Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.

Quote from: Stash on January 13, 2023, 05:22:04 PM

It doesn't really matter. The pre-conception coming in from the get go is conspiratorial and anything that points to otherwise is manufactured to perpetuate the "big lie". Simple as that. There may be this theory, or that theory as to how an observation may meet FE. But again, it doesn't really matter. When an observation is shown not to meet, it's simply disregarded out of hand as fakery. So if you really distill it down, how the discussion goes doesn't really matter.

I'm not touching the 'Nice stuff has been tried' because I feel we might be coming at it with very different definitions, to say nothing of the difficulty in a conversation with so many users jumping in, but treating this as an end point is... weird. Granting it, okay, then by asking questions without kicking up a fight, you get an idea of the extent the conspiracy needs to cover. That's not nothing.
But there are, inevitably, non-conspiratorial answers - no one denies objects falling, for example, there are simple scientific questions to understand. If someone ends up rejecting the arguments for gravity varying based on altitude - which I don't recall seeing too much of, though maybe it's gotten more common - then that'd be conspiratorial, but it's an answer. If you dislike conspiratorial answers, sure, I'm with you, edges close to near-solipsism levels of unhelpful unknowableness, but is any more achieved by meeting them with aggression? That still doesn't seem to serve a benefit even after what you've said.

You seem to be laying down a code of conduct that you deem more fruitful. That's fair. I agree in theory, but respectfully somewhat disagree in practice. It's a chicken/egg scenario, but when effort has been made in a debate (which is somewhat confrontational by nature) and is perpetually met with the simple conspiratorial out when rationale seems to have been exhausted, it all just becomes fruitless, regardless of whether civility or aggression was employed.

This is how a typical discussion goes…

RE: Engineers across various fields use g in their calculations, from roller coasters to iPhones…
FE: No they don’t.
RE: They actually do, here’s some documentation on how roller coaster designers, from roller coaster designers, utilize gravity and Newton’s Laws to design their rides
FE: They are lying.
RE: Ok, well the accelerometer in your iPhone/Kindle uses g calculations to determine it’s orientation in space, tilt, up/down, side to side, etc.
FE: No it doesn’t, there’s no such thing as an accelerometer.
RE: Here are spec sheets from Amazon and Apple listing the use of an accelerometer as a component of their devices.
FE: They are lying. They don’t use an accelerometer. It’s some sort of other optical scanning thingamabob.
RE: Here’s a tear down of a Kindle and iPhone where the accelerometer is shown on the board, labeled, called out with its manufacturer and model number.
FE: Well it doesn’t use g and doesn’t do what you say it does.
RE: Here’s documentation from the manufacturer (Texas Instruments) of the accelerometer referenced in the teardown and how it works and what it does, referencing g.
FE: You can use the letter ‘g’ for anything. It’s just a letter of the alphabet. It doesn’t mean gravity.
RE: The TI documentation for their accelerometer that is used in Kindle and iPhone devices, that you've already been shown, specifically mentions in their list of definitions at the beginning of the documentation regarding their calculations and coding for the accelerometer, “g: the gravity constant.” See, it’s right there in their documentation defining what they mean by ‘g’.


FE: They are lying.

ALL roads lead to pulling the “They are lying/conspiracy” lever. That is not helpful to a discussion/debate, it is not fruitful, and on both sides, frustration/aggression theory can kick in. When there is no where to go and the conclusion is always the same even though efforts have been made to actually present a case with evidence and such only to always, ultimately, be met with, “Everyone is lying.” Well, maybe there should be no debate section or discussion section. Maybe the site shouldn’t even have a forum, so to speak, or ban all RErs. And just simply have one page that says, “Anything other than FE, regardless of anything, is all lies”. Cut to the chase, as it were.

Your code of conduct may work for you, may not work for others. What you consider aggressive, may not seem so to others. So your advice is duly noted. Adoption, however, is on a case-by-case basis.

You're wrong.

The discussion goes to "you are lying" because unfortunately you are part of things. I would be willing to believe you were simply a useful idiot like my father or grandfather (that's a term, I'm not calling my relations idiots)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
who try like other people to talk me out of this. One way I know that I'm right is precisely because

of universal opposition. The level of opposition I get shows me how ingrained the idea is.

But you're also doing the "made from corn, and fine in moderation" thing. This is the strawman where you act like the other person has never any response to you. (Notice the pause)



This accelerometer argument isn't remotely valid. I already showed pictures of real accelerometers and how the chip thing doesn't match up. It doesn't have the same divets or pins, most of these are marked with series of notations that are in fact important. This is what is on the back of a accelerometer chip (recall I mentioned divets, all of them connect to pins)


X-out, Y-out, and Z-Out all seem awfully relevant, no? Plus all accelerometers I've seen had GND and UCC.
Nah, I'm just imagining things, and a kindle card has an accelerometer, because they say they do, even though all such notation and marking is notably absent.

Unlike your picture, I might believe those rotary things to be gyroscope related, but no, you pointed to some big microchip, and told me "this thing is a accelerometer." No, sorry, while I didn't go to school under computer science, I have opened up computers, and what you pointer to is fairly common. It's for processing or handling voltage or....

It's a circuit chip.

The accelerometer has more to do with the way circuits are fed to the chip than the presence of a circuit chip. When I look at such things, they seemed universally marked out with this sort of xyz notation. Kindle doesn't do this.

 "They-they're lying..."

 Sure, let's all believe that's all I said.

Btw, I did chemical equations in another thread for combustion. Before I edited those, they all had (g) attached to them to signify they were in gas form. 

Further, TI released programming calculators. If you were programming as an end user, you could assign G (uppercase) as anything. You can assign lowercase g as anything if you are the programmer of the calculator (you'll get fired, but you'll expose the truth to alot of people and help them fail their physics test, as God intended them to do). Ultimately, these numbers are assigned. They don't come from on high, carved into stone tablets which none can touch.

Further, if you ask about the moon's gravity, they actually change the constant.

The acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the Moon is approximately 1.625 m/s2, about 16.6% that on Earth's surface or 0.166 ɡ

So much for it being a constant. If it were a real constant, only the second part would be allowed, but they alter the contents, proving that this is not a constant but a variable. I discovered the same thing when I looked up Jupiter, they alter a gravitational "constant" to reflect a new reality. Sorry, but I do code, and constants are assigned from a C++ library so that you can't just reassign them. Only variables can be assigned this way.
So yes, g is a variable that any value can be assigned. It's not sacrosanct, it's a random number that some twit assigned a value to.

You seem to be laying down a code of conduct that you deem more fruitful. That's fair. I agree in theory, but respectfully somewhat disagree in practice. It's a chicken/egg scenario, but when effort has been made in a debate (which is somewhat confrontational by nature) and is perpetually met with the simple conspiratorial out when rationale seems to have been exhausted, it all just becomes fruitless, regardless of whether civility or aggression was employed.
...
ALL roads lead to pulling the “They are lying/conspiracy” lever. That is not helpful to a discussion/debate, it is not fruitful, and on both sides, frustration/aggression theory can kick in. When there is no where to go and the conclusion is always the same even though efforts have been made to actually present a case with evidence and such only to always, ultimately, be met with, “Everyone is lying.” Well, maybe there should be no debate section or discussion section. Maybe the site shouldn’t even have a forum, so to speak, or ban all RErs. And just simply have one page that says, “Anything other than FE, regardless of anything, is all lies”. Cut to the chase, as it were.

I'll freely admit frustration can happen, I've absolutely gotten annoyed in plenty of discussions, but it's usually something that takes a few more posts, and more often results from, like, simple A-or-B questions going ignored as that gets indefensible fast. In practice though, with FEer vs REer stuff, REers tend to lean on aggression first. "What's aggressive to you may not be aggressive to others," is true, but equally what you might intend as casual is not always going to come off that way either. So when someone receives a perceived-aggressive response, it can kill discussion.
If I were to pick a general rule, it would generally be "Slow the heck down," because way too often every post ends up formulated like it's an attempt to take down a whole model, which is always going to be a bad approach when you're comparing two different models, because the likely reality is that they didn't fully express every thought they have. Take Scepti - when he talks about volume, or density, or air pressure, he's talking about it in a fundamentally different way to how we would in casual conversation. Any attempt to come in swinging with "Density doesn't work like that!" just comes off as uninformed. Like Bulma's saying, defaulting to that kind of gut-reaction opposition just strengthens their confidence because you come off as not having a solid argument.

The "Everything is a lie," response, I admit, can be annoying, but it doesn't need to be the end of a discussion - you don't need to refute someone's worldview completely over the course of a conversation, you just pin part of it down so it's known, and at a later date you can refer back to it to make sure they still hold it, and see if it connects. Equally, not everything feasibly can be lied about. You have avenues to go down.
That someone objects to some of your premises is expected in debate. Some might seem sound, if reliant on incorrect data, while others might seem to be misdirected. For the latter, make sure you're talking about the same things because definitional confusion always happens in debate. For the former, go over the source data and see how far lies spread if they're even required.
Establishing how far conspiracies and errors in FET would need to spread is not a nothing achievement - "FET might be true if and only if you accept A, B, C, D, E..." is still information, if those points are arrived at by dialogue and not assertion. 'Everything is a lie' is typically overplaying it though - you get a lot of models that claim comparable predictions between FET and RET, and honest mistakes or genuine misunderstanding. Brute-force insistence on the reliability of a source is not going to be a fun discussion for either party. Honestly you could carry on a whole thread on peer review and academia and trustworthiness vs dodgy sources, and such threads have happened - which gets to 'slow down.' If you dig into a worldview, you'll find knock-on effects: with Scepti and Sandokhan, you can't properly explain why things fall without understanding molecular structure, etc. Trying to have every discussion at once and to talk about atoms, magnetism, elemental properties, repulsive forces, on and on to gravity proper, that's where it turns into an argument from exhaustion as opposed to 'Okay, let's put a pin in that and accept molecules work like that for the purposes of discussion, how does it explain this object falling?'
And if it turns out that a whole FE model is perfectly functional and makes accurate predictions if every space company in the world is in on it, then that's information, and source analysis becomes the only discussion to have. If there are other fronts though, why not talk about them? Conceding that some FE models might be able to answer some questions, given certain assumptions, is not a serious concession - and indeed is expected if just by force of numbers.

I'll concede some of this can be personal taste, but I will stand by the hyperaggressive 'First and every post in a discussion intended as a refutation' approach has never actually been helpful.

No downwards-pull theory of gravity explains why gravity appears to stop acting on this water bottle while in free-fall. 

And some wonder why some of us get aggressive. 

Gravity DOES NOT appear to stop acting on this water bottle while in free-fall.   
Gravity is acting on the bottle and the water equally. 

The bottle is being held up by a person.  The water is free to come out of the holes.


When the bottle is dropped,  the water and the bottle both experience an equal downward pull.   The water and the bottle fall at the same rate.

This is something a 6th grader can understand.  This is something any regional person can understand.  Why can't you understand it?


However, this would be a good time for you to explain what you see in the video in terms of the no-gravity, flat earth model.  We're waiting.

This is how a typical discussion goes…

RE: Engineers across various fields use g in their calculations, from roller coasters to iPhones…
FE: No they don’t....
RE: They actually do, here’s some documentation on how roller coaster designers, from roller coaster designers, utilize gravity and Newton’s Laws to design their rides
FE: They are lying....
FE: No it doesn’t, there’s no such thing as an accelerometer....
FE: They are lying...

ALL roads lead to pulling the “They are lying/conspiracy” lever. That is not helpful to a discussion/debate, it is not fruitful, and on both sides, frustration/aggression theory can kick in.

Nice summarization.

Intelligent religious fundamentalists go into sciences that do not conflict with their beliefs.  That is why we see them going into engineering and even rocket science as opposed to biology and geology.  It's hilarious that today's FE extremists also knock the engineering sciences.

You're wrong.

As always.   

 One way I know that I'm right is precisely because

of universal opposition. The level of opposition I get shows me how ingrained the idea is.

Most rational people believe in facts with supporting evidence.  What is ingrained in you is a belief in Genesis with no supporting evidence.  What is ingrained in you is disbelief in the massive amounts of evidence showing a great worldwide flood 4000 years ago never happened.

This accelerometer argument isn't remotely valid. I already showed pictures of real accelerometers and how the chip thing doesn't match up.
...
 
Unlike your picture, I might believe those rotary things to be gyroscope related... It's for processing or handling voltage or....
It's a circuit chip.

When I look at such things, they seemed universally marked out with this sort of xyz notation.

Please tell us how you became so knowledgeable in computer chips other than taking off the back of a PC or cell phone.

"They-they're lying..."

 Sure, let's all believe that's all I said.

Pretty much.  Just look at what you wrote in the post I am replying to and partially quoted above.
What you have failed to do is provide simple facts about your beliefs:
How big are the sun and the moon? 
How far are they from the earth?
Where is the model that accurately shows seasons and the day-night cycle?

You cannot provide answers to these simple questions yet you try to come across as an expert in computer chips.

Ludicrous!

Btw, I did chemical equations in another thread for combustion. Before I edited those, they all had (g) attached to them to signify they were in gas form. 

Further, TI released programming calculators. If you were programming as an end user, you could assign G (uppercase) as anything. You can assign lowercase g as anything if you are the programmer of the calculator
 (you'll get fired, but you'll expose the truth to alot of people and help them fail their physics test, as God intended them to do).

"CONTEXT"  Do you understand that word?  Maybe you do but it suits your purpose better to ignore it when you want to.  It's nothing new. 
When writing about acceleration, g has a specific meaning known to all rational people reading the article.
When writing about weights and measures, g has a specific meaning known to all rational people reading the article.
In computer programming, any letter/digit combination can be assigned as the name of any value or set of values.
I can use g to denote students' grades. 
I can use g to denote weights. 

However, any good programmer would use grade or grams.  The only people trying to make g something special are FEers intentionally ignoring context to try to make some silly point.

Ultimately, these numbers are assigned. They don't come from on high, carved into stone tablets which none can touch.

Further, if you ask about the moon's gravity, they actually change the constant.
...
So much for it being a constant. If it were a real constant, only the second part would be allowed, but they alter the contents, proving that this is not a constant but a variable. I discovered the same thing when I looked up Jupiter, they alter a gravitational "constant" to reflect a new reality. Sorry, but I do code, and constants are assigned from a C++ library so that you can't just reassign them. Only variables can be assigned this way.

Again, CONTEXT.  It seems even you realize that you can only win an argument if you conflate terms. 

So yes, g is a variable that any value can be assigned. It's not sacrosanct, it's a random number that some twit assigned a value to.

Unbunch your panties, and stop obsessing about the terms "variable" and "constant".  Instead, (try to) get educated...https://www.britannica.com/science/gravitational-constant

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2023, 10:20:04 PM

No downwards-pull theory of gravity explains why gravity appears to stop acting on this water bottle while in free-fall. 

And some wonder why some of us get aggressive. 

Gravity DOES NOT appear to stop acting on this water bottle while in free-fall.   
Gravity is acting on the bottle and the water equally. 

The bottle is being held up by a person.  The water is free to come out of the holes.


When the bottle is dropped,  the water and the bottle both experience an equal downward pull.   The water and the bottle fall at the same rate.

This is something a 6th grader can understand.  This is something any regional person can understand.  Why can't you understand it?


However, this would be a good time for you to explain what you see in the video in terms of the no-gravity, flat earth model.  We're waiting.

It is apparent that you are simply uneducated. Maybe that is why you are "aggressive." If you were confident in your knowledge there would be no reason to be aggressive.

The person speaking and performing the experiment on Steven Colbert's show is Theoretical Physicist Brian Greene. He is giving the experiment as an example of where Einstein's Equivalence Principle differs from the Newtonian Theory of Gravity that pulls things downwards. He shows that gravity operates different than expected:



If he thought that the downwards pulling theory of gravity explained this, he would not be suggesting that we to be surprised that this occurs. He does think we should be surprised that gravity behaves in this manner, however.

In free-fall bodies behave as if they were weightless. The explanation you came up with is not entirely coherent because if there was a phenomenon pulling down the atoms in the bottle equally towards the earth they would be pulled in vertical position relative to each other and not weightless while in free-fall, able to freely move in all directions within the bottle without resistance. You cannot actually explain why things are weightless in free-fall and are grasping at poor explanations.

Beyond what is seen in this experiment, we know that the water atoms in the bottle experience weightlessness while in freefall. They can move up and down with ease. According to your ad-hoc explanation all of the atoms are being pulled downwards equally. This would be like being pulled towards your opponent in a losing tug of war match. While you are being pulled towards your opponent you cannot say that you can move in any direction without resistance. Your explanation is quite poor and does not describe the phenomenon of weightlessness.

"They-they're lying..."

 Sure, let's all believe that's all I said.

We're even assuming it does use an accelerometer. 

Yes we are assuming that and you're wrong, yet again. From Amazon, Kindle Fire specs:


https://developer.amazon.com/docs/fire-tablets/ft-device-specifications-firehd-models.html

They lied.

Companies lie. Deal with it. Blue Buffalo routinely tells people their dog food is really awesome when it contains lead. False claims that hurt nobody are not a big deal. Does lying about lacking an accelerometer hurt anyone? No.

It is not an accelerometer but a light sensor that determines tilt. I was pretty sure of this with my own tilt experiments, and he was able to confirm this was the case after a thorough disassembly.

They have a part that (mostly) acts like an accelerometer, so they fibbed because not including one not only saves money but it's not suitable for what you use it for. For a Switch use for Breath of the Wild and Skyward Sword, yes you have an accelerometer. For a device that does minor tilting only, unnecessary and counterproductive.

Yes, you did say more. But the upshot is that they are lying. Just as you said, "They lied". And the saying more bit is, "They lied because all companies lie, look at this dog food company, they lied, all companies lie, Texas Instrument is lying..."

Yes, quite the fruitful discussion.

They lied.

You're wrong.

The discussion goes to "you are lying" because unfortunately you are part of things.

No, we are right.
You dismiss as as lying because we object to your fantasy.

I know that I'm right is precisely because of universal opposition. The level of opposition I get shows me how ingrained the idea is.

This is a classic example of cognitive dissonance.
People telling you are wrong doesn't mean you are right.

The fact you need to flee from the refutations of your BS, the fact you need to flee from evidence that shows you are wrong; quite clearly shows you are wrong.
If you were right, you wouldn't need to defend your fantasy with such BS which is trivial to refute. You wouldn't need to continually state outright lies. You wouldn't need to flee from refutations of your BS.

This accelerometer argument isn't remotely valid.

Your argument against accelerometers isn't valid at all.
You provided pictures of boards for hobbyists, all of which had an accelerometer chip on it, and used that to falsely claim it is everything except the chip making it an accelerometer.
You ignoring the explanation of what all these parts are, and why they are like that, and why they aren't needed for a larger board just further shows you are wrong.
Ignoring the plentiful sources that show accelerometers are chips is more evidence that you are wilfully rejecting reality.

Your wilful ignorance of electronics doesn't make your delusional BS valid.

X-out, Y-out, and Z-Out all seem awfully relevant, no? Plus all accelerometers I've seen had GND and UCC.

Again, this is to communicate with another chip off the board, and GND and VCC (V, not U) is to power it.
If it is integrated onto a larger board, then it doesn't need those outputs.
The communication lines can go directly to the main chip.

Unlike your picture, I might believe those rotary things to be gyroscope related, but no, you pointed to some big microchip, and told me "this thing is a accelerometer."

No, you were provided with documentation of it being an accelerometer. But you just reject that and spout ignorant garbage because you don't like reality.
You have no evidence at all to support your fantasy and just spout ignorant garbage to pretend your delusional fantasy is true while rejecting all the evidence that shows you are wrong.

The accelerometer has more to do with the way circuits are fed to the chip than the presence of a circuit chip.

It has NOTHING to do with how the circuits are connected.
It is vastly more to do with the presence of an accelerometer. This can be a large accelerometer, or a MEMS accelerometer integrated into a chip.

When I look at such things, they seemed universally marked out with this sort of xyz notation. Kindle doesn't do this.

When you looked at boards for hobbyists. You didn't look for accelerometers in general. You were provided more examples which don't fit your delusional garbage and you ignored it.

Those markings are for hobbyists.
If you designing a board, and understand the technical documentation, you don't need those markings.
The datasheet and pin 1 marker is all you need.

Further, if you ask about the moon's gravity, they actually change the constant.

g is not a constant.
G is the constant.

It's not sacrosanct, it's a random number that some twit assigned a value to.

You mean it is a variable, that will vary around Earth, which people have measured.
But because you hate gravity, you dismiss it.

The person speaking and performing the experiment on Steven Colbert's show is Theoretical Physicist Brian Greene. He is giving the experiment as an example of where Einstein's Equivalence Principle differs from the Newtonian Theory of Gravity that pulls things downwards.

No he isn't.
Instead of just asserting he is, how about you try explaining how the Newtonian theory of gravity wouldn't predict this result.

If he thought that the downwards pulling theory of gravity explained this, he would not be suggesting that we to be surprised that this occurs.

Pure nonsense.
Just because a theory explains something doesn't mean that people wont be surprised by it.

In free-fall bodies behave as if they were weightless. The explanation you came up with is not entirely coherent because if there was a phenomenon pulling down the atoms in the bottle equally towards the earth they would be pulled in vertical position relative to each other and not weightless while in free-fall, able to freely move in all directions within the bottle without resistance. You cannot actually explain why things are weightless in free-fall and are grasping at poor explanations.

The feeling of weight comes from the normal reaction force.
In free, fall, as it is freely accelerating, with no obstacle, there is no normal reaction force, so no experience of weight.

This applies equally to the curved spacetime of GR, and a downwards force in Newtonian gravity.

Why would a downwards force "pull them in vertical position relative to each other"?

The entire point is that the acceleration is equal for all of it, so there is no acceleration relative to each other.

They can move up and down with ease.

No they can't.
They are accelerating down towards Earth.
It is only in the reference frame of the bottle, which would be deemed an inertial reference frame for GR and a non-inertial reference frame for Newtonian gravity that they can do that.

According to your ad-hoc explanation all of the atoms are being pulled downwards equally. This would be like being pulled towards your opponent in a losing tug of war match. While you are being pulled towards your opponent you cannot say that you can move in any direction without resistance. Your explanation is quite poor and does not describe the phenomenon of weightlessness.

Your attempted rejection of the explanation is quite poor, doesn't describe what the feeling of weight comes from, and is incoherent.
This latest pathetic attempt is in no way comparable to a downwards force due to gravity.
In tug of war the force comes from the rope, and acts on the part of you touching the rope.
It is then transferred through your body.

With gravity, it acts on every atom in your body directly.

Now how about you try for an actual refutation?
Clearly explain (with justification) what should be happening with a downwards force proportional to mass, to demonstrate that water should be flowing out the holes in free fall.

Wrong on all counts. I don't know how you can post here about these topics for years without knowing simple facts like free-falling bodies experience weightlessness.

I said that the water atoms in a falling water bottle can move up and down with ease and without resistance. Your argument is "no":

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 14, 2023, 09:58:31 AM

They can move up and down with ease.

No they can't.
They are accelerating down towards Earth.

I would suggest that you educate yourself on this. In freefall bodies are weightless and can float up and down without resistance.

Wrong on all counts.

You certainly seem to be.
That is why you need to ignore what is said and just repeat the same claims.

I don't know how you can post here about these topics for years without knowing simple facts like free-falling bodies experience weightlessness.

Why post this complete strawman?
Do you understand what weightlessness means?

I said that the water atoms in a falling water bottle can move up and down with ease and without resistance. Your argument is "no":

No, I explained why a downwards force for gravity would result in this phenomenon, and your argument appears to be "No, you're wrong, and you don't know anything".

I would suggest that you educate yourself on this. In freefall bodies are weightless and can float up and down without resistance.

I suggest you educate yourself on this, and understand refence frames.
For example, try watching the video, where it explains that this weightlessness occurs due to the plane following a parabolic path, i.e. where it is accelerating towards Earth such that the people inside are in free fall.

The water can't just magically fly up into space during this time.
Like I said last time:
It is only in the reference frame of the bottle, which would be deemed an inertial reference frame for GR and a non-inertial reference frame for Newtonian gravity that they can [move up and down without resistance].

How about you actually try responding to what I have said, instead of strawmen?
Again, how about you actually try and justify your claim, with a rational explanation for why the water should continue to flow out with gravity as a downwards force, rather than continually deflecting and asserting pure garbage?

ALL roads lead to pulling the “They are lying/conspiracy” lever. That is not helpful to a discussion/debate, it is not fruitful, and on both sides, frustration/aggression theory can kick in.

It’s also they:

One, they make no attempt to provide a more credible explanation.

Two, or they use some totally ridiculous claim.  For example the moon is a 2D projection.  Or CO2 when used on a fire reacts with O2 to create carbon and oxygen?



Then to top it all off.  An individual can have first hand knowledge and prove the earth is demonstrably spherical.  The FE goes for using false authority and starts labeling individuals things like sheep.


You can’t give a FE the benefit of the doubt, because they will run with it.  And insanely try to use it as leverage the earth is somehow flat. 

How about you actually try responding to what I have said, instead of strawmen?
Again, how about you actually try and justify your claim, with a rational explanation for why the water should continue to flow out with gravity as a downwards force, rather than continually deflecting and asserting pure garbage?

If there really was a pulling phenomena on the atoms and molecules then you would expect different types of substances to move at different rates through space, as they each have their own specific inertial resistances that are required to move them through space. It takes more effort to move something more massive and less effort to move something less massive.

You would expect the water to either continue to pour out at some rate, or be otherwise be pushed to the top of the bottle as the device falls. It doesn't. The difference between the masses of the bottle and the masses in or of the liquid are significant. Different elements never move in relation to each other in free-fall experiments, as also illustrated in Galileo's free-fall experiments, or in the experiment with a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum chamber. It has also been tested at an atomic scale.

If we adopt the magical explanation that inertial resistance doesn't matter when it comes to gravity and all types of atoms are pulled down to the earth at the same rate, then we run into the issue that this does not actually replicate a weightless environment. Bodies in a falling container would have more or less resistance moving in some directions, as they are resisting an invisible phenomena pulling them, just like when you feel the resistance of a metal screw when holding it near a magnet that is trying to accelerate it - the screw has an easier time moving in one direction and not another. A body in free-fall would not float around weightlessly. This should be detectable, which would violate the equivalence principle.

If there really was a pulling phenomena on the atoms and molecules then you would expect different types of substances to move at different rates through space

So not able to justify your BS you now flee from it and go to something drastically different?

Lets not go down your rabbit hole of more BS and stick to the issue at hand.
Why should a downwards force, that is proportional to mass, result in the water flowing out?

all types of atoms are pulled down to the earth at the same rate, then we run into the issue that this does not actually replicate a weightless environment.

Why?
Again, do you understand what a weightless environment is?
One where there isn't a normal reaction force.
A downwards force, proportional to mass such that acceleration is equal, gives you that.

Bodies in a falling container would have more or less resistance moving in some directions, as they are resisting an invisible phenomena pulling them

No it wouldn't, as they are falling at that rate, and any additional acceleration in ANY direction would require a force on top of that.
Just like under GR in the inertial reference frame it is the same force for acceleration in any direction.

just like when you feel the resistance of a metal screw when holding it near a magnet that is trying to accelerate it

Wrong again.
Notice how the screw is not in free fall?
It is being held.
So that wouldn't correspond to an environment in free fall, but an environment where the bottle is being held.

This also matches what is observed.
The bottle needs a force to hold it up. But when you release it it falls.
It moves easier downwards than remaining stationary or moving upwards.

If there really was a pulling phenomena

You mean gravity that makes it hard and felt when pedaling a bike from a flat surface to going up hill?

Where a reasonably healthy person can pedal a bike up hill, but the pedaling becomes harder and takes more energy. And is more efficient to drop a 10 speed bike into a lower gear.  And if the person was trying to pull 2000 or 3000 pounds with the bicycle, it probably would become near impossible to pedal the load up hill? 


What do you call the phenomenon?


Anyway..  added

Quote from: Stash on January 14, 2023, 03:44:07 AM

ALL roads lead to pulling the “They are lying/conspiracy” lever. That is not helpful to a discussion/debate, it is not fruitful, and on both sides, frustration/aggression theory can kick in.

It’s also they:

One, they make no attempt to provide a more credible explanation.

Two, or they use some totally ridiculous claim.  For example the moon is a 2D projection.  Or CO2 when used on a fire reacts with O2 to create carbon and oxygen?

Then to top it all off.  An individual can have first hand knowledge and prove the earth is demonstrably spherical.  The FE goes for using false authority and starts labeling individuals things like sheep.

You can’t give a FE the benefit of the doubt, because they will run with it.  And insanely try to use it as leverage the earth is somehow flat.

Sounds like you're complaining about a specific person.

Has it occurred to you that maybe that person is telling you not to accept their theories either, but to actually do some thinking instead of declaring something proven?

We don't know the moon isn't 2D.
We don't know the Earth's flat or a sphere (we know only that it seems to be round, but round isn't the same as a sphere, as discs are also round).
We don't know that your firsthand experience of reading books from old dead guys is accurate, any more than we know we can trust your observations.
We don't know these things, and thinking we do is arrogance.

I'm sure this person you are speaking to only wanted you to stop saying know things that you have no plausible way of knowing.

And I'm sure that person made a mistake in chemistry. Oxidants combine with CO2, not necessarily O2 though.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 14, 2023, 06:42:11 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 14, 2023, 03:44:07 AM

ALL roads lead to pulling the “They are lying/conspiracy” lever. That is not helpful to a discussion/debate, it is not fruitful, and on both sides, frustration/aggression theory can kick in.

It’s also they:

One, they make no attempt to provide a more credible explanation.

Two, or they use some totally ridiculous claim.  For example the moon is a 2D projection.  Or CO2 when used on a fire reacts with O2 to create carbon and oxygen?

Then to top it all off.  An individual can have first hand knowledge and prove the earth is demonstrably spherical.  The FE goes for using false authority and starts labeling individuals things like sheep.

You can’t give a FE the benefit of the doubt, because they will run with it.  And insanely try to use it as leverage the earth is somehow flat.

Sounds like you're complaining about a specific person.

Has it occurred to you that maybe that person is telling you not to accept their theories either, but to actually do some thinking instead of declaring something proven?

We don't know the moon isn't 2D.
We don't know the Earth's flat or a sphere (we know only that it seems to be round, but round isn't the same as a sphere, as discs are also round).
We don't know that your firsthand experience of reading books from old dead guys is accurate, any more than we know we can trust your observations.
We don't know these things, and thinking we do is arrogance.

I'm sure this person you are speaking to only wanted you to stop saying know things that you have no plausible way of knowing.

And I'm sure that person made a mistake in chemistry. Oxidants combine with CO2, not necessarily O2 though.

Where did your knowledge of chemistry come from?

You would expect the water to either continue to pour out at some rate, or be otherwise be pushed to the top of the bottle as the device falls. It doesn't.

Here's what I don't get. A super basic question, in UA, if the ground is rushing upward toward the water container, how would the container "know" to stop flowing water out the holes when it is released? I'm sure there's an explanation, I just don't know what it is as I probably don't fully understand UA.

We don't know the Earth's flat or a sphere (we know only that it seems to be round, but round isn't the same as a sphere, as discs are also round).

What navy has the tactical advantage because they treat the world as flat? 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 15, 2023, 05:47:25 AM

We don't know the Earth's flat or a sphere (we know only that it seems to be round, but round isn't the same as a sphere, as discs are also round).

What navy has the tactical advantage because they treat the world as flat?

Using the we don't know argument, if that were true, you could take it as far as we don't know whether the earth is flat, spherical, round, square, octagonal, it's size, any distances, etc....Essentially we would know nothing.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 14, 2023, 06:46:27 PM

You would expect the water to either continue to pour out at some rate, or be otherwise be pushed to the top of the bottle as the device falls. It doesn't.

Here's what I don't get. A super basic question, in UA, if the ground is rushing upward toward the water container, how would the container "know" to stop flowing water out the holes when it is released? I'm sure there's an explanation, I just don't know what it is as I probably don't fully understand UA.

In free fall the bottle and water are falling at the same rate.  That’s the equivalent of the bottle and water not move while the ground accelerates upwards. 

While holding the bottle, if the earth were accelerating upwards, the bottle and the person holding it would also be  accelerating upwards.  There’s a upwards force on the water but holes for it to escape.

There are of course a whole bunch of other reasons why UA is a mess, but the equivalence principle does work assuming tidal forces can be ignored.

Has it occurred to you that maybe that person is telling you not to accept their theories either, but to actually do some thinking instead of declaring something proven?

Has it occurred to you that maybe they have already done some thinking and realise what you are spouting is BS.

We don't know the moon isn't 2D.

What about the evidence that shows it isn't 2D?
Such as the fact that due to its elliptical orbit we actually see slightly different parts of it?
Or the photos taken of it from multiple angles?
You know, both those things you have already been provided with but which you ignore because it doesn't fit your fantasy?

What is there to indicate the moon is 2D? NOTHING.

We don't know the Earth's flat or a sphere

Wrong again.

We know it is roughly a sphere.
This is from multiple sources of evidence.
There are the maps which only work for a spherical Earth.
There is the angle of dip to the horizon and how it varies with altitude, observed all over Earth.
There are observations of celestial objects (including the moon), with how their apparent position varies across Earth.
There are the illuminated daylight regions of Earth and how this varies over the year.
And there are photos from space.

There are mountains of evidence to show Earth is round. If you don't know, then you are wilfully ignorant.
Your refusal to know doesn't mean other people can't know.

We don't know these things, and thinking we do is arrogance.

Again, you not knowing doesn't mean we cant.
Acting like because you choose to not know because you hate reality, to pretend that no one knows is arrogant.

And yet it doesn't stop you spouting complete garbage as if you do know.
Even after it has been refuted multiple times, you still claim you are right, because you don't want to accept reality.

And I'm sure that person made a mistake in chemistry.

Sure, a massive mistake to spout pure garbage to try and prop up their delusional fantasy.

Here's what I don't get. A super basic question, in UA, if the ground is rushing upward toward the water container, how would the container "know" to stop flowing water out the holes when it is released? I'm sure there's an explanation, I just don't know what it is as I probably don't fully understand UA.

I think the question is more constructive the other way around.
Why does the water flow out of the holes in the first place?

Under incredibly selective universal acceleration, Earth is accelerating upwards, and things just above it want to remain where they are.
So the water, if nothing else would there would remain where it is as Earth accelerates upwards to meet it.

But the bottle is being held.
This is causing it to accelerate with Earth.

This is similar to if there was water just idly sitting there, and you try to move your hand through it quickly.
The simple answer is that the water is getting pushed out of the way by the bottle.
The more complicated answer is that the bottle applying an upwards force to the water pressurises it as it tries to accelerate the water.
This water (now under pressure) pushes outwards in all directions such that some will escape through the holes.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2023, 10:20:04 PM

No downwards-pull theory of gravity explains why gravity appears to stop acting on this water bottle while in free-fall. 

And some wonder why some of us get aggressive. 

Gravity DOES NOT appear to stop acting on this water bottle while in free-fall.   
Gravity is acting on the bottle and the water equally. 

The bottle is being held up by a person.  The water is free to come out of the holes.

When the bottle is dropped,  the water and the bottle both experience an equal downward pull.   The water and the bottle fall at the same rate.

This is something a 6th grader can understand.  This is something any regional person can understand.  Why can't you understand it?


However, this would be a good time for you to explain what you see in the video in terms of the no-gravity, flat earth model.  We're waiting.

Actually, you're getting aggressive because we're revealing flaws, and cognitive dissonance (which only exists if one is brainwashed, because it's a means of justifying flaws of theories to oneself) rears its ugly head. You can admit you don't know everything about every subject. You instead double down.

I see people looking at a bottle falling, and rather than seeing that the water and the bottle have two different masses (if you bother to read up on the difference between a ton of feathers and a ton of bricks, while the mass is the same, the dispersion is quite different), they claim that in fact such objects are in "freefall" (which refers to a height where terminal velocity is reached) and these objects are "defying gravity". Both objects hit the ground. One hit the ground slower. That's it.

The water is not rushing upward. The bottle is falling much faster so it appears the water travels upward. It may slightly travel upward due to wind from the motion of the bottle creating a pocket of air. But none of this lasts and it isn't "freefall" because some idiot on a show says it is. Both bottle and water hit the ground.



 "Weightlessness during freefall." Neither weightless nor is there freefall. There's no "during" either, I'll bet.

In that experiment (I had not actually watched it), the motion is halted from the bottom because of this same idea. The water falling at a different rate so if the top is open, it would come out the top. But here, it doesn't go out because the difference in mass (and thus momentum) causes it to stop spraying out because it actually moves to the top of the container, away from the holes.

The idiot on the show calls this gravity and thinks that he can generate freefall at that height.  Mass difference between water and the bottle. That's it.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 15, 2023, 05:47:25 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 14, 2023, 06:42:11 PM

Quote from: Stash on January 14, 2023, 03:44:07 AM

ALL roads lead to pulling the “They are lying/conspiracy” lever. That is not helpful to a discussion/debate, it is not fruitful, and on both sides, frustration/aggression theory can kick in.

It’s also they:

One, they make no attempt to provide a more credible explanation.

Two, or they use some totally ridiculous claim.  For example the moon is a 2D projection.  Or CO2 when used on a fire reacts with O2 to create carbon and oxygen?

Then to top it all off.  An individual can have first hand knowledge and prove the earth is demonstrably spherical.  The FE goes for using false authority and starts labeling individuals things like sheep.

You can’t give a FE the benefit of the doubt, because they will run with it.  And insanely try to use it as leverage the earth is somehow flat.

Sounds like you're complaining about a specific person.

Has it occurred to you that maybe that person is telling you not to accept their theories either, but to actually do some thinking instead of declaring something proven?

We don't know the moon isn't 2D.
We don't know the Earth's flat or a sphere (we know only that it seems to be round, but round isn't the same as a sphere, as discs are also round).
We don't know that your firsthand experience of reading books from old dead guys is accurate, any more than we know we can trust your observations.
We don't know these things, and thinking we do is arrogance.

I'm sure this person you are speaking to only wanted you to stop saying know things that you have no plausible way of knowing.

And I'm sure that person made a mistake in chemistry. Oxidants combine with CO2, not necessarily O2 though.

Where did your knowledge of chemistry come from?

High school and college.

Yours obviously came from a woke school that told you chemistry was about feelings and justice.



 "It will pass."

Quote from: Stash on January 15, 2023, 06:21:34 AM

Where did your knowledge of chemistry come from?

High school and college.

Yours obviously came from a woke school that told you chemistry was about feelings and justice.



 "It will pass."

We don't know that your firsthand experience of reading books from old dead guys is accurate, any more than we know we can trust your observations.
We don't know these things, and thinking we do is arrogance.

I don't know how you might determine the "wokeness" of my education.

In any case, the point being that you learned chemistry in High school and college. From teachers, professors, using their experience and text books from old dead guys. You claim to have an understanding of chemistry from your schooling, yet rail against the exact thing that provided your knowledge: Old dead guys.

And isn't the bible written by Old dead guys? What's the difference?

This water stop is down to atmospheric density against the dense mass of the bottle and water.

All that's happening here is, the water flow is stopped by the mass of water and the bottle overcoming the atmospheric resistance below it, aided by the push for the atmosphere from above the actual bottle.
The bottle is then up against atmospheric resistance below and around it which shuts down the water leaking from it.

It's like driving in a car and throwing out your scarf. It immediately gets stuck to the side of the car due to friction.
If you tried to throw something out at speed it'll likely come right back into the car. How many have done this? Even with a cigarette?

No gravity and no anti-gravity. It's all a myth and the reason for what's happening is in plain sight if people care to bother.

Actually, you're getting aggressive because we're revealing flaws, and cognitive dissonance (which only exists if one is brainwashed, because it's a means of justifying flaws of theories to oneself) rears its ugly head. You can admit you don't know everything about every subject. You instead double down.

And strait off to more projections.

Just what flaws are you revealing?
So far all your attempts have utterly failed, with your reaction to some showing you are knowingly spouting pure BS.

I see people looking at a bottle falling, and rather than seeing that the water and the bottle have two different masses (if you bother to read up on the difference between a ton of feathers and a ton of bricks, while the mass is the same, the dispersion is quite different), they claim that in fact such objects are in "freefall" (which refers to a height where terminal velocity is reached) and these objects are "defying gravity". Both objects hit the ground. One hit the ground slower. That's it.

And more nonsense.
Feathers have a greater buoyant force acting on them due to the pressure gradient of the atmosphere caused by gravity, and experience a greater specific air resistance.

Free fall is NOT when terminal velocity is reached.
If it is falling at terminal velocity, it is NOT in free fall.
Terminal velocity (for falling objects) is when the upwards force due to air resistance and buoyancy is equal to the downwards force due to gravity (or more generally when the net force is 0).

The water is not rushing upward.

That is correct, no other BS needs to be said.
The water isn't rushing upwards, it is still falling, accelerating at the same rate as the bottle.
It doesn't even go upwards relative to the bottle.

The bottle is falling much faster

Why would it do that?
The vast majority of plastics are less dense than water, so why would something with less mass, and lower density accelerate faster?
It is also acting as a shield against the water, so the buoyant force and air resistance would act directly on it.
So just what magic in your delusional fantasy is causing the bottle to accelerate faster?

it isn't "freefall" because some idiot on a show says it is.

Quite the opposite. It is free fall, even if a complete idiot on an internet forum wants to repeatedly lie and claim it isn't.
Considering you don't even understand the difference between free fall and terminal velocity, you shouldn't be claiming something isn't in free fall.

"Weightlessness during freefall." Neither weightless nor is there freefall. There's no "during" either, I'll bet.

Of course you would, because you want to repeatedly misrepresent it to pretend there is a problem.
There is free fall, unless you want to try appealing to the negligible air resistance at this velocity, and during that free fall, there is weightlessness, as demonstrated by the water not flowing out the holes.
You not liking reality will not change it.
You objecting to reality and spouting delusional BS is not demonstrating any flaw.

In that experiment (I had not actually watched it) ... The water falling at a different rate so if the top is open, it would come out the top. But here, it doesn't go out because the difference in mass (and thus momentum) causes it to stop spraying out because it actually moves to the top of the container, away from the holes.

And it shows. Because yet again, you are spouting delusional BS so far disconnected from reality it isn't funny.
If you had bothered watching you could see these 2 frames (2 frames because the yellow provides nice contrast).


Notice how the water is still all the way at the bottom, that it hasn't risen to the top?

If you had bothered to watch the video you would see that what you are claiming is pure BS.

No gravity and no anti-gravity. It's all a myth and the reason for what's happening is in plain sight if people care to bother.

What's happening is quite simple. The water is trying to accelerate towards Earth, where initially the bottle is blocking it so it goes out the sides. But when released, the bottle is accelerating at the same rate so it doesn't get in the way.

What is causing this downwards force, as long as it is proportional to mass, doesn't matter.

You not liking reality (i.e. gravity) doesn't make it a myth.
You are yet to demonstrate a single fault with it, and have repeatedly failed to provide a viable alternative.
Your atmosphere nonsense fails to explain why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere, why some things fall and others go up (or even any aspect of the directionality at all), why there is a terminal velocity, why the downwards force is proportional to mass, rather than anything to do with the atmosphere, how a mercury barometer works, and so on.

In that experiment (I had not actually watched it), the motion is halted from the bottom because of this same idea. The water falling at a different rate so if the top is open, it would come out the top.

Just drop a drinking glass of water from a height. Does the water come out the top as the glass is falling?