Weightlessness During Freefall

Vertical Gravity Gradient Surveys in fact show that the current model for gravity that is used in round earth science is incorrect or incomplete.

Not the same as, “ Gravity, in fact, has experiment proof of its non-existence and round earth science relies upon that fact.”


How is the current model of “gravity” incorrect say as brought up in other threads when referencing gravity in relation to accelerometers. 

And how do you resolve Cavendish Experiments.

What factors are changed in Septic's model to cause the water to stop flowing.  Density?  Volume?

No factors changed which would cause the water to go DOWN.
What changes are the factors that would cause the water to go sideways out the holes.
And what changed was the bottom of the container was no longer blocking the path down.

So.  Why would this “denser mass is squeezed downwards” stop just because the container is dropped?

The water is still going down.

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.

Yet no where in that did you even attempt to provide a reason for the specific question asked.

No. Take a look at this:
Or watch the video of a railroad tank car vacuum implosion.

We now that air pressure is quite powerful, even just atmospheric air pressure due to all the weight of air above due to gravity.

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

Ideally everything should be. But that doesn't mean gravity isn't real.

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.

No it doesn't.

It shows the current model of the structure of Earth, which is very course, is not precise enough to predict the value of g for a given location to the precision we are capable of measuring.
These anomalies can be used in surveying areas for example, to try to find oil, without just drilling everywhere.

Quote from: Slime on January 10, 2023, 04:21:31 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?

If you are going to ignore the context of every single post made, and resort to all the topic-changes and distraction, I am begging you to stop.
RET does not need you. You are doing more harm than good. We are not a cult, you do not have to act like we are. Have some bloody self-awareness.

Quote from: Username on January 10, 2023, 12:14:06 PM

Vertical Gravity Gradient Surveys in fact show that the current model for gravity that is used in round earth science is incorrect or incomplete.

Not the same as, “ Gravity, in fact, has experiment proof of its non-existence and round earth science relies upon that fact.”

It is exactly the same as that.

How is the current model of “gravity” incorrect say as brought up in other threads when referencing gravity in relation to accelerometers. 

I have no idea what you are referencing here, but the "current model of 'gravity'" is not incorrect. It proves the earth is flat.

And how do you resolve Cavendish Experiments.

I resolve Cavendish experiments the same way as Einstein did.

Quote from: Username on January 10, 2023, 12:14:06 PM

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.

No it doesn't.

It shows the current model of the structure of Earth, which is very course, is not precise enough to predict the value of g for a given location to the precision we are capable of measuring.
These anomalies can be used in surveying areas for example, to try to find oil, without just drilling everywhere.

Yes, that is another option, which you have failed to support with anything. The fact of the matter however, beyond your fisking, is some theories propose the existence of additional, as yet undiscovered, particles or fields that could contribute to the gravitational force and might explain the observed deviations from the standard model and account for these anomalies. Another way this could be the case is that many modified gravity theories suggest changes to Einstein's theory (such as scalar-tensor theories) that can produce addition force or modify the force.

Simply pointing out that some of the anomalies could be due to its course nature does not in fact remove the possibility of the above nor does it confirm your conjecture. Of course you know this, as you usually do.

All we know is that its incomplete - as I stated. Either in the data related to the model, the model of earth itself, or the model of gravity. Which is what I said.

I have no idea what you are referencing here, but the "current model of 'gravity'" is not incorrect. It proves the earth is flat.

It most certainly does not.
Even if you want to appeal to "flat" meaning a geodesic in space-time, Earth's surface is not a geodesic. You would need to traverse Earth's surface at roughly 8 km/s (if I recall correctly) for it to be a geodesic.

Yes, that is another option, which you have failed to support with anything. The fact of the matter however, beyond your fisking, is some theories propose the existence of additional, as yet undiscovered, particles or fields that could contribute to the gravitational force and might explain the observed deviations from the standard model and account for these anomalies. Another way this could be the case is that many modified gravity theories suggest changes to Einstein's theory (such as scalar-tensor theories) that can produce addition force or modify the force and therefore might explain these anomalies.

Simply pointing out that some of the anomalies could be due to its course nature does not in fact remove the possibility of the above. Of course you know this, as you usually do.

Do you understand the burden of proof?

You asserted, with no rational justification at all, that gravity is wrong. That these surveys demonstrate the current model of gravity is incomplete or incorrect.
The burden is on you to demonstrate that.

So unless you have data on the distribution of matter within Earth which is accurate and precise enough to demonstrate that these are anomalies with gravity, you have no supported your position.

Simply pointing out that gravity might be different is not enough to show it is incomplete or incorrect.

Quote from: Username on January 10, 2023, 12:59:18 PM

I have no idea what you are referencing here, but the "current model of 'gravity'" is not incorrect. It proves the earth is flat.

It most certainly does not.
Even if you want to appeal to "flat" meaning a geodesic in space-time, Earth's surface is not a geodesic. You would need to traverse Earth's surface at roughly 8 km/s (if I recall correctly) for it to be a geodesic.

Quote from: Username on January 10, 2023, 01:08:44 PM

Yes, that is another option, which you have failed to support with anything. The fact of the matter however, beyond your fisking, is some theories propose the existence of additional, as yet undiscovered, particles or fields that could contribute to the gravitational force and might explain the observed deviations from the standard model and account for these anomalies. Another way this could be the case is that many modified gravity theories suggest changes to Einstein's theory (such as scalar-tensor theories) that can produce addition force or modify the force and therefore might explain these anomalies.

Simply pointing out that some of the anomalies could be due to its course nature does not in fact remove the possibility of the above. Of course you know this, as you usually do.

Do you understand the burden of proof?

You asserted, with no rational justification at all, that gravity is wrong. That these surveys demonstrate the current model of gravity is incomplete or incorrect.
The burden is on you to demonstrate that.

So unless you have data on the distribution of matter within Earth which is accurate and precise enough to demonstrate that these are anomalies with gravity, you have no supported your position.

Simply pointing out that gravity might be different is not enough to show it is incomplete or incorrect.

It has already been demonstrated that gravity is an incomplete model. It is not up to me to prove what is already known. If the model of gravity as it pertains to earth does not match observation, it must be either incomplete or incorrect. As we have both identified, observation  does not match the current model.

Also, burden of proof is a faulty line of reasoning as it tends to support the view in power, creating a power dynamic that undermines the legitimacy of debate and is used by those like yourself, unwarrantedly, to attempt to shift the burden when in fact you are the one making the extraordinary claims. You are claiming that the model of gravity is correct. It is upon you to show that. It is not upon me to prove round earth theory.

It has already been demonstrated that gravity is an incomplete model.

Where/how?
Because it isn't a quantum model?

Because the observations being discussed in the thread match the current model.

If the model of gravity as it pertains to earth does not match observation, it must be either incomplete or incorrect. As we have both identified, observation  does not match the current model.

Yet again, you are wrong.

It isn't simply a model of gravity, it is a model of Earth and gravity.

The current model of Earth does not have the exact distribution of matter for every atom. The more appropriate phrase for that is that it is not infinitely precise, as nothing ever will be.
That doesn't mean gravity is wrong.

Also, burden of proof is a faulty line of reasoning as it tends to support the view in power, creating a power dynamic that undermines the legitimacy of debate and is used by those like yourself, unwarrantedly, to attempt to shift the burden when in fact you are the one making the extraordinary claims. You are claiming that the model of gravity is correct. It is upon you to show that. It is not upon me to prove round earth theory.

No it isn't, nor does it.
The burden of proof rests upon whoever is making the claim.
This can be someone in power, or someone challenging it.

If you come in and claim that gravity has experimental proof of its non-existence, the burden is on you to demonstrate that.
If you come in and claim that so called gravitational anomalies are proof that GRAVITY is incorrect or incomplete, the burden is on you to demonstrate that.
If you come in and claim that gravity magically proves Earth is flat, the burden is on you to prove it.

But you appear to not like that.
You seem to want to be able to come in and spout whatever garbage you want, making bold claims, with nothing to back it up.
That is incredibly faulty reasoning.

If you assert such garbage without justification, I can dismiss it without justification.

If you want to discuss legitimacy of debate, that means backing up your claims, not just demanding others prove you wrong.

I am not claiming the current model of gravity is perfect. I am saying what you are providing does not show a fault with gravity, that your claims are unjustified.
I even went one step further and provided an alternative, and even linked back to how these anomalies are used to search for particular things inside Earth.
And how do you respond? You dismiss it as "another option", without recognising it shows your claim is wrong.
And then try to twist your claim to something else.

Quote from: John Davis on January 20, 2023, 12:16:11 PM

It has already been demonstrated that gravity is an incomplete model.

Where/how?
Because it isn't a quantum model?

Because the observations being discussed in the thread match the current model.

It is known that universal gravitation, which you seem to be discussing now, is an incomplete model. At best it is religious to hold it is universal. Aside from this, it is known that our model of gravity cannot be complete as it is incompatible with quantum mechanics - except when the Ehrenfest theorem holds. More than this it fails to work at sub-Planck length distances. There are several other issues that have been pointed out.

Quote from: John Davis on January 20, 2023, 12:16:11 PM

If the model of gravity as it pertains to earth does not match observation, it must be either incomplete or incorrect. As we have both identified, observation  does not match the current model.

Yet again, you are wrong.

It isn't simply a model of gravity, it is a model of Earth and gravity.

Yes, we are discussing the model of Earth's gravity. Thank you for catching up.

The current model of Earth does not have the exact distribution of matter for every atom. The more appropriate phrase for that is that it is not infinitely precise, as nothing ever will be.

So the model is incomplete, as I claimed. Fantastic. Glad to have you aboard.

That doesn't mean gravity is wrong.

I'm not certain how you could even make the claim that gravity is "wrong." Did it kill someone or work on a Sunday or something?

Quote from: John Davis on January 20, 2023, 12:19:13 PM

Also, burden of proof is a faulty line of reasoning as it tends to support the view in power, creating a power dynamic that undermines the legitimacy of debate and is used by those like yourself, unwarrantedly, to attempt to shift the burden when in fact you are the one making the extraordinary claims. You are claiming that the model of gravity is correct. It is upon you to show that. It is not upon me to prove round earth theory.

No it isn't, nor does it.
The burden of proof rests upon whoever is making the claim.

You are making the claim gravity exist and works as per your model. This is the positive claim (and one against the scientific consensus for round earthers mind you). If you cannot support this claim, it is not on me to support it for you.

This can be someone in power, or someone challenging it.

If you come in and claim that gravity has experimental proof of its non-existence, the burden is on you to demonstrate that.

I did not claim that. I understand how you think burden of proof works, but beyond a high school debates club it is a solely useless pursuit.

I am not claiming the current model of gravity is perfect. I am saying what you are providing does not show a fault with gravity, that your claims are unjustified.

You are indeed making such a claim in claiming it is not incomplete and not inaccurate. I am not the one claiming the existence of a teapot with certain properties.

It is known that universal gravitation, which you seem to be discussing now, is an incomplete model. At best it is religious to hold it is universal. Aside from this, it is known that our model of gravity cannot be complete as it is incompatible with quantum mechanics - except when the Ehrenfest theorem holds. More than this it fails to work at sub-Planck length distances. There are several other issues that have been pointed out.

Have people tested it at sub-plank length distances? If not, how does it fail to work?
Why is gravity necessarily incomplete because of an incompatibility with our current understanding of quantum mechanics?

But this is just you fleeing from the matter at hand.
But at least you are starting to provide an attempt at a justification, rather than just claims.

Yes, we are discussing the model of Earth's gravity. Thank you for catching up.

And this was your claim:

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.

Notice how this is you saying the model for GRAVITY, not the model for Earth's gravity, which would include both the composition of Earth and a model for gravity.

It would be entirely pointless to claim it for the combined model, as people move around meaning any model of Earth's composition, with infinite precision will be wrong.

You are making the claim gravity exist and works as per your model.

No, I'm not.
You are claiming that gravity has experimental proof of its non existence.
You are claiming that Vertical Gravity Gradient Surveys show that the current model for gravity is wrong.
You are claiming that gravity proves Earth is flat.

Those are your claims, and as such the burden is on you to prove it.
It is not on my to disprove it.

Quote

This can be someone in power, or someone challenging it.
If you come in and claim that gravity has experimental proof of its non-existence, the burden is on you to demonstrate that.

I did not claim that.

Lying wont save you:

Gravity, in fact, has experiment proof of its non-existence and round earth science relies upon that fact.

You quite clearly did in fact claim that.
But because you can't justify your claims, you flee and try to shift the burden of proof.

You are indeed making such a claim

Me objecting to your claim by pointing out you haven't substantiated your claims, is not me making a claim about gravity.
So yes, you are the one claiming a very special teapot exists.

Quote from: John Davis on January 20, 2023, 04:29:33 PM

You are making the claim gravity exist and works as per your model.

No, I'm not.
You are claiming that gravity has experimental proof of its non existence.
You are claiming that Vertical Gravity Gradient Surveys show that the current model for gravity is wrong.
You are claiming that gravity proves Earth is flat.

Those are your claims, and as such the burden is on you to prove it.
It is not on my to disprove it.

Quote from: John Davis on January 20, 2023, 04:29:33 PM

Quote

This can be someone in power, or someone challenging it.
If you come in and claim that gravity has experimental proof of its non-existence, the burden is on you to demonstrate that.

I did not claim that.

Lying wont save you:

Be careful, you might get the “l’m a administrator/moderator” card played on you…

😁

I've never seen that one before. Such a simple experiment. The only FE explanation I can think of would be Universal Acceleration (UA): UA asserts that the Earth and the observable universe are accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.

But it appears that only tfes believes in that. I've never seen anywhere else out there in the FE community that puts earth in a perpetual upward motion. And I'm not even sure that would cause the effect.

No one really accepts this because a constant acceleration is impossible.   You would eventually run into issues with diminishing returns as you approach the speed of light.

No one really accepts this because a constant acceleration is impossible.   You would eventually run into issues with diminishing returns as you approach the speed of light.

This entirely depends on what frame you consider it from.
If you mean a constant acceleration from an outside observer in an inertial reference frame, then yes it is impossible. But that also wouldn't give the required feel for Earth.
If instead you mean a constant proper acceleration, that is acceleration measured in the accelerating frame, then it is entirely possible to have it accelerate forever at that constant rate.

A much bigger issue for UA is that in order to match the observed value for g around Earth, different parts of Earth must be accelerating at different rates which would tear Earth apart.

the water will feel no longer gravity - try the same experiment when the water bottle is upside down position - let's see if the water resists its container to fall