Weightlessness During Freefall

  • 106 Replies
  • 7796 Views
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #60 on: January 09, 2023, 05:36:10 PM »
If pressure didn’t change.  Then what magically turns off denpressure to make the water stop flowing by relatively pressurelessness while the container drops?
Nothing turns off denpressure. How many times is this going to need repeating? Water comes out of the holes in a stationary can because of the reaction force from the base of the container. When the container is falling, the base falls at the same rate as the water, so there is no reaction force, so nothing comes out the holes.

Are you going to acknowledge that I said this, this time?

In the reality of gravity.  The water and container fall at the same rate to become weightless in regards to each other which takes away the motivation for water to flow.

But in denpressure, the water and atmosphere don’t become pressureless in regards to each other while the container drops.  Then what stops the flow of water in denpressure.
Repeating yourself ad nauseam rather than addressing what anyone else has to say does not make you look smart.

When the can is stationary, pressure pushes the water down, the base of the can exerts a reaction force, and the water is caught between those two opposing forces, basically compressed, and thus forced horizontally out the holes.
Why would the water go out the holes if there is no reaction force from the base and the only force acting on it is in the downwards direction? Straight question. Please answer.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #61 on: January 09, 2023, 05:36:50 PM »
Air Pressure has a gradient.  Buoyancy would push it up not down.
Then your issue has nothing to do with the can experiment and more to do with the act of dropping a ball.
Like I said, it's a fine road to go down, but it means all of this is a distraction.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #62 on: January 09, 2023, 05:47:02 PM »
Air Pressure has a gradient.  Buoyancy would push it up not down.
Then your issue has nothing to do with the can experiment and more to do with the act of dropping a ball.
Like I said, it's a fine road to go down, but it means all of this is a distraction.

Not it doesn't.

You presenting an explanation and someone responding to issues with that explanation doesn't make the experiment a distraction.

The only distracting seems to be you.  You are playing some game that well you provided an explanation so that should be sufficient.  Questioning that explanation somehow makes the original point just a distraction, which I don't see how it does.  What are you expecting?  Should we just accept any explanation as good enough?  An answer regardless of the problems with the answer should just be good enough for the discussion at hand.

I like you Jane, but sometimes you overreach in your need to play your game of devil's advocate.

« Last Edit: January 09, 2023, 05:53:13 PM by NotSoSkeptical »
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #63 on: January 09, 2023, 06:03:48 PM »
If pressure didn’t change.  Then what magically turns off denpressure to make the water stop flowing by relatively pressurelessness while the container drops?
Nothing turns off denpressure. How many times is this going to need repeating? Water comes out of the holes in a stationary can because of the reaction force from the base of the container. When the container is falling, the base falls at the same rate as the water, so there is no reaction force, so nothing comes out the holes.

Are you going to acknowledge that I said this, this time?

In the reality of gravity.  The water and container fall at the same rate to become weightless in regards to each other which takes away the motivation for water to flow.

But in denpressure, the water and atmosphere don’t become pressureless in regards to each other while the container drops.  Then what stops the flow of water in denpressure.
Repeating yourself ad nauseam rather than addressing what anyone else has to say does not make you look smart.

When the can is stationary, pressure pushes the water down, the base of the can exerts a reaction force, and the water is caught between those two opposing forces, basically compressed, and thus forced horizontally out the holes.
Why would the water go out the holes if there is no reaction force from the base and the only force acting on it is in the downwards direction? Straight question. Please answer.

I reworded by argument as best I can.

Again

When the container is falling, the base falls at the same rate as the water, so there is no reaction force,

That is gravity.  Objects being pulled, accelerated towards earth, and have potential energy because of position relative to the center of the earth.


This is Denpressure..

Quote
Starman:
Yes! Yes! here it is defined by scepti:
Denpressure: The force of any dense object against atmospheric pressure that displaces it's own mass against that of the atmosphere it finds itself in.
He said a "FORCE".  Magnetism and electric are know fields. Of course the third force is GRAVITY but for now we will not use it. Common sense tell me if you remove the atmosphere pressure all you have left is the "FORCE". I ask for a name but did not get one. He called it "mo joe" if i wanted. He could not define me what is this "FORCE"

Flat Earth Discussion Boards > Flat Earth Debate

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61198.0;wap2


So, why aren't we all floating around like bubbles?
Because our mass easily overcomes the atmosphere we are in. Our place is on the crust. The best we can do is to try and over come the pressure using force, as in jumping...but as you soon realise, the atmospheric pressure that you've just compressed by jumping up and it stops you quickly, then your own mass easily falls through the resistance of the air under you aided by the atmosphere filling the void you leave behind as you fall back down.

What causes mass to be heavy?
A build up of matter/molecules that become heavier than the atmosphere it is in. If it's lighter, it floats up, or inreality it's squeezed upwards, just the same as denser mass is squeezed downwards , not just by atmospheric pressure but by it's own make up acting on itself and against the crust of the Earth.
No special gravity needed that cannot be explained.

More here..
It does push back if its pushed into.
However a mass on a rope statically above the understack will not push down onto it and so, will not compress into it for it to push back.
Then why should the air anywhere else push?
The object isn't moving. It isn't pushing into the air above or to the side.
The object is pushing into the atmosphere above and to the side, because the atmosphere is pushing into the mass as the mass displaces it.
It is not displacing the stack below. It's a stack.

Quote from: JackBlack
Even if you did have it magically push into the air above, as soon as it starts to fall, that is no longer the case and instead it is pushing into the air below and thus should be pushed up.
If it falls then your rope has snapped and now the mass is pushed down against the resistance of the stack below which is in no way dense enough to counteract that push enough to do anything other than friction grip it and compress until the object hits a foundation.

 
Quote from: JackBlack
In your model, if anything, the air should act like a solid and prevent any motion at all.
I have no clue why you even think this. It baffles me.

Quote from: JackBlack
It's raised up on a rope and displaces atmosphere above it.
Repeating the same claim which has been questioned doesn't help you.
Again, why is it only displacing the atmosphere above it?
Simple answer is a foundation allowing it to, whether its on a solid ground directly beneath it or on a suspended rope or whatever above the atmospheric stack below it.

Quote from: JackBlack
All that atmosphere above is pushing down against the mass compressing into it
Why isn't all the atmosphere below pushing up against the mass compressing into it?
Because it's stacked from below and cannot push up unless something forces it up, which would be any mass under energy push.

A stack is a stack. It stays as literally a stack. It doesn't matter how high you go you will always be on top of a stack of atmosphere that is doing nothing more than being a ready under resistance to a release of mass withing it under energy which has pushed through it from below.


Quote from: JackBlack
All the below atmosphere is, is a resistance to the above atmosphere in the stack but not to the person/object hanging, because there's no push down by the person or object.
Then why isn't the atmosphere above just a resistance to the below atmosphere in the stack but not to the person/object because there's no push up by the person/object?
It is but it's a resistance by compression of the mass into it and that compression is placed right back onto the mass along with the atmosphere above and around.

Quote from: JackBlack
Again, you have provided no justification for the directionality.
I have given you plenty. You not understanding it is your issue.

Quote from: JackBlack
Again, a nice simple example, you have a ball, like a tennis ball. You position your hand such that your thumb is on the left side and your fingers are on the right side, with nothing above or below.
You hold it at shoulder height, close to your shoulder and then extend out your arm so the ball moves straight out horizontally. You now release the ball.
How should the ball move and why?
The ball is not pushing into or displacing the atmosphere above any more than it is doing to the atmosphere below. As such, that cannot provide a basis for the directionality.

You are simply holding the ball above the stack. If you keep hold of the ball you are compressing the atmosphere your hand and ball are in, above and around.
Below is stacked atmosphere that does nothing to the underside of that ball, in terms of the very point of the underside at the absolute very bottom.
the rest of the underside of that ball will be compressed as it pushes into the stack of resistance due to its shape.

If you were holding a flat plate level above that stack then you would not be compressing that stack, only resting on it whilst being compressed against it's thickness at the sides and pushing up against the atmosphere above that is pushing/compressing/crushing down on it.

Drop your ball and it's mass has ro be resisted by the stack along with being pushed down by the atmosphere above along with the mass of atmosphere the ball already displaces by it structure.


Now.  For the water to stop coming out in the denpressure model, this has to be overridden/blocked “If it's lighter, it floats up, or inreality it's squeezed upwards, just the same as denser mass is squeezed downwards , not just by atmospheric pressure but by it's own make up acting on itself and against the crust of the Earth.”

In the denpressure model where there is zero pull from the earths mass, and only the “denser mass is squeezed downwards , not just by atmospheric pressure but by it's own make up acting on itself and against the crust of the Earth”

What aspect changes in the denpressure model that makes the water relatively pressureless or denseless when the container goes from being at rest to dropped straight down. 
« Last Edit: January 09, 2023, 06:07:56 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #64 on: January 09, 2023, 06:08:15 PM »
Air Pressure has a gradient.  Buoyancy would push it up not down.
Then your issue has nothing to do with the can experiment and more to do with the act of dropping a ball.
Like I said, it's a fine road to go down, but it means all of this is a distraction.

Not it doesn't.

You presenting an explanation and someone responding to issues with that explanation doesn't make the experiment a distraction.

The only distracting seems to be you.  You are playing some game that well you provided an explanation so that should be sufficient.  Questioning that explanation somehow makes the original point just a distraction, which I don't see how it does.  What are you expecting?  Should we just accept any explanation as good enough?  An answer regardless of the problems with the answer should just be good enough for the discussion at hand.

I like you Jane, but sometimes you overreach in your need to play your game of devil's advocate.
I think we're coming at this from different directions.

If someone asked, say, "On a flat Earth, how does gravity explain objects in a vacuum chamber falling?"
And when a FEer offered a response, the objection was that FET couldn't justify things falling at all, you're right in that it would be a reply, but it feels weird to have that follow up a question specific to vacuum chambers. From a FEer's perspective, it comes off as backpedalling to avoid conceding, and it's a really dicy tactic in my mind.
If you were talking to a FEer about GPS and satellites, and after a back-and-forth where you showed GPS required space travel, they chimed in with the 'Rockets can't work in vacuum therefore they can't be in space,' would that feel like a natural extension of a discussion of GPS, or would it feel like evasion? I know, from my perspective, it would feel like the latter.

I can see your perspective more, even if I disagree, if denpressure was proposed as the only explanation, in that case it would be a 'The best response has its own unique flaws,' but that isn't the case. Any FE model with a downwards force seems perfectly capable of explaining this experiment.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #65 on: January 09, 2023, 06:15:52 PM »
If you are going to straight-up evade every single question I ask you, then I am done.

You are just asserting it doesn't work. I laid out the forces for you. Rather than actually explain where the heck this magic horizontal force comes from, you said a whole lot of nothing about a weird straw man of denpressure. Denpressure states that objects that displace atmosphere are pushed down, there's more complexity to it and it's a heck of a complicated topic that you are going to need to put way more effort into than a few random quotes if you actually want to understand. Gibberish statements like 'pressureless' do not help anyone, and just make you look like you are trying to straw man. Especially when you are told every single time that denpressure still acts on the water in the falling container, and you still need to straw man that and claim otherwise despite being corrected every single time you make that post. (All the more so when denpressure was something you randomly decided to zero in on despite this being generally applicable)

I'm signing off now. When I come back, I expect you to have either left the thread, or answered one of my bloody questions for once in your life.

Quote
When the can is stationary, pressure pushes the water down, the base of the can exerts a reaction force, and the water is caught between those two opposing forces, basically compressed, and thus forced horizontally out the holes.
Why would the water go out the holes if there is no reaction force from the base and the only force acting on it is in the downwards direction? Straight question. Please answer.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #66 on: January 09, 2023, 06:23:02 PM »
If you are going to straight-up evade every single question I ask you, then I am done.

You are just asserting it doesn't work. I laid out the forces for you. Rather than actually explain where the heck this magic horizontal force comes from, you said a whole lot of nothing about a weird straw man of denpressure. Denpressure states that objects that displace atmosphere are pushed down, there's more complexity to it and it's a heck of a complicated topic that you are going to need to put way more effort into than a few random quotes if you actually want to understand. Gibberish statements like 'pressureless' do not help anyone, and just make you look like you are trying to straw man. Especially when you are told every single time that denpressure still acts on the water in the falling container, and you still need to straw man that and claim otherwise despite being corrected every single time you make that post.

I'm signing off now. When I come back, I expect you to have either left the thread, or answered one of my bloody questions for once in your life.

Quote
When the can is stationary, pressure pushes the water down, the base of the can exerts a reaction force, and the water is caught between those two opposing forces, basically compressed, and thus forced horizontally out the holes.
Why would the water go out the holes if there is no reaction force from the base and the only force acting on it is in the downwards direction? Straight question. Please answer.

In the depressure model.  The atmosphere squeezes down on the water and pushes the water out the holes of the container because the container has a bottom.  Why would that pressure change in the denpressure model if the bucket is at rest or dropping. Either way, the water “sees” the atmosphere is squeezing it down to the bottom of the container. 

In the denoressure model.  The water would not stop spilling from the holes in the container because there would always be the “force” of the atmosphere pushing it to the container bottom. 

Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #67 on: January 09, 2023, 06:25:20 PM »


I'm signing off now. When I come back, I expect you to have either left the thread, or answered one of my bloody questions for once in your life.



Other than you’re easy to mess with.  Why would anyone care? 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #68 on: January 09, 2023, 06:27:45 PM »
In the depressure model.  The atmosphere squeezes down on the water and pushes the water out the holes of the container because the container has a bottom.
Do you think that it's 'because the container has a bottom,' or 'because there is a pressure exerted by the bottom in response to a force exerted on it'?

Quote
The water would not stop spilling from the holes in the container because there would always be the “force” of the atmosphere pushing it to the container bottom.
Again. Yes. Pushing it towards the container bottom. But the container bottom is falling at the same rate as the water, so you lose the reaction force - that's what changes here.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #69 on: January 09, 2023, 06:32:16 PM »
In the depressure model.  The atmosphere squeezes down on the water and pushes the water out the holes of the container because the container has a bottom.
Do you think that it's 'because the container has a bottom,' or 'because there is a pressure exerted by the bottom in response to a force exerted on it'?

Quote
The water would not stop spilling from the holes in the container because there would always be the “force” of the atmosphere pushing it to the container bottom.
Again. Yes. Pushing it towards the container bottom. But the container bottom is falling at the same rate as the water, so you lose the reaction force - that's what changes here.

The atmosphere is always present to push the water to the bottom of the container.

In the reality of the gravity model, the water stops flowing because the water and container fall at the same rate, and become relatively weightless to another.

To stop flowing in the depressure model. How does the water become relatively pressureless or denseless to what? 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #70 on: January 09, 2023, 06:37:12 PM »
The atmosphere is always present to push the water to the bottom of the container.
Toward.
You are proposing that the force of denpressure on the water increases while remaining the same on the can, when it's dropped. How in the blazes are you justfiying that?
Because if that's not what you're proposing, then there would be no reaction force, and just because the water is falling in the direction of the bottom would not cause it to spill out.

Quote
To stop flowing in the depressure model. How does the water become relatively pressureless or denseless to what?
That is complete gibberish. Stop hiding behind technobabble and answer a bloody question about where you are expecting this magic horizontal force to come from.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #71 on: January 09, 2023, 06:44:11 PM »

You are proposing that the force of denpressure on the water increases while remaining the same on the can, when it's dropped. How in the blazes are you justfiying that?
Because if that's not what you're proposing, then there would be no reaction force, and just because the water is falling in the direction of the bottom would not cause it to spill out.

You trying to bleed gravity and downward acceleration by gravity into a model that only sees atmospheric pressure pushing water into the first surface it encounters



Quote
That is complete gibberish. Stop hiding behind technobabble and answer a bloody question about where you are expecting this magic horizontal force to come from.

In the reality of gravity, the water stops flowing because the water and container become relatively weightless to each other.  Thus, in denpressure where there is only density and pressure, the water must stop flowing because it became relatively pressureless and/or denseless to something. 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #72 on: January 09, 2023, 06:50:57 PM »
You trying to bleed gravity and downward acceleration by gravity into a model that only sees atmospheric pressure pushing water into the first surface it encounters
Consider that maybe you just don't understand the model you're talking about.
Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with not knowing the ins and outs of a random flat earth model, but don't rush to making authoritative claims about it as though you do.
Objects are not pushed towards the first surface they encounter. The atmosphere is stacked such that the net force is always towards the Earth - long, complicated discussion with a dozen different issues you would raise, but that's the idea.

So, consider, when you are being told explicitly time and time again how it works, maybe listen. Consider when you have to evade every single question about mechanism, your case is not a strong one.

In denpressure, in UA, in AFET, in DET, etc etc, the water falls at the same rate as the container, and only leaves the holes out the side when a reaction force from the base of the container forces it to. There can be no reaction force when the container and water both fall at the same rate, as they do under all those models.
This is how it works.
There are so many arguments against FET. Getting this focused on defending a straw man is why they think we are a cult. Stop. Look in a mirror. Shut up.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #73 on: January 09, 2023, 11:52:42 PM »
You trying to bleed gravity and downward acceleration by gravity into a model that only sees atmospheric pressure pushing water into the first surface it encounters
Consider that maybe you just don't understand the model you're talking about.
Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with not knowing the ins and outs of a random flat earth model, but don't rush to making authoritative claims about it as though you do.
Objects are not pushed towards the first surface they encounter. The atmosphere is stacked such that the net force is always towards the Earth - long, complicated discussion with a dozen different issues you would raise, but that's the idea.

So, consider, when you are being told explicitly time and time again how it works, maybe listen. Consider when you have to evade every single question about mechanism, your case is not a strong one.

In denpressure, in UA, in AFET, in DET, etc etc, the water falls at the same rate as the container, and only leaves the holes out the side when a reaction force from the base of the container forces it to. There can be no reaction force when the container and water both fall at the same rate, as they do under all those models.
This is how it works.
There are so many arguments against FET. Getting this focused on defending a straw man is why they think we are a cult. Stop. Look in a mirror. Shut up.


It’s a moot point.  You can argue and insult people all you want.  But gravity is real.  And demonstrable.  Not depressure.

Take a zero G flight.  Would you agree the cabin of a zero g jet flight is pressurized to the atmosphere conditions similar to a calm day on the earths surface.

Yet, a water ballon floating in the atmosphere relative to the objects in the cabin is burst open to have the water to continue to float across the cabin in a sphere like shape.

Quote











The water from the ruptured ballon floats (for a lack of a better term) across the cabin instead of denpresure immediately “squeezing” the water “strait down”


The last picture


Shows a ping pong ball with paint that water can “stick” to.

During “normal” flight, the ping pong ball floats on the water in the jar.  During the dive to simulate zero g or micro g environment, the water and ping pong ball become all jumbled up.  The ping pong ball becomes engulfed by the water.   

So, you can say whatever about models that are void of reality. Less representative of reality.  They have the same validity if someone claimed little invisible angles pushed up light and heavenly elements.  And little invisible devils pushed down heavy earthly elements to keep them in their places. Not much less different than denpressure….


 A build up of matter/molecules that become heavier than the atmosphere it is in. If it's lighter, it floats up, or inreality it's squeezed upwards, just the same as denser mass is squeezed downwards , not just by atmospheric pressure but by it's own make up acting on itself and against the crust of the Earth.
No special gravity needed that cannot be explained.

Is it really worth it to make theses kind of statements over denpressure in the reality of zero g flights, Cavendish experiments, and gravity can be measured showing localized changes due to the density changes in earth’s crust? 


I'm signing off now. When I come back, I expect you to have either left the thread, or answered one of my bloody questions for once in your life.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2023, 02:36:01 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #74 on: January 10, 2023, 03:23:52 AM »
It’s a moot point.  You can argue and insult people all you want.  But gravity is real.  And demonstrable.  Not depressure.
Great. We can agree on something.
So, as gravity is well-evidenced, justifiable, well-understood, do you think it can bear you not giving the impression that it needs to be defended with evasion and lies? You are acting as thought RET is as fragile as FEers say. You are feeding their narrative.

If you have better arguments against denpressure and other FE models, ones that actually at first glance seem to offer observations that wouldn't be what are expected, why the hell are you relying on a straw man?
Given you've completely swapped topic, I assume that means you've conceded the can argument as insufficient and irrelevant. Great! We're on the same page. Goodbye.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #75 on: January 10, 2023, 03:58:08 AM »
It’s a moot point.  You can argue and insult people all you want.  But gravity is real.  And demonstrable.  Not depressure.
Great. We can agree on something.
So, as gravity is well-evidenced, justifiable, well-understood, do you think it can bear you not giving the impression that it needs to be defended with evasion and lies? You are acting as thought RET is as fragile as FEers say. You are feeding their narrative.

If you have better arguments against denpressure and other FE models, ones that actually at first glance seem to offer observations that wouldn't be what are expected, why the hell are you relying on a straw man?
Given you've completely swapped topic, I assume that means you've conceded the can argument as insufficient and irrelevant. Great! We're on the same page. Goodbye.


What?  I still standby if in reality the water stops because of weightlessness, in the model you claim interchangeable with reality and gravity.  In a model totally void of gravity.  In denpressure is the motivation for water to flow out of a punctured container.  For that flow to stop because of weightlessness in reality.  Then the water needs to become pressureless or denseless in the denpressure model.

You’re the one getting upset about my criticism of how you fantasize about someone else’s fairytale concerning the known universe.  You might as well argue how many angles can fit on the head of a pin.  Denpressure has the same validity.,

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #76 on: January 10, 2023, 04:21:31 AM »
It’s a moot point.  You can argue and insult people all you want.  But gravity is real.  And demonstrable.  Not depressure.
Great. We can agree on something.
So, as gravity is well-evidenced, justifiable, well-understood, do you think it can bear you not giving the impression that it needs to be defended with evasion and lies? You are acting as thought RET is as fragile as FEers say. You are feeding their narrative.

If you have better arguments against denpressure and other FE models, ones that actually at first glance seem to offer observations that wouldn't be what are expected, why the hell are you relying on a straw man?
Given you've completely swapped topic, I assume that means you've conceded the can argument as insufficient and irrelevant. Great! We're on the same page. Goodbye.


What?  I still standby if in reality the water stops because of weightlessness, in the model you claim interchangeable with reality and gravity.  In a model totally void of gravity.  In denpressure is the motivation for water to flow out of a punctured container.  For that flow to stop because of weightlessness in reality.  Then the water needs to become pressureless or denseless in the denpressure model.

You’re the one getting upset about my criticism of how you fantasize about someone else’s fairytale concerning the known universe.  You might as well argue how many angles can fit on the head of a pin.  Denpressure has the same validity.,
Not thinking denpressure is true does not mean 'every random criticism you make is true.'
Considering that you have to dodge every question you are asked and rely on straw men that I vainly try to point out every single time, and your recourse is arrogance and accusation, forgive me if I'm getting a touch snippy with you. I tend not to like users whose entire presence on this side is pushing the idea that RET is a cult led by ignorance and assertion, as opposed to a well-understood and secure scientific model.

Water flows out of the can because of a reaction force with the base. This is the prediction under denpressure. Get over yourself. Misrepresenting the model ruins, not just your credibility, but dents the credibility of all REers by association. If you actually give any kind of a damn about, as you have said, defending RET, stop with this shtick and start worrying about accurately representing the models you are criticising, rather than acting like RET needs you to lie.
This doesn't make denpressure true, this doesn't make gravity refuted, this is one very particular situation where the predictions happen to line up. You do not need to prop up a straw man.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3362
  • God winds the universe
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #77 on: January 10, 2023, 05:06:55 AM »
Really cool experiment.



Uhhhhhhhh, that's not weightlessness.

If you were actually weightless, wouldn't you be able to stop your fall?

Damn straight you would. Just weightless yourself to a stall in momentum, halt freefall, and stay there or swim gently toward the ground.

But no, you are still falling.

What this is, is terminal velocity. You see, science, real science, doesn't rush to label things incorrectly.

A terminal velocity is when an object reaches the maximum speed it will get.
Quote
Terminal velocity is the maximum velocity attainable by an object as it falls through a fluid. It occurs when the sum of the drag force and the buoyancy is equal to the downward force of gravity acting on the object.

Straight from wikipedia. Now, I would ignore the "downward force of gravity" part and the insistence on fluids. There is no downward force of gravity needed, as objects fall when they are heavier than a fluid (or gas). This is just an aspect of buoyancy: it causes floating when object is lighter than a medium, and the inverse is true. Objects travel through a fluid (or a gas), the object attains its max speed, and buoyancy and drag force are equal.

I haven't really changed anything about the definition of terminal velocity, other than applying it to air (which any parachuter can tell you does happen). Whereas you have called it weightlessness.

Wanna see how weightless people are when they hit the ground with no parachute? Then you've changed a term. They aren't weightless, they have achieved terminal velocity and are in a state of equilibrium. This is a blessing from God, as it means the laws of physics make them only kinda sorta smashed instead of totally ground to powder and mush. What? Aren't you happy that when die from a fall, you're less dead than you could be without a max speed?



Your a train wreck.

The topic is why the water lost the motivation to flow out of the punctured container while the container was in free fall.


Dumbed down version..
Quote

Water Doesn’t Leak Out Science Experiment

https://coolscienceexperimentshq.com/water-doesnt-leak/


Gravity is also the reason water doesn’t leak out of the holes when you drop the cup in Step 4. In this step, gravity is still pulling the water back to Earth, but this time the cup and water are falling back to Earth at the same rate when you drop the cup. This doesn’t allow water to leak out of the cup because the water is already taking the path of least resistance back to Earth – straight down with the cup.


Did the water at any point not hit the ground?

Then all of you are dumbasses, and I'm still right.

Sorry.

Weightlessness is an inaccurate term anyway. Aside from fallacious discussions about gravity (where somehow weight on the moon relates to weight on Earth), a person/object's weight is their mass. You cannot be weightless, you can only be in a state whereupon weight doesn't matter because they are floating.

I'm looking at the guy dropping this water container, and at no point am I seeing weightlessness. What I am seeing is the water falling at a different rate than the bottle.

Stop using inexact terms like weightlessness. Objects have mass.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3362
  • God winds the universe
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #78 on: January 10, 2023, 05:17:17 AM »
It’s a moot point.  You can argue and insult people all you want.  But gravity is real.  And demonstrable.  Not depressure.
Great. We can agree on something.
So, as gravity is well-evidenced, justifiable, well-understood, do you think it can bear you not giving the impression that it needs to be defended with evasion and lies? You are acting as thought RET is as fragile as FEers say. You are feeding their narrative.

If you have better arguments against denpressure and other FE models, ones that actually at first glance seem to offer observations that wouldn't be what are expected, why the hell are you relying on a straw man?
Given you've completely swapped topic, I assume that means you've conceded the can argument as insufficient and irrelevant. Great! We're on the same page. Goodbye.


What?  I still standby if in reality the water stops because of weightlessness, in the model you claim interchangeable with reality and gravity.  In a model totally void of gravity.  In denpressure is the motivation for water to flow out of a punctured container.  For that flow to stop because of weightlessness in reality.  Then the water needs to become pressureless or denseless in the denpressure model.

You’re the one getting upset about my criticism of how you fantasize about someone else’s fairytale concerning the known universe.  You might as well argue how many angles can fit on the head of a pin.  Denpressure has the same validity.,

Gravity is real you say, but you guys have funny way of showing it. Showing movie after movie of people floating in zero grav.

If gravity is real, how come it is so easy to overcome.

Writing a scientific law is like writing a contract. "If she comes near me, she will be moved away." You've just described the law of repulsion (and a restraining order).

Objects fall to the ground. Except when if a parabolic plane. Or when spinning around very fast. Or if you're a bird. Or bat. Or if you're gliding, I guess. Or swimming. Or in a plane. Or a giant air permeable bubble made with magic. Or...

That's a theory. A law has ironclad rules without a bunch of exceptions and is immediately testable.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7262
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #79 on: January 10, 2023, 05:25:23 AM »
The reason why the water stops pouring while the bottle is in free fall is the same as the cause of the hypoxia at the cellular level in the tissues which has been observed for both Sars-Cov-2 pathogens (coded with Uracil or with Pseudouridine).

There is no UA, attractive gravity, pressure type of gravitational force.

Everything has to do with quantum mechanics, that is where you'll find the correct explanation.

Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #80 on: January 10, 2023, 05:31:21 AM »
Weightlessness is an inaccurate term anyway. Aside from fallacious discussions about gravity (where somehow weight on the moon relates to weight on Earth), a person/object's weight is their mass. You cannot be weightless, you can only be in a state whereupon weight doesn't matter because they are floating.

I'm looking at the guy dropping this water container, and at no point am I seeing weightlessness. What I am seeing is the water falling at a different rate than the bottle.

Stop using inexact terms like weightlessness. Objects have mass.

Mass is mass, but weight is a force. Specifically, the force an object exerts on the ground, or scales, etc.

An object with no force acting on it is therefore weightless as it does not exert an opposite force on anything.

Ignoring air resistance, the falling container and the water it contains are weightless as (in General Relativity) there is no force acting upon them.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3362
  • God winds the universe
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #81 on: January 10, 2023, 05:39:14 AM »
The reason why the water stops pouring while the bottle is in free fall is the same as the cause of the hypoxia at the cellular level in the tissues which has been observed for both Sars-Cov-2 pathogens (coded with Uracil or with Pseudouridine).

There is no UA, attractive gravity, pressure type of gravitational force.

Everything has to do with quantum mechanics, that is where you'll find the correct explanation.
velocity

You just found zebras instead of horses.

The reason the water falls at a different rate is that individual droplets have less mass than the canister. It's that simple.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7262
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #82 on: January 10, 2023, 06:03:36 AM »
No. Take a look at this:

http://images.slideplayer.com/34/10210042/slides/slide_19.jpg

Or watch the video of a railroad tank car vacuum implosion.

What causes the hypoxia in the tissues, at the cellular level, as the effect of the spike proteins (coded with Uracil or with Pseudouridine)? Where does the oxygen go?

Gravity must be and has to be explained at the quantum level.


Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #83 on: January 10, 2023, 07:23:05 AM »
The reason why the water stops pouring while the bottle is in free fall is the same as the cause of the hypoxia at the cellular level in the tissues which has been observed for both Sars-Cov-2 pathogens (coded with Uracil or with Pseudouridine).

There is no UA, attractive gravity, pressure type of gravitational force.

Everything has to do with quantum mechanics, that is where you'll find the correct explanation.
velocity

You just found zebras instead of horses.

The reason the water falls at a different rate is that individual droplets have less mass than the canister. It's that simple.


Weight vs drag

The sum of forces dictatss how fast it will accel

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7262
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #84 on: January 10, 2023, 08:09:13 AM »
The greatest mathematician of the 19th century had already solved the mystery of gravity.

https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/papers/1004.2901/

B. Riemann stated in 1853 that "gravitational aether sinks toward massive objects where it is absorbed, at a rate proportional to their mass, and is then emitted into another spatial dimension".

Dr. Ellis' groundbreaking paper takes GTR from a singularity to a drainhole aether model, the paper was published in the JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS.

The mathematical theory for the absorption/emission of aether through a Planck length level particle.

http://euclid.colorado.edu/~ellis/RelativityPapers/EtFlThDrPaMoGeRe.pdf

Ether flow through a drainhole: a particle model in general relativity

Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 14, no. 1, 1973

Dr. Ellis:

This ether is in general "more than a mere inert medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves; it is a restless, flowing continuum whose internal, relative motions manifest themselves to us as gravity. Mass particles appear as sources or sinks of this flowing ether."

The inertial mass of the particle modeled by the drainhole.  A "Higgsian" way of expressing this idea is to say that the drainhole 'acquires' (inertial) mass from the scalar field.


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3552.pdf

Chiral vacuum fluctuations in quantum gravity

Is made up of the right handed positive frequency of the graviton and the left handed negative frequency of the anti-graviton.

Anti-graviton = laevorotatory subquark = positron

Graviton = dextrorotatory subquark = electron


Sars-Cov-2 is a gravitational pathogen: it increases the flow of aether through the wormhole. Since N. Kozyrev had discovered that gravity is time (antigravity = anti-time), we can say that Sars-Cov-2 increases the effects of time on tissues. That is why no one, so far, has not had the bright idea of comparing the rate of effect on tissues using both Sars-Cov-2 coded with Uracil and Sars-Cov-2 coded with Pseudouridine (the ingredient in the cmRNA vaccines). The prion domain of Sars-Cov-2 acts as a right-handed ensemble of gravitons which absorb aether/vitality/oxygen. That is why a proper antidote would be to employ left-handed peptides (alpha helix prions). Right-handed prions = beta sheet prions.



https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6850v2.pdf

Holographic Schwinger effect and the geometry of entanglement

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205

Julian Sonner, a senior postdoc in MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Center for Theoretical Physics, has published his results in the journal Physical Review Letters, where it appears together with a related paper by Kristan Jensen of the University of Victoria and Andreas Karch of the University of Washington.

The tangled web that is gravity

He found that what emerged was a wormhole connecting the two entangled quarks, implying that the creation of quarks simultaneously creates a wormhole. More fundamentally, he says, gravity itself may be a result of entanglement. What’s more, the universe’s geometry as described by classical gravity may be a consequence of entanglement—pairs of particles strung together by tunneling wormholes.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2014/02/18/174139/quarks-linked-by-wormholes/

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/12/link-between-wormholes-and-quantum-entanglement

https://www.universetoday.com/106968/could-particle-spooky-action-define-the-nature-of-gravity/


Quantum entanglement is not possible without wormholes:

http://news.mit.edu/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205


GR cannot explain quantum entanglement/wormholes:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1330/1/012001/meta

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1330/1/012001/pdf


A traversable wormhole requires scalar fields/ether in order to function.


The deepest connection between gravity and quantum entanglement:

“The universality of the gravitational interaction comes directly from the universality of entanglement- it is not possible to have stress-energy that doesn’t source the gravitational field because it is not possible to have degrees of freedom that don’t contribute to entanglement entropy.”

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2933.pdf

Universality of Gravity from Entanglement


All gravitons are distinct wormholes and are connected by a hyperspace which manifests itself in the very center of the gray wormhole. In the center of the wormhole is the mechanism which provides the constant torque necessary for the wormhole to rotate at very high speeds. Without that torque being applied constantly, all wormholes would collapse instantly, there would be no atoms, no visible matter. All gravitons/antigravitons consist of billions of bosons/antibosons.


Now, let us return to the example which has been provided in this thread. The absorption of aether is registered as the weight of an object. In free fall, the links between the terrestrial ether/aether waves and the object itself are broken, that is why the body itself does not register weight. No weight, no water flow. However, the vertical flow of ether is still has an effect on the object itself, causing to fall to the ground.

Downward motion provided by the shower of cosmic subquarks:

His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.

I. Newton

Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #85 on: January 10, 2023, 11:58:01 AM »
why the hell are you relying on a straw man?


Over denpressure?  A flawed dream that is more fairytale than model?  That seems to change as needed by the individual since about 2014.  That requires false ideals like a solid block of properly cast pure lead or iron somehow has a trapped atmosphere in its crystalline structure.  And are compressible somehow? 

Exactly how have I created a straw man argument over “denpressure” that is not the working model of gravity, with gravity having experimental proof of its existence, gravity that is measurable, where “denpressure” relies on junk science?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2023, 12:00:42 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17873
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #86 on: January 10, 2023, 12:00:59 PM »
why the hell are you relying on a straw man?


Over denpressure?  A flawed dream that is more fairytale than model?  That seems to change as needed by the individual since about 2014.  That requires false ideals like a solid block of properly cast pure lead or iron somehow has a trapped atmosphere in its crystalline structure.  And are compressible somehow? 

Exactly how have I created a straw man argument over “denpressure” that is not the working model of gravity, with gravity having experimental proof of its existence, gravity that is measurable, where “denpressure relies on junk science?
Gravity, in fact, has experiment proof of its non-existence and round earth science relies upon that fact.
"You are a very reasonable man John." - D1

"The lunatic, the lover, and the poet. Are of imagination all compact" - The Bard

Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #87 on: January 10, 2023, 12:08:07 PM »
why the hell are you relying on a straw man?


Over denpressure?  A flawed dream that is more fairytale than model?  That seems to change as needed by the individual since about 2014.  That requires false ideals like a solid block of properly cast pure lead or iron somehow has a trapped atmosphere in its crystalline structure.  And are compressible somehow? 

Exactly how have I created a straw man argument over “denpressure” that is not the working model of gravity, with gravity having experimental proof of its existence, gravity that is measurable, where “denpressure relies on junk science?
Gravity, in fact, has experiment proof of its non-existence and round earth science relies upon that fact.


Ok?  How does that relate to Cavendish Experiments and Terrestrial Gravity and Vertical Gravity Gradient Surveys?

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17873
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #88 on: January 10, 2023, 12:14:06 PM »
why the hell are you relying on a straw man?


Over denpressure?  A flawed dream that is more fairytale than model?  That seems to change as needed by the individual since about 2014.  That requires false ideals like a solid block of properly cast pure lead or iron somehow has a trapped atmosphere in its crystalline structure.  And are compressible somehow? 

Exactly how have I created a straw man argument over “denpressure” that is not the working model of gravity, with gravity having experimental proof of its existence, gravity that is measurable, where “denpressure relies on junk science?
Gravity, in fact, has experiment proof of its non-existence and round earth science relies upon that fact.


Ok?  How does that relate to Cavendish Experiments and Terrestrial Gravity and Vertical Gravity Gradient Surveys?
Vertical Gravity Gradient Surveys in fact show that the current model for gravity that is used in round earth science is incorrect or incomplete. This is why its centered around studying anomalies.

Ignoring this however, gravity can be seen as a fictitious force that arises from taking a non-inertial frame of reference as an inertial one. Gravity is just an inertia force and thus non-existent except if one chooses to contrive its existence.

Taking this concept to a flat earth model, the earth's surface is a flat closed finite surface in curved space. Surrounding this flat closed finite surface is a geodesic surface.

Another alternate model that does not discount gravity would be the infinite plane model which shows us the earth as an infinite plane with finite gravitational pull.

There are of course other models for the flat earth that explain the OP perfectly fine.
"You are a very reasonable man John." - D1

"The lunatic, the lover, and the poet. Are of imagination all compact" - The Bard

*

JackBlack

  • 23446
Re: Weightlessness During Freefall
« Reply #89 on: January 10, 2023, 12:18:36 PM »
Did the water at any point not hit the ground?
Then all of you are dumbasses, and I'm still right.
Quite the opposite.
And appealing to that as if it makes you right just further demonstrates that.

This has nothing at all to do with terminal velocity.

Weightlessness is an inaccurate term anyway.
Most terms are inaccurate to some degree.

where somehow weight on the moon relates to weight on Earth
By people comparing numbers.
There isn't anything special about that.

a person/object's weight is their mass.
No. Their weight is CAUSED by their mass. But it is not their mass.

What is completely incorrect (or inaccurate) is pretending weight and mass is the same. Especially when they have different units.

Weight can be defined in several ways.
The simplest is the downwards force due to gravity. But that hides the nuance of it. e.g. how something feels lighter when it is immersed in a more dense fluid.
Some definitions focus on the normal reaction force, which in this case is 0.

If gravity is real, how come it is so easy to overcome.
For the same reason it is so easy to overcome magnetism by taking a fridge magnet off a fridge, and snap thin strings and so on.

It is a force. All that is required to "overcome" it is a strong enough force in the opposite direction.

Objects fall to the ground. Except when if a parabolic plane. Or when spinning around very fast. Or if you're a bird. Or bat. Or if you're gliding, I guess. Or swimming. Or in a plane. Or a giant air permeable bubble made with magic. Or...

That's a theory. A law has ironclad rules without a bunch of exceptions and is immediately testable.
No, that is your intentional, dishonest misrepresentation of a physical phenomenon that you hate.

Gravity, around Earth, is a downwards force accelerating objects towards Earth.
In a plane on a parabolic flight, you are accelerating towards Earth.
If you are a bird or a bat, you have another force acting accelerating you upwards, from your wings flapping.
If you are gliding, you have a wing which in interacting with the air to generate an upwards force.
If you are swimming you have the buoyant force from water pushing you up.
The plane has wings to produce lift pushing it up.

At no point in that misrepresentation of yours have you shown any contradiction between gravity and reality.

If you would like the ironclad rule (which itself is an approximation) then it would be F=GMm/r^2.
Can you show where that is violated?

The reason the water falls at a different rate is that individual droplets have less mass than the canister. It's that simple.
The water isn't falling at a different rate.
And you can say that about anything.
Take any object, and consider breaking it into tiny pieces, then there will be less weight in those tiny pieces than the bulk object.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2023, 12:30:36 PM by JackBlack »