Public Education And Independent Self-Taught Research

[Polymath257]

Fine, then explain the dynamic force in question - and you´ll be the first one to have done so.

Expplain the dynamics force of E&M. After that, I'll know what sort of explanation you are wanting.

Until you´ve explained the scientific dynamics of gravity, you´re in fact doing meta-physics.

Not even close. It looks to me like you don't know what physics is, let alone metaphysics.

 

[gnostic]

Fine, then explain the dynamic force in question - and you´ll be the first one to have done so.

Until you´ve explained the scientific dynamics of gravity, you´re in fact doing meta-physics.

Okay, so we can add metaphysics to the list of concepts that you do not understand.

The list keep growing longer and longer.

Native still don't understand, that experiments and evidence are requirements for metaphysics.

What @Polymath257 presented are physics, not metaphysics.

What you presented in the video of Cox's video is physics are experiments of free falling objects, not metaphysics.

Clearly, Native don't know how to distinguish between science and philosophy.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Do you really? Then describe to me what is the most significant velocity differences you find between the natural and vacuum chamber experiments?
Polymath, do you intend to answer this specific question or what?

Well, the fact that velocities when falling from rest are always larger in a vacuum than not in one. That shows that air is a hindrance to motion, not the motivating force for the motion.

I´ve never stated the underlined sentence. (BTW:"Vacuum" doesn´t exist naturally anywhere).

You didn’t quite got my specific question amd maybe I was a bit unclear: I asked about the falling acceleration velocity difference between things (bowling ball and feather) falling in free space and in a vacuum chamber test.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Native said: ↑
Do you really? Then describe to me what is the most significant velocity differences you find between the natural and vacuum chamber experiments?
Polymath, do you intend to answer this specific question or what?

I´ve never stated the underlined sentence. (BTW:"Vacuum" doesn´t exist naturally anywhere).

You didn’t quite got my specific question. I asked about the falling velocity difference between things (bowling ball and feather) falling in free space and in a vacuum chamber test.

What are you talking about? A vacuum naturally exists in space. They mentioned how much air was left in the chamber and it may have been roughly equivalent to the vacuum we would see on the Moon.

Now you may rightfully claim that a pure vacuum does not exist anywhere, but for the purpose of that experiment it was almost identical to a pure vacuum. One that was close enough.

 

[Native]

I know, it is really really weird, but for some reason scientists like testable, observable unexplained "cosmic casual" forces better than woo woo. It is some drivel about knowledge having to be useful. What a load of tosh! Don't they understand the value of feeling superior when one has not done anything to earn it?

And:

Okay, so we can add metaphysics to the list of concepts that you do not understand.

May I remind you that you´re not operating on your Facebook here? If you can´t come up with a factual discussion, don´t comment or just leave this thread.

 

[Native]

What are you talking about? A vacuum naturally exists in space. They mentioned how much air was left in the chamber and it may have been roughly equivalent to the vacuum we would see on the Moon.
Now you may rightfully claim that a pure vacuum does not exist anywhere, but for the purpose of that experiment it was almost identical to a pure vacuum. One that was close enough.

I´m awaiting an answer from Polymath, thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And:

May I remind you that you´re not operating on your Facebook here? If you can´t come up with a factual discussion, don´t comment or just leave this thread.

What was not factual about that? You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of both physics and metaphysics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I´m awaiting an answer from Polymath, thank you.

That is fine, his answer will no doubt be better. I was merely pointing out some of your grosser errors.

 

[Native]

I was merely pointing out some of your grosser errors.

You just can´t stop posting your emotional and subjective comments, can you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just can´t stop posting your emotional and subjective comments, can you?

There was nothing either emotional or subjective about my comments. Though you appear to be getting worked up a bit. Perhaps you did not understand them. Do you have any questions?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I´m awaiting an answer from Polymath, thank you.

That is fine, his answer will no doubt be better.

You said it yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Native said: ↑
I´m awaiting an answer from Polymath, thank you.

You said it yourself.

Meanwhile my explanation was good enough to explain how you were wrong. Do you have any questions while you wait?

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Do you really? Then describe to me what is the most significant velocity differences you find between the natural and vacuum chamber experiments?
Polymath, do you intend to answer this specific question or what?

I´ve never stated the underlined sentence. (BTW:"Vacuum" doesn´t exist naturally anywhere).

You didn’t quite got my specific question amd maybe I was a bit unclear: I asked about the falling acceleration velocity difference between things (bowling ball and feather) falling in free space and in a vacuum chamber test.

I did answer the question. Things that fall in a vacuum always fall faster than under equivalent conditions in air. That means that the air is not the source of the motion, but rather is a hindrance to it.

The degree of difference depends on how much the object interacts with air. Feathers interact more, so are slower.

And yes, a vacuum exists once you get above about 100 kilometers above the Earth. The default condition in the universe is a vacuum.

 

[Polymath257]

What are you talking about? A vacuum naturally exists in space. They mentioned how much air was left in the chamber and it may have been roughly equivalent to the vacuum we would see on the Moon.

Now you may rightfully claim that a pure vacuum does not exist anywhere, but for the purpose of that experiment it was almost identical to a pure vacuum. One that was close enough.

What a lot of people don't realize is that the clouds of gas and dust in space are, for the most part, even stronger vacuums than what was in that chamber.

They appear to be denser because we are looking at portions that are light years across.

 

[Polymath257]

I´m awaiting an answer from Polymath, thank you.

I've answered.

In fact, I answered in the post you quoted.

 

[gnostic]

Native said: ↑
Do you really? Then describe to me what is the most significant velocity differences you find between the natural and vacuum chamber experiments?
Polymath, do you intend to answer this specific question or what?

I´ve never stated the underlined sentence. (BTW:"Vacuum" doesn´t exist naturally anywhere).

You didn’t quite got my specific question amd maybe I was a bit unclear: I asked about the falling acceleration velocity difference between things (bowling ball and feather) falling in free space and in a vacuum chamber test.

What are you talking about? A vacuum naturally exists in space. They mentioned how much air was left in the chamber and it may have been roughly equivalent to the vacuum we would see on the Moon.

Now you may rightfully claim that a pure vacuum does not exist anywhere, but for the purpose of that experiment it was almost identical to a pure vacuum. One that was close enough.

Native have been posting for years, trying to debunk gravitation and gravity, like what exhibit on Earth, when objects fall to the ground.

His claim (what he believed to be the real solution) were always that objects fall due to atmospheric pressures, hence “the weight of air”.

These are from an old thread, “Newton: The Last of the Magicians” (2019):

It´s just because you and the Newtonian Gravity Ideology fails to
recognize the atmosphere as a real pressure down on the Earth and conflates this pressure as gravitational attraction from the Earth.

It´s the simple weigth of the gaseous elements in the atmosphere which gives us the sense of weight because of a downwards pressure. Well outside the Earth there is no/little pressure from these elements which is conflated as Newton´s gravity model on the Earth.


The weight pressure of the atmospheric elements on the Earth is confused by Newton to be "gravity", so of course "gravity" can explain the pressure - and of course this pressure also can explain the idea of gravity on the Earth.

So this argument here, on this thread, is just more of the same Native’s pseudoscience as the one in past threads.

And in that, he still haven’t learned from his errors. He is basically like every creationists, stubbornly refusing to or incapable of learning from his mistakes.

But here’s is the irony, Subduction. He posted the very same video of Brian Cox’s experiments that actually refuted his pseudoscience argument.

From “My theory about gravity” (2020):

As the dynamic cause in consensus science of gravity is mysterious, maybe some gravity conclusions are mysterious too? Either ways, it´s a long shot to claim gravity to work universally just by watching an apple fall to the ground, isn´t it?

Here is another falling example: Watch this video "Brian Cox visits the world´s biggest vacuum" -

Here a feather and a bowling ball falls with the same velocity in the emptied chamber, seemingly significantly ignoring the force of gravity on and from the Earth.

The question is then: Is the force of gravity simply confused for the weight pressure and resistance of air in the atmosphere which has the similar properties as "gravity"?

He is still clueless of his mistakes, as he was back then.

This video actually refuted his points, but now his response - more like lame excuses or weak deflection - is this:

Test natural forces ind their natural conditions and don´t fiddle with natural causes. Take a trip high up in the Earth´s atmosphere with your friend and bowling ball and feather and see what happen.

Take air out of the equation, then there are no atmospheric pressures, objects still fall to ground, but since there are no air pressures, there would be no air resistance, which causes the feathers at the same rate as the bowling ball.

That means atmospheric pressures aren’t responsible for objects falling to Earth.

If it wasn’t so sad, I would laugh that he still don’t see his mistakes after all these years. He just keep repeating the same pseudoscience over and over again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Native have been posting for years, trying to debunk gravitation and gravity, like what exhibit on Earth, when objects fall to the ground.

His claim (what he believed to be the real solution) were always that objects fall due to atmospheric pressures, hence “the weight of air”.

These are from an old thread, “Newton: The Last of the Magicians” (2019):

Flat Earthers make a very similar argument about the air. The problem with both is that they cannot explain the concept of "down". Air pressure does not have a direction which is why even though it has the same dimensions as force divided by area it lacks that all important direction element of a vector that tells one which direction that a force is applied in. In other words if one has a container with a gas under pressure in it there is no direction to that "force" until one gives it one. For example a bullet hole in one wall will cause air to rapidly exist the container. That allows the pressure to apply a direction to the mass within it and there will of course be an equal and opposite rection in the opposite direction.

"Pressure" cannot explain why an object falls down and not sideways.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
You didn’t quite got my specific question amd maybe I was a bit unclear: I asked about the falling acceleration velocity difference between things (bowling ball and feather) falling in free space and in a vacuum chamber test.

I did answer the question. Things that fall in a vacuum always fall faster than under equivalent conditions in air. That means that the air is not the source of the motion, but rather is a hindrance to it.

I got that the first time as well.

And yes, a vacuum exists once you get above about 100 kilometers above the Earth. The default condition in the universe is a vacuum.

In case of you´ve forgotten, we are disccusing the very subject of "Newtons gravity" and his assumed pull from the Earth.

Be removing air/atmospheric pressure in a chamber. you can get a bowling ball and a feather to accelerate and fall with the same velocity untill landing at the same time. When outside in the open nature, these two objects accelerate and fall very differently.

So what is the significant difference between these two experiments? When you remove the air/atmospheric pressure in your chamber, you in fact remove the very force and cause in Newtons "constant pull" and here you have the correct description of this downwards directed force on Earth: A downwards PRESSURE on the Earth.

Regarding space 100 km above and further out, you then postulate:

And yes, a vacuum exists once you get above about 100 kilometers above the Earth. The default condition in the universe is a vacuum.

OK then. According to your bowling ball and feather experiment in vacuum, these two objects would then move equally in space when affected by the same force and this is a nonsense argument as all satellites constantly are orbitally affected - even differently - in space and need a constant readjustment because "gravity" doesn´t hold them at all.

Furthermore, your experimentally hovering bowling ball and feather in "space vacuum" will be affected by the so called "Solar Wind", read: "electromagnetic discharges and radiation" which causes an orbital velocity resistance pressure on satellites and on the Earth, and this will evidently have an effect on your objects in your "empty space" - which isn´t empty at all.

My firm conclusion is that NEWTONS PULL is confused for an EXTERNAL SPACIAL PRESSURE on the Earth.

 

[Native]

Flat Earthers make a very similar argument about the air.

"Flat Earthers" are compleet irrelevant in this case. Put yourself together and concentrate.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
You didn’t quite got my specific question amd maybe I was a bit unclear: I asked about the falling acceleration velocity difference between things (bowling ball and feather) falling in free space and in a vacuum chamber test.

I got that the first time as well.

In case of you´ve forgotten, we are disccusing the very subject of "Newtons gravity" and his assumed pull from the Earth.

Be removing air/atmospheric pressure in a chamber. you can get a bowling ball and a feather to accelerate and fall with the same velocity untill landing at the same time. When outside in the open nature, these two objects accelerate and fall very differently.

Correction: outside *in air*.

So what is the significant difference between these two experiments? When you remove the air/atmospheric pressure in your chamber, you in fact remove the very force and cause in Newtons "constant pull" and here you have the correct description of this downwards directed force on Earth: A downwards PRESSURE on the Earth.

Yes. The significant difference is the lack of air in the vacuum. And things still fall in the vacuum. In fact, they fall faster. So, no, the 'constant pull' is NOT removed. It is still there causing the bowling ball and feather to fall.

It is NOT a pressure. Again, there is no air in the chamber, so there is no air pressure.

We have removed the air. We have removed the PRESSURE. And yet, there is still a downward force. That force *is* gravity.

Regarding space 100 km above and further out, you then postulate:

OK then. According to your bowling ball and feather experiment in vacuum, these two objects would then move equally in space when affected by the same force and this is a nonsense argument as all satellites constantly are orbitally affected - even differently - in space and need a constant readjustment because "gravity" doesn´t hold them at all.

And this is wrong. First, two satellites in the same situation do, in fact, orbit in the same way. The differences are due to different heights and velocities.

Those that are too close to the Earth do experience a *small* amount of residual atmosphere and that can *slow* them over many orbits. But that is a problem with being too close to the atmosphere. Farther away there is no such problem.

Furthermore, your experimentally hovering bowling ball and feather in "space vacuum" will be affected by the so called "Solar Wind", read: "electromagnetic discharges and radiation" which causes an orbital velocity resistance pressure on satellites and on the Earth, and this will evidently have an effect on your objects in your "empty space" - which isn´t empty at all.

My firm conclusion is that NEWTONS PULL is confused for an EXTERNAL SPACIAL PRESSURE on the Earth.

The actual amount of 'solar wind' is way, way, way too small to affect something like a bowling ball or a feather, except over a great deal of time. Again, the actual amount of material is even less than in that vacuum chamber.

Yes, for metal satellites, the electric forces can produce *small* effects and those can add up over time. But such effects in no way keep things in orbit. That takes the force of gravity.