There has never and will never be free space.
It is impossible.
You can't even explain it because it would make no sense.
Again, your pathetic lies will not save you.
I have explained it. It is truly simple. Space, with nothing in it.
This is not difficult to understand.
But as it goes against your delusional garbage, you reject it.
But you cannot explain why there can't be free space, nor can you explain what is explained by free space.
Same thing. Both are hypothetical.
No. Not the same thing.
Something being hypothetical does not mean it is the same as every other hypothetical thing.
But more importantly, that is just your pathetic assertion.
Closed systems do exist. They are not hypothetical.
Is this your latest pathetic attempt? Just define a closed system as something purely hypothetical to pretend it can't exist?
If you want to keep going down this path, stop using English entirely as you clearly don't care what words mean.
The atmosphere does push a helium balloon
And according to your previous delusional BS, it needs to push it DOWN!
This was your pathetic analogy:
Or it acts like a spring mattress above your head pushing into a spring mattress above that and anotehr above that and so on and your energy is dissipated between them all with the one directly above you taking the brunt of the initial force as you see the indentation and the one above that will create more of a resistance until one of the mattresses acts as a full barrier.
This is when the reaction comes into force and the spring back occurs.
Stick to that.
You have the air acting like a spring mattress.
You push the OBJECT (Note: Object, as it shouldn't matter what object you are using) up into it.
This causes the mattress to compress and push the mattress above it and so on.
And then the mattress springs back, pushing the object DOWN!
This should apply regardless of what the object is and push EVERYTHING down.
If that is the case, a helium filled balloon should be pushed DOWN by the atmosphere, not up.
But because this analogy is pure BS and does not explain reality at all, as soon a helium filled balloon is brought up, you need to flee from your own analogy, because it so easily demonstrates why you are wrong.
So stick to this analogy to explain how the spring mattress pushes the helium down, or admit this is BS which doesn't explain why things fall.
I don't mind sticking to it if it helps people.
Yet here you are fleeing from it yet again, because it indicates EVERYTHING should fall, including helium filled balloons.
You actually do compress like a spring and it stays as long as you keep that dense mass pushed into it.
No, you don't.
When you move an object up, the atmosphere flows around, just like if you move it sideways or downwards.
It doesn't need to be magic.
It does need to be magic.
So it knows to magically compress and stay compressed when a push a dense object up, while flowing around the object if you push it sideways or downwards. And then not compressing the top and instead magically pushing up when an object is less dense than air.
That is pure magic.
If it wasn't magic, then it wouldn't have the directionally you need, nor the ability to sense if the object is more or less dense than air.
Instead, if it wasn't magic, it would resist relative motion, and the pressure gradient would push all objects upwards.
No. The pressure resists your push of the ball but fails to stop it, 0only slow its descent.
Yes, the pressure from below pushing upwards resists the downwards motion of the object, and the pressure from the atmosphere above pushing down is not enough to overcome that resistance. You need an extra force, GRAVITY, to explain it.
The force of gravity on the steel ball, combined with the push down from the atmosphere above is enough to overcome the push up from below and have the ball sink.
But the force of gravity on the helium balloon, even after being combined with the push down from the atmosphere above, is NOT enough to overcome the resistance below, so it is pushed up.
Or for the analogy with water:
Yes, the pressure from below pushing upwards resists the downwards motion of the object, and the pressure from the water above pushing down is not enough to overcome that resistance. You need an extra force, GRAVITY, to explain it.
The force of gravity on the steel ball, combined with the push down from the water above is enough to overcome the push up from below and have the ball sink.
But the force of gravity on the football, even after being combined with the push down from the water above, is NOT enough to overcome the resistance below, so it is pushed up.
So gravity can explain it trivially.
But your delusional garbage can't.
With your delusional garbage, the steel ball can't get any extra help from the atmosphere to push it down. The pressure pushing down is the same in both cases and in both cases it is weaker than the pressure pushing up.
The push down from above is simply not enough to overcome the push up from below so the object should rise.
Yep. I've been saying it for long enough.
And you then proceed to directly contradict it.
Your delusional requires the atmosphere to easily flow around objects, expect when you need it to act like a spring to push objects down, at which point it magically stops flowing around so pushing an object up just magically compresses the air above.
This is a clear indication that your model is delusional garbage completely incapable of explaining reality.
Displacement.
This in no way explains why this simple test allegedly disproves gravity or supports your delusional garbage, when it clearly demonstrates the problem with your delusional garbage and entirely matches the results expected from gravity.
Nope.
Again, your pathetic assertion wont help you.
Likewise, trying to call the reactionary force "resist" doesn't negate it.
That is the action reaction pair. You push an object, it pushes back. Or as you would say in your non-English, you push the object and it resists.
It does not push back unless you compress it against something in which it can compress back. Only then will it push back.
All it does it resist your push.
"resist your push" IS pushing back.
Otherwise, you should be able to just go straight through it.
I'll make this simple.
I already have.
If your delusional BS was true, pushing into the other carriage should result in no additional force on the first train, meaning it should accelerate as before.
No need for any extra BS from you.
If there is no push back, then explain why the train is so much slower when moving this carriage?
If you would like something simpler, like the BS you are coming up with now, consider Newton's cradle.
You take a ball on one end and drop it, when it hits the ball, it stops. This is because there was a reactionary force stopping it.
That ball doesn't need to take up some position to brace itself to be able to push back.
Its inertia causes it to push back.
Otherwise, you magically generate forces from no where.
If I barge into you as you stand still then you resist my push and you fall backward as I move forwards.
You resist
i.e. I push back, and you slow down.
that is a resistance, not a pushback.
That resistance, is a push back.
Again, if you don't want to speak English then stop pretending to.