I only asked about the experiments you said you did and thought it funny that suddenly you resort to one word answers. 

I don’t really care that you are obviously wrong about all this, I’m just curious why you believe it?

So you didn’t do any experiments then?

PS I have nothing more to do with the other people here than I do with you.  There’s no “you people”.
Why are you curious?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1588 on: April 17, 2021, 01:10:31 AM »



No  we agreed on the one concept as part of the point.

Constant velocity is a thing.
The application of force to maintain constant velocity is also a thing.
You failing basic physics is also a thing and not reliant on denP.
You agreed you could not have constant velocity if you have resistance to force.

Now you disagree?

Tell me how you can have constant velocity, then.

You really are stupid.

A car hits 100km/h constant velocity.
Air drag slows the car down unless the driver maintains the added gas force needed to cancel out drag and maintain 100.

There
Constant V is achieved while satisfying your criteria and maintaining my original statement.

Be less stupid.
I don't think you've been paying attention.

I'll make it bigger.

You cannot have constant velocity with force.
To keep an exact  constant velocity would require you to have absolutely no resistance to initial force.
It's an impossible scenario and you know it.

In your set up your car is going 100km/h. You say air drag slows the car down.
If air drag slows the car down and you have to apply a force to get back to the 100km/h then you never had nor never will hold a constant velocity.


In a magical world of no resistance to initial push then you would have the rate of speed of that push and nothing more and nothing less, which would mean you have constant velocity.

The problem with this is, you have to imagine it because it's an impossibility.

It's as simple as that, really.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist
« Reply #1589 on: April 17, 2021, 01:14:46 AM »


I can
And anyone whos seen a rollercoadter could too.
You asking a stupid question is why i wont.

But maybe i will - things accellerate down because of the "predictable rate of fall".
Things fall.
Things fall, how and why?

You seem to be struggling.

How and why doesnt matter for this particular part except that it does.

At this particular point of time, we re discussing  weight and why poka dot bags of rocks arent more popular.

Although we do seem to be transitioning to velocity...


Either way
If you want to discuss how and why things fall
We can start by defining atmospheric pressurre.
What is it?
Is it different from air pressure?
What about static and dynamic?
Atmospheric pressure is never static.
It's always dynamic.