Gravity, space, time and other lies - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Gravity, space, time and other lies
in Science

By EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts edited June 3
Lies we been taught:

Gravity

noun - physics
the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

The greater the mass, the stronger the gravity. The sun weighs 1.989 × 10^30 kg,
planet earth weighs 5.972 × 10^24 kg
and planet earths moon weighs 7.35 x 10^22 kg
this is why we are told that all the moons orbit the planets, and planets orbit the sun.

Experiment:
When we drop a feather and a bowling ball in a vacuum, they both hit the ground at the same time.
If this is gravity, then we could say that gravity is pulling on both at the same time
Let's weigh each item:
The bowling ball pushes on my bathroom Scale showing 8lb.
The feather doesn't even register
The rule that the greater the mass the stronger the pull of the gravity is proven when we measure each item, obviously the gravity on the bowling ball which has the greater mass is "pulling" towards the center of the earth harder on my scale.
Or is it just trying to compensate to where it belongs?

Problem, and alarm #1
Why do both the feather and the bowling ball fall to the ground at the same time?
If we replicated this experiment in space, we could use rubber bands, a thick one to imitate the heavier bowling ball, and a very thin rubber band for the feather.
Then we let both go at the same time, the result:
The thicker rubber band pulls the object much faster than the thin one!

So it is NOT gravity pulling, but there is something else that's making the two objects move towards the ground at the same time, but what?
According to the laws of Creation, the answer is Buoyancy and Density, everything is between Heaven (lighter, more spiritual) and Earth (heavier more physical) but we have to prove this;

I know, over the 60 years, we spent over a trillion dollars on space exploration to NASA, matter of fact, billions are spent on keeping a Space Station which has been floating in space for 10 years to do just this kind of experiments on.
So let's turn to the epitome of science, none other than NASA's  ISS or the International Space Station for the answer:

Hmm, nothing, .. nothing, .. oh here is one, NASA Neutral buoyancy explained:


Nope, not in the real ISS that's in space, but the one in a pool? Now why is that?
OK, let's keep on searching, .. nope, .. nope, .. ah, here it is, the, .. wait a minute, this isn't NASA's ISS, .. oh I see, NASA is involved, so let's look at Buoyancy in space without gravity?



wait, maybe this one:



NOPE, that is NOT on the ISS that's supposedly in space, why? Is it too hard to do this in the ISS? This is a Zero-G plane that shows exactly what happens when we drop things of different weights, they all fall at the same time. So this just proves that a mixture of oil, gasoline, water and sand would all be "falling" together, be all mixed up.
But we want to know what would happen to a jar of different fluids in SPACE!?

Oh wait, I found one, ..



Nope, that does NOT show an experiment on Buoyancy and Density, what that shows is the usual backflips and playing with water games done in NASA Zero-G planes.

For debate, can ANYONE show me a Density and Buoyancy experiment done inside the ISS that's supposed to be floating in space? to prove gravity exists?

Next, on to proving that space and time are not real objects that can be traveled on, or stretched, which should put an end to the Big Bang theory!
someone234EmeryPearsonErfisflatØpålZombieguy1987
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    SPACE as in the realm where the planet-gods like Mars, Venus, Jupiter etc. and the planet Earth is floating in.
    In the Big Bang story, we are told (after billions of dollars that are continuously spent on telescopes both here on earth, and about a hundred that's supposedly floating in space), that they have proof of the Big Bang, which 13.75 billion years ago suddenly expanded, and continues to expand, which is proven by Hubble having observed galaxies moving, or distancing away from each other.

    Is it logical to think that objects moving away from each other in any given medium, whether its space, air, or water means the medium itself is expanding?

    For instance, we can observe cars on the highways moving in all different directions, does this mean our highways are expanding?
    When we observe fish swimming in all different directions, does this mean that our oceans are expanding?
    When we see birds flying in all different directions, does this prove that our atmosphere, the air and our Earth is expanding?

    Redshift
    In physics, redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. In general, whether or not the radiation is within the visible spectrum, "redder" means an increase in wavelength – equivalent to a lower frequency and a lower photon energy, in accordance with, respectively, the wave and quantum theories of light.
    Some redshifts are an example of the Doppler effect, familiar in the change of apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves emitted by speeding vehicles. A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. A special instance of this is the cosmological redshift, which is due to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase in their distance from Earth. Finally, gravitational redshift is a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called blueshift and is generally seen when a light-emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic radiation moves into a gravitational field. However, redshift is a more common term and sometimes blueshift is referred to as negative redshift.

    Doppler effect is on sound traveling through air, to compare that with light that's supposedly traveling at a constant through a vacuum is nonsensical.

    Einstein said that light travels at a constant at 186,282 m/p/s for all observers, I understand this to mean that in the vacuum of BB-Space, light will never pass this limit, which is defined with the letter 'C'.
    Example:
    If a ship was to fly through space at 0.5C and turned on it's light, that light would travel at 'C' relative to any observer, anywhere in BB-Space.
    Also, of a ship traveling at 0.5C away from the Hubble telescope, and turned on it's back lights, that beam of light would hit the Hubble exactly at 'C' or 186,282 m/p/s so whether the object is moving away, or coming towards Hubble, when the light gets to Hubble, it will hit at C, or 186,282 m/p/s. So how can there be a Doppler effect on light?
    There would be no Doppler effect on sound if the same laws applied, so how do BB-Evolutionist imagine happening to light in a vacuum?

     So the light that's coming off of the so called galaxies millions and billions of light years away will reach the Hubble Telescope at 'C', or at 186,282 m/p/s no matter which direction they are traveling! So how could the "light waves" change, especially in a vacuum like space supposedly is??

    According to their own laws, IT DOESN'T. So all this Big Bang expanding space, Redshift, black holes, special relativity effects is nothing but Science Fiction Gone Wild.
    This is a debate, show evidence to the contrary?
    someone234ErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    Hello, this is not an official debate, anyone who believes in the Big-Bang theory can respond.

    Anyone believe in the Big Bang theory out there?
    Anyone, .. anyone? Going once, ..
    EmeryPearson
  • NopeNope 336 Pts
    I happen to believe that there is a high probability that the big bang is somewhat correct.

    The common theory state gravity is the curve of space-time caused by an object with mass. Their for acceleration is equal for all objects of equal distance from the center of mass. The force in which a object has is greater with a greater mass or speed relative to another abject. Force on the scale can be greater if acceleration is kept the same as long as mass is greater. A bus has more force when impacting a wall then a bike of the same speed. If gravity is acceleration then of course and object with heaver mass will read a heavy force reading on your scale. 

    First if the universe is expanding the wave lengths would increase as the space between grows. Second the speed of light has nothing to do with wave length and I am having trouble seeing how you have come to that conclusion. If objects farther away have a amount of greater red shift then closer objects then they are moving away from us faster then the objects closer. Some force must be causing this and the only currently likely force would be if the universe its self would be expanding.
    ErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 122 Pts
    edited June 4
    Evidence said:
    Lies we been taught:

    Gravity

    noun - physics
    the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

    The greater the mass, the stronger the gravity. The sun weighs 1.989 × 10^30 kg,
    planet earth weighs 5.972 × 10^24 kg
    and planet earths moon weighs 7.35 x 10^22 kg
    this is why we are told that all the moons orbit the planets, and planets orbit the sun.

    Experiment:
    When we drop a feather and a bowling ball in a vacuum, they both hit the ground at the same time.
    If this is gravity, then we could say that gravity is pulling on both at the same time
    Let's weigh each item:
    The bowling ball pushes on my bathroom Scale showing 8lb.
    The feather doesn't even register
    The rule that the greater the mass the stronger the pull of the gravity is proven when we measure each item, obviously the gravity on the bowling ball which has the greater mass is "pulling" towards the center of the earth harder on my scale.
    Or is it just trying to compensate to where it belongs?

    Problem, and alarm #1
    Why do both the feather and the bowling ball fall to the ground at the same time?
    If we replicated this experiment in space, we could use rubber bands, a thick one to imitate the heavier bowling ball, and a very thin rubber band for the feather.
    Then we let both go at the same time, the result:
    The thicker rubber band pulls the object much faster than the thin one!

    So it is NOT gravity pulling, but there is something else that's making the two objects move towards the ground at the same time, but what?
    According to the laws of Creation, the answer is Buoyancy and Density, everything is between Heaven (lighter, more spiritual) and Earth (heavier more physical) but we have to prove this;

    I know, over the 60 years, we spent over a trillion dollars on space exploration to NASA, matter of fact, billions are spent on keeping a Space Station which has been floating in space for 10 years to do just this kind of experiments on.
    So let's turn to the epitome of science, none other than NASA's  ISS or the International Space Station for the answer:

    Hmm, nothing, .. nothing, .. oh here is one, NASA Neutral buoyancy explained:


    Nope, not in the real ISS that's in space, but the one in a pool? Now why is that?
    OK, let's keep on searching, .. nope, .. nope, .. ah, here it is, the, .. wait a minute, this isn't NASA's ISS, .. oh I see, NASA is involved, so let's look at Buoyancy in space without gravity?



    wait, maybe this one:



    NOPE, that is NOT on the ISS that's supposedly in space, why? Is it too hard to do this in the ISS? This is a Zero-G plane that shows exactly what happens when we drop things of different weights, they all fall at the same time. So this just proves that a mixture of oil, gasoline, water and sand would all be "falling" together, be all mixed up.
    But we want to know what would happen to a jar of different fluids in SPACE!?

    Oh wait, I found one, ..



    Nope, that does NOT show an experiment on Buoyancy and Density, what that shows is the usual backflips and playing with water games done in NASA Zero-G planes.

    For debate, can ANYONE show me a Density and Buoyancy experiment done inside the ISS that's supposed to be floating in space? to prove gravity exists?

    Next, on to proving that space and time are not real objects that can be traveled on, or stretched, which should put an end to the Big Bang theory!

    "Gravity
    noun - physics
    the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass."

    This is actually in reference to classical physics. Gravity acts as a force, but is actually a curvature in Spacetime caused by Mass.
    It's why Newtonian Physics only result in approximations.
    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/140-physics/the-theory-of-relativity/general-relativity/1023-if-gravity-is-a-curvature-of-space-rather-than-a-force-why-do-a-ball-and-bullet-follow-different-paths-intermediate

    "Why do both the feather and the bowling ball fall to the ground at the same time?"
    Why would they not? Has the gravitational Mass of the Earth changed in relation to the bowling ball or feather?
    Why would Earth's gravitational acceleration of 32.2 feet per second change between the bowling ball and feather?

    "If we replicated this experiment in space, we could use rubber bands, a thick one to imitate the heavier bowling ball, and a very thin rubber band for the feather.
    Then we let both go at the same time, the result:
    The thicker rubber band pulls the object much faster than the thin one!"

    What does this have to do with gravity? Energy stored in the form of tension is not an example of gravity. It would not assist you in disproving gravity.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tension_(physics)

    "So it is NOT gravity pulling, but there is something else that's making the two objects move towards the ground at the same time, but what?"

    Yes, it would be Tension, not gravity. Glad we could clear up this mistake.

    "
    NOPE, that is NOT on the ISS that's supposedly in space, why? Is it too hard to do this in the ISS? This is a Zero-G plane that shows exactly what happens when we drop things of different weights, they all fall at the same time. So this just proves that a mixture of oil, gasoline, water and sand would all be "falling" together, be all mixed up.
    But we want to know what would happen to a jar of different fluids in SPACE!?"

    This is incorrect, as you disregard fluid dynamics. IE, density and volume.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics

    Also, the ISS isn't floating in space. It's in free fall. Gravity is pulling at  32.2 feet per second 'downward' and centripetal acceleration is pulling 32.2 feet per second 'upward'. Giving the impression of a lack of gravity, but this is not the case.
    http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node87.html
    https://www.britannica.com/science/free-fall-physics

    If you have any more misunderstandings of physics you need cleared up, feel free to reply.
    PyromanGamingPolaris95Erfisflat
  • @Evidence do you have any ideas to what this could be instead? I'm not saying you're necessarily right. EmeryPearson has some good ideas on this and seems to know a lot about physics. I understand in my change my mind debate that it has something to do with god, but could you elaborate on your theory?
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    @Evidence do you have any ideas to what this could be instead? I'm not saying you're necessarily right. EmeryPearson has some good ideas on this and seems to know a lot about physics. I understand in my change my mind debate that it has something to do with god, but could you elaborate on your theory?

    @PyromanGaming
    Thank you for responding, and yes it has everything to do with God and His Creation Heaven and the Earth, and everything that exists in-between that, which I just heard (oh about a year ago from Erfisflat) that "gravity does not exist". I couldn't picture the world, or physics without it until recently, after having looked into it more deeply.
    So how do things fall to the ground?
    Remember that reality as we humans observe it is what we see here on earth, and the two heavens, which is our atmosphere or air, and the heaven where the stars are. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING that both NASA and CERN does is right here ON THIS EARTH.

    I shown you the video of the experiments done on gravity, like the above buoyancy experiment, guess what? It's done on earth, or actually the heaven where the birds fly, .. in the air free falling, and the experiment went exactly how we see the bowling ball and feather falling at the same time. Did you see how all the fluids mixed up in there? That is because no matter what the weight of an object, there is NOTHING pulling on it (as they say gravity is pulling on things, and then they twist and turn and discount what they said through some confusing rhetoric, which I will, with Gods help reveal in this debate) There is no gravity, instead, everything is moving towards its assigned place, where God created them to be between Heaven and earth.

    Here is Satan's agenda: To destroy everything that God has created like we see he did with the picture we get in the beginning of God's creation;
    Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

    Have you seen the disturbing evidence of MTF and FTM (male to female and female to male) surgeries, makeup, cross dressing and brainwashing that's been going on since time began, notably with Sodom and Gomorrah? But today, with the New 5-G microwave towers at every school, that is put there by a company that uses a drawing of the upside down female reproductive system as their insignia, no one will deny the Truthers. Only it will be too late.

    Satan, which is right there in the name NASATAN with the snake tongue on the S, needs his minions to turn Gods creation upside down, backwards, or inside out. He is the deceiver.
    God said: "Let there be light" which is order in accordance to Gods design, and He went on creating our beautiful and wonderful earth.
    Satan says "let there be darkness" so he went by recreating the Heavens and the earth from chaos; his version of universe by Big-Bang, an explosion. And what did he get, darkness, a cold, dark void, even a vacuum that he says is expanding. Exactly the opposite of how God does it.
    Order through chaos, light from darkness, life by abortion, boys turned into girls, and girls uterus removed to 'save humanity', or move humanity to an imaginary hellhole like Mars to live in plastic bubbles growing food form their own feces for fertilizer. I mean if anyone can't see Satan's agenda by observing NASA and CERN, and the trillions of dollars they have robbed us, the nothing can open their eyes.

    NASATAN "needs" this gravity along with space and time to keep their expanding vacuum universe alive, none which are real. These lies hold his version of the universe together, and of course he hires/rewards the best of the best to make up ridiculous concepts, which they do by twisting and turning meanings, definitions, which is why they use quantum physics instead of Newtonian physics, with made up words and definitions to keep his exploded cold dark vacuum expanding.

    Here is a simple example of time dilation: two people take off from L.A. to N.Y.
    One takes the plane, traveling at 500mph  gets there in 5 1/2 hours
    the other walks and gets there in 38 days.
    The one that went faster dilated time, he went 37 days into the future, so he has 37 days to do as he wish while waiting for the other guy to show up.
    This is the simple concept that this whole science fiction theory is built on, but of course they get the best mathematicians to make up a bunch of bs to make it confusing enough hoping the average person will give up on it.
    The professionals, like real mathematicians and Professors, they either join this Satanic cult, or have to bite their tongue.
    The rest of college children are simply told they are smart to believe this garbage. Anyone in class that questions it, is laughed and ridiculed.

    Now watch as I reveal EmeryPearsons true intentions by comparing what he uses for his defense, with reality which we can all observe and measure!?
    EmeryPearsonErfisflatPolaris95
  • AmpersandAmpersand 448 Pts
    edited June 5
    Let me put it this way.

    The amount of gravity effecting an object rises with its mass as the OP concedes.

    However the amount of force required move an object also rises with its mass - it takes more force to move a bowling ball then it does to move a feather.

    These two changes are directly in proportion to one a other as they are caused by the same thing - the amount of mass. We therefore expect objects to fall at the same speed when not influenced by another force (e.g. relative air resistance due to difference in shape) regardless of their mass because the increase in the effect of gravity on an object of increased mass will automatically be offset by the increased energy required to move the larger mass. If an object has twice the mass of another object, gravity will effect it twice as much but it will also require twice as much force to move the equivalent amount.

    The "experiment" suggested with rubber bands is so lacking detail it's impossible to tell what the OP is suggesting. No doubt if it did have detail enough to explain there would be a very obvious answer as per the above.

    In regards to NASA, of course they don't dedicate time to debunking the theories of every person on the internet with bizarre ideas of how physics works. If the OP had paid attention though, he'd have noticed the videos do disprove him anyway. It shows people floating in air even though air is less dense than people and so they should fall according to his pet theory regardless of how close they are to earth. Ergo falling cannot be a function of density but how gravity interacts with masses of different densities - you know, as well as all the other gaping flaws like density and bouyqncy not even being forces so therefore being unable to effect any change themselves.

    Edit: Didn't realise this was Evidence, apparently if he's the OP it doesn't mute him for me like it does in the rest of his posts. No doubt he'll come back with some random rant about the Christian god.
    EvidenceEmeryPearsonErfisflat
  • Pseudo-scientists who believe in magic.

    Next, they will be telling us that the Earth is flat!
    EmeryPearsonEvidencePolaris95Erfisflat
  • Evidence said:
    @Evidence do you have any ideas to what this could be instead? I'm not saying you're necessarily right. EmeryPearson has some good ideas on this and seems to know a lot about physics. I understand in my change my mind debate that it has something to do with god, but could you elaborate on your theory?

    @PyromanGaming
    Thank you for responding, and yes it has everything to do with God and His Creation Heaven and the Earth, and everything that exists in-between that, which I just heard (oh about a year ago from Erfisflat) that "gravity does not exist". I couldn't picture the world, or physics without it until recently, after having looked into it more deeply.
    So how do things fall to the ground?
    Remember that reality as we humans observe it is what we see here on earth, and the two heavens, which is our atmosphere or air, and the heaven where the stars are. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING that both NASA and CERN does is right here ON THIS EARTH.

    I shown you the video of the experiments done on gravity, like the above buoyancy experiment, guess what? It's done on earth, or actually the heaven where the birds fly, .. in the air free falling, and the experiment went exactly how we see the bowling ball and feather falling at the same time. Did you see how all the fluids mixed up in there? That is because no matter what the weight of an object, there is NOTHING pulling on it (as they say gravity is pulling on things, and then they twist and turn and discount what they said through some confusing rhetoric, which I will, with Gods help reveal in this debate) There is no gravity, instead, everything is moving towards its assigned place, where God created them to be between Heaven and earth.

    Here is Satan's agenda: To destroy everything that God has created like we see he did with the picture we get in the beginning of God's creation;
    Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

    Have you seen the disturbing evidence of MTF and FTM (male to female and female to male) surgeries, makeup, cross dressing and brainwashing that's been going on since time began, notably with Sodom and Gomorrah? But today, with the New 5-G microwave towers at every school, that is put there by a company that uses a drawing of the upside down female reproductive system as their insignia, no one will deny the Truthers. Only it will be too late.

    Satan, which is right there in the name NASATAN with the snake tongue on the S, needs his minions to turn Gods creation upside down, backwards, or inside out. He is the deceiver.
    God said: "Let there be light" which is order in accordance to Gods design, and He went on creating our beautiful and wonderful earth.
    Satan says "let there be darkness" so he went by recreating the Heavens and the earth from chaos; his version of universe by Big-Bang, an explosion. And what did he get, darkness, a cold, dark void, even a vacuum that he says is expanding. Exactly the opposite of how God does it.
    Order through chaos, light from darkness, life by abortion, boys turned into girls, and girls uterus removed to 'save humanity', or move humanity to an imaginary hellhole like Mars to live in plastic bubbles growing food form their own feces for fertilizer. I mean if anyone can't see Satan's agenda by observing NASA and CERN, and the trillions of dollars they have robbed us, the nothing can open their eyes.

    NASATAN "needs" this gravity along with space and time to keep their expanding vacuum universe alive, none which are real. These lies hold his version of the universe together, and of course he hires/rewards the best of the best to make up ridiculous concepts, which they do by twisting and turning meanings, definitions, which is why they use quantum physics instead of Newtonian physics, with made up words and definitions to keep his exploded cold dark vacuum expanding.

    Here is a simple example of time dilation: two people take off from L.A. to N.Y.
    One takes the plane, traveling at 500mph  gets there in 5 1/2 hours
    the other walks and gets there in 38 days.
    The one that went faster dilated time, he went 37 days into the future, so he has 37 days to do as he wish while waiting for the other guy to show up.
    This is the simple concept that this whole science fiction theory is built on, but of course they get the best mathematicians to make up a bunch of bs to make it confusing enough hoping the average person will give up on it.
    The professionals, like real mathematicians and Professors, they either join this Satanic cult, or have to bite their tongue.
    The rest of college children are simply told they are smart to believe this garbage. Anyone in class that questions it, is laughed and ridiculed.

    Now watch as I reveal EmeryPearsons true intentions by comparing what he uses for his defense, with reality which we can all observe and measure!?
    Aw. You're still struggling with physics? I'll help you correct your mistakes as best I can. You can do this. I have faith in you.

    Seeing you had no counter-points to my response, shall I assume your conceding that I am correct?


  • LogicVaultLogicVault 100 Pts
    @Evidence
    Sigh. Listen, kid, the reason why a feather and bowling ball hit the ground at the same time in a vacuum and not in normal air is air resistance. There's no resistance in a vacuum. So, nothing to slow down the feather. 
    EmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    Ampersand said:
    Let me put it this way.

    The amount of gravity effecting an object rises with its mass as the OP concedes.

    However the amount of force required move an object also rises with its mass - it takes more force to move a bowling ball then it does to move a feather.

    These two changes are directly in proportion to one a other as they are caused by the same thing - the amount of mass. We therefore expect objects to fall at the same speed when not influenced by another force (e.g. relative air resistance due to difference in shape) regardless of their mass because the increase in the effect of gravity on an object of increased mass will automatically be offset by the increased energy required to move the larger mass. If an object has twice the mass of another object, gravity will effect it twice as much but it will also require twice as much force to move the equivalent amount.

    The "experiment" suggested with rubber bands is so lacking detail it's impossible to tell what the OP is suggesting. No doubt if it did have detail enough to explain there would be a very obvious answer as per the above.

    In regards to NASA, of course they don't dedicate time to debunking the theories of every person on the internet with bizarre ideas of how physics works. If the OP had paid attention though, he'd have noticed the videos do disprove him anyway. It shows people floating in air even though air is less dense than people and so they should fall according to his pet theory regardless of how close they are to earth. Ergo falling cannot be a function of density but how gravity interacts with masses of different densities - you know, as well as all the other gaping flaws like density and bouyqncy not even being forces so therefore being unable to effect any change themselves.

    Edit: Didn't realise this was Evidence, apparently if he's the OP it doesn't mute him for me like it does in the rest of his posts. No doubt he'll come back with some random rant about the Christian god.

    So why does the Helium Balloon go up with that same intensity? Is the Vacuum of space, or the gravity in Spacetime, or the mass of the balloon pulling it upwards?? No, .. only density and buoyancy is pushing it upwards, as I gave the example in my post, when the helium reaches its equilibrium, or buoyance position between Heaven and earth, it would stop, minus the density of the balloon.
    If the balloon broke, the helium would continue up to its buoyancy predetermined-by God position, and the balloon would now start it's way down to where it belongs ASAP.
    No gravity needed, and there is none.

    Besides, the same explanation you just gave could be used to explain Density and Buoyancy to the feather and the bowling ball falling to earth without the imaginary gravity. There is a place for everything in Gods creation, the more dense objects are down, on earth, and each object, in this case the bowling ball and the feather will move to it's appropriate "buoyancy" position. If there was water below, the bowling ball will continue to sink, while the feather will stop on the top of the water. 
    No Gravity Needed.

    The bungee cord example is if gravity existed, things heavier would be pulled by gravity faster, and would continue to pull beyond its buoyancy position. A giant cargo ship is another good example of NO GRAVITY, besides it's enormous weight, only buoyancy is holding up the fully loaded ship with its steel hull.

    Image result for pic of chinas giant cargo ship

    @Ampersand These two changes are directly in proportion to one a other as they are caused by the same thing - the amount of mass. We therefore expect objects to fall at the same speed when not influenced by another force (e.g. relative air resistance due to difference in shape) regardless of their mass because the increase in the effect of gravity on an object of increased mass will automatically be offset by the increased energy required to move the larger mass. If an object has twice the mass of another object, gravity will effect it twice as much but it will also require twice as much force to move the equivalent amount.

    Deception Alert!
    How conveniently you leave out the mass/gravity of the bowling ball, now if we add that to the equation, the gravity of the bowling ball would be pulling the earth towards it, plus the earth pulling the bowling ball, and here is where it WOULD fall faster than the feather if gravity existed. That ship above has tremendous mass which if that was calculated into the equation of Earths gravity, it would never keep buoyant.

    Nice try, and please notice that I gave you the "informative" reward, for trying. And also, I don't put people on ignore, because I provide evidence for what I say, and not tricks and lies, so I don't need to hide.
    EmeryPearsonErfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    @Evidence
    Sigh. Listen, kid, the reason why a feather and bowling ball hit the ground at the same time in a vacuum and not in normal air is air resistance. There's no resistance in a vacuum. So, nothing to slow down the feather. 
    @LogicVault "listen, kid" ??



    .. the reason why a feather and bowling ball hit the ground at the same time in a vacuum and not in normal air is air resistance. There's no resistance in a vacuum. So, nothing to slow down the feather. 

    Yes, .. and? I've done the experiment myself at home, .. off a ladder with a crumbled up thin paper, and a 2 1/2" trailer hitch, and had my daughter video it and they fell at the same rate and touched the ground at the same time. There was no noticeable difference, which I'm sure if I had the trillion dollars that NASA stole from us, I might have been able to afford some quantum-sensors to detect the minor air resistance of the rolled up paper.

    Like I said, the 2 1/2" hitch has its own gravity, along with earths gravity it should have hit the ground first. But buoyancy is the same on all objects regardless of weight. Things will go towards where they belong. If it's lighter than air, then it goes up, .. if it's more dense, it will go down till they all reach their buoyancy and density place as God assigned them between Heaven (lighter up) and earth (heavier down)

    (Psst, .. here is where you supposed to minimize the mass of the trailer hitch compared to earth, .. telling us just how menial the weight, size and gravity is compared to earth, well all I will ask is, would you like me to drop that trailer hitch of the ladder on your toes, or the rolled up paper? Yep, I'm sure you would consider the huge difference in gravity in the hitch and the rolled up paper if it came to that!)

    No Gravity necessary, nor did God create it.

    Only BB-Evolutionist need their gravity to keep their imaginary planets orbiting their sun, and to help expand the vacuum of imaginary space, and pull imaginary space ships into them black holes that this Spacetime Fabric is full of.
    EmeryPearsonErfisflat
  • Evidence said:
    @Evidence
    Sigh. Listen, kid, the reason why a feather and bowling ball hit the ground at the same time in a vacuum and not in normal air is air resistance. There's no resistance in a vacuum. So, nothing to slow down the feather. 
    @LogicVault "listen, kid" ??



    .. the reason why a feather and bowling ball hit the ground at the same time in a vacuum and not in normal air is air resistance. There's no resistance in a vacuum. So, nothing to slow down the feather. 

    Yes, .. and? I've done the experiment myself at home, .. off a ladder with a crumbled up thin paper, and a 2 1/2" trailer hitch, and had my daughter video it and they fell at the same rate and touched the ground at the same time. There was no noticeable difference, which I'm sure if I had the trillion dollars that NASA stole from us, I might have been able to afford some quantum-sensors to detect the minor air resistance of the rolled up paper.

    Like I said, the 2 1/2" hitch has its own gravity, along with earths gravity it should have hit the ground first. But buoyancy is the same on all objects regardless of weight. Things will go towards where they belong. If it's lighter than air, then it goes up, .. if it's more dense, it will go down till they all reach their buoyancy and density place as God assigned them between Heaven (lighter up) and earth (heavier down)

    (Psst, .. here is where you supposed to minimize the mass of the trailer hitch compared to earth, .. telling us just how menial the weight, size and gravity is compared to earth, well all I will ask is, would you like me to drop that trailer hitch of the ladder on your toes, or the rolled up paper? Yep, I'm sure you would consider the huge difference in gravity in the hitch and the rolled up paper if it came to that!)

    No Gravity necessary, nor did God create it.

    Only BB-Evolutionist need their gravity to keep their imaginary planets orbiting their sun, and to help expand the vacuum of imaginary space, and pull imaginary space ships into them black holes that this Spacetime Fabric is full of.

    If there were a feather and a bowling ball in a vacuum, there would no longer be a vacuum as there would be a feather and a bowling ball. A true vacuum is a theoretical concept. A constructed vacuum is not a true vacuum as it will always have an inner surface.
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 122 Pts
    edited June 6
    Evidence said:
    Ampersand said:
    Let me put it this way.

    The amount of gravity effecting an object rises with its mass as the OP concedes.

    However the amount of force required move an object also rises with its mass - it takes more force to move a bowling ball then it does to move a feather.

    These two changes are directly in proportion to one a other as they are caused by the same thing - the amount of mass. We therefore expect objects to fall at the same speed when not influenced by another force (e.g. relative air resistance due to difference in shape) regardless of their mass because the increase in the effect of gravity on an object of increased mass will automatically be offset by the increased energy required to move the larger mass. If an object has twice the mass of another object, gravity will effect it twice as much but it will also require twice as much force to move the equivalent amount.

    The "experiment" suggested with rubber bands is so lacking detail it's impossible to tell what the OP is suggesting. No doubt if it did have detail enough to explain there would be a very obvious answer as per the above.

    In regards to NASA, of course they don't dedicate time to debunking the theories of every person on the internet with bizarre ideas of how physics works. If the OP had paid attention though, he'd have noticed the videos do disprove him anyway. It shows people floating in air even though air is less dense than people and so they should fall according to his pet theory regardless of how close they are to earth. Ergo falling cannot be a function of density but how gravity interacts with masses of different densities - you know, as well as all the other gaping flaws like density and bouyqncy not even being forces so therefore being unable to effect any change themselves.

    Edit: Didn't realise this was Evidence, apparently if he's the OP it doesn't mute him for me like it does in the rest of his posts. No doubt he'll come back with some random rant about the Christian god.

    So why does the Helium Balloon go up with that same intensity? Is the Vacuum of space, or the gravity in Spacetime, or the mass of the balloon pulling it upwards?? No, .. only density and buoyancy is pushing it upwards, as I gave the example in my post, when the helium reaches its equilibrium, or buoyance position between Heaven and earth, it would stop, minus the density of the balloon.
    If the balloon broke, the helium would continue up to its buoyancy predetermined-by God position, and the balloon would now start it's way down to where it belongs ASAP.
    No gravity needed, and there is none.

    Besides, the same explanation you just gave could be used to explain Density and Buoyancy to the feather and the bowling ball falling to earth without the imaginary gravity. There is a place for everything in Gods creation, the more dense objects are down, on earth, and each object, in this case the bowling ball and the feather will move to it's appropriate "buoyancy" position. If there was water below, the bowling ball will continue to sink, while the feather will stop on the top of the water. 
    No Gravity Needed.

    The bungee cord example is if gravity existed, things heavier would be pulled by gravity faster, and would continue to pull beyond its buoyancy position. A giant cargo ship is another good example of NO GRAVITY, besides it's enormous weight, only buoyancy is holding up the fully loaded ship with its steel hull.

    Image result for pic of chinas giant cargo ship

    @Ampersand These two changes are directly in proportion to one a other as they are caused by the same thing - the amount of mass. We therefore expect objects to fall at the same speed when not influenced by another force (e.g. relative air resistance due to difference in shape) regardless of their mass because the increase in the effect of gravity on an object of increased mass will automatically be offset by the increased energy required to move the larger mass. If an object has twice the mass of another object, gravity will effect it twice as much but it will also require twice as much force to move the equivalent amount.

    Deception Alert!
    How conveniently you leave out the mass/gravity of the bowling ball, now if we add that to the equation, the gravity of the bowling ball would be pulling the earth towards it, plus the earth pulling the bowling ball, and here is where it WOULD fall faster than the feather if gravity existed. That ship above has tremendous mass which if that was calculated into the equation of Earths gravity, it would never keep buoyant.

    Nice try, and please notice that I gave you the "informative" reward, for trying. And also, I don't put people on ignore, because I provide evidence for what I say, and not tricks and lies, so I don't need to hide.
    Ah more misconceptions on physics. Allow me to correct your mistakes.

    " the helium would continue up to its buoyancy predetermined-by God position, "

    "No, .. only density and buoyancy is pushing it upwards"

    This is a contradiction. Is it only buoyancy and density pushing it upwards, or a deity? 

    "No gravity needed, and there is none."

    This is incorrect, in order to observe buoyancy as you do on Earth, it requires gravity. In microgravity, you do not observe buoyancy, as the pressure of the liquid applies equally on all sides, there is no "up".

    "
    Besides, the same explanation you just gave could be used to explain Density and Buoyancy to the feather and the bowling ball falling to earth without the imaginary gravity."

    Gravity cannot be imaginary, you just stated that the feather and bowling ball fall to Earth.

    "The bungee cord example is if gravity existed, things heavier would be pulled by gravity faster, and would continue to pull beyond its buoyancy position. A giant cargo ship is another good example of NO GRAVITY, besides it's enormous weight, only buoyancy is holding up the fully loaded ship with its steel hull."

    This is also obviously incorrect. Gravity does not pull on heavier objects 'faster'. If your going to claim something doesn't exist, at least describe it properly. An in the example you provided, your describing Tension, not Gravity. Additionally, you could not have buoyancy without some semblance of gravity. This is a contradiction, if you admit to buoyancy, you admit to gravity. 
    https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/501343main_Microgravity_Science.pdf

    Also. You can easily test for gravity. For instance, simply try jumping. Notice you don't fly upwards into the sky? Simple stuff good sir.

    Polaris95Erfisflat
  • EmeryPearsonEmeryPearson 122 Pts
    edited June 6
    Evidence said:
    @Evidence
    Sigh. Listen, kid, the reason why a feather and bowling ball hit the ground at the same time in a vacuum and not in normal air is air resistance. There's no resistance in a vacuum. So, nothing to slow down the feather. 
    @LogicVault "listen, kid" ??



    .. the reason why a feather and bowling ball hit the ground at the same time in a vacuum and not in normal air is air resistance. There's no resistance in a vacuum. So, nothing to slow down the feather. 

    Yes, .. and? I've done the experiment myself at home, .. off a ladder with a crumbled up thin paper, and a 2 1/2" trailer hitch, and had my daughter video it and they fell at the same rate and touched the ground at the same time. There was no noticeable difference, which I'm sure if I had the trillion dollars that NASA stole from us, I might have been able to afford some quantum-sensors to detect the minor air resistance of the rolled up paper.

    Like I said, the 2 1/2" hitch has its own gravity, along with earths gravity it should have hit the ground first. But buoyancy is the same on all objects regardless of weight. Things will go towards where they belong. If it's lighter than air, then it goes up, .. if it's more dense, it will go down till they all reach their buoyancy and density place as God assigned them between Heaven (lighter up) and earth (heavier down)

    (Psst, .. here is where you supposed to minimize the mass of the trailer hitch compared to earth, .. telling us just how menial the weight, size and gravity is compared to earth, well all I will ask is, would you like me to drop that trailer hitch of the ladder on your toes, or the rolled up paper? Yep, I'm sure you would consider the huge difference in gravity in the hitch and the rolled up paper if it came to that!)

    No Gravity necessary, nor did God create it.

    Only BB-Evolutionist need their gravity to keep their imaginary planets orbiting their sun, and to help expand the vacuum of imaginary space, and pull imaginary space ships into them black holes that this Spacetime Fabric is full of.
    "Like I said, the 2 1/2" hitch has its own gravity, along with earths gravity it should have hit the ground first. "

    Can you provide the math on how the two objects interact gravitationally to prove this? The hitch may as well be a grain of sand. It's trapped in Earths gravity well. It's silly to expect it to move the entire Earth. This doesn't disprove gravity, and the fact that both fall at the same rate supports it. You're actually providing good logical reasons for the existence of gravity, rather than it's non-existence.
    http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/The-Big-Misconception

    Here's a good website to start, if your interested in mathematically proving your position: https://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity/newtons_law_gravity_equation_force.php

    "
    But buoyancy is the same on all objects regardless of weight"

    This is incorrect. If an object weighs more than what it displaces, it sinks. This claim is patently false.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(fluid)

    "Yep, I'm sure you would consider the huge difference in gravity in the hitch and the rolled up paper "

    This is again, a misconception There is no difference in gravity, and in this statement, you paradoxically admit to gravity being real, while your whole claim revolves around it being fake. Is this a admittance of defeat? This is a difference in weight, not gravity.
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mass.html

    "Only BB-Evolutionist need their gravity to keep their imaginary planets orbiting their sun, and to help expand the vacuum of imaginary space, and pull imaginary space ships into them black holes that this Spacetime Fabric is full of."

    If it's imaginary, feel free to jump off a 3 story building. If gravity is not real, you should come out unscathed. 


    If you have any more mistakes that need correction, please offer a reply. 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 582 Pts
    I will use only the equations from high school level physics here, so you can finally address the actual scientific claims and not the boogeyman you made up in your mind.

    Gravity force in general: F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2, where F is the force, G is constant, m1 and m2 are masses of two objects, and r is the distance between them.
    Gravity force near the Earth's surface: F = m * g (approx.), where m is the object mass and g is the free fall acceleration (does not change much near the surface, as the distance from the Earth's center does not change much, so according to the previous equation, it is nearly constant).
    Second Newton's law: F = m * a, where F is the net force, m is the object mass, and a is the acceleration the force causes.
    Air drag force: F = c * ro * v^2 * A / 2, where F is the drag force, ro is the air density, v is the object velocity and A is the projection of the surface area.

    From the first or the second equation, you see that the force of gravity is proportional to the mass of the object, so it will be much higher for the bowling ball than for the feather. However, the third equation tells you that the acceleration is inversely proportional to the mass, hence the masses cancel out (F=ma, F=mg => a=g), and that is why in vacuum the feather and the ball will fall at the same speed. However, the fourth equation tells you that this isn't the case on Earth, as air drag force does not depend on the object mass, hence the resulting acceleration will, indeed, be different for the ball and the feather. The feather is very light, yet its surface area is fairly large, so the air drag force will lead to a very significant reduction of its acceleration - much less so for the bowling ball, which is very heavy compared to its surface area, hence the ball will hit the ground much faster than the feather.

    Buoyancy is explained by the Second Newton's law and Archimedes' principle: the displaced liquid or gas pushes the object against the gravity with the force equal to the weight of the displaced liquid, and the resulting acceleration upwards is:
    a = (m_displaced - m_object) * g / m_object
    (downwards if the sign of a is negative). You can test this relation in your bathtub if you have a ruler and scales, if you do not believe millions others that have performed this experiment over the last several millennia).

    Your rubber example is from a completely different field of physics, solid state physics. It has to do with the molecular structure of the rubber (based mostly on electromagnetic, and not gravitational, forces), and there the force is roughly proportional to the area of the cross-section of the rubber and to the distance it is stretched by. 

    ---

    If you can wrap your head around these simple relations which you could have learned in high school, if you listened to your physics teacher, instead of sleeping or playing Battleship with your buddies - then you can understand that gravity explains the observable phenomena perfectly, while your "buoyancy" in itself does not explain anything (and is, in turn, caused by gravity, according to Archimedes' principle - this is mid-school physics). If you can experimentally prove one of the mentioned relations wrong, then please go ahead: you have a good chance to obtain the Nobel prize in physics with a hefty amount of money, if you do so.

    Otherwise, your arguments are completely irrelevant. Our theories explain the effects you mentioned with extreme precision, while yours do not explain anything and experimentally can easily be proven wrong in your kitchen. I am sorry if real science is beyond your analytic skills, but your incompetence does not change how the world works, it simply makes you unable to understand how it works.

    If you do respond to this comment, I will ignore everything that does not address the relations I mentioned. I ignore your comments overall, because they have zero substance and I do not like to waste my time addressing empty claims - this is your little chance to not be ignored by someone who actually works in physics and knows what he is talking about, but I will not be surprised if you do not take this chance and instead make another empty comment with zero meaningful content in it and with random blabbering about "the Creator" and "the God's firmament" based on an ancient fantasy book.
    EmeryPearsonErfisflat
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 100 Pts
    @Evidence
    ""listen, kid" ??" Yes. I called you kid. That's because occasionally I get into a mood where I am less tolerant toward childish behavior, such as trolling. To anyone who has dealt with many trolls of various types, it's obvious what you're doing. You may have most people here fooled into believing you just don't understand the physics of the topics you debate, but I'm not fooled. You know exactly what you're doing. So, don't play stupid. It only makes you look stupid.

    "I've done the experiment myself at home" Not with those results you haven't. Not unless the crumpled paper was packed so tight that it had a volume to density ratio close to the trailer hitch.

    "But buoyancy is the same on all objects regardless of weight." We're not talking about bouyancy, we're talking about air resistance. If every object fell at the same rate, parachutes wouldn't work. They work because they cover a large area and are of very light weight in comparison. They provide a very high air resistance.
    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    @Evidence
    ""listen, kid" ??" Yes. I called you kid. That's because occasionally I get into a mood where I am less tolerant toward childish behavior, such as trolling. To anyone who has dealt with many trolls of various types, it's obvious what you're doing. You may have most people here fooled into believing you just don't understand the physics of the topics you debate, but I'm not fooled. You know exactly what you're doing. So, don't play stupid. It only makes you look stupid.

    "I've done the experiment myself at home" Not with those results you haven't. Not unless the crumpled paper was packed so tight that it had a volume to density ratio close to the trailer hitch.

    "But buoyancy is the same on all objects regardless of weight." We're not talking about bouyancy, we're talking about air resistance. If every object fell at the same rate, parachutes wouldn't work. They work because they cover a large area and are of very light weight in comparison. They provide a very high air resistance.
    ""listen, kid" ??" Yes. I called you kid. That's because occasionally I get into a mood where I am less tolerant toward childish behavior, such as trolling. To anyone who has dealt with many trolls of various types, it's obvious what you're doing. You may have most people here fooled into believing you just don't understand the physics of the topics you debate, but I'm not fooled. You know exactly what you're doing. So, don't play stupid. It only makes you look stupid.


    The feeling is mutual, only I have enough respect for you not to try to use Richard Dawkins ridicule on anyone here. Try Hitchslap, I really enjoyed Mr. Hitchens utterly obliterating an opponent's entire religious or political argument, usually in one or more succinct or terse statements, who not realizing that he was not obliterating Infinite God, or the reality of Gods creation, but the gods of Religion and their iterpretation of the world around them. I would have loved to debate Mr. Hitchens. And just because he really believed that the only gods that exist is in Religion, the Lord may have mercy on him. For those who knew much, much will be required of them, and their stripes grater than those, like Mr. Hitchens who knew little. But because he didn't seek God through science and history and rejected God and His son Word aka Jesus Christ, the punishment, according to the Word of God is still death.

    Please don't fall into that same category, you still interpret the world around you through religious doctrines.

    "I've done the experiment myself at home" Not with those results you haven't. Not unless the crumpled paper was packed so tight that it had a volume to density ratio close to the trailer hitch.

    Nope, just crumble up a 8X11" sheet of paper, not even tight, yet the result was the same. Do it yourself and you will see.

    "But buoyancy is the same on all objects regardless of weight."
    We're not talking about buoyancy, we're talking about air resistance. If every object fell at the same rate, parachutes wouldn't work. They work because they cover a large area and are of very light weight in comparison. They provide a very high air resistance.


    I just explained above, they fall at the same rate. I did NOT say drop a sheet of paper and the hitch, I was specifically talking about the different density/weight of objects like a feather and a bowling ball in a vacuum (yes, vacuum in a general sense, without air) will fall at the same rate, which PROVES gravity does NOT exist.

    If gravity existed, the weight/mass/density + gravity of the bowling ball added to the gravity pull of your globe, would fall in a vacuum a lot faster than a feather. I know you understand,

    You'se guys explanation of the falling at the same rate is because the bowling ball has more weight, thus takes more gravitational force to pull it downwards, and that the feather has less, .. but you guys leave out the gravity of the bowling ball. And yes, according to the so called "theory", the ball has gravity too, as much as you guys want to minimize it. Unless now you will try to claim that after the Big-Bang  your globe-earth started out with the same size it is today?
    No, .. it started out atom by atom pulling each other, clumping together by, .. by what? That's right, you need gravity even for your atoms, and a bowling ball is a lot of atoms.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1606 Pts
    What's hilarious is that these people are so indoctrinated into their boxes, they refuse to see anything illogical about their theories, clinging to whatever ad hoc excuses invented to maintain their paradigm. It's a bit sad, @Evidence that even people capable of logical thought can develope cognitive dissonance and deny observable reality.

    https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/UnsteadyIckyAnt

    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 448 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    What's hilarious is that these people are so indoctrinated into their boxes, they refuse to see anything illogical about their theories, clinging to whatever ad hoc excuses invented to maintain their paradigm. It's a bit sad, @Evidence that even people capable of logical thought can develope cognitive dissonance and deny observable reality.

    https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/UnsteadyIckyAnt

    Hey look, ErfisFlat has a baseless opinion he can't in any way support. What a surprise.
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 100 Pts
    @Evidence
    As I've told you before, until you prove a god exists, do not talk to me about one.

    "Nope, just crumble up a 8X11" sheet of paper, not even tight, yet the result was the same. Do it yourself and you will see." Been there, done that. That's how I know your claim is a lie.

    "I just explained above, they fall at the same rate." No, you claimed (not explained) that they fall at the same rate. Which was a lie.

    "I was specifically talking about the different density/weight of objects like a feather and a bowling ball in a vacuum" You claimed you did it at home without a vacuum.

    "a feather and a bowling ball in a vacuum (yes, vacuum in a general sense, without air) will fall at the same rate, which PROVES gravity does NOT exist." The fact that they fall at all is proof that it does exist. The vacuum simply allows the feather to fall faster than normal due to no air resistance.

    "If gravity existed, the weight/mass/density + gravity of the bowling ball added to the gravity pull of your globe, would fall in a vacuum a lot faster than a feather." Wrong. Gravity pulls on every atom of each object individually and equally. Resistance is required to make one object fall slower than the other.

    "You'se guys explanation of the falling at the same rate is because the bowling ball has more weight, thus takes more gravitational force to pull it downwards, and that the feather has less" First of all, I stated they fall at different rates when not in a vacuum, not at the same rate. Second, It doesn't take more gravitational pull, it simply has more weight and requires more resistance to fall as slow as the feather. The key part you keep ignoring is RESISTANCE.

    "but you guys leave out the gravity of the bowling ball." The ball's own gravitational force in such a general experiment is so insignificant that it isn't worth noting.

    "And yes, according to the so called "theory", the ball has gravity too, as much as you guys want to minimize it." It's insignificant compared to Earth's gravity.

    "That's right, you need gravity even for your atoms, and a bowling ball is a lot of atoms." The Earth is made of a lot more atoms. The vast difference between the ball and Earth should make it easily understandable to anyone how the ball's gravity is so insignificant in an experiment on Earth's gravity.
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    Yes my friend @Erfisflat, here is how low these Big-Bang Evolutionists will stoop to keep their BB-Universe alive, which of course brought them over a trillion dollars already, and I will show the blatant lie of Gravity, according to @EmeryPearson 's
    http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/The-Big-Misconception

    The-Big-Misconception 

    - The answer to the question: "Doesn't a more massive object accelerate at a greater rate than a less massive object?"   is absolutely not! That is, absolutely not if we are considering the specific type of falling motion known as free-fall. Free-fall is the motion of objects that move under the sole influence of gravity; free-falling objects do not encounter air resistance. More massive objects will only fall faster if there is an appreciable amount of air resistance present.

    The actual explanation of why all objects accelerate at the same rate involves the concepts of force and mass. The details will be discussed in unit 2 of the Physics Classroom. At that time, you will learn that the acceleration of an object is directly proportional to force and inversely proportional to mass. Increasing force tends to increase acceleration while increasing mass tends to decrease acceleration. Thus, the greater force on more massive objects is offset by the inverse influence of greater mass. Subsequently, all objects free fall at the same rate of acceleration, regardless of their mass.


                                                                                                        


    So the claim is that gravity exists, (which we F.E'rs deny) and it is what's pulling on the Elephant and the mouse, and because the elephant is heavier, gravity which has a pulling force of 9.807 m/s^2 on both the mouse and the elephant, but because of the Mas of the elephant, gravity has a harder time pulling it, thus equaling out the rate of fall, or as they put it: "Thus, the greater force on more massive objects is offset by the inverse influence of greater mass."

    The problem here is that they  ignore the gravitational pull of the mass of the elephant and the mouse! So put on your cultic NASATAN space-suits, and let's do a little space-walk, and take this same example into space.

    Here we are, between the Big banged-globe earth, and the Moon. ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE FACT, which claims that gravity will have the same rate of pull on a mouse that weighs 1.0 oz. as it has on a full grown elephant that can weigh up to 11,000 lbs. as they explain above.

    OK, so 1 lb. = 16 oz. means that it takes 16 mice to make 1 lb.

    times 11,000 lbs. the weight of the elephant = 176,000 mice, or the elephant is 176,000 times the Mass of the mouse.

    Take our moon and leave it as is. Now according to the above FACT, we could put another moon that is 176,000 TIMES the mass of our moon at the same distance that our moon supposedly is, and the pull of gravity of earth will keep them both orbiting for millions and billions of years.

    Unbelievable the deception, and of course now they will try to come up with more bs to explain that the difference in air and a vacuum has my bungee cord effect. LOL.

    Erfisflat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 582 Pts
    Use the first formula I provided you in my previous comment (hint: calculate the acceleration of each of the two objects, and then sum them to get the net acceleration), and you will see why the elephant's and the mouse's masses are both negligible when calculating the free fall acceleration, while that of an object 176,000 times as heavy as the Moon is not.

    Of course, using it requires being able to wield second grade math, which is probably too much to expect here... But oh well, I tried.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1606 Pts
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    What's hilarious is that these people are so indoctrinated into their boxes, they refuse to see anything illogical about their theories, clinging to whatever ad hoc excuses invented to maintain their paradigm. It's a bit sad, @Evidence that even people capable of logical thought can develope cognitive dissonance and deny observable reality.

    https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/UnsteadyIckyAnt

    Hey look, ErfisFlat has a baseless opinion he can't in any way support. What a surprise.
    Hey look, @ampersand read at least one word (who posted the comment) on a post before casting intellectual vomit on the forum.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 100 Pts
    @Evidence
    "free-falling objects do not encounter air resistance." Wrong. Everything encounters air resistance, unless there is no air at all (vacuum).

    "More massive objects will only fall faster if there is an appreciable amount of air resistance present." Only if the 'appreciable amount of air resistance' is present for the lighter object.

    "Subsequently, all objects free fall at the same rate of acceleration, regardless of their mass." This is only without resistance. Adding resistance to the equation produces different results.

    "because of the Mas of the elephant, gravity has a harder time pulling it" Wrong. Gravity is not pulling on the elephant as a single object, it's pulling on every atom of the elephant individually. Gravity only 'has a harder time' if it's met with resistance. The air resistance of an object is directly affected by it's shape, it's density, and the air pressure around it.
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    @Evidence
    "free-falling objects do not encounter air resistance." Wrong. Everything encounters air resistance, unless there is no air at all (vacuum).

    "More massive objects will only fall faster if there is an appreciable amount of air resistance present." Only if the 'appreciable amount of air resistance' is present for the lighter object.

    "Subsequently, all objects free fall at the same rate of acceleration, regardless of their mass." This is only without resistance. Adding resistance to the equation produces different results.

    "because of the Mas of the elephant, gravity has a harder time pulling it" Wrong. Gravity is not pulling on the elephant as a single object, it's pulling on every atom of the elephant individually. Gravity only 'has a harder time' if it's met with resistance. The air resistance of an object is directly affected by it's shape, it's density, and the air pressure around it.

    @LogicVault ; it's like @Erfisflat said, .. read what I wrote before waste your breath, or in this case, the pixels on my screen. 
    MayCaesar said:
    Use the first formula I provided you in my previous comment (hint: calculate the acceleration of each of the two objects, and then sum them to get the net acceleration), and you will see why the elephant's and the mouse's masses are both negligible when calculating the free fall acceleration, while that of an object 176,000 times as heavy as the Moon is not.

    Of course, using it requires being able to wield second grade math, which is probably too much to expect here... But oh well, I tried.

    @MayCaesar
    That formula works in buoyancy and density, since there is no gravity, every thing with mass moves towards its assigned position between Heaven (up) and earth (down) asap. But in gravity, you would have to calculate the mass/gravity of the 176,000 times larger moon that's orbiting your globe, .. along with earths gravity. Same if a mouse, or a 11,000 lb. elephant were falling in a vacuum, because you have to add the gravitational pull of the earth along with the mass/gravity of the elephant, .. the elephant would fall much faster.

    If you want to keep you space, you'll have to come up with better than 2nd grade math lies, especially the senseless Relativity and this quantum theory b.s.

    Oh yeah, here is another huge BS to try to support magical gravity: "Scientists Announce Discovery Of Gravitational Waves"



    Here is how I see it was done:
    1. Take 16 oz. of Walmart kids goo-slime,
    2. color it purplish gray,
    3. throw some silver sparkles in it, mix well
    4. put the slime in a steal bowl
    5. take a couple of dipole magnets to the bottom
    6. rotate them towards each other until you get a, .. umm, .. a "gravitational black hole".
    7. Give the artist his usual $50 Walmart/NASA gift card, and his gram of crack cocaine.
    8. make a press conference as seen in video, trying to keep a straight face.
    BOOM, .. NASA just made another 3.33 billion dollars.
    (time 3:27 notice the jiggling of the goo-slime! lol)

    Einstein's Relativity is B.S. and just like Stephen Hawking's books on space, time travel, black holes he supposedly wrote over all these years as a vegetable. I also very much doubt Einstein wrote "Relativity", especially the special relativistic effects. He was actually smart, would never stoop so low, .. unless he was threatened like these three poor souls;



    Noticed that no one in the audience suspected a thing regarding their nervous and unusual behavior, even though the signs were there. Did they act like heroes that just came back from the moon??
    This is why NASATAN prepares us sheep decades before the event, which comes from us watching TV shows. Look at the brainwashed sheep cheer, even though they never got a straight answer from any of them, and half the time they couldn't even look the audience in the face. And why didn't someone ask as to why they seemed so out-of-it, very unlike three men who made a giant leap for mankind, won't you agree?

    Just like the billions spent on cancer ads, all the doctor has to do is look worried, and the brainwashed patient replyes: "I know, .. I have cancer, right?" The Doctor can just look at the patient in silence, and the next automatic response just pops out of them: "It's OK, I knew it, .. I just knew I'll get cancer!"

    Just like with Hawking, someone, or some organization that needs to keep sci-fi space alive so they can continue to keep all those billions of dollars a month rolling in, they wrote the books and put his name on it. It's not like he's going to complain, .. right? He couldn't even twitch his cheek, they had that pointer at the side of his cheek give him electric shocks to make it look like he did.

    Wake up people, space as in NASA-space is fake, time is not something real that you can travel on, and GRAVITY exists only in science fiction. Pass it on, tell the it's from Evidence.
    Erfisflat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 582 Pts
    Full acceleration between any two objects accounting for both the first object pulling at the second object and the second object pulling at the first object - is proportional to the sum of their masses, as follows from the formula I linked.

    a = c * (m1 + m2), where c is some constant and m1, m2 are the masses.

    Demonstrate to me how you come to the conclusion that "the elephant would fall much faster" from it.
    ErfisflatEvidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    Full acceleration between any two objects accounting for both the first object pulling at the second object and the second object pulling at the first object - is proportional to the sum of their masses, as follows from the formula I linked.

    a = c * (m1 + m2), where c is some constant and m1, m2 are the masses.

    Demonstrate to me how you come to the conclusion that "the elephant would fall much faster" from it.

    I took it to your imaginary space, our moon represents the mouse, and another moon 176,000 greater in mass represents the elephant:

    As I said in previous post: 

    Here we are, between the Big banged-globe earth, and the Moon. ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE FACT, which claims that gravity will have the same rate of pull on a mouse that weighs 1.0 oz. as it has on a full grown elephant that can weigh up to 11,000 lbs. as they explain above.

    OK, so 1 lb. = 16 oz. means that it takes 16 mice to make 1 lb.

    times 11,000 lbs. the weight of the elephant = 176,000 mice, or the elephant is 176,000 times the Mass of the mouse.

    Take our moon and leave it as is. Now according to the above FACT, we could put another moon that is 176,000 TIMES the mass of our moon at the same distance that our moon supposedly is, and the pull of gravity of earth will keep them both orbiting for millions and billions of years.

    How many times, and how many ways will I have to show the total lies of gravity, space and time to you guys?
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    Full acceleration between any two objects accounting for both the first object pulling at the second object and the second object pulling at the first object - is proportional to the sum of their masses, as follows from the formula I linked.

    a = c * (m1 + m2), where c is some constant and m1, m2 are the masses.

    Demonstrate to me how you come to the conclusion that "the elephant would fall much faster" from it.

    Hey buddy @MayCaesar , .. do you still believe in gravitational waves detected by "lie-go" after I gave the recipe?



    Why don't you come over to the truth, actually the Way, the Truth and get a Life? Freeze frame at time 0:45 now look at that face. Tell me honestly, .. would you buy a used car from this guy?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 582 Pts
    @Evidence

    Give me the exact calculations you performed. Obtain the following results:
    1. Free fall acceleration of the mouse towards Earth.
    2. Free fall acceleration of the elephant towards Earth.
    3. Compare them and derive how much faster the elephant will fall than the mouse.

    I am not interested in your insubstantial ramblings. Give me the calculations, or be silent while adults are talking.
    Erfisflat
  • @Evidence
    "it's like @Erfisflat said, .. read what I wrote before waste your breath, or in this case, the pixels on my screen. " Read it and responded. Obviously. Do not use your dismissive troll tactics on me.
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    edited June 12
    MayCaesar said:
    @Evidence

    Give me the exact calculations you performed. Obtain the following results:
    1. Free fall acceleration of the mouse towards Earth.
    2. Free fall acceleration of the elephant towards Earth.
    3. Compare them and derive how much faster the elephant will fall than the mouse.

    I am not interested in your insubstantial ramblings. Give me the calculations, or be silent while adults are talking.
     Come now @MayCaesar is that a way to talk to someone who just debunked gravity?

    Give me the exact calculations you performed. Obtain the following results:
    1. Free fall acceleration of the mouse towards Earth.
    2. Free fall acceleration of the elephant towards Earth.
    3. Compare them and derive how much faster the elephant will fall than the mouse.


    Your calculation ignores the Mass/gravity of the elephant and the mouse, and looks only at earths (imaginary) gravitational pull. Cheap trick. Now add the gravity of both the elephant and the mouse to the earths gravitational pull, and you will see why the elephant would fall faster if we had the magical gravity.

    So you would stop with this NASATAN invented lies, I put the same example into your "space", which is why you keep on rambling about the mouse and the elephant, because using the space example, for you to deny the mass/gravity of a moon 176,000 times more massive than our moon, would be foolish. Your whole NASA space is built on gravity, so something 176,000 times grater in mass then the moon, would have it's own gravity, which would suck earth up without even a burp. 
    How?
    I shown you the trick, like a magician, they compare the elephant to the globe earth to take peoples attention away from what is actually happening, .. which is an elephant and a mouse falling to the ground, not an elephant and the whole earth.

    Now go and make some goo, mix some sparkles in it and stupefy your own family on how you discovered gravitational waves.

    Here is another absolute proof that gravity does NOT exist, yet listen to the ridiculous explanation



    If gravity existed, the entire slinky, from top to bottom would start falling at the same time, and the spring would be contracting as it fell.
    But because there is no gravity, the bottom just stood there until the top arrived and hit the bottom.

    Now this is why when an elephant and a mouse hits the earth, they both continue to push down because the rest of the elephant that's above the ground has not reached buoyancy. Like the slinky, until all of the elephant and the mouse reaches its buoyancy, they continue to push the scale. Another example would be if we had the elephant as a blob of jello (pink flavored with white sparkles) then you would see how the top continues to move down until the whole Pink-elephant jello is flatted out resting buoyant on the ground.

    No gravity exists, every video that Globetard's make to prove gravity is actually more proof of buoyancy and density!
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 582 Pts
    @Evidence

    Right, you will never answer a direct question, because your brain is trained to deny and dodge, not to discuss.

    My intellectual curiosity with regards to you and your *cough* views is sated.
    LogicVault
  • @Evidence
    Your slinky video doesn't help your case. it actually explains why the bottom doesn't move at first. The tension of the slinky trying to contract is pulling up on the bottom with virtually the same force as gravity is pulling down. These cancel each other out and results in the bottom not moving until there isn't enough tension to hold it up and gravity wins.
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    @Evidence

    Right, you will never answer a direct question, because your brain is trained to deny and dodge, not to discuss.

    My intellectual curiosity with regards to you and your *cough* views is sated.
    @MayCaesar

    I spent 40 years of my life accepting, not questioning all on blind faith, and after what I've seen of space, moon landing, Mars-rover landing, all the pictures I though were real, and the lie-go LIGO detection of gravitational waves, .. I mean come on my debating friend, after stunts like that you expect me to believe ANYTHING that has to do with space??

    I am sorry I sated your intellectual curiosity regarding my views, but I am still waiting for your answer as to how a 176,000 times massive moon  to ours could orbit earth at the same distance, same speed? Here is a video to help you visualize,



    .. we can go and touch on every statement made by Mr. Brian Greene and his explanation of Spacetime fabric as Einstein visualized it!? Or you can do this experiment yourself, like put a 3" diameter marble for earth, then, .. oh a 1" dia. marble for our moon, and a 10lb. bowling ball next to our moon (should be close enough for a demonstration) and see if both moons will orbit earth for, .. oh not millions and billions of years, but I will accept even an hour!?

    Also, please respond to the slinky video, .. wait, .. I see @LogicVault answered my question.
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    @Evidence
    Your slinky video doesn't help your case. it actually explains why the bottom doesn't move at first. The tension of the slinky trying to contract is pulling up on the bottom with virtually the same force as gravity is pulling down. These cancel each other out and results in the bottom not moving until there isn't enough tension to hold it up and gravity wins.

    @LogicVault I will use the same response your friend @MayCaesar used on me: "My intellectual curiosity with regards to you and your *cough* views is sated."

    So the tension of an expanded spring contracting will only work towards the pull of gravity? Show me where Einstein ever said that, or any physicist? You know well that with gravity it pulls on the whole object, not pick and choose which side it will pull on first! The spring will contract independently as it falls to the ground. Gravity doesn't discriminate does it? Why would it not pull the whole slinky at the same time, regardless what the slinky is doing? Neither is the spring pulling one side only, but is contracting pulling both ends at the same time.

    The answer is clear, gravity does NOT exist.
    Please read my response to MayCaesar on the slinky video.
    Erfisflat
  • @Evidence
    "I will use the same response your friend @MayCaesar used on me" I have no friends here. I do not recall ever even speaking to them. If I ever have, I was opposing a point of theirs. I do not speak to people I agree with in a debate.

    ""My intellectual curiosity with regards to you and your *cough* views is sated."" Your only curiosity is about how far you can take your trolling. Your choice to continue this route is in opposition of intellect, not in favor of it.

    "So the tension of an expanded spring contracting will only work towards the pull of gravity?" What? No. Did you even read what I said? I explained it on a level that even a middle schooler can understand. The tension does not pull toward gravity. I specifically said it pulled against it. The top of the slinky is pulling the bottom up at the same rate gravity is pulling down. They cancel each other out and therefore the bottom stays in place until there is no more tension to pull up. Read, kid. Read. It makes you look really dumb to ask a question that was already answered.

    "The spring will contract independently as it falls to the ground." Read, kid. Read.

    "Why would it not pull the whole slinky at the same time, regardless what the slinky is doing?" Already explained that. Read, kid. Read.

    "Neither is the spring pulling one side only, but is contracting pulling both ends at the same time." No duh, Sherlock. That's why the top fell faster than it would have if the slinky was not stretched out.

    "The answer is clear, gravity does NOT exist." The answer is clear, you are either trolling or are incapable of understanding physics.

    "Please read my response to MayCaesar on the slinky video." No need, the video itself explained how you're wrong. Try watching your own video.
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    edited June 13
    @LogicVault The tension does not pull toward gravity. I specifically said it pulled against it. The top of the slinky is pulling the bottom up at the same rate gravity is pulling down. They cancel each other out and therefore the bottom stays in place until there is no more tension to pull up

    Does gravity pull on the entire slinky or not?
    It does.
    Does gravity pull on the bottom of the slinky, the middle of the slinky and the top of the slinky at 9.087 m/s^2 simultaneously, or not?
    It does.
    If not, please explain, don't just try to mock me, we know all about the ridicule Big-Bang Evolutionists resort to in order to shut truthers up.

    Now here is what I see happening, by all means correct me if I'm wrong, as you said, this is sixth grade stuff: I see slinky stretched out. If we were to put the slinky on a glass table and let it go, it would contract both ends at the same time, would it not?
    Of course it does, because the entire slinky is buoyant on the top of the table.

    If you agree (I will buy a slinky tomorrow and study what's happening first hand) that on a table the slinky contracts both ends towards the center at the same time, then how is it that when we let it hang towards the ground, and then let it fall, that the gravity doesn't pull "all of the slinky" at the same time, and lets the spring contracts in the air as it falls?

    In other words, why is gravity not pulling the bottom of the slinky as it does the top? The contraction of the spring is independent of gravity that's pulling on the entire slinky, it's NOT creating some imaginary upward gravity!

    I understand what you said OK? You said that: "The top of the slinky is pulling the bottom up at the same rate gravity is pulling down. They cancel each other out."  

    And I say: "Oh really?" How about this? : "the bottom of the slinky is pulling the top of the slinky 'down', PLUSS the gravity is pulling the entire slinky down", so why didn't the bottom fall with the top?

    This actually proves gravity does not exist, because if it did, the bottom of the slinky and the top of the slinky would be contracting towards the center, all the while the entire slinky was falling to the ground pulled by gravity!

    Buoyancy is at work here, like a ship on water. As long as there is a force; in the ships case it's water, in the slinky case it's the contracting spring effect, buoyancy will keep things afloat.
    If the ship gets a hole, or the slinky runs out of the spring contraction effect, they both sink/fall.

    LogicVault - No need, the video itself explained how you're wrong. Try watching your own video.

    And I'm sorry to say but just as NASA lies, you sir are a liar. You KNOW that if gravity existed that the entire slinky would be pulled down and falling as it was contracting both ends towards the middle. Buoyancy is once again proven, and magical gravity debunked.

    Care to take the "elephant and the mouse falling at the same time" to your outer space? and put them as planets on your Spacetime-fabric?
    How about them "gravitational waves" that were detected by Lie-go?

    YouTube - Scientists Announce Discovery Of Gravitational Waves

    Erfisflat
  • AmpersandAmpersand 448 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    Ampersand said:
    Erfisflat said:
    What's hilarious is that these people are so indoctrinated into their boxes, they refuse to see anything illogical about their theories, clinging to whatever ad hoc excuses invented to maintain their paradigm. It's a bit sad, @Evidence that even people capable of logical thought can develope cognitive dissonance and deny observable reality.

    https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/UnsteadyIckyAnt

    Hey look, ErfisFlat has a baseless opinion he can't in any way support. What a surprise.
    Hey look, @ampersand read at least one word (who posted the comment) on a post before casting intellectual vomit on the forum.
    Meaningless ad hominem attack, likely due to anger at me showing up his inability to form a coherent argument.
  • @Evidence
    "Does gravity pull on the entire slinky or not?
    It does.
    Does gravity pull on the bottom of the slinky, the middle of the slinky and the top of the slinky at 9.087 m/s^2 simultaneously, or not?
    It does.
    If not, please explain, don't just try to mock me, we know all about the ridicule Big-Bang Evolutionists resort to in order to shut truthers up." Gravity pulls on the whole thing, but the tension between the top and bottom is roughly equal to the force of gravity. Hence why the top falls twice as fast as it would if the slinky was not stretched out and the bottom appears to stay in place until there is not enough tension to hold it there.

    "If we were to put the slinky on a glass table and let it go, it would contract both ends at the same time, would it not?" Because they are pulling perpendicular to gravity.

    "Of course it does, because the entire slinky is buoyant on the top of the table." See above reply.

    "In other words, why is gravity not pulling the bottom of the slinky as it does the top?" It is, but the top is pulling up on the bottom roughly equal to the force of gravity. Nothing is pulling up on the top. That's why it still falls.

    "The contraction of the spring is independent of gravity that's pulling on the entire slinky, it's NOT creating some imaginary upward gravity!" The slinky is using tension, not gravity. Gravity is using gravity, not tension. These are two forces at work simultaneously.

    ""the bottom of the slinky is pulling the top of the slinky 'down', PLUSS the gravity is pulling the entire slinky down", so why didn't the bottom fall with the top?" It did once it was not experiencing tension equal to gravity.

    "This actually proves gravity does not exist, because if it did, the bottom of the slinky and the top of the slinky would be contracting towards the center, all the while the entire slinky was falling to the ground pulled by gravity!" You fail to acknowledge opposing, yet equal, forces

    "Buoyancy is at work here" Every part of the slinky is heavier than the air, aka not buoyant.

    "As long as there is a force; in the ships case it's water, in the slinky case it's the contracting spring effect, buoyancy will keep things afloat." Buoyancy depends on the weight of the object and the fluid. The part of a ship that is beneath the surface of the water weighs less than the amount of water it displaces. Buoyancy depends on weight, weight depends on gravity.

    "If the ship gets a hole, or the slinky runs out of the spring contraction effect, they both sink/fall." The ship will fill with water causing it to no longer weigh less than the water it displaces because it no longer displaces enough water to achieve buoyancy. A contracted slinky no longer has tension. You are conflating tension and buoyancy.

    "You KNOW that if gravity existed that the entire slinky would be pulled down and falling as it was contracting both ends towards the middle." No, because I understand physics. Yes, both ends are contracting toward the center, but the center is above the bottom. Therefore, the bottom is still being pulled upward. Isn't science fun?

    "Care to take the "elephant and the mouse falling at the same time" to your outer space? and put them as planets on your Spacetime-fabric?" MayCaesar already took care of that.

    "How about them "gravitational waves" that were detected by Lie-go?" What's Lie-go?
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    @Evidence
    "Does gravity pull on the entire slinky or not?
    It does.
    Does gravity pull on the bottom of the slinky, the middle of the slinky and the top of the slinky at 9.087 m/s^2 simultaneously, or not?
    It does.
    If not, please explain, don't just try to mock me, we know all about the ridicule Big-Bang Evolutionists resort to in order to shut truthers up." Gravity pulls on the whole thing, but the tension between the top and bottom is roughly equal to the force of gravity. Hence why the top falls twice as fast as it would if the slinky was not stretched out and the bottom appears to stay in place until there is not enough tension to hold it there.

    "If we were to put the slinky on a glass table and let it go, it would contract both ends at the same time, would it not?" Because they are pulling perpendicular to gravity.

    "Of course it does, because the entire slinky is buoyant on the top of the table." See above reply.

    "In other words, why is gravity not pulling the bottom of the slinky as it does the top?" It is, but the top is pulling up on the bottom roughly equal to the force of gravity. Nothing is pulling up on the top. That's why it still falls.

    "The contraction of the spring is independent of gravity that's pulling on the entire slinky, it's NOT creating some imaginary upward gravity!" The slinky is using tension, not gravity. Gravity is using gravity, not tension. These are two forces at work simultaneously.

    ""the bottom of the slinky is pulling the top of the slinky 'down', PLUSS the gravity is pulling the entire slinky down", so why didn't the bottom fall with the top?" It did once it was not experiencing tension equal to gravity.

    "This actually proves gravity does not exist, because if it did, the bottom of the slinky and the top of the slinky would be contracting towards the center, all the while the entire slinky was falling to the ground pulled by gravity!" You fail to acknowledge opposing, yet equal, forces

    "Buoyancy is at work here" Every part of the slinky is heavier than the air, aka not buoyant.

    "As long as there is a force; in the ships case it's water, in the slinky case it's the contracting spring effect, buoyancy will keep things afloat." Buoyancy depends on the weight of the object and the fluid. The part of a ship that is beneath the surface of the water weighs less than the amount of water it displaces. Buoyancy depends on weight, weight depends on gravity.

    "If the ship gets a hole, or the slinky runs out of the spring contraction effect, they both sink/fall." The ship will fill with water causing it to no longer weigh less than the water it displaces because it no longer displaces enough water to achieve buoyancy. A contracted slinky no longer has tension. You are conflating tension and buoyancy.

    "You KNOW that if gravity existed that the entire slinky would be pulled down and falling as it was contracting both ends towards the middle." No, because I understand physics. Yes, both ends are contracting toward the center, but the center is above the bottom. Therefore, the bottom is still being pulled upward. Isn't science fun?

    "Care to take the "elephant and the mouse falling at the same time" to your outer space? and put them as planets on your Spacetime-fabric?" MayCaesar already took care of that.

    "How about them "gravitational waves" that were detected by Lie-go?" What's Lie-go?
    @LogicVault - Gravity pulls on the whole thing, but the tension between the top and bottom is roughly equal to the force of gravity. Hence why the top falls twice as fast as it would if the slinky was not stretched out and the bottom appears to stay in place until there is not enough tension to hold it there.

    Actually this explains buoyancy. If you want to learn everything about density and buoyancy, Sir Isaak Newton has done a comprehensive report, wrote books on how and what objects do traveling through different mediums to their buoyancy point, and acting on one another. Newton’s theory on buoyancy and density was successful for hundreds of years, simply because he recorded what he observed here on the earth like any real scientist would, then put it in mathematical formulas to explain these different phenomena of object moving through different mediums looking for their buoyancy, as God assigned everything to be between Heaven and earth.

    But since Lucifer was building his own "heaven and earth" he needed to borrow Gods order, so he had religious men who secretly worshipped Lucifer to call Gods order of things: "gravity"!

    To make gravity real, Newton added the word to almost every observation he made, unless it was way too obvious that buoyancy was at work like a heavy log under water, helium balloons, hitting an object with a hammer, a ship with small hull comparative to the enormous mass it was carrying etc. then he conveniently switched back to density and buoyancy, that is - Until Einstein came along and turned it on it's head (get it, like what NASATAN does, turn everything upside down, inside out, and backwards), and he took this gravity to help build Satan's imaginary heaven, a Dark, lifeless vacuum that came about by an explosion, .. in other words a heaven that appeared from destruction.
    Typical for "the Destroyer" to come up with his version of heaven and earth; God through Creation, and of course the Opposer would choose the opposite, a heaven and earth from destruction.

    To my dear readers, look up; "What is gravity?"  .. and this is what "They" will tell you:
    - Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass.  This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.

    The importance of gravity -    https://sciencing.com/first-person-discover-gravity-23003.html

    - Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground, but people already knew intuitively that something like that was going on. The really groundbreaking thing about the law of gravity was that it applied to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects. At the time of Newton's discovery, people didn't have much of an idea of how the orbits of moons and planets worked. The new discovery explained a lot about that, in particular why orbiting objects don't just fly off into space.

    Now everyone read this right? Well let's go through it again, because we know how the "Deceiver works", he will try to make his minions use any and every trick he used on us that worked, and he collected a lot of tricks over the 6,000 years. So:

    1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
    2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
    3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
    4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

    So we have the earth, and let's take a bowling ball, which according to the Laws of Gravity has less gravity then the earth, but more gravity than let's say a feather, right? We also know about air resistance, so let's go to the billions of dollars we spent on the worlds biggest Vacuum Chamber built by NASA, and see if Gravity exists?
    What we'll do is drop both the feather, and the bowling ball which has a lot more gravity than the feather, at the same time in a vacuum.

    Now remember that these guys believe that gravity exists, and know the laws of gravity as noted above 1-4. So here we go at (time 1:53) Obviously from the above rules of gravity, the bowling ball which has 8 lbs of mass to almost nothing in the feather, the gravity of the earth and the gravity of the bowling ball has far greater pull towards the center of the earth than "the gravity of the earth and the gravity of the feather", so the bowling ball will fall faster than the feather.



    Wow, they both fell to the ground at the same time!?!?
     This means that #2 is a lie!
    Matter of fact, everything, from 1-4 are lies, which means only one thing, that NASA just proven that gravity does NOT exist.

    But wait, at time 2:21, they are laughing at the experiment where they have undoubtedly proven "gravity does not exist"!? 
    What gives?
    Are they listening to their master Lucifer pulling some trick on them? Where he takes away the gravity of the bowling ball and uses the laws of buoyancy and density, where when something dense is moving towards its buoyancy point, it is either pushed towards its buoyancy point (like wood released under water), or a rock falling off a mountain simply falls, and depending on the density of the medium it is traveling through, it can travel at different speeds to reach its buoyancy.

    EVERYTHING between Heaven (up) and earth (down), if it's moved from it's God assigned place will try to move back to where it belongs at a set rate, no matter how dense. In a vacuum, the rate everything falls in air is 9.807 meters per second squared. 

    Erfisflat
  • NopeNope 336 Pts
    edited June 19
    Evidence Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. If you think the gravitational difference between a feather and a bowling ball is going to have any noticeable impact just by looking at it in slow motion you don't know how week gravity is. Plus even if you could some how measure what is happening the bowling ball attracting earth toward it, earth would also be moving toward the feather sense they are side by side. Also I was curios if you don't think gravity is the force causing buoyancy why do you think buoyancy happens?
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1606 Pts
    Nope said:
    Evidence Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. If you think the gravitational difference between a feather and a bowling ball is going to have any noticeable impact just by looking at it in slow motion you don't know how week gravity is. Plus even if you could some how measure what is happening the bowling ball attracting earth toward it, earth would also be moving toward the feather sense they are side by side. Also I was curios if you don't think gravity is the force causing buoyancy why do you think buoyancy happens?
    Why do you think gravity happens? It's the natural order of things. Objects act a certain way due to their density in a given fluid. What happens when dropping a feather and a bowling ball depends on the fluid, whether it be air, water, or any other fluid. In water the basketball will not fall to the "center of the earth" (down) as the rock does because of their difference in density,  and their relationship to the fluid they are in.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • NopeNope 336 Pts
    Erfisflat
    Why gravity happens is not entirely known. So in air most things naturally go to the center of the earth. Why? Why do they move in that direction when in air.Why does hot air naturally go in the upward direction. What is so special about the downward and upward direction?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 582 Pts
    Buoyancy also happens (and is used for enriching radioactive materials such as Plutonium) in centrifugal devices, and acts exactly the same way as buoyancy, say, in the ocean, except the Archimedes' force is directed away from the rotation center, and not the Earth center. It is the same effect, just in this case the force of Gravity is substituted with the Centrifugal force.

    You always need a linear force for buoyancy to work. In case of Earth, this force is gravity. In case of centrifuges, this force is centrifugal. In case of accelerating automobile, this force is inertia. No force - no buoyancy. There is no buoyancy in space, and there is no buoyancy on planes descending at just the right rate for the centrifugal force to compensate for the gravitational force.

    Ever been in a plane that starts a sharp descent? Did you feel your insides "going up"? Think a bit about why this happens, and you will understand the subject slightly better.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1606 Pts
    @nope said
    "Why gravity happens is not entirely known."

    Why buoyancy happens is also a mystery. It's, like I said, the natural order of things. All objects with mass are not attracted to each other.

    " So in air most things naturally go to the center of the earth."

    This is an assumption. As you know,  I've presented conclusive evidence against a spherical earth, and the "center" of the earth, in reality, is the northern pole. You have no idea where the center of the earth is, you only perceive (most) things going down, so that much we can say with confidence.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    edited June 20
    Nope said:
    Evidence Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. If you think the gravitational difference between a feather and a bowling ball is going to have any noticeable impact just by looking at it in slow motion you don't know how week gravity is.
    @Nope
    According to that video, they were measuring, or showing off the force of gravity, NOT buoyancy obviously, because it was done in a vacuum.
    So, I've been doing some homework, and if you don't think there is a noticeable difference between the bowling ball and the feather, I would be glad to put on one of those scuba-space suits with you, and we go into that vacuum chamber and stand under the two falling objects, you under the bowling ball, and me under the feather. After they both hit us, (me the feather and you the bowling ball) you can tell me all about the gravitational difference between a feather and a bowling ball having a noticeable impact or not!?

    You want to go deeper into this senseless gravity, let's talk about how gravity gets weaker and weaker as your rockets leave earth and dock with the ISS, yet is able to hold the moon in orbit at 238,900 miles away which mass NASA claims is 7.35 x 10^22 kg and on top of that, it is traveling at 2,288 m/p/h around your globe!?
    Now think about that for a second what you just said: "you don't know how week gravity is!"
    How convenient for you to use gravity to hold imaginary planets in orbit, but when it comes to earth, it's all density and buoyancy.

    Nope said:
    Plus even if you could some how measure what is happening the bowling ball attracting earth toward it, earth would also be moving toward the feather sense they are side by side. Also I was curios if you don't think gravity is the force causing buoyancy why do you think buoyancy happens?

    I gave you NASA science about gravity:

    1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass. 
    2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
    3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
    4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

    So your globe is pulling on the bowling ball and the feather, plus the gravitation of the bowling ball and the feather is pulling on the globe. Since the globe is heavier than both of them, obviously neither of them could budge the Globe, but the bowling ball would have to go much faster towards the Globe, .. because, .. come on, read 1-4, .. it's because the huge difference in mass between the feather and the bowling ball.

    Tell me, where is all the heavy/dense stuff?
    On and in the earth, which we have always called "down"
    Now where is all the light stuff?
    In the heavens, which we have always called "up".

    So what is so hard to understand about buoyancy and density, huh? What? Put a dense object like a rock towards heaven, and it starts moving through the medium we call air back down towards where we took it from. It's not that complicated, .. but even you admit that "gravity" Is. The medium called air is not dense enough to hold the rock, so the rock sinks down to where it belongs.

    So, lets drop a huge solid rock the size of a house, and a bowling ball from the medium we call air, anywhere between heaven and the earth, where do you think they will go towards? They will go "down" and will continue till they both hit earth at the same time.
    Why do they hit at the same time?
    Because there is no gravity, and since they are both denser than air, they both travel at the same rate in the same medium.
    Change the medium for one to water, and they no longer travel at the same rate.

    We don't need gravity, because we have all kinds of mediums between Heaven/up and earth/down, and according to density and buoyancy they will travel towards either heaven up, or earth down. But if gravity existed in dense objects, after millions and billions of years you would have sand, and water accumulating on the sides of mountains, and because as you said "gravity is weak", you would never have those imaginary planets orbiting the way you guys have it. Never, and computer simulations have proven this. The ONLY way gravity works is CGI cartoons, or sci-fi movies.

    Now let's take a huge log, .. like one of those cut down California Redwood trees, and let's put some massive stones on it and sink it way down in the ocean. Where do you think the huge Redwood will go towards once we remove the weights? You think gravity will help it go up to the surface of the water?
    Of course not. Just as we don't need gravity to push the Huge Redwood that could weigh thousands of ponds up, well we don't need gravity to pull a rock from the air down. Density and buoyancy is all we need, which is all we have.

    God has established the rules, He put earth in one place, and the Heavens on the opposite side of it. Now picture this in your mind, the heavens we call "up", and earth we call "down", doesn't matter the orientation because no matter how you orient these two, as long as they are in the opposite direction, the heavens will always be up, .. and earth will always be down, and anything and everything that we place between those two will levitate/travel towards where they belong.
    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    @nope said
    "Why gravity happens is not entirely known."

    Why buoyancy happens is also a mystery. It's, like I said, the natural order of things. All objects with mass are not attracted to each other.

    " So in air most things naturally go to the center of the earth."

    This is an assumption. As you know,  I've presented conclusive evidence against a spherical earth, and the "center" of the earth, in reality, is the northern pole. You have no idea where the center of the earth is, you only perceive (most) things going down, so that much we can say with confidence.

    Hey buddy @Erfisflat see my explanation of buoyancy to Nope and see if that doesn't make sense, especially this:

    "God has established the rules, He put earth in one place, and the Heavens on the opposite side of it. Now picture this in your mind, the heavens we call "up", and earth we call "down", doesn't matter the orientation because no matter how you orient these two, as long as they are in the opposite direction, the heavens will always be up, .. and earth will always be down, and anything and everything that we place between those two will levitate/travel towards where they belong."


    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 789 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    Buoyancy also happens (and is used for enriching radioactive materials such as Plutonium) in centrifugal devices, and acts exactly the same way as buoyancy, say, in the ocean, except the Archimedes' force is directed away from the rotation center, and not the Earth center. It is the same effect, just in this case the force of Gravity is substituted with the Centrifugal force.

    You always need a linear force for buoyancy to work. In case of Earth, this force is gravity. In case of centrifuges, this force is centrifugal. In case of accelerating automobile, this force is inertia. No force - no buoyancy. There is no buoyancy in space, and there is no buoyancy on planes descending at just the right rate for the centrifugal force to compensate for the gravitational force.

    Ever been in a plane that starts a sharp descent? Did you feel your insides "going up"? Think a bit about why this happens, and you will understand the subject slightly better.

    @MayCaesar Why would you need a linear force for buoyancy? What's the linear force for a log pushed under water and released? Is gravity helping it move up? No, .. it's buoyancy and density at play and that's it.

    I got it, I think, I hope and pray anyways that this next example will help everyone who, like me grew up believing in gravity.  To do this, imagine yourself in Big-Banged infinite-space, only with nothing in it, and now try to picture this:

    God created the Heaven and the earth, he put the Spiritual heaven in one place, and the earth the opposite of it. You can orient these two any way you wish in your Infinite mind, and there will be the Heaven in one place, and the earth opposite of it no matter how you turn or orient them.

    Now God fills the space between these two, the lighter stuff like air and other gases he puts in the heavens, while the more dense things like earth, rocks, gold He mixes it in the earth, and then us men and animals, the trees etc. from the dust of the earth He puts On the earth.
    Now like I said you are in the vacuum of space, so you can orient the heaven and the earth any way you wish, nothing will change because Heaven will still be there and earth will be opposite of it. Heaven God calls up, or above the earth, and earth down, or below the heavens, so even if you have these two oriented in your mind horizontally (since our mind, which is of the earth tends to use Flat-earths orientation) everything between them will levitate either up, or down until they are buoyant.

    Now why do we push on the earth like we see when we step on a scale? Because we are above the earth, walking in air, so except for our feet, nothing but air is holding our body, so obviously our body want's to go down more to reach buoyancy. The more dense we are, the more we push on the scale. If we change our medium from air to water, we start being buoyant and push less on the scale.
    Dig a hole in the earth and see what happens?
    We no longer weigh anything because of the medium air we just stepped into, so we continue to fall towards the bottom weightless until we hit something more dense again. No gravity needed, and this should explain every phenomena we observe of objects displaced between Heaven and earth, and why they move towards their assigned buoyancy place defined by their density.

    No gravity needed since from heaven (up) and earth (down) is filled with different mediums, so if anything is not buoyant in any medium between heaven and earth, it either falls, or is pushed up at speeds dependent on the medium its in, to its buoyancy.

    And before I forget, there is no gravity holding either Heaven up, or the earth down, it is where God decided to put them, including the distance between the two has been defined by God, .. and the orientation of the two is irrelevant since even if we were to flip them upside down (in our minds), Heaven will still be up, and earth, down.
    Erfisflat
  • NopeNope 336 Pts
    Evidence
    Gravity is often thought of curvature which causes acceleration at an equal rate for all things passing through space. The feather and bowling ball naturally move toward earth at the same rate. The bowling balls mass causes earth to naturally move toward the bowling ball and feather based on how much space is curved. Like you said the earth is so massive it does not move. The bowling balls mass does not speed up the acceleration of the bowling ball toward earth. I am un able to see how NASA science of gravity that you provided would lead to the conclusion that one object would accelerate faster.

    The bowling ball does not have an amount of mass that would realy make a difference to the time taken for the earth and bowling ball to collide. Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces but the earth is massive enough to create a rather faster acceleration even at the distance which the moon is at. The moon is massive enough that it does have a noticeable impact on earth. However the earth is massive enough that the center of orbit of the to objects is with the earth making the earth only appear to wobble. The moon does orbit quit fast but I don't see why that is relevant.

    "But if gravity existed in dense objects, after millions and billions of years you would have sand, and water accumulating on the sides of mountains, and because as you said "gravity is weak", you would never have those imaginary planets orbiting the way you guys have it. Never, and computer simulations have proven this."
    -Like I said gravity is week. Mountains do not have the mass to cause sand and water to accumulate when the reast of earth is much more massive and has a net gravitation force at its center.

    "Now let's take a huge log, .. like one of those cut down California Redwood trees, and let's put some massive stones on it and sink it way down in the ocean. Where do you think the huge Redwood will go towards once we remove the weights? You think gravity will help it go up to the surface of the water?"
    -Gravity is also accelerating the water toward the earth. A greater amount of mass in the same space which is able to shape around less mass in the same space would cause one to force the other one up because they can't both occupy the same space. Gravity does a good job at explaining bouncy.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch