ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 21, 2021, 11:11:42 PM

Wind is dynamic pressure.
There is even a predictable formula for the way it behaves.
Computational fluid dynamics can reasonably predict its affects.
Wind tunnels are a thing.

Feel free to ket me know the lateral pushes when im standing still in my room with no wind.
Why down, but not left right back front?

Maybe next time dont use an example thats so extreeeemely easy to discount.

When you're standing in your room with no wind you are still under pressure movements, laterally . You just don't feel them.

This is why static means nothing because static does not exist. Everything is always dynamic.

Soooo, let's get back to your bedroom (chill out...not in that way, you saucy git) 

Ok, in your room your body simply displaces the air in it, laterally and vertically, while your feet simply use the floor as the foundation (assuming standing). Basically very little air underfoot as it's mostly been displaced.

Soooo, you're standing there  (let's assume as still as possible) with your body displacing the air. Compressing it away from your body.
That air is pushing right back against your body's resistance to it.

That air is forever agitating due to expansion and contraction  around you and above you and marginally below your feet in terms of under your arches.

This means the air is moving. It's vibrating due to friction creating pressure changes.

Because this is happening all around your body, your body stays in position. It is clamped almost evenly around it, depending on symmetrical stance.
The pressure above you adds to a push down against the resistance of feet to floor.

To significant change lateral pressure, you have to move, or something has to alter pressure within the room. This could be a door opened and a rush in of pressure.

You've had this many a time by having a back door or window open when you open your front door.
Immediate pressure change and a lateral push against you.

I'm pretty sure you'll go right back to square one and say you can't grasp it.

Woooord salad.
Gist - unless i move lateeally then laterally i wont be pushed?

Ill jump ahead because we ve been over this befire.

If i dont move vertically - why am i still pushed down?
If i move left 2 steps, ive now increased my position 2steps away from the dome in the right, i should now be pushed my displaced amount.

If you say no,
Realise then rhat the same rules apply to the up-down as the left-right  unless you can give some other reason (not including foundation).
Because air shouldnt care about foundation.
Maybe define a rules.

If you read between the lines of everything Sceptimatic says, he is actually coming up with absolutely nothing new. He is simply using his own ways of describing everything science and physics already knows and everything we all experience. OK he doesn't 'believe' in gravity. Yet throughout his life he has always experienced gravity in exactly the same way that everyone else has. He had simply made up his own interpretation of it.

I could hold an apple or indeed a grate of apples and let it fall to the ground and so can Sceptimatic. We will see and experience the same thing. To everyone else on the planet the reason why they fall to the ground is gravity. We will note that a single apple or indeed a crate of apples take the same time to fall to the ground as long as they are dropped from the same height.  Sceptimatic would prefer to say it is due to molecules of air pushing against one another or something like that.  Fair enough.

Underlying everything that Sceptimatic believes or doesn't believe is a massive distrust.  It is the root cause and scope of that distrust that I am interested in rather than what he thinks is real and true or not.  Distrust of anyone in 'authority' seems to be at the root of all conspiracy theorists. I have often heard people say they don't 'believe' in something simply because they find it difficult or impossible to understand it.

I've said plenty but you people absolutely refuse to try to understand it.

No, we do understand and realise that you are repeatedly contradicting yourself, such as not even being able to make up your mind on if the object itself is trying to fall, if it just the air pushing it, or if it is some magic based upon energy.

But you have never explained why the air pushes objects down.
You have repeatedly claimed to have provided such an explanation, but you never provide it.

It isn't a case of us not understanding, it is a case of you not explaining, because you can't.

A helium balloon is one such case.

Yes, one case which shows your model is garbage.
If it was just the air pushing objects down, it shouldn't matter what the object is.
The fact that some things fall while others rise shows your model is garbage, just like so many other things do.

As for denying conventional physics. I don't believe I'm denying anything to do with conventional physics or scientific facts.

Just like you believe all sorts of BS.
But the simple fact is you are.

Conventional physics, backed up by mountains of evidence clearly indicates that the atmosphere will apply a force to an object based upon the pressure and the area.
Due to the pressure gradient of the atmosphere this will result in a net upwards force from the air on all objects in the atmosphere.
Conventional physics clearly indicates that the pressure gradient will make things rise.

You outright reject that and instead claim the air magically pushes objects down in complete defiance of that pressure gradient.
So regardless of what lies you want to believe, the simple fact is your claims outright defy and deny conventional physics.

You even outright reject basic, conventional physics which you misuse to attack the globe.
For example, you claim that the air magically needs a container, based upon the well known fact that pressure gradients try to eliminate themselves, where a high pressure will try to push into a low pressure region, compressing the low pressure fluid to increase its pressure and decompressing the high pressure region to lower its pressure until the pressure is balanced.
You misuse this fact to argue against the globe and gravity, when gravity explains why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere.
But without gravity, with it just all being the air, this simple conventional physics dictates that there cannot be any pressure gradient in the atmosphere like we observe.

A pressure gradient like that observed in the atmosphere, without gravity or something equivalent to it, would result in the high pressure air near the surface flowing upwards to attempt to eliminate that pressure gradient.
But you outright deny this, and instead pretend the air is magically enough.

Mass will lose energy if mass if pushing against a resistance to break through it, unless more energy is consistently applied to break through.

You mean like the extra energy from the greater pressure below will continue to allow the mass to push upwards through the atmosphere, without something else like gravity to stop it?
Or how this greater resistance below should stop any object from falling unless there is some force like gravity to keep it falling?

which then overcomes the resistance below

HOW?
What magic allows it to overcome the resistance below, given that resistance below is GREATER than the push down from above?

Again, if your delusion garbage was true, things should be pushed up to the top.
That is because the push from the air below is more than enough to overcome the resistance of the air above.
Again, you need something OTHER THAN THE AIR to explain it.

But you are dealing with fairy stories, in my honest opinion.

You have made it quite clear that it isn't your honest opinion.
It is your blatant lie.

We are pushed around laterally. What do you think wind is?

And notice how it pushes you from the high pressure side to the low pressure side?
Why does your atmosphere magically defy that (that is one of the massive contradictions from you).

The point that you are avoiding is that on a calm day, in an environment without any significant wind, you claim the air magically pushes things down, for no reason at all and more importantly, defying all reason which indicates it should push up.

The question you continually refuse to answer is WHY?
Why does the air magically push things down?

I'm not ignoring simple questions.

So you say, when you completely ignore the vast majority of the post, because it contains the same questions you continue to ignore because you cannot answer them without exposing that your model is garbage.

You haven't answered my questions, and just lying by claiming you have will not magically answer them.
If you had actually answered them it would be trivial for you to provide the answers.
But the problem is that you have no answers, but instead of admitting that you just lie and claim to have already answered them.
It is truly pathetic.

Ok, in your room your body simply displaces the air in it, laterally and vertically, while your feet simply use the floor as the foundation (assuming standing). Basically very little air underfoot as it's mostly been displaced.

As has been pointed out to you countless times, this line of reasoning means if you place your body or an object against a wall you should be pushed into that wall; if you place an object on the ceiling, it should be pushed up into the ceiling, and an object in mid-air should just sit there, floating; or at best being pushed back into your hand with you unable to release it.

If you claim we should be pushed down if we lift something up because we have moved the air, the same applies for any lateral movement, if you push away from a wall the same complete absence of reasoning indicates the air should crush you back into that wall. But that isn't what happens.

Because of this it shows it cannot be the reason and thus it doesn't explain anything.

I'm pretty sure you'll go right back to square one and say you can't grasp it.

Again, the problem is you aren't leaving square one as you continually refuse to provide an explanation for why the air magically pushes things down, except this complete failure which requires an object to already be on the ground, and which would indicate the air just pushes objects towards any solid surface.

If you want this to be square one and to move on from it you need to claim that if you are up against a wall, the air will push you into the wall, and if you push away from the wall the air will push you back into it, making you "fall" into the wall.

Or, you need to provide a justification which actually explains the directionality, without needing to have a floor below you.

I don't believe I'm denying anything to do with conventional physics

Well you are constantly denying that gravity exists so if that is not denying anything to do with conventional physics I don't know what else you would call it.

If you read between the lines of everything Sceptimatic says, he is actually coming up with absolutely nothing new. He is simply using his own ways of describing everything science and physics already knows and everything we all experience. OK he doesn't 'believe' in gravity. Yet throughout his life he has always experienced gravity in exactly the same way that everyone else has. He had simply made up his own interpretation of it.

I could hold an apple or indeed a grate of apples and let it fall to the ground and so can Sceptimatic. We will see and experience the same thing. To everyone else on the planet the reason why they fall to the ground is gravity. We will note that a single apple or indeed a crate of apples take the same time to fall to the ground as long as they are dropped from the same height.  Sceptimatic would prefer to say it is due to molecules of air pushing against one another or something like that.  Fair enough.

Underlying everything that Sceptimatic believes or doesn't believe is a massive distrust.  It is the root cause and scope of that distrust that I am interested in rather than what he thinks is real and true or not.  Distrust of anyone in 'authority' seems to be at the root of all conspiracy theorists. I have often heard people say they don't 'believe' in something simply because they find it difficult or impossible to understand it.

Corrdct

and incorrect.

There are som massive flaws in logic and fails at basic math and geometry and basic communication skills.

Its amazing!

Quote

I don't believe I'm denying anything to do with conventional physics

Well you are constantly denying that gravity exists so if that is not denying anything to do with conventional physics I don't know what else you would call it.

I wouldn't call it conventional physics, I'd call it conventional acceptance of fairy stories.

To call it physics or science, is wrong when it doesn't exist.

No, we do understand and realise that you are repeatedly contradicting yourself

No, I'm not.

Gravity is the most studied subject in the history of physics.  Since 1915 alone there is literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed, published data.  Debating isn't going to change that...nobody has debunked any of the published data.

Gravity is the most studied subject in the history of physics.  Since 1915 alone there is literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed, published data.  Debating isn't going to change that...nobody has debunked any of the published data.

Nobody has debunked it because nobody would be allowed to.
Also, nobody has proved the existence of it and can't say what it is.
There's a reason for that. It does not exist.

It's only used to keep alive a fantasy of a spinning globe in a supposed vacuum of space with all the rest of the so called space nonsense.

Simple experiments prove what's really happening but it gets overlooked and discarded, for obvious reasons.
For atmospheric pressure to be the lone reason for all life and happenings would instantly kill off everything that was put out about Earth and space as being a supposed big spinning spectacle.

by "prove" you mean not done.
agreed - overlooked and discarded for obvious reason in that not done therefore not proved.

I wouldn't call it conventional physics, I'd call it conventional acceptance of fairy stories.

To call it physics or science, is wrong when it doesn't exist.

Are you telling us that as fact or just giving us your opinion? Because remember you have said many times that you are not here to pass on what you say as factual but merely your opinion. But given you deny as true anything apart from what you believe then that is basically putting things over as factual. 

Conventional physics includes gravity.  So you denying that gravity exists is also you denying conventional physics.  Yet you deny that you do that as well.  Your whole life just seems to be filled with denial and distrust.

I don't believe I'm denying anything to do with conventional physics

Also, nobody has proved the existence of it and can't say what it is.
There's a reason for that. It does not exist.

I think most people would agree that is heading for a classic Sceptimatic example of both denial and contradiction. You deny that gravity exists do you not?  The theory of gravitation is a core part of conventional and classical physics so you denying gravity is also you denying conventional physics.

I wouldn't call it conventional physics

Right, so when you say you don't deny "conventional physics" you don't mean that at all.

Instead you mean you don't deny what agrees with your delusional BS, and you deny loads of conventional physics which should your delusional BS is just that, delusional BS.

Nobody has debunked it because nobody would be allowed to.
Also, nobody has proved the existence of it and can't say what it is.
There's a reason for that. It does not exist.

There you go with the pathetic lies and projection again.

Everyone is allowed to try to debunk gravity. But no one has succeeded because it almost certainly is real.
It is backed up by mountains of evidence which you simply dismiss as fake and stories because you reject everything that is related to the globe because of your irrational hatred of the globe.
As far as you are concerned, if something shows you are wrong, it must be fake.

It's only used

Because that is what all the available evidence shows and because it actually works to explain reality, unlike your delusional BS.
You can't even explain why some things fall and other things float.
You can't explain why there is a pressure gradient in anything.

Simple experiments prove what's really happening but it gets overlooked and discarded, for obvious reasons.

Yes, very obvious reason. It shows your claims are pure BS, so you overlook it and discard it.
But don't worry, we aren't as dishonest as you.
We don't overlook these simple experiments.
We accept them, and accept that they show you are wrong.

For atmospheric pressure to be the lone reason for all life and happenings would instantly kill off everything that was put out about Earth

Yes, such as a pressure gradient in the atmosphere, some objects falling while others float, and so on.

Fortunately, it is delusional BS.

So we don't need to worry about that.

Now again, care to stop with the pathetic deflections and distractions and just answer the trivial questions about your delusional BS?

Care to explain why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere?

Remember, simple experiments will show that if you merely have interactions between the layers there is no gradient.
Again, turning the system on its side, such that you have layers stacked against a wall to the right and pushing the left most layer from the left to the right will result in the pressure being consistent throughout. There is no magical build up of pressure such that it increases as you get closer to the wall. However if you have something apply a force to each layer directly, rather than through all the layers to the left as well, then the pressure does increase.
Again, this shows that contrary to your garbage, there is a force acting on each layer of air directly, rather than acting through the air above and below. This shows it isn't simply the air pushing down.

Likewise, simple experiments with pressure gradients show that if you have a pressure gradient any object inside it will be pushed by this pressure gradient from the high pressure side towards the low pressure side. The force is proportional to the area and the pressure gradient, and for a fluid where the pressure gradient is caused by gravity, that works out to be the weight of the fluid displaced.
This can also be observed by seeing how the weight of an object changes in various fluids.
If you take an object in air and weigh it and then reduce the pressure, you also reduce the pressure gradient and this causes the object to appear to weigh MORE as the buoyant force is reduced.
Conversely if you put an object in a denser fluid such that the pressure gradient is larger, the buoyant force increases and the object appears to weigh less.

Again, these simple experiments show quite clearly that the air pushes objects up, and that another force (lets call it gravity for simplicity) makes things fall.
This also explains why some objects fall and some float (unlike your garbage). If the buoyant force is greater, the object floats. If the gravitational force is greater, the object falls.

Why would any sane person reject gravity and accept your delusional nonsense when gravity is backed up by so much evidence and actually works to explain reality; while your nonsense is refuted by so much evidence and you cannot even explain some of the most trivial things in reality?

Simple experiments prove what's really happening

I quite agree.  Simple experiments which show how things fall to the ground when released.  We all observe the same thing.  It is the interpretation of that observation which varies between individuals.

by "prove" you mean not done.
agreed - overlooked and discarded for obvious reason in that not done therefore not proved.

Not done and not proved. Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.


There's a very good reason for that.

Quote

I wouldn't call it conventional physics, I'd call it conventional acceptance of fairy stories.

To call it physics or science, is wrong when it doesn't exist.

Are you telling us that as fact or just giving us your opinion?
Because remember you have said many times that you are not here to pass on what you say as factual but merely your opinion.

Anything I do give out is my opinion based on my own interpretations. That's all you need to know.
When I mention facts I'll be sure to give proof of them just as I expect you people to but I see nothing of proof but many instances of spouted fact based on nothing more than acceptance without proof.

But given you deny as true anything apart from what you believe then that is basically putting things over as factual.

No I'm not. I'm putting things over by how I perceive things to potentially be . My theories or hypotheses or musings or thoughts or whatever you people want to think of it.
I've told you people this, many many times but you keep coming back t this factuaL stuff because you think it gives you some kind of leeway in your arguments.

 

Conventional physics includes gravity.  So you denying that gravity exists is also you denying conventional physics.

Not in my book.
Conventional acceptance of something that does not exist (in my book) is not conventional physics. It's conventional fiction/fantasy/mis/disinformation. In my honest opinion.

  Yet you deny that you do that as well.  Your whole life just seems to be filled with denial and distrust.

question a lot of stuff and I basically work on a , Believe nothing and question everything mindset.
I feel this is the better way given all the absolute gunk we are fed throughout out lives.

Quote

I don't believe I'm denying anything to do with conventional physics

Quote

Also, nobody has proved the existence of it and can't say what it is.
There's a reason for that. It does not exist.

I think most people would agree that is heading for a classic Sceptimatic example of both denial and contradiction.

Feel free to think what you want but there's one way to stop me questioning and refusing to accept gravity. Prove it exists and tell me what it is.
Can you do that?
As for contradiction. Only in your mind.

You deny that gravity exists do you not?

No.
I don't believe gravity is a thing, other than a meaningless word.

The theory of gravitation is a core part of conventional and classical physics so you denying gravity is also you denying conventional physics.

The theory of gravity?
Why a theory?
It's codswallop.

There you go with the pathetic lies and projection again.

Feel free to keep thinking that.

Quote

Simple experiments prove what's really happening

I quite agree.  Simple experiments which show how things fall to the ground when released.  We all observe the same thing.  It is the interpretation of that observation which varies between individuals.

All you have to do is to explain what gravity is.

Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.

No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.

Anything I do give out is my opinion based on my own interpretations.

No it isn't.
You claim things with 100% certainty, that is not an opinion.
That is you stating something as a fact.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 22, 2021, 02:44:49 PM

There you go with the pathetic lies and projection again.

Feel free to keep thinking that.

And I will continue thinking that until you actually start answering the questions which expose your BS.

Again, what magic causes the pressure gradient of the atmosphere?
What magic causes the air to directly defy this pressure gradient and push objects down?
Can you actually answer any of these simple questions you have been asked, or can you just lie and deflect?

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 22, 2021, 10:22:20 AM

by "prove" you mean not done.
agreed - overlooked and discarded for obvious reason in that not done therefore not proved.

Not done and not proved. Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.


There's a very good reason for that.
 

The irony...

Remind us once again where the arc reactor center cell sun is?

Show us the photo of your tutube and point to us what you mean (because clearly we cant understand your misused word jumble).

Quote from: MicroBeta on April 22, 2021, 08:52:40 AM

Gravity is the most studied subject in the history of physics.  Since 1915 alone there is literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed, published data.  Debating isn't going to change that...nobody has debunked any of the published data.

Nobody has debunked it because nobody would be allowed to.
<snip>

I'm sorry but that statement is nothing but a bullshit cop out.  A lame excuse to handwave away peer reviewed, published data without having to address any of it.

Claiming it doesn't exist in the face of volumes of peer reviewed data without evidence to support that claim is hypocritical.  If globe deniers are going to ask us to back up our claims then you should have to do the same.

Mike   

All you have to do is to explain what gravity is

That is like explaining what time is.

I'll be more than happy to explain further if you require it.

That is much appreciated!  I am trying to "sponge" it up currently.

I think I mostly get it - that the property of the density is what pushes the other layers upwards.

There is always another way to conceptualize things and still effectively describe what we observe. 

It is certainly a wild idea to (more or less) remove weight entirely and describe everything with pressures (as it appears you are doing), but I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with it.

Quote

All you have to do is to explain what gravity is

That is like explaining what time is.

That’s not exactly true.  It is true that we don’t know what the exact mechanism by which gravity causes masses to accelerate toward each other; space to warp.  However, how that mechanism operates is very well understood.  In fact, it’s so well understood that its effects are quantifiable, measurable, and predictable and have been successfully tested over and over again.   

It is a stone-cold fact there is no other explanation for the observations we attribute to gravity that can say the same thing.

Mike

Fundamentally wrong because air can be isolated as a variable and shown to have no effect affect

Fundamentally weong because if the push were from top down would show the most push at the top.
My hair would never stand up.

He has ignored these with a simple wave of the hand.

No.
I don't believe gravity is a thing, other than a meaningless word.

Agree on the first, but gravity is undoubtedly a word with a meaning.  Just look it up in the OED for that meaning.  What is meaningless and essentially irrelevant to everyone else is whether you choose to acknowledge that meaning.  I don't think anyone has ever suggested gravity is a 'thing' that you can reach out and touch.

Sceptimatic you simply like playing with words so you can (in your mind at least) keep winning arguments and discussions. That in turn perhaps makes you feel somehow special in whatever way you are looking for.  Maybe you like to think you are right all the time while everyone else has been brainwashed, indoctrinated or whatever word you want to use.

Up until the early 20th century gravity was regarded as a force between any two objects with mass.  In 99% of situations that description worked.  But then Einstein re-modelled gravity so that it became not a force but a curvature of space-time.  This of course is when it all starts to go over your head and so you immediately slam the door and refuse to accept anything to do with it. In other words whenever you meet anything you don't understand you enter that deep, dark tunnel of denial.

You want me to explain gravity to you..   Fine,OK I will. Or should I say I will describe my understanding of gravity. But first you explain to me everything you know about this dome of yours.

If someone who had spent their career in geodysics came up to you and said 'Hey Sceptimatic - the Earth really is a sphere!' you would no doubt say 'OK prove it - I won't believe it you unless you can prove it. If you can't prove it then you must be lying.'

I have no doubt that no matter what figures or data they put in front of you, you would not accept any of it as proof.  But could you provide any better proof that your belief of the world is right and theirs is wrong?  Proof at least beyond water looking level.  Which of course it does over the sort of distances we can see directly.

What I would like to know is why you are so sure in your mind that all those involved in science professionally (or should I say anyone in 'authority') and who tell us the Earth is spherical are lying.  Why would they have a need to lie?  Is that your mindset?  People are lying if they say anything other than what you believe?

Take another scenario. You and I head up to the top of the leaning tower of Pisa, each carrying a cannonball.  On the count of 3 we both release the cannonballs (making sure there is no one standing at the bottom first of course) and then observe what happens.  We observe both cannonballs fall to the ground.  No surprises there.  Your cannonball is made of lead while mine is made of aluminium.  Yet they both hit the ground at the same time.

The conventional explanation of why the cannonballs fall to the ground is gravity.  But you would disagree.  What evidence then is available purely from what we observe that indicates that gravity is not the cause of the cannonballs falling?

It is certainly a wild idea to (more or less) remove weight entirely and describe everything with pressures (as it appears you are doing), but I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with it.

Because you want to help any attack on the RE.
The fundamental issues are quite apparent, including a big one you already addressed and which I hoped meant you would stop just trying to prop him up.

The way air pressure/fluids in general work is quite well understood, from loads and loads of experiments. Some would even say they are natural laws.
Yet his claims outright defy them.

For example, it is quite well known that fluids will naturally try to eliminate any pressure gradient, that is even the basis for why water always finds its level.
Yet he outright rejects that idea and instead claims the pressure will magically exist for no reason at all.

Likewise, it is quite well known that a pressure gradient in a fluid will push an object from the high pressure side to the low pressure side. But again, he outright rejects this, instead claiming that the air will magically push most objects down, in complete defiance of the pressure gradient.

Likewise, the fluid doesn't care what the mass of the object is or what it is made of (with the sole exception of the fluid interacting at the surface due to friction and relative motion of the fluids), so a helium filled balloon should interact with the air in the same way as a lead filled balloon or a water filled balloon and so on. Yet he claims the air will magically push the lead down and the helium up.

I could go on and on but hopefully you get the point. There are so many things fundamentally wrong with his claims it isn't funny. You are just choosing to overlook them.
Anyone who honestly looks at his claims and actually thinks about them can see plenty fundamentally wrong with them. And that isn't just limited to his claims regarding gravity and air.
It also applies to plenty of others he has made, like his claim that everything is magically a push, or that you magically can't see the RE through a level tube.

Fundamentally wrong because air can be isolated as a variable and shown to have no effect affect

Ah, but what if there were something smaller and more permeable in that air (or something, as Scepti has described that air breaks down into)?  Something that no amount of pumping could ever evacuate because the containers we use are too porous for this, theoretical, "ultra-fine" fluid?  There are most certainly other conceptions that would accommodate this apparent contradiction as well.

Fundamentally weong because if the push were from top down would show the most push at the top.
My hair would never stand up.

But push IS from top down, in the traditional conception (pascal's law) of pressure.  The push is cumulative.

In regards to the hair, it got me noodling.  What density of surrounding fluid (and what type of fluid specifically) would be required to get all hair to "stand up"? I'm pretty certain that even at the bottom of the ocean this wouldn't happen, though I've never asked/researched it.  The effects caused by van de graff (static) and mousse/gel/oil/hair "stay" are certainly different.  However if there was a significant pressure differential, between your head and hair, you are right - your hair would never stand up.

He has ignored these with a simple wave of the hand.

The wave of the hand/wand is always a crowd pleaser

In regards to the vacuum chamber idea, they have directly addressed that one - though that doesn't mean you have to buy the answer.

In terms of hair, they have said repeatedly that if there is no imbalance - then there is no push.  If the hair can stand up on its own and the pressure is more or less equal on all sides of it - why would it be pushed down? Why would your conception of Scepti's view preclude hair standing up?

Ah, but what if there were something smaller and more permeable in that air

Then we are no longer discussing the air.

If you want to claim it is something like a flow aether pushing everything down, go ahead. But that is nothing like what he is claiming.

Quote

Fundamentally weong because if the push were from top down would show the most push at the top.
My hair would never stand up.

But push IS from top down, in the traditional conception (pascal's law) of pressure.  The push is cumulative.
In regards to the hair, it got me noodling.  What density of surrounding fluid (and what type of fluid specifically) would be required to get all hair to "stand up"? I'm pretty certain that even at the bottom of the ocean this wouldn't happen, though I've never asked/researched it.  The effects caused by van de graff (static) and mousse/gel/oil/hair "stay" are certainly different.  However if there was a significant pressure differential, between your head and hair, you are right - your hair would never stand up.

You are entirely missing the point.

The point is that if it is the air pushing you down, the air is pushing you down from above. This means all the force pushing you down needs to come from above.
i.e. all the force pushing all of your body below your hair down comes from above your hair. Your hair is not capable of supporting that force and would collapse and be crushed to your head, quite like if you were standing on your head.

This also applies to stacks of objects, where if the air is pushing from the top, then the force should be constant as the very top has all the force pushing down to hold the entire stack down.
This means it shouldn't matter if you put a fragile object at the top or bottom of the stack, the force pushing the stack down should crush it either way.

But again, that isn't what happens in reality. Instead we observed that the force increases as you go down the stack, showing a fundamental problem with his ideas.

In regards to the vacuum chamber idea, they have directly addressed that one - though that doesn't mean you have to buy the answer.

No, he hasn't. He has appealed to there still being some air in there, but he hasn't explained why heavy objects still apparently fall at basically the same rate, and why the weight of an object increases.
How does lowering the air pressure dramatically to only a tiny portion of what it was originally, make the object heavier? How does it still accelerate the object at roughly the same rate?
He has not explained this, because it makes no sense.

In terms of hair, they have said repeatedly that if there is no imbalance - then there is no push.  If the hair can stand up on its own and the pressure is more or less equal on all sides of it - why would it be pushed down? Why would your conception of Scepti's view preclude hair standing up?

Have you paid attention at all to what he is claiming.
Again, this is another fundamental problem with his claims.
If you have an object in mid air, with roughly equal pressure all around, why should it be pushed DOWN?
That is what he claims, that somehow the air magically pushes these objects down.
Yet if you actually look at the pressure you find the pressure is slightly higher BELOW the object, meaning it should be pushed up, not down.

The point is that if you ignore that massive problem and instead accept his wild idea that the air is magically pushing things down in complete defiance of all reason, you then have the issue of why it doesn't crush the hair on your head down as it pushes down to push you down.

It is quite clear to any honest sane individual that has thought about it for more than a few seconds that the air is not pushing things down and there are so many things fundamentally wrong with such an idea it isn't funny.

He said its the same air we breath.
Hes been asked many times about properties of airand what is it.
He has provided no info.

Yet cavendish experiment shows two masses attractig to each other.

So quit giving sceppy credit.
Feel free to find out more, but he doesnt get credit.

Because you want to help any attack on the RE.

Lol.  Is that what we are doing in this thread? Attacking? I'm trying to understand, and am talking about something quite tangential to the shape of the world.

The fundamental issues are quite apparent, including a big one you already addressed and which I hoped meant you would stop just trying to prop him up.

I still think your point is somewhat valid.  My next question regarding that will be about gradient that occurs in a uniform media.  I'm just trying to understand; not prop up.

Yet his claims outright defy them.

Possibly, though I'm not certain about that yet.

For example, it is quite well known that fluids will naturally try to eliminate any pressure gradient, that is even the basis for why water always finds its level.

True.

Yet he outright rejects that idea and instead claims the pressure will magically exist for no reason at all.

Their most recent answer to me (assuming I am understanding it properly) was that the varying density of the matter is the cause of the gradient.  The most dense matter pushes the less dense matter up above it (etc.), and the layers above them exert pressure (I think, uniformly as we / the laws expect) on each layer which ultimately effects the layer on the bottom (as well as the top, however the "top" has less cumulative pressure due to its lesser density/matter).

But again, he outright rejects this, instead claiming that the air will magically push most objects down, in complete defiance of the pressure gradient.

I think they are describing the process of falling, and cause thereof, in different terms - but not necessarily a contradictory one. The reason for the density seperation is not fully explained in any case (even when you handwave "gravity" at it), but I agree that that pressure gradient exists in one singular media (not mixed, as all air tends to be) - so my next question will be along those lines.

Yet he claims the air will magically push the lead down and the helium up.

I don't think they are contradicting archemides' principle, and are saying the air is pushing down (and all directions?) in an attempt to crush the balloon. The balloon can only resist the pressure of the surrounding fluid so much, and this dictates whether or not the object will rise (pushed up by the denser and higher pressure below, into the lower pressure as expected), fall (to join the more dense matter below of which it matches outward "push"), or neither (already found its "proper" place in the "stacking system"). If it contradicts archimedes principle then I might agree with you that it "breaks laws".  However, "To say an object violates a law is to elevate it to a person, and even a citizen" and laws were made to be broken anyhow!

It also applies to plenty of others he has made, like his claim that everything is magically a push, or that you magically can't see the RE through a level tube.

Possibly, though I think the claims about gravity actually being pressure which is misunderstood are worthy of seperate consideration in any case - though you could still be right.

The "everything is push" perspective is a great example because it is similar to considering archemides principle using only pressure.  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with doing so, and it is still a conception that can describe what we observe. Many such conceptions are not right (I.e. Indicitave of / consistent with actual reality) - but this does not preclude them from being useful or logical/consistent/sound.