Gravity, space, time and other lies

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat
"So now you've intentionally misled me. My question to you was:"Out of pure curiosity, if a team of researchers consisting of quantum physicists, cartographers, astronomers, engineers, geographers and many experts in other fields came together and contributed to a comprehensive set of experiments that definitively proved that the earth is not a ball, could you set aside your bias and accept the information, or would you dismiss the evidence to protect your paradigm?""  I answered that question. I specifically said "If that happened, I would accept the proof. But it is a sphere, so I'm not concerned with that hypothetical." That is my answer. That is a copy and paste of my answer. Do not pretend I didn't answer you. It makes it apparent that you're trolling. You have absolutely no reason to think I didn't answer when I most certainly did and was specific enough to make it clear I was answering that exact question.

"Your answer, along with the usual trollish gibberish, was: "If that happened, I would accept the proof..."" How in the hell is that a troll behavior? You wanted me to say I'd agree and I honestly admitted I would under those circumstances. You pick an argument even when people say they'd agree. No matter what someone says, you turn it into a fight if it isn't exactly what you want them to say. That is a troll. You just want to argue, even if they agree with you.

"Instead, you've done just the opposite in the face of valid scientific evidence." Do something other than claim it. Say something that actually shows some indicators that support your claim.

"If you had checked the link I provided, you'd have seen that the situation wasn't hypothetical." Your link doesn't prove anything. It's just a bunch of pictures. If that site has something that proves anything, then link that page, not the general website. I'm not wasting my time going through a troll website to locate the exact page you're referring to. You link the exact page you think helps your case.

"You've instead chosen the second option, to dismiss the evidence to protect your paradigm" I haven't dismissed anything you've said. I've counter argued it. There's a difference. You're not using the word "dismiss" correctly.

"I now see why I muted the troll." You ARE the troll. Stop projecting. I've pointed out many times how you are obviously trolling people on this site and within a generous amount of detail, but you just call me one with no explanation or examples. Another troll behavior. Call people what they call you in order to attempt to make them look as guilty as you. That's low level troll behavior. You're better than that. You were doing so good at it before I got here. Actually......... TheShaun called you out on it previously, now that I remember. Looks like he doesn't have the patience for it. I do. I'm on you til the sun never shines again. Go ahead, put me back on mute like any troll does when the troll buster comes around. You can't win with me and I'll only point out to people the indicators of what you're doing. You can't troll very well in any thread I take part in, because I will point out your contradictory behavior. Get smarter or get lost.

I see you quote my entire response yet skip over a lot of important details. Mainly:

1 "If you actually felt like someone was trolling you, at any point became no longer willing to tolerate it, and felt silencing the person was worth it, then you would not turn around and jump back in."

2  "The only reason you would return to reading what I say and responding is because you enjoy the drama."

3  "The only reason you chose to mute me or pretend to mute me is because I was able to call you out on every time you gave yourself away that you're just here to troll and argue, not discover truth or answers."

4 "The fact you respond with "who cares" indicates you do not care about the truth. You only care about your own agenda."

5 "Supported through psychology and sociology. It does make sense if you were educated in either field."

6 "I even point out the indicators that can be looked up in many psychology and sociology texts."

7 "So, by the fact that you give no specific reasoning as to why you claim I'm trolling you in this or any other thread other than the one I admitted before hand and that you have been caught many times before portraying troll behavior, it's evident that you're attempting to project onto me and claim I'm the troll in order to decrease other people's suspicion of your trollish behavior."

Try answering every one of those points without dismissing any of them. They are true and you know they are. Good luck there.

Also, you never answered the question about the name Dan. Please do because that's just weird to call someone by a human name that isn't theirs. I could understand if you called me Sparky, Junior, Jack Mehoff, etc. But a dull unfunny name like "Dan"? Boooooooring. Might as well call me John, Jack, Bill, Bob, Sam, Steve, or even Copernicus.

Wow Dan, .. I mean @LogicVault you got to be the biggest Troll on two sights, DDO and now here. How can you keep responding to posts and manage to avoid answering every time? Are you a professional Troll, trained at NASATAN Astronauts Academy, or 666CERNs 'Symmetry' Dance Academy ? I hear if they put you in the LHC, that once around through the Portal 

 (see the guy bottom middle?)



 you come out a New creature, .. more illuminated, .. a Troll, always responding but NEVER ever answering:

b  after only one trip through the Portal, notice the Illumination?

.. I know, I know, but this is how everyone looks after they gone through CERN's Star-Gate and seen Lord Shiva.

Are you going to answer @Erfisflat or not? I gave up waiting on you to answer my questions.

Erfisflat

Evidence said:

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat
"So now you've intentionally misled me. My question to you was:"Out of pure curiosity, if a team of researchers consisting of quantum physicists, cartographers, astronomers, engineers, geographers and many experts in other fields came together and contributed to a comprehensive set of experiments that definitively proved that the earth is not a ball, could you set aside your bias and accept the information, or would you dismiss the evidence to protect your paradigm?""  I answered that question. I specifically said "If that happened, I would accept the proof. But it is a sphere, so I'm not concerned with that hypothetical." That is my answer. That is a copy and paste of my answer. Do not pretend I didn't answer you. It makes it apparent that you're trolling. You have absolutely no reason to think I didn't answer when I most certainly did and was specific enough to make it clear I was answering that exact question.

"Your answer, along with the usual trollish gibberish, was: "If that happened, I would accept the proof..."" How in the hell is that a troll behavior? You wanted me to say I'd agree and I honestly admitted I would under those circumstances. You pick an argument even when people say they'd agree. No matter what someone says, you turn it into a fight if it isn't exactly what you want them to say. That is a troll. You just want to argue, even if they agree with you.

"Instead, you've done just the opposite in the face of valid scientific evidence." Do something other than claim it. Say something that actually shows some indicators that support your claim.

"If you had checked the link I provided, you'd have seen that the situation wasn't hypothetical." Your link doesn't prove anything. It's just a bunch of pictures. If that site has something that proves anything, then link that page, not the general website. I'm not wasting my time going through a troll website to locate the exact page you're referring to. You link the exact page you think helps your case.

"You've instead chosen the second option, to dismiss the evidence to protect your paradigm" I haven't dismissed anything you've said. I've counter argued it. There's a difference. You're not using the word "dismiss" correctly.

"I now see why I muted the troll." You ARE the troll. Stop projecting. I've pointed out many times how you are obviously trolling people on this site and within a generous amount of detail, but you just call me one with no explanation or examples. Another troll behavior. Call people what they call you in order to attempt to make them look as guilty as you. That's low level troll behavior. You're better than that. You were doing so good at it before I got here. Actually......... TheShaun called you out on it previously, now that I remember. Looks like he doesn't have the patience for it. I do. I'm on you til the sun never shines again. Go ahead, put me back on mute like any troll does when the troll buster comes around. You can't win with me and I'll only point out to people the indicators of what you're doing. You can't troll very well in any thread I take part in, because I will point out your contradictory behavior. Get smarter or get lost.

I see you quote my entire response yet skip over a lot of important details. Mainly:

1 "If you actually felt like someone was trolling you, at any point became no longer willing to tolerate it, and felt silencing the person was worth it, then you would not turn around and jump back in."

2  "The only reason you would return to reading what I say and responding is because you enjoy the drama."

3  "The only reason you chose to mute me or pretend to mute me is because I was able to call you out on every time you gave yourself away that you're just here to troll and argue, not discover truth or answers."

4 "The fact you respond with "who cares" indicates you do not care about the truth. You only care about your own agenda."

5 "Supported through psychology and sociology. It does make sense if you were educated in either field."

6 "I even point out the indicators that can be looked up in many psychology and sociology texts."

7 "So, by the fact that you give no specific reasoning as to why you claim I'm trolling you in this or any other thread other than the one I admitted before hand and that you have been caught many times before portraying troll behavior, it's evident that you're attempting to project onto me and claim I'm the troll in order to decrease other people's suspicion of your trollish behavior."

Try answering every one of those points without dismissing any of them. They are true and you know they are. Good luck there.

Also, you never answered the question about the name Dan. Please do because that's just weird to call someone by a human name that isn't theirs. I could understand if you called me Sparky, Junior, Jack Mehoff, etc. But a dull unfunny name like "Dan"? Boooooooring. Might as well call me John, Jack, Bill, Bob, Sam, Steve, or even Copernicus.

Wow Dan, .. I mean @LogicVault you got to be the biggest Troll on two sights, DDO and now here. How can you keep responding to posts and manage to avoid answering every time? Are you a professional Troll, trained at NASATAN Astronauts Academy, or 666CERNs 'Symmetry' Dance Academy ? I hear if they put you in the LHC, that once around through the Portal 

 (see the guy bottom middle?)



 you come out a New creature, .. more illuminated, .. a Troll, always responding but NEVER ever answering:

b  after only one trip through the Portal, notice the Illumination?

.. I know, I know, but this is how everyone looks after they gone through CERN's Star-Gate and seen Lord Shiva.

Are you going to answer @Erfisflat or not? I gave up waiting on you to answer my questions.

That's troll behavior if i ever saw it. Always responding, never answering... Throwing out various red herrings in hopes to change the subject, demanding evidence yet ignoring it when it is presented, then demanding it again. Anyone with half a brain that was genuinely interested in what they were arguing for or against would have found the evidence in that link. Here let me help you Dan:

Of course, @evidence, not everyone has common sense (though most people would have found what was being pointed out to them) so we should be more patient. But wait, according to him, he hasn't dismissed anything I've said, he already counter argued it. What i said was here is some evidence you should see. It crushes his paradigm, so he dismissed it.

LogicVault

@Evidence
"Wow Dan, .. I mean @LogicVault you got to be the biggest Troll on two sights, DDO and now here."  Now I see both of you think I'm someone you're ran into before. I'm guessing you've been outed as trolls before. First of all, calling me the troll with no explanation as to how you believe I am one (which you actually don't) and after I have already pointed out specific indicators that you and Erfis flat are trolling is simply childish. You're essentially mimicking Peewee Herman's joke where he says "I know you are, but what am I" or that old cliche "I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces of me and sticks to you". Secondly, I can easily prove my name isn't Dan. I do own a camera, possess identification, and have a YouTube channel that I can easily upload the video and give you the link. Though, I suspect you'll find some excuse to continue pushing the Dan theory because that's what trolls do.

"How can you keep responding to posts and manage to avoid answering every time?" Better question, how can you pretend that I haven't answered when I have answered? Do you realize this gives away what you're doing to everyone else? Everyone that reads this thread can see that I specifically answered your questions, yet you still claim I haven't. Everyone will conclude that you're either or a troll. So, you continuing to play to this degree serves my purpose perfectly. Along with me pointing out your trollish behavior in detail that you can not prevent them from seeing without going back and editing a lot of your posts. You're only a smart enough troll to fool average and below people. Your trolling abilities are better suited for YouTube or Reddit, not a debate site where the population percentage of intelligent people is higher.

"I know, I know, but this is how everyone looks after they gone through CERN's Star-Gate and seen Lord Shiva." That comment and the silly picture you provided beforehand is below you. You are better at trolling than that. That was way too obvious. You were doing so much better until recently. I think I've rattled your cage and now you're getting desperate to get the upper hand.

"Are you going to answer @Erfisflat or not?" I did. Anyone that reads this thread can look and see I did. Claiming I didn't answer something that I obviously did and in detail only works in a 1 on 1. Hence why Erfisflat wanted to do a 1 on 1. It doesn't work when there's and audience that can go back and see I certainly did answer the questions. You fail to consider the other people viewing this thread. I'm only here for the sake of the people viewing this thread. I'm only here to protect them from your false information. They are #1 on my mind. Your failure to consider what they see is your weak point when it comes to trolling. You're not clever enough to think ahead in that manner.

"I gave up waiting on you to answer my questions." I already answered yours too. See above reply for further details.

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"What i said was here is some evidence you should see. It crushes his paradigm, so he dismissed it." You claim it does, yet it doesn't. Every attempt to warp physics that you've gone through has been met with explanation of how you explain physics incorrectly. Things such as how you pretend to think the vacuum of space works like a vacuum cleaner. It doesn't. Completely different mechanics happening. You pretend to believe the vacuum of space actually has suction. It doesn't. A pressurized container opened in space is nothing like a vacuum cleaner. A vacuum cleaner creates an air flow to pull tiny materials inside it. A pressurized container opened in space results in the pressure pushing everything outside the container to equalize the pressure. This is why a plane at cruising altitude that endures damage that creates a hole between the pressurized cabin and the outside air results in a rush of air through the hole to the outside. The pressure outside, at that altitude, is low. The pressure inside is high in comparison. Air isn't being sucked out, the air inside is pushing out. The main factor is push and pull. Vacuum cleaners pull, the air inside containers in space push. It's all about pressurization or lack there of. And that only covers the vacuum of space part that you got so wrong.

Erfisflat

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"Wow Dan, .. I mean @LogicVault you got to be the biggest Troll on two sights, DDO and now here."  Now I see both of you think I'm someone you're ran into before. I'm guessing you've been outed as trolls before. First of all, calling me the troll with no explanation as to how you believe I am one (which you actually don't) and after I have already pointed out specific indicators that you and Erfis flat are trolling is simply childish. You're essentially mimicking Peewee Herman's joke where he says "I know you are, but what am I" or that old cliche "I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces of me and sticks to you". Secondly, I can easily prove my name isn't Dan. I do own a camera, possess identification, and have a YouTube channel that I can easily upload the video and give you the link. Though, I suspect you'll find some excuse to continue pushing the Dan theory because that's what trolls do.

"How can you keep responding to posts and manage to avoid answering every time?" Better question, how can you pretend that I haven't answered when I have answered? Do you realize this gives away what you're doing to everyone else? Everyone that reads this thread can see that I specifically answered your questions, yet you still claim I haven't. Everyone will conclude that you're either or a troll. So, you continuing to play to this degree serves my purpose perfectly. Along with me pointing out your trollish behavior in detail that you can not prevent them from seeing without going back and editing a lot of your posts. You're only a smart enough troll to fool average and below people. Your trolling abilities are better suited for YouTube or Reddit, not a debate site where the population percentage of intelligent people is higher.

"I know, I know, but this is how everyone looks after they gone through CERN's Star-Gate and seen Lord Shiva." That comment and the silly picture you provided beforehand is below you. You are better at trolling than that. That was way too obvious. You were doing so much better until recently. I think I've rattled your cage and now you're getting desperate to get the upper hand.

"Are you going to answer @Erfisflat or not?" I did. Anyone that reads this thread can look and see I did. Claiming I didn't answer something that I obviously did and in detail only works in a 1 on 1. Hence why Erfisflat wanted to do a 1 on 1. It doesn't work when there's and audience that can go back and see I certainly did answer the questions. You fail to consider the other people viewing this thread. I'm only here for the sake of the people viewing this thread. I'm only here to protect them from your false information. They are #1 on my mind. Your failure to consider what they see is your weak point when it comes to trolling. You're not clever enough to think ahead in that manner.

"I gave up waiting on you to answer my questions." I already answered yours too. See above reply for further details.

Always responding, never answering. Can you say ostrich effect? Even when shown, specifically, a team of researchers consisting of quantum physicists, cartographers, astronomers, engineers, geographers and many experts in other fields came together and contributed to a comprehensive set of experiments that definitively proved that the earth is not a ball, he still goes off on red herrings. @LogicVault, you are dismissing valid scientific evidence. You do not belong in a scientific forum.

Erfisflat

@logicvault please address the evidence that supports a flat earth.

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"Always responding, never answering. Can you say ostrich effect?" I answered what you said. Continuously claiming I haven't, when anyone can see I address each point specifically, makes you look foolish and clues more people in on what your actual goal is here. Trolling. Here's a tip for trolling, once you are caught, change routes. Continuing a route that you've already been caught on is an amateur error.

"Even when shown, specifically, a team of researchers consisting of quantum physicists, cartographers, astronomers, engineers, geographers and many experts in other fields came together and contributed to a comprehensive set of experiments that definitively proved that the earth is not a ball, he still goes off on red herrings." You have not shown anything close to this. The closest you have come is your hypothetical question, of which I specifically answered. Even if you found a few researchers that believe the Earth if flat, there is a vast amount more researchers that show otherwise. Also, the most successful and well know geniuses are among the group that support the sphere Earth.

"@LogicVault, you are dismissing valid scientific evidence. You do not belong in a scientific forum." This is a perfect example of where a mirror should be involved. You are a troll and have proven yourself to be so. You do not belong in any debate what so ever, much less a scientific one. It would be poetic justice for your PC, phone, and whatever else you have with internet access to break down all at once.

"please address the evidence that supports a flat earth." I did every time you attempted it. Go back and read. Or to do it again in a fashion that you can't turn around and claim no answers to later. Pick a single detail that you believe (or pretend to believe) supports a flat Earth. Just one. Then I will respond to that one detail specifically. We will stay on only that one detail until it is resolved. Then we can move on to a second one and so forth. I will essentially cut off your troll fingers one at a time. You won't do this because you know it's troll suicide. You rely on multiple points thrown all at once so that anyone responding will gloss over them in haste in order to keep their responses short enough for people with low patience to read them. A good troll by now would realize they are caught beyond any chance of repair. You don't stop or move on when caught, which indicates you are of low level quality when it comes to trolling. Though, I'm starting to consider the possibility that you aren't a troll and are actually one of the gullible people who fell for a flat Earth troll's and now continue their quest ignorantly. We'll see.

Erfisflat

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat
"Always responding, never answering. Can you say ostrich effect?" I answered what you said. Continuously claiming I haven't, when anyone can see I address each point specifically, makes you look foolish and clues more people in on what your actual goal is here. Trolling. Here's a tip for trolling, once you are caught, change routes. Continuing a route that you've already been caught on is an amateur error.

"Even when shown, specifically, a team of researchers consisting of quantum physicists, cartographers, astronomers, engineers, geographers and many experts in other fields came together and contributed to a comprehensive set of experiments that definitively proved that the earth is not a ball, he still goes off on red herrings." You have not shown anything close to this. The closest you have come is your hypothetical question, of which I specifically answered. Even if you found a few researchers that believe the Earth if flat, there is a vast amount more researchers that show otherwise. Also, the most successful and well know geniuses are among the group that support the sphere Earth.

"@LogicVault, you are dismissing valid scientific evidence. You do not belong in a scientific forum." This is a perfect example of where a mirror should be involved. You are a troll and have proven yourself to be so. You do not belong in any debate what so ever, much less a scientific one. It would be poetic justice for your PC, phone, and whatever else you have with internet access to break down all at once.

"please address the evidence that supports a flat earth." I did every time you attempted it. Go back and read. Or to do it again in a fashion that you can't turn around and claim no answers to later. Pick a single detail that you believe (or pretend to believe) supports a flat Earth. Just one. Then I will respond to that one detail specifically. We will stay on only that one detail until it is resolved. Then we can move on to a second one and so forth. I will essentially cut off your troll fingers one at a time. You won't do this because you know it's troll suicide. You rely on multiple points thrown all at once so that anyone responding will gloss over them in haste in order to keep their responses short enough for people with low patience to read them. A good troll by now would realize they are caught beyond any chance of repair. You don't stop or move on when caught, which indicates you are of low level quality when it comes to trolling. Though, I'm starting to consider the possibility that you aren't a troll and are actually one of the gullible people who fell for a flat Earth troll's and now continue their quest ignorantly. We'll see.

Let's be real here, Dan. I specifically asked you a question about a situation you thought at first was hypothetical, to which you said you would accept as proof,  but are now back peddling,  claiming that you would not accept it as proof, because "a vast amount more researchers show otherwise (lie)". If you have information that refutes the evidence, at any time you would produce such, but you don't. A team of researchers consisting of quantum physicists, cartographers, astronomers, engineers, geographers and many experts in other fields came together and contributed to a comprehensive set of experiments that definitively proved that the earth is a ball would be suffice.

You lied about this because, despite your continued denial, I HAVE provided the very thing you said you would accept. Anyone can see this, the link was provided to you multiple times. It's very clear who is trolling. My guess is that you either have not examined the evidence, or are in a biased based stated of denial.

If you had watched the video, you would have seen these experts performing various experiments that conclusively show the obvious, that water is flat, and the earth couldn't possibly be a sphere because of this. All the evidence you asked for is on the website, and if you would care to critique it, this would be a more productive conversation, but it would appear this is not what you want,  indicating that you are not here for honest discourse, only to troll, nonetheless, nobody can say I didn't try. I probably won't respond to any more red herrings, so feel free to omit these in you next response.

Erfisflat

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat
"Always responding, never answering. Can you say ostrich effect?" I answered what you said. Continuously claiming I haven't, when anyone can see I address each point specifically, makes you look foolish and clues more people in on what your actual goal is here. Trolling. Here's a tip for trolling, once you are caught, change routes. Continuing a route that you've already been caught on is an amateur error.

"Even when shown, specifically, a team of researchers consisting of quantum physicists, cartographers, astronomers, engineers, geographers and many experts in other fields came together and contributed to a comprehensive set of experiments that definitively proved that the earth is not a ball, he still goes off on red herrings." You have not shown anything close to this. The closest you have come is your hypothetical question, of which I specifically answered. Even if you found a few researchers that believe the Earth if flat, there is a vast amount more researchers that show otherwise. Also, the most successful and well know geniuses are among the group that support the sphere Earth.

"@LogicVault, you are dismissing valid scientific evidence. You do not belong in a scientific forum." This is a perfect example of where a mirror should be involved. You are a troll and have proven yourself to be so. You do not belong in any debate what so ever, much less a scientific one. It would be poetic justice for your PC, phone, and whatever else you have with internet access to break down all at once.

"please address the evidence that supports a flat earth." I did every time you attempted it. Go back and read. Or to do it again in a fashion that you can't turn around and claim no answers to later. Pick a single detail that you believe (or pretend to believe) supports a flat Earth. Just one. Then I will respond to that one detail specifically. We will stay on only that one detail until it is resolved. Then we can move on to a second one and so forth. I will essentially cut off your troll fingers one at a time. You won't do this because you know it's troll suicide. You rely on multiple points thrown all at once so that anyone responding will gloss over them in haste in order to keep their responses short enough for people with low patience to read them. A good troll by now would realize they are caught beyond any chance of repair. You don't stop or move on when caught, which indicates you are of low level quality when it comes to trolling. Though, I'm starting to consider the possibility that you aren't a troll and are actually one of the gullible people who fell for a flat Earth troll's and now continue their quest ignorantly. We'll see.

Let's be real here, Dan. I specifically asked you a question about a situation you thought at first was hypothetical, to which you said you would accept as proof,  but are now back peddling,  claiming that you would not accept it as proof, because "a vast amount more researchers show otherwise (lie)". If you have information that refutes the evidence, at any time you would produce such, but you don't. A team of researchers consisting of quantum physicists, cartographers, astronomers, engineers, geographers and many experts in other fields came together and contributed to a comprehensive set of experiments that definitively proved that the earth is a ball would be suffice.

You lied about this because, despite your continued denial, I HAVE provided the very thing you said you would accept. Anyone can see this, the link was provided to you multiple times. It's very clear who is trolling. My guess is that you either have not examined the evidence, or are in a biased based stated of denial.

If you had watched the video, you would have seen these experts performing various experiments that conclusively show the obvious, that water is flat, and the earth couldn't possibly be a sphere because of this. All the evidence you asked for is on the website, and if you would care to critique it, this would be a more productive conversation, but it would appear this is not what you want,  indicating that you are not here for honest discourse, only to troll, nonetheless, nobody can say I didn't try. I probably won't respond to any more red herrings, so feel free to omit these in you next response.

Mr_Bombastic

@Evidence

A simple experiment to prove gravity exists. Find a 1000 foot cliff and jump off the ledge. Let me know what happens.

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
"Let's be real here, Dan." *Shaun

"I specifically asked you a question about a situation you thought at first was hypothetical, to which you said you would accept as proof,  but are now back peddling,  claiming that you would not accept it as proof" Wrong, I said I would accept proof. But currently, there is no proof of a flat Earth. Also, I don't "think" it's hypothetical, I know it is. So do you.

"because "a vast amount more researchers show otherwise (lie)"." Not a lie and you know it.

"If you have information that refutes the evidence, at any time you would produce such, but you don't." I've explained it to you in detail. You're free to look up confirmation. Though, you don't need confirmation because you already know it's true.

"I HAVE provided the very thing you said you would accept." No, you haven't. You simply claim it exists but have not proved it.

"Anyone can see this, the link was provided to you multiple times." Actually you provided links of people claiming a flat Earth but without absolute proof.

"It's very clear who is trolling." This has already been explained as well.

"My guess is that you either have not examined the evidence, or are in a biased based stated of denial." I've examined proof of a round Earth.

"If you had watched the video, you would have seen these experts performing various experiments that conclusively show the obvious, that water is flat, and the earth couldn't possibly be a sphere because of this." I don't have an hour and a half to spare watching another video of men conducting experiments incorrectly and convincing themselves of false information or straight up lying. Tell you what, post the timestamp of the exact part of the video that you believe (or pretend to believe) proves a flat Earth and I'll explain to you how they got it wrong.

"All the evidence you asked for is on the website" False evidence that has been proven false by actual accurate experiments.

"you are not here for honest discourse, only to troll" The only trolls here are yourself and Evidence. You didn't begin attempting that claim until I pointed out specific indicators of how you're trolling. Your behavior is essentially the same as the childish cliche "I'm rubber, you're glue. Anything you say bounces of me and sticks to you."

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"Wow Dan, .. I mean @LogicVault you got to be the biggest Troll on two sights, DDO and now here."

Now I see both of you think I'm someone you're ran into before. I'm guessing you've been outed as trolls before. First of all, calling me the troll with no explanation as to how you believe I am one (which you actually don't) and after I have already pointed out specific indicators that you and Erfis flat are trolling is simply childish. You're essentially mimicking Peewee Herman's joke where he says "I know you are, but what am I" or that old cliche "I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces of me and sticks to you". Secondly, I can easily prove my name isn't Dan. I do own a camera, possess identification, and have a YouTube channel that I can easily upload the video and give you the link. Though, I suspect you'll find some excuse to continue pushing the Dan theory because that's what trolls do.

There, .. a perfect example of your so called "answers", .. Peewee Herman style. Just as @Erfisflat also agreed that you keep replying, but never answering!

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat

Erfisflat - "If you had watched the video, you would have seen these experts performing various experiments that conclusively show the obvious, that water is flat, and the earth couldn't possibly be a sphere because of this."

LogicVault - I don't have an hour and a half to spare watching another video of men conducting experiments incorrectly and convincing themselves of false information or straight up lying. Tell you what, post the timestamp of the exact part of the video that you believe (or pretend to believe) proves a flat Earth and I'll explain to you how they got it wrong.

And another perfect example, .. you say that you don't have time to watch the videos, yet you have all the time to respond as Peewee Herman?

Evidence

Mr_Bombastic said:

@Evidence

A simple experiment to prove gravity exists. Find a 1000 foot cliff and jump off the ledge. Let me know what happens.

@Mr_Bombastic
Get out on the ledge of a 1,000 ft. cliff, and jump into the basket of a hot air balloon and let us know what happens?

So you're a Globe-earther right? So tell us this then: the universe/space is a vacuum right? Filled with trillions upon trillions of suns, planets and moons, all with different amounts of gravity.
Yet Hubble said these stars and planets, including entire galaxies are all moving apart, indicating that the universe is expanding! .. Now is this because of all the gravity that's in these globes and moons causing the fabric of Spacetime to expand exponentially? Shouldn't gravity be pulling them all together into a great Big-Lump? It pulled the redshift-dust into planets and moons, why didn't that continue, since;

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.

And so far no one gave us an answer as to; what is the universe expanding into? They know what size it was a few minutes into the Big-Bang; "the size of  an orange" is what they claim, but no one can tell us what medium it was in?
Remember that everything they know was in that orange, the vacuum space with a lot of exploded dust, time, space etc.  and they know how big it was, .. so what was, and what is the BB-Universe expanding in, and into?

LogicVault

@Evidence
"There, .. a perfect example of your so called "answers", .. Peewee Herman style." That's exactly what I've already pointed out that you and Erfisflat do and you just did it again by saying that.

"Just as @Erfisflat also agreed that you keep replying, but never answering!" First, I don't care if another troll agrees with you. Second, I've answered every time whether you choose to acknowledge the answers or not. Your opinion on whether something is an answer or not is irrelevant.

"you say that you don't have time to watch the videos, yet you have all the time to respond" It doesn't take an hour and a half to respond. It barely takes any time at all.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"There, .. a perfect example of your so called "answers", .. Peewee Herman style." That's exactly what I've already pointed out that you and Erfisflat do and you just did it again by saying that.

"Just as @Erfisflat also agreed that you keep replying, but never answering!" First, I don't care if another troll agrees with you. Second, I've answered every time whether you choose to acknowledge the answers or not. Your opinion on whether something is an answer or not is irrelevant.

"you say that you don't have time to watch the videos, yet you have all the time to respond" It doesn't take an hour and a half to respond. It barely takes any time at all.

@LogicVault ;

Then answer us this, which so far no one gave us an answer to;

What medium is the universe expanding into?

They know what size it was a few minutes into the Big-Bang; "the size of  an orange/peach" is what they claim, but no one can tell us "what medium it was in"?
Remember that everything they know was in that orange/peach, the vacuum space with a lot of exploded dust, time, space etc.  and they know how big it was, .. so what was, and what is the BB-Universe expanding in, and into?

LogicVault

@Evidence
"What medium is the universe expanding into?" That part is still unknown.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"What medium is the universe expanding into?" That part is still unknown.

But they know that it was a size of a peach/tennis ball/orange or whatnot right? All by looking at stars with all kinds of different pretty colors.
Hobble to Jesuit Priest Lemaitre: "You see that George, those stars look like they're separating exponentially!?"
George: "I knew it, so I did hear a Big-Bang as I was whipping myself with the cattail whip during my penance!"
Thus the Big-bang story was born.

Think about this, a quantum speck of yet unknow substance of unknown origin, popping out of a medium they call 'nothing', for no reason sitting in "we haven't a clue, but we know it's getting denser and hotter" all this before it created gravity, matter/mass to be able to create friction, all this happening before time or space too, getting smaller (as if the quantum particle they're smashing in the LHC is not small enough to begin with) till it exploded with a Big Bang!?

The Universe grows and cools until 0.0001 seconds after the Big Bang with temperature about T=1013 K. Antiprotons annihilate with protons leaving only matter, but with a very large number of photons per surviving proton and neutron. Universe grows to the size of a peach and cools until 1 second after the Big Bang, with temperature T=1010 K.

I mean if this is not the most stupendous, unscientific science fiction attempt to recreate Gods Heavens and the earth, then I don't know what is? And for us to allow them to teach this doo-doo to our children, well, .. it's just beyond words. No wonder that first they had to remove prayer from our schools, then introduce sex education to get the kids mind off what they were teaching!

Come on @LogicVault .. how could you support such pseudoscientific ideas? Why don't you let @Erfisflat bring you down to our Flat Earth, and I'll help you come to Christ, .. and not that sun-god either!?

LogicVault

@Evidence
"But they know that it was a size of a peach/tennis ball/orange or whatnot right?" Eh, I take that one with a grain of salt.

"Hobble to Jesuit Priest Lemaitre: "You see that George, those stars look like they're separating exponentially!?"
George: "I knew it, so I did hear a Big-Bang as I was whipping myself with the cattail whip during my penance!"
Thus the Big-bang story was born." That's a gross exaggeration. The line of logic was a lot longer than that. Scientists observed that the distance between all stars is growing. Which means they used to be a lot closer before we even started observing them. Go back even farther and they were even closer. Keep going back so far that you get to the beginning of the universe and it's likely that they were touching or even all part of the same mass. Imagine how much mass that would be. Everything in the entire universe in one place. The amount of gravity that object would have. The amount of force it would take to split it up and send an unquantifiable amount of pieces shooting off in all directions.

"Think about this, a quantum speck of yet unknow substance of unknown origin, popping out of a medium they call 'nothing', for no reason sitting in "we haven't a clue, but we know it's getting denser and hotter" all this before it created gravity, matter/mass to be able to create friction, all this happening before time or space too, getting smaller (as if the quantum particle they're smashing in the LHC is not small enough to begin with) till it exploded with a Big Bang!?" Just as likely as a magical being with no origin creating an entire universe for no reason. Then speaking to and interacting with humans for thousands of years just to suddenly break all communication for the last so many hundreds of years and expect humans today with no proof to follow it blindly even though it supposedly knows everything and would know that humans would reach a point where we mostly do not believe things without seeing it. What game is your flying spaghetti monster playing?

"I mean if this is not the most stupendous, unscientific science fiction attempt to recreate Gods Heavens and the earth, then I don't know what is?" I do not automatically believe that equation. But it also isn't to recreate anything, especially something that doesn't exist, like a god. They have bugs in their theories. But then again, so do people who blindly believe in an all knowing and powerful being that just sits back silently and lets his creation do the most horrible and evil things to itself.

"And for us to allow them to teach this doo-doo to our children, well, .. it's just beyond words." At least they are trying to study and teach critical thinking rather than just tell children to blindly follow a magical being that they will never see, hear, or ever even have any physical evidence of. Faith is nothing more than a fancy way of saying "belief without evidence".

"No wonder that first they had to remove prayer from our schools, then introduce sex education to get the kids mind off what they were teaching!" They had to be realistic and get away from people believing in a flying spaghetti monster.

"Come on @LogicVault .. how could you support such pseudoscientific ideas?" Like believing in a god that you have zero physical evidence for? At least science has physical evidence for their theories. You have stories written in a book and people "claiming" they spoke to God without proof.

"Why don't you let @Erfisflat bring you down to our Flat Earth, and I'll help you come to Christ" I don't believe in fairy tales.

Erfisflat

"a all knowing and powerful being that just sits back silently and lets his creation do the most horrible and evil things to itself."

There's the thing. God is a father, He does not force his will upon any of his creatures. Satan is the prince of the world, the "god of this world"

LogicVault

@Erfisflat
First of all, stop taking me off mute. Either mute me and keep it that way or stop being a coward that mutes in the first place. I'm done with your trolling. I'm now going to start responding to you with nothing but sarcasm as penance for your troll work.

"There's thing." Grammar alert. Grammar Nazis are looking for you. Try making a coherent sentence.

"God is a father, He does not force his will upon any of his creatures." Says who? Your precious book? You're like Golllum and the bible is your ring. Too bad the book does nothing but fool children into believing in the flying spaghetti monster. It doesn't even make you invisible or anything.

"Satan is the prince of the world, the "god of this world"" Very sentence. If Satan is god of this world, then he's your god. You live in this world that you say he is god of. 

Erfisflat

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat
First of all, stop taking me off mute. Either mute me and keep it that way or stop being a coward that mutes in the first place. I'm done with your trolling. I'm now going to start responding to you with nothing but sarcasm as penance for your troll work.

"There's thing." Grammar alert. Grammar Nazis are looking for you. Try making a coherent sentence.

"God is a father, He does not force his will upon any of his creatures." Says who? Your precious book? You're like Golllum and the bible is your ring. Too bad the book does nothing but fool children into believing in the flying spaghetti monster. It doesn't even make you invisible or anything.

"Satan is the prince of the world, the "god of this world"" Very sentence. If Satan is god of this world, then he's your god. You live in this world that you say he is god of. 

First of all, you are not the debate police, you dont get to bark out orders, and I surely don't have to do as you say. Every post you put out is nothing but sarcastic assertion, so nothing new in this post.

I read the Bible, yes, but currently have not read it in several years,  so you claiming that it is my precious is nonsensical and baseless. This point that I was referring to is about God, and his actions, to which the best reference is the Bible, unless you prefer to ask your holy, or science book why God "just sits back silently and lets his creation do the most horrible and evil things to itself." Didn't think so. You assuming a position about God that doesn't agree with what It says is essentially a strawman and I was just clearing that up for any readers involved that might actually take you seriously,  as you might have noticed, I didn't tag you, and your "nuh-uhs" are pointless.

Satan is not my god, as I explained, not anymore anyway. He is yours. The " sentence" you quoted are in the Bible, which is considered the authority on anything God related,  not you.

Erfisflat

And as far as grammatically incorrect, in my first reply just a few posts, up, this was your statement. "...a all knowing and powerful being that just sits back silently and lets his creation do the most horrible and evil things to itself."

Evidence

poco said:

@Evidence

you: Only in sci-fiction can this magical gravity both pull and push at the same time. It expand your universe, while pulls all objects with mass towards each other.  It can cause a "Big Bang" of a sudden inflation, and is said that it will eventually cause a "Big Crunch" of a sudden deflation. I must admit that science fiction is an exciting and fun idea to get into, but please, ..  let's be realistic, or scientific about this, so enough of this nonsense.

me:  You could derive the gravitational force from the expansion of space. As space expands, the earth sinks into the gravitational well with which we are familiar. This sort of gravity only looks like it is pulling us down to earth because the surrounding space is expanding, but really it is neither pushing nor pulling.

Throughout all of your discussions, you seem to deflect arguments of the laws of physics re gravity.  You do not disprove them.  What you guys do is use other examples in an attempt to prove ...... something else, which I'm not sure what it is.  You deny gravity, altho do not prove there is physics to the contrary.  Like the rubber band "proof."  There are other forces involved in this example, while only gravity in a vacuum is present with the bowling ball/feather example.  To prove something is or is not correct, the experiment must not introduce other factors bc they will influence the outcome.

You're right about one thing ..... "so, enough of this nonsense." 
****************************************************************************************************************************
@poco
I will use your own words, which stands more true coming from our Flat Earth, or @Erfisflat side: Throughout all of your discussions, you seem to deflect arguments of the laws of physics re gravity.  You do not prove it exists.  What you Globe-earthers do is use other examples, for instance; gravitational waves' that no one has ever observed, or tested, and then this imaginary 'Spacetime Fabric', in an attempt to prove .. something else, which I'm not sure what it is, since no one has gone into "space, that final science fiction frontier" that which where even Gene Roddenberry  admits:  "no man has ever gone before!"

In the vacuum, the air is removed, so we should clearly see the effects of gravity on the two objects with such enormous mass/G-force differences!
If gravity is as cosmocomical scientists and mathematicians describe as;

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.

Then adding the gravitational force (G-force) of both the .00125 lb. feather and the 10lb. bowling ball which is 8,000 times the mass of the feather, and add that to the Earths gravitational pulling force, .. the bowling ball would have fallen much, much faster!
But it did not, so this proves that gravity has nothing to do with these objects falling, but that, any object removed from their buoyancy naturally travel back towards their buoyancy rest at the rate of 9.807 miles per second squared.

So Thank You NASA for letting us use our billion dollar taxpayers Vacuum Chamber and proving, without the slightest doubt, that 'gravity' Does Not Exist!

So in conclusion, as we Flat Earthers have proven that Gravity does not exist, and neither does space, this imaginary place where gods like;

Mercury,


Venus,


Mars,


Jupiter,


Saturn,


Neptune


and Pluto
   


are watching and through divination are influencing their worshippers to cause havoc and calamity for Flat Earthers and Believers in Infinite God "I Am".

And neither is "time" some Spacetime Fabric that either these planet-gods above,
nor NASA
or CERN 


can ride on!

Ampersand

Lol, over 100 posts in and the dumb dumbs still can't understand the fact that although more mass = more force more mass = slower acceleration and therefore cancels out,.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Lol, over 100 posts in and the dumb dumbs still can't understand the fact that although more mass = more force more mass = slower acceleration and therefore cancels out,.

Not as bad as not knowing the difference between convex and concave...

Evidence

Ampersand said:

Lol, over 100 posts in and the dumb dumbs still can't understand the fact that although more mass = more force more mass = slower acceleration and therefore cancels out,.

@Ampersand here are the rules of gravity, be careful you don't get hurt trying to understand it?

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.

Now let me teach you "gravity 101"   kinder-Gangnam Style, ready?

Does your imaginary globe earth has it's own gravity, or G-force or not?
No answer, .. I'll take that as a yes.
According to the above rules of gravity, does the feather and the bowling ball have their own G-Force or not? (need help, just read 1-4 again, I posted it enough times! So, .. come on, do they, or don't they?
Yes, according to the above laws of  what has gravity, #2 says that anything with mass has a gravitational force, .. and #4 says: It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.
Now can you add? because so far none of you Globetard's could? It seems that you can only take one set of numbers at a time, in this case the G-force of the earth, forgetting the 1-4 rules of  imaginary-gravity.
Now again, what happens when you add the G-force of the bowling ball, to the G-force of your Globe earth?
Here, let me help you out, 1+1=2 it's that simple. You add the pulling g-force of the earth, to the pulling g-force of the bowling ball, .. it's that simple.

Now how many times more g-force does the 10lb. bowling ball have than the .00125lb. feather?
I figured that out for you too, .. the bowling ball has 8,000 times the G-force of the feather, which you would have to add to the g-force of earth pulling on the bowling ball, thus more acceleration. "More force more acceleration!", .. see, that wasn't hard?

But because they both fell at the same time, proves the above laws regarding gravity Don't Exist, .. a lie made up by Newton, Einstein and whatever Jesuit Free Masons came up with the .

@aarong, ..  Is there a mathematician, or an unindoctrinated physicist in the House of DebateIsland.com so I could show him/her the reverse of this which would tell us just how much faster the bowling ball should have fallen!?
Taking in consideration that even the smallest force difference added would be squared as it fell, so the bowling ball and the feather, dependent on how high it was dropped from, the bowling ball would had to have accelerated way, way ahead of the feather!

But these Globetard's here can't even do 2nd-grade math, so it would be a total waste of time.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Lol, over 100 posts in and the dumb dumbs still can't understand the fact that although more mass = more force more mass = slower acceleration and therefore cancels out,.

Not as bad as not knowing the difference between convex and concave...

I know, you're quite a fool.

Evidence said:

Ampersand said:

Lol, over 100 posts in and the dumb dumbs still can't understand the fact that although more mass = more force more mass = slower acceleration and therefore cancels out,.

@Ampersand here are the rules of gravity, be careful you don't get hurt trying to understand it?

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.

Now let me teach you "gravity 101"   kinder-Gangnam Style, ready?

Does your imaginary globe earth has it's own gravity, or G-force or not?
No answer, .. I'll take that as a yes.
According to the above rules of gravity, does the feather and the bowling ball have their own G-Force or not? (need help, just read 1-4 again, I posted it enough times! So, .. come on, do they, or don't they?
Yes, according to the above laws of  what has gravity, #2 says that anything with mass has a gravitational force, .. and #4 says: It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.
Now can you add? because so far none of you Globetard's could? It seems that you can only take one set of numbers at a time, in this case the G-force of the earth, forgetting the 1-4 rules of  imaginary-gravity.
Now again, what happens when you add the G-force of the bowling ball, to the G-force of your Globe earth?
Here, let me help you out, 1+1=2 it's that simple. You add the pulling g-force of the earth, to the pulling g-force of the bowling ball, .. it's that simple.

Now how many times more g-force does the 10lb. bowling ball have than the .00125lb. feather?
I figured that out for you too, .. the bowling ball has 8,000 times the G-force of the feather, which you would have to add to the g-force of earth pulling on the bowling ball, thus more acceleration. "More force more acceleration!", .. see, that wasn't hard?

But because they both fell at the same time, proves the above laws regarding gravity Don't Exist, .. a lie made up by Newton, Einstein and whatever Jesuit Free Masons came up with the .

@aarong, ..  Is there a mathematician, or an unindoctrinated physicist in the House of DebateIsland.com so I could show him/her the reverse of this which would tell us just how much faster the bowling ball should have fallen!?
Taking in consideration that even the smallest force difference added would be squared as it fell, so the bowling ball and the feather, dependent on how high it was dropped from, the bowling ball would had to have accelerated way, way ahead of the feather!

But these Globetard's here can't even do 2nd-grade math, so it would be a total waste of time.

A = F/M

More force makes things accelerate faster (if you push things harder they go further). More mass makes things accelerate slower (You can pick up and throw a baseball further than you can pick up and throw a bowling ball).

A = F8000/M8000 = F/M

Ergo with gravity where mass and force are linked the acceleration is the same regardless of the object measured as the increased force generated by gravity is cancelled out by the increased mass that gravity is trying to move. Mathematically proven.

To change the acceleration of gravity relative to two objects you need to either compare them to a different centre of gravity, increase their distance from the local centre of gravity or start to do a more complex model and include multiple forces including those which may be effected differently for each object (different levels of air resistance say). 

poco

@Evidence

you:  I will use your own words, which stands more true coming from our Flat Earth, or @Erfisflat side: Throughout all of your discussions, you seem to deflect arguments of the laws of physics re gravity.  You do not prove it exists.  What you Globe-earthers do is use other examples, for instance; gravitational waves' that no one has ever observed, or tested, and then this imaginary 'Spacetime Fabric', in an attempt to prove .. something else, which I'm not sure what it is, since no one has gone into "space, that final science fiction frontier" that which where even Gene Roddenberry  admits:  "no man has ever gone before!" ...............

me:  A free falling object is an object that is falling under the sole influence of gravity. Any object that is being acted upon only by the force of gravity is said to be in a state of free fall. There are two important motion characteristics that are true of free-falling objects:

• Free-falling objects do not encounter air resistance.
• All free-falling objects (on Earth) accelerate downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s (often approximated as 10 m/s/s for back-of-the-envelope calculations)

Because free-falling objects are accelerating downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s, a ticker tape trace or dot diagram of its motion would depict an acceleration. The dot diagram at the right depicts the acceleration of a free-falling object. The position of the object at regular time intervals - say, every 0.1 second - is shown. The fact that the distance that the object travels every interval of time is increasing is a sure sign that the ball is speeding up as it falls downward. Recall from an earlier lesson, that if an object travels downward and speeds up, then its acceleration is downward.

Free-fall acceleration is often witnessed in a physics classroom by means of an ever-popular strobe light demonstration. The room is darkened and a jug full of water is connected by a tube to a medicine dropper. The dropper drips water and the strobe illuminates the falling droplets at a regular rate - say once every 0.2 seconds. Instead of seeing a stream of water free-falling from the medicine dropper, several consecutive drops with increasing separation distance are seen. The pattern of drops resembles the dot diagram shown in the graphic at the right.

It was learned in the previous part of this lesson that a free-falling object is an object that is falling under the sole influence of gravity. A free-falling object has an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s, downward (on Earth). This numerical value for the acceleration of a free-falling object is such an important value that it is given a special name. It is known as the acceleration of gravity - the acceleration for any object moving under the sole influence of gravity. A matter of fact, this quantity known as the acceleration of gravity is such an important quantity that physicists have a special symbol to denote it - the symbol g. The numerical value for the acceleration of gravity is most accurately known as 9.8 m/s/s. There are slight variations in this numerical value (to the second decimal place) that are dependent primarily upon on altitude. We will occasionally use the approximated value of 10 m/s/s in The Physics Classroom Tutorial in order to reduce the complexity of the many mathematical tasks that we will perform with this number. By so doing, we will be able to better focus on the conceptual nature of physics without too much of a sacrifice in numerical accuracy.

g = 9.8 m/s/s, downward
( ~ 10 m/s/s, downward)

 

Look It Up!

The value of the acceleration of gravity (g) is different in different gravitational environments.

Early in Lesson 1 it was mentioned that there are a variety of means of describing the motion of objects. One such means of describing the motion of objects is through the use of graphs - position versus time and velocity vs. time graphs. In this part of Lesson 5, the motion of a free-falling motion will be represented using these two basic types of graphs.

 

Representing Free Fall by Position-Time Graphs

A position versus time graph for a free-falling object is shown below.

Observe that the line on the graph curves. As learned earlier, a curved line on a position versus time graph signifies an accelerated motion. Since a free-falling object is undergoing an acceleration (g = 9.8 m/s/s), it would be expected that its position-time graph would be curved. A further look at the position-time graph reveals that the object starts with a small velocity (slow) and finishes with a large velocity (fast). Since the slope of any position vs. time graph is the velocity of the object (as learned in Lesson 3), the small initial slope indicates a small initial velocity and the large final slope indicates a large final velocity. Finally, the negative slope of the line indicates a negative (i.e., downward) velocity.

 

 

Representing Free Fall by Velocity-Time Graphs

A velocity versus time graph for a free-falling object is shown below.

Observe that the line on the graph is a straight, diagonal line. As learned earlier, a diagonal line on a velocity versus time graph signifies an accelerated motion. Since a free-falling object is undergoing an acceleration (g = 9,8 m/s/s, downward), it would be expected that its velocity-time graph would be diagonal. A further look at the velocity-time graph reveals that the object starts with a zero velocity (as read from the graph) and finishes with a large, negative velocity; that is, the object is moving in the negative direction and speeding up. An object that is moving in the negative direction and speeding up is said to have a negative acceleration (if necessary, review the vector nature of acceleration). Since the slope of any velocity versus time graph is the acceleration of the object (as learned in Lesson 4), the constant, negative slope indicates a constant, negative acceleration. This analysis of the slope on the graph is consistent with the motion of a free-falling object - an object moving with a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s in the downward direction.


Free-falling objects are in a state of acceleration. Specifically, they are accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s. This is to say that the velocity of a free-falling object is changing by 9.8 m/s every second. If dropped from a position of rest, the object will be traveling 9.8 m/s (approximately 10 m/s) at the end of the first second, 19.6 m/s (approximately 20 m/s) at the end of the second second, 29.4 m/s (approximately 30 m/s) at the end of the third second, etc. Thus, the velocity of a free-falling object that has been dropped from a position of rest is dependent upon the time that it has fallen. The formula for determining the velocity of a falling object after a time of t seconds is

vf = g * t

(dropped from rest)
 

where g is the acceleration of gravity. The value for g on Earth is 9.8 m/s/s. The above equation can be used to calculate the velocity of the object after any given amount of time when dropped from rest. Example calculations for the velocity of a free-falling object after six and eight seconds are shown below.

Example Calculations:

At t = 6 s
vf = (9.8 m/s2) * (6 s) = 58.8 m/s

At t = 8 s
vf = (9.8 m/s2) * (8 s) = 78.4 m/s

The distance that a free-falling object has fallen from a position of rest is also dependent upon the time of fall. This distance can be computed by use of a formula; the distance fallen after a time of t seconds is given by the formula.

d = 0.5 * g * t2

(dropped from rest)
 

where g is the acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s/s on Earth). Example calculations for the distance fallen by a free-falling object after one and two seconds are shown below.

 

 

Example Calculations:

At t = 1 s
d = (0.5) * (9.8 m/s2) * (1 s)2 = 4.9 m

At t = 2 s
d = (0.5) * (9.8 m/s2) * (2 s)2 = 19.6 m

At t = 5 s
d = (0.5) * (9.8 m/s2) * (5 s)2 = 123 m
(rounded from 122.5 m)

The diagram below (not drawn to scale) shows the results of several distance calculations for a free-falling object dropped from a position of rest.

Earlier in this lesson, it was stated that the acceleration of a free-falling object (on earth) is 9.8 m/s/s. This value (known as the acceleration of gravity) is the same for all free-falling objects regardless of how long they have been falling, or whether they were initially dropped from rest or thrown up into the air. Yet the questions are often asked "doesn't a more massive object accelerate at a greater rate than a less massive object?" "Wouldn't an elephant free-fall faster than a mouse?" This question is a reasonable inquiry that is probably based in part upon personal observations made of falling objects in the physical world. After all, nearly everyone has observed the difference in the rate of fall of a single piece of paper (or similar object) and a textbook. The two objects clearly travel to the ground at different rates - with the more massive book falling faster.

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.

LogicVault

Wow, a troll versus a troll. This might become interesting. Let's see which one cracks first. Warning, poco, Erfisflay and Evidence are very persistent. They don't give up the troll work even when you catch and call them out on it.

Evidence

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Lol, over 100 posts in and the dumb dumbs still can't understand the fact that although more mass = more force more mass = slower acceleration and therefore cancels out,.

Not as bad as not knowing the difference between convex and concave...

I know, you're quite a fool.

Evidence said:

Ampersand said:

Lol, over 100 posts in and the dumb dumbs still can't understand the fact that although more mass = more force more mass = slower acceleration and therefore cancels out,.

@Ampersand here are the rules of gravity, be careful you don't get hurt trying to understand it?

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.

Now let me teach you "gravity 101"   kinder-Gangnam Style, ready?

Does your imaginary globe earth has it's own gravity, or G-force or not?
No answer, .. I'll take that as a yes.
According to the above rules of gravity, does the feather and the bowling ball have their own G-Force or not? (need help, just read 1-4 again, I posted it enough times! So, .. come on, do they, or don't they?
Yes, according to the above laws of  what has gravity, #2 says that anything with mass has a gravitational force, .. and #4 says: It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.
Now can you add? because so far none of you Globetard's could? It seems that you can only take one set of numbers at a time, in this case the G-force of the earth, forgetting the 1-4 rules of  imaginary-gravity.
Now again, what happens when you add the G-force of the bowling ball, to the G-force of your Globe earth?
Here, let me help you out, 1+1=2 it's that simple. You add the pulling g-force of the earth, to the pulling g-force of the bowling ball, .. it's that simple.

Now how many times more g-force does the 10lb. bowling ball have than the .00125lb. feather?
I figured that out for you too, .. the bowling ball has 8,000 times the G-force of the feather, which you would have to add to the g-force of earth pulling on the bowling ball, thus more acceleration. "More force more acceleration!", .. see, that wasn't hard?

But because they both fell at the same time, proves the above laws regarding gravity Don't Exist, .. a lie made up by Newton, Einstein and whatever Jesuit Free Masons came up with the .

@aarong, ..  Is there a mathematician, or an unindoctrinated physicist in the House of DebateIsland.com so I could show him/her the reverse of this which would tell us just how much faster the bowling ball should have fallen!?
Taking in consideration that even the smallest force difference added would be squared as it fell, so the bowling ball and the feather, dependent on how high it was dropped from, the bowling ball would had to have accelerated way, way ahead of the feather!

But these Globetard's here can't even do 2nd-grade math, so it would be a total waste of time.

A = F/M

More force makes things accelerate faster (if you push things harder they go further). More mass makes things accelerate slower (You can pick up and throw a baseball further than you can pick up and throw a bowling ball).

A = F8000/M8000 = F/M

Ergo with gravity where mass and force are linked the acceleration is the same regardless of the object measured as the increased force generated by gravity is cancelled out by the increased mass that gravity is trying to move. Mathematically proven.

To change the acceleration of gravity relative to two objects you need to either compare them to a different centre of gravity, increase their distance from the local centre of gravity or start to do a more complex model and include multiple forces including those which may be effected differently for each object (different levels of air resistance say). 

@Ampersand , - More force makes things accelerate faster (if you push things harder they go further). More mass makes things accelerate slower (You can pick up and throw a baseball further than you can pick up and throw a bowling ball).

A = F8000/M8000 = F/M

Hey buddy, either you are terrible in math, and visualizing physics, or you're just defending your Globe-earth Religious cosmological belief? I do understand that, we have Religious freedom in this Country, so you have every right to defend your religion, no matter how ridiculous, and deadly it may sound to other people, and boy we know just how ridiculous (and dangerous) some Religious concepts could be don't we? Besides the stories of cosmology, gravity, Evolution, remember this one?
 Actually, from the 1 1/2 hour video, here is a short 3 minute version, which is a PERFECT example of what one has to do to accept Globe Earth and the cosmology-story behind it.
Please watch this short clip before you, or any of your loved ones decide to go into the imaginary sci-fi space to go live on Mars or some other planet. Please, because after all the explanations, it seems you would go yourself, or allow one of your loved ones to go and join Mr. late Marshall Applewhite aka Jesus-'Do' somewhere in your imaginary expanding vacuum!?



So first, .. I'll just assume you are terrible in math, because this really is simple math. So in the theory of Gravity (more like "the story of gravity" since gravity is based on superstitious beliefs, like worshipping stars, the moon and the sun, so you can't really call it theory. You have to have observed , and tested something to start a theory)
So in your 'gravity story':

1. The Globe-earth has it's own G-force, .. do you agree?
And according to the rules of 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.

2. The bowling ball also has its own G-force, 10lbs. of mass worth, .. do you agree on that? So does the .00125 lb. feather.

So when you drop the bowling ball and the feather in a vacuum at the same time, you have your imaginary Globe-Earths gravity, AND the gravity that's supposed to be (according to rules 1-4 above) in the bowling ball and the feather. Two forces, pulling on the two dropped objects.

Now read this part very carefully (I typed it really slow so you could catch up) These two objects are accelerating towards the earth. Now if only your Globe had gravity but not the two objects, I could see how they maybe could fall to earth at the same rate, but these two objects, .. again look at your gravity rules, .. also have their own g-forces. But the bowling ball has 8,000 times the g-force of the feather, which added to the G-force of your Globe would have two, .. that's 2 forces pulling them towards the earth, so adding the two forces to each individual object, .. obviously the 8,000 times greater force would travel/fall much faster, EXACTLY as you even said it above: "More force makes things accelerate faster (if you push things harder they go further)!  YES, .. the bowling ball has 8,000 times the G-Force of the feather, thus pushing, in this case this should be pulling the bowling ball faster.

But as we can see in the NASA Vacuum chamber video, the bowling ball does NOT travel faster, .. BECAUSE? Come on buddy, I KNOW, I truly know how hard it is to give up something like 2,500 year old Religious doctrine, but you have to do it my friend for your and your families sake, unless you want to end up like this "Heaven Gate" cult, and get on a rocket headed for the imaginary god-planet Mars, and commit suicide?

Look at this scene from the Movie "Logan's Run", .. now picture these people going into a big ship built by NASA headed for, and to populate Mars!



"You Don't Have to Die", .. instead, come follow the Way, the Truth and the Life and LIVE!


@poco same explanation for your post.
Wait, in the Elephant and the mouse, they mix in dropping a book and a sheet of paper in air with this?? A child passed five could know which would fall first!? My Lord, what desperation to deceive the masses, it's unbelievable? Please tell me you don't think you need all those graphs and math to figure out which would fall faster in air, a heavy text book, or a sheet of paper!?

As far as the NASA vacuum chamber bowling ball and feather drop in a vacuum, see the above explanation, this will be my last response on this subject. If you have any questions, go star on page one, both me and @Erfisflat have debunked every paradox presented to us, the result:

Absolute proof, just as proven in our billion dollar NASA vacuum chamber that:

Gravity does NOT exist, so there is no imaginary space with planets riding on Spacetime fabric. These are stories created for little girls along with their unicorns flying over a rainbow.

Gravity-force.

John_C_87

Gravity exists. Gravity is a motion. The energy of the motion is elasticity, modulation, and reverberation. Space-Time is a plagiarism of Time, as space is an X, Y, and Z value. Time is a value of Degree, Hour, Minute, and Second There are four or more dimensions of time, however when time is properly represented in mathematics it can be simplified to a single dimension periodically.

Example using absolute time:

(12:00:00:00 Am) four dimensions of time. (12:00) two dimensions of time, 12: am one demission of time mathematically simplified. Notice this is still a known real time. Again this principle is Hours, Minutes, Seconds, and the absolute form for the ratio expansion bellow second not named. This absolute form must be used or the decimal that is commonly used will not allow the mathematic simplification to be carried out with proper scale. This is a grievance I am holding against digital time, and atomic time.

I think I need to add art to my work. Yes, or no?

Evidence

John_C_87 said:

Gravity exists. Gravity is a motion. The energy of the motion is elasticity, modulation, and reverberation. Space-Time is a plagiarism of Time, as space is an X, Y, and Z value. Time is a value of Degree, Hour, Minute, and Second There are four or more dimensions of time, however when time is properly represented in mathematics it can be simplified to a single dimension periodically.

Example using absolute time:

(12:00:00:00 Am) four dimensions of time. (12:00) two dimensions of time, 12: am one demission of time mathematically simplified. Notice this is still a known real time. Again this principle is Hours, Minutes, Seconds, and the absolute form for the ratio expansion bellow second not named. This absolute form must be used or the decimal that is commonly used will not allow the mathematic simplification to be carried out with proper scale. This is a grievance I am holding against digital time, and atomic time.

I think I need to add art to my work. Yes, or no?

Hey buddy @John_C_87 I see you have a hobby, but you really should try to understand the difference between useful scientific math, and what you are pushing this cosmological NASA Nazi math that is as meaningful in the real world as J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter.
Real math, like:

Module 1: Basics and Algebra

Module 2: Pre-Calculus

Module 3: Calculus

Module 4: Transformations

Module 5: Mathematical Logic

Module 6: Graph Theory

Module 7: Algorithms

Module 8: Cryptography

.. and Not cosmological math.

Because your responses like: "Gravity exists. Gravity is a motion" doesn't make any  real sense, not even in BB-Evolution NASA/CERN language.
A falling object calculated at 9.807 m/s^2 is not gravity, nor is gravity motion. Just because a car is zooming down the highway doesn't mean gravity is pushing it! Even CERN or NASA wouldn't agree with you that a piece of submerged wood ascending to the surface is caused by gravity. Gravity is supposed to be specifically used to keep the Big-Bang story alive, not for anything real, like in actual science.

John_C_ definition of Time: (12:00:00:00 Am) four dimensions of time. (12:00) two dimensions of time, 12: am one demission of time mathematically simplified.

So if gravity is motion, then I assume something traveling in the Y direction at 12.00,00,00 mph is traveling in the fourth dimension with time, .. and at 12.00,00 mph is three dimension with time, .. and then you skip two decimals, so  12 mph would be one dimension traveling with your time, correct?
Remember Einstein tied time and space together, so my example should work, right? Now the question is, what can we use this pseudoscientific information on? What, to somehow enlighten, .. or should I say 'illuminati' ones cosmological understanding of the expanding spacetime vacuum aka Universe?

I mean just look at this video:



How could anyone in their right mind sit through a two hour, or even one hour, or even 10 minutes of lecture on something as boring, never observed pseudoscience "take Hubble's word for it because he's got the big Telescope and we don't" like this? I really think he is right there with your (12:00:00:00 Am) four dimensions of time, and stuck there!?

Now just imagine Hubble observing the stars, .. or as he calls them galaxies who he said are expanding exponentially; 1X, 2X, 4X faster and faster the farther he looks. Yet the stars are all there right where they were 6,000 years ago when our Infinite Creator and His son Word put them there!
If one man in his lifetime can observe galaxies distancing light years apart, then by today, we should be seeing a completely different star system. None of the old stars should be where they were a few years ago, let alone hundreds, and even thousands of years later?

But fine, .. let's examine what Hubble observed from his POV:
He knows he is on a spinning globe with a wobble, that is orbiting a sun, which are swirling in a milky-way, and all is spun and tossed to and fro by other galaxies that went right through the Milky Galaxy like Andromeda, and all this is also expanding at alarming speeds (near or even FTL speeds) unto the Big-Crunch, .. and that's before we add in all the black holes, gravitational waves that's pushing the spacetime fabric apart (because gravity is motion, right?), and then there is the time dilation, mass gain and length contraction! At those speeds, all the special relativistic effects are in play on those stars that Hubble just THINKS he is looking at!

He may be looking at mirages of parallel universes about to Big-Bang, or that have big-banged minutes ago!  Remember, at near speed of lite, every minute could be billions of years. Also we have to consider that there are 14 dimensions, .. and there is the possibility that Hubble may have zoomed his Telescope in on one of them 'monoliths' popping in and out of the spacetime fabric,



which we know just how bad it can mess up ones mind don't we? Just like 2001 Space Odyssey documentary, .. Hubble may have just thought he seen galaxies moving apart when in reality he may have been just looking at a monolith in his kitchen that he brought in by zooming in on it, with his chimp ancestors conversating with each other in German in his kitchen!? Weirder things than that have been recorded happening at CERN.

.. I mean come on, jut because we fell for the now over 3 trillion dollars 'moon landing hoax', doesn't mean we will swallow every lie no matter how anti-common sense it is!?
Now I know this is a Religion, but teaching this in a University as something real!? .. I have this feeling that they must be sun-Devil  worshippers who shop at the 666 Plaza there at 666 Scottsdale Rd. Tempe AZ. !

Anyways, as much as I love to talk sci-fi, this was supposed to be a serious discussion on some very serious topics, like gravity, space, time and other words that pseudoscientists are trying to make tangible.

John_C_87

No the motion in a Y direction is in the first dimension of time, hour. You described the dimension to be used as soon as the term Miles per hour had been decided. Miles per Minute are the nest dimension of time.

Picture this. It is 12:00 along a line of longitude from the North Pole to the South Pole. The distance from that line of longitude can be written as miles, kilometers, and Hours. 01:00 hour is a distance form 12:00 in a straight line. We then use the latitude line to narrow the distance between the North and South Pole.

The question that was asked by the universe was how we replace the lines of latitude on something as large as the universe. Long answers get confusing.  

Evidence

John_C_87 said:

No the motion in a Y direction is in the first dimension of time, hour. You described the dimension to be used as soon as the term Miles per hour had been decided. Miles per Minute are the nest dimension of time.

Picture this. It is 12:00 along a line of longitude from the North Pole to the South Pole. The distance from that line of longitude can be written as miles, kilometers, and Hours. 01:00 hour is a distance form 12:00 in a straight line. We then use the latitude line to narrow the distance between the North and South Pole.

The question that was asked by the universe was how we replace the lines of latitude on something as large as the universe. Long answers get confusing.  

@John_C_87 ;
There is no 'lines', nor is 12:00 a real description of time. I could be standing right next to you, and my watch could say 12:30.
Also, there is no Big-banged universe, as far as we know, there is earth, with a sun and a moon circling the North Pole, and then a dome and then the stars above that., so there is no need for lines of latitude in space, aka universe!?

So you really do believe in this NASA BB-expanding space having a Spacetime Fabric that space ships could travel on?

There is no past or future, only the "present", .. or the 'now'. I can show you a picture of me in Detroit with my first car back in 1972, and everything about that picture will be in the 'present'.
So it's not about traveling back to the past, but how could I change my 'present' where I am 16 again!? The car, well I could try to find one and restore it like it was, .. right?

John_C_87

Keeping Time travel to the Time Travel is impossible forum I simple am going to say, “Time is a measurement created by Astronomers as it help in their understanding of tracking movements.”

Gravity which is said to be a lie is a motion which qualifies it to have a law of motion. All Gravity is motion created by elasticity, modulation, and reverberation. As a law of motion you do not need to follow this explanation but it mathematically explains gravity as a single type of movement. Unique. This single Type of movement can then easily be refuted by others as it describes a known motion in one particular way.   

Evidence

John_C_87 said:

Keeping Time travel to the Time Travel is impossible forum I simple am going to say, “Time is a measurement created by Astronomers as it help in their understanding of tracking movements.”

Gravity which is said to be a lie is a motion which qualifies it to have a law of motion. All Gravity is motion created by elasticity, modulation, and reverberation. As a law of motion you do not need to follow this explanation but it mathematically explains gravity as a single type of movement. Unique. This single Type of movement can then easily be refuted by others as it describes a known motion in one particular way.   

@John_C_87 do you agree to NASA cosmological science, who claimed to have launched many rockets and space shuttles into space, and landed men on the moon and now a Lander on Mars, with big-budget plans to take people to Mars, their articles explaining gravity as the following?

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.

This does not say anything about the timed motion that objects fall to the ground in either air or in a vacuum. The above is about a force that mass inherently has. All mass, of all sizes, that is what is claimed here, and as we seen in the Giant Nasa Vacuum chamber with Brian Cox and a bunch of NASA scientists, none of the above claims happened, instead; both the feather and the bowling ball fell to the ground at the exact same time, with absolutely no sign of gravity.

John_C_87

Evidence said:

@John_C_87 do you agree to NASA cosmological science, who claimed to have launched many rockets and space shuttles into space, and landed men on the moon and now a Lander on Mars, with big-budget plans to take people to Mars, their articles explaining gravity as the following?

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.

And?

Gravity is a motion not force. Gravity creates mass by its particular form of motion. The mass can be then translated to a different form of energy based from the translation made on motion, to gravity, then accumulated mass. Gravity is a motion created by elasticity, modulation, and reverberation. This is an extension of Isaac Newton’s laws of motion.

This mathematical interpretation made on motion would describe why a bomb has a shock wave, while on a different scale explaining why a person walks on the earth surface. Gravity actual hold us up and limits inertia and centrifugal force form crushing us. The other two laws of motion creates an energy that needs a counter balance as this creates gravitational force without the motion of gravity itself. Our direction is constant and is met with resistance which appears by first observation to be attraction.