You have to learn to read first, in order to determine what is spam and what isn't. You evidently have a long way to go.
In the meantime i wouldn't draw unnecessary mod attention to yourself and get banned for breaking rule #1, again. Now that i think about it, you should tattle more.
so Gravity is just acceleration. we agree
No, that is the standard view of many (if not most) physicists. They may phrase it slightly differently, like that gravity (they mean gravitation) appears much like an acceleration or is "effectively" an acceleration - but the view above is the standard one.
My view (and that of greater humanity going back millennia) is that gravity is the phenomenon of falling - nothing more. It is caused by the weight of the object being greater than the weight of the media it displaces as described in archemides' principal. Unlike gravitation, this cause is experimentally verified and verifiable.
weight is the same as mass
I think we agree in concept, but i disagree with the verbiage. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. There is no mass, just like there is no gravitation (both mathematical fictions derived from real and measured weight). There is only matter, and its weight (though typically when we weigh things with a standard scale - we factor in the buoyant force, what i term "effective weight").
you shouldn't have an opinion if you cant understand that is meant by acceleration
I have a pretty solid grasp on traditional physics, i know what acceleration is and what is meant when physicists say "gravity is (like) acceleration".
and gravity, is not a force. so its totally, utterly unneeded and useless in every sense of the word
It is correct that gravity is not a force. Weight is the force. Gravity is a natural/scientific law (aka a phenomenon, i.e. the phenomenon of falling).
you explain that gravity was an invention by the freemasons ... isaac newton
Gravity was around far longer than them. Even the concept of gravitation was as well, and newton merely invoked it to solve an astronomical math problem. It is gravitation which is fiction, not the law of gravity (which is plain for all to see/demonstrate)!
so call it the laws of Aether. In dense Aether, you fall slow or not at all, Aether gets denser as you get father from the ground.
Interesting view. I myself am an aether proponent, but why/how would it become denser the further you get from the ground?
Even if everything you said were true, it would still not be a good reason to discard the law of gravity. There is certainly an educational challenge as you decouple gravitation from it, but that conflation is a mistake and an attack on science. It has to be fixed anyway if we want to fight against scientific illiteracy.
disproven hoaxes
Name one that i have posted, let alone "spammed".
Provide links/quotes, and when you - again - utterly fail i shall expect yet another sincere apology for lying.
About what
You're the one that keeps caring enough to respond. If no one cares, why bother at all? Paid by the response? Just a bot? Compelled against reason / slave to your emotion / lack discipline?
Then why are you so evidently worried?
THAT’S NICE.
Not being able to read and understand is not nice. It's sad, and i sincerely hope for your sake that you are a bot :(
ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS
I already did that once. Can't you remember? Of course not, you just copy and paste because you either are incapable or unwilling to think a single thought of your own.
If you have an earnest question about this thread or anything i actually said here, please by all means share it. But you will have to learn to read and then read all of my previous comments here first in order to do that. Good luck!
no, mass is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.
Mass is fiction. It can't even be defined properly. It is a figment of the imagination, and exists only in equation. It is not a coincidence that when you combine it with the other fictional term, "gravitational acceleration", it returns to the real weight it began and was measured as in the first place :)
I feel much the same way about mass as you seem to feel about "gravity" (though perplexingly, miraculous perpetual acceleration applied to mass to create weight - which is gravitational acceleration / little g - doesn't seem to bother you).
Weight is the adjustment to mass caused by other forces, like buoyancy, your mass is the same, but you weight less in the pool.
It sounds like we have similar views on this. I use the terms "intrinsic weight" (weight without buoyancy) and "effective weight" (weight with buoyancy).
or by centrifical force, the mass is the same, but while spinning, the weight is much higher.
So you would say that someone weighs more when they land on the ground after jumping (and/or weighs less at the apex)? I would say they weigh the same and apply an impact force (as a parallel to your centrifuge example).
do you have other reason besides that?
I think that is reason enough, but the word is not just used by scientists. Long before the scientific method existed or scientists, the word gravity and the natural law of the same name was known and used by significant numbers of people. That very much includes today. There is no reason to get rid of a perfectly good word and sound concept. Otherwise we have to rename the law of gravity into something else (for starters), and this only causes more confusion among scientists and laypersons alike (most everyone we might speak with).
Gravity is NOT a force. its not what makes you fall.
True, and this is what needs to be clarified/corrected. Gravity is a natural law - the phenomenon of falling, known for millennia - nothing more. Natural laws do not and cannot include causes for themselves. That is what theory is for.
The theory (actually a pseudo theory erroneously billed as a law itself - the "force" - pseudo force in point of fact) is called gravitation. The law can never be conflated with the theory contrived to explain it, and to do so is an attack on science.
copypasta that gish gallop, again
And then you copypasta the gish gallop, again.
I sincerely hope you are a bot, this is embarrassing.
Don't you remember when i answered those questions the last time?
Try asking a question about the subject of this thread, but first learn to read and then read my previous comments prior to doing so. Good luck!
Such as how you’re incapable of answering
How can i answer anything if you never ask anything? Again, you desperately need this to be true so you never ask anything :( Or sometimes you just copypasta that gish gallop, again.
You just babble on about how you have the truth, i'm a paid shill, and frequent calls to suicide.
Me : You can't read
You: Correct
Wow, a rare moment of honesty from you. Color me impressed. Now that you have admitted your shortcoming, assuming you aren't a bot - go work on it and actually read what i have written before responding to it in the future.
You manifestly refuse to prove your claims
Another lie from the serial liar. Quote/link when i refused to prove even a single claim i've made. When you, again, utterly fail to do so i shall expect your earnest apology for lying. what'll this be, the 5th time?
You’ve admitted
Please, just mutter to yourself offline. No one needs to hear your schizo conversation with the voices in your head.
that’s a fucking tell
I agree. I've answered all your questions, multiple times in the past, and you do exactly that. Forget/ignore, pretend, and repeat. Your description of yourself is spot on. Always accuse your enemy of the crimes you are committing, eh?
Reported for spam. Your bullshit isn’t allowed here.
I don't think you should be wasting the mod's time, but tattle away if it makes you feel better. I guess you'll just have to hope they miss the comments where you casually demand/encourage suicide and get banned... again like you absolutely deserve to be.
I didn't speculate
I think you did when you said :
that is determined by the electrostatic medium, the sky above is negative charge, the ground below is positive/neutral, and its a small force (1000x stronger than masses attraction, gravity) but it creates the flow from air to ground.
But i can appreciate that you don't think of it as a speculation. The sky can often have a higher charge than the ground - but things still fall.
And I never said that gravity is caused when an object is more dense that the media it displaces
I thought you did when you said this :
its effected mainly by buoyancy; being denser than air
and this from another comment in this thread :
the reason a rock falls when you drop it is is two part, the stronger force is buoyancy. this is calculated using density relative to the density of the medium (air)
but gravity can just be replaced with acceleration and it's the same answer.
Gravity (little g) in equations is an acceleration - it's the same answer by definition. In my view, there is no mass whatsoever and the idea that there is some perpetual acceleration on all objects at rest is both stupid and a violation of many natural laws. Weight is intrinsic to the object.
The simple law of what goes up must come down has NOTHING to do with gravity.
It is the law of gravity, and has been for millennia. It has nothing to do with gravitation (a pseudo theory to ostensibly explain that law created a few hundred years ago).
It's misleading and you are just helping the assholes fool everyone by perpetuating it.
I've encountered many who share your view, however denying the law of gravity exists is silly as well as anti-historical and unscientific. It is an "overcorrection". Gravity (a scientific law millennia old), the name for the phenomenon of falling, is real. Gravitation (a few hundred years old) is the thing that doesn't exist.
If you are committed to a rebrand for marketing/outreach reasons, then what should the law of gravity (the phenomenon of falling) now be called? The law of falling, or law of density separation, doesn't have the same ring to it. I see no reason to wage an emotional and irrational war against a perfectly good and millennia old word.
Generally, i agree.
They did build 2 giant interferometers, and i have little doubt it detected something. It just didn't detect "2 black holes colliding with each other causing gravitational waves", and it was fraudulently/disingenuously advertised to the general public as measurement of "gravity waves".
I’m not quoting anyone
Fair enough.
You have nothing to present
So you desperately need to believe. The truth is that i have plenty to "present", but you won't allow yourself to discuss it - even for an instant. It's a great way to make sure you never learn anything new.
You said nothing
You can't read :( I hope you are a bot, for your sake. That's why you didn't know that i explicitly said gravity existed.
You lose
You can't lose a discussion, but you can lose the plot - as you consistently do. Your "argue/insult your way to truth" approach is stupid and harming you. I urge you to reconsider, if you are capable.
Thanks for admitting
Please mutter to yourself offline. It's very sad, assuming you're a human.
Otherwise, try to actually converse instead of having schizo conversations with the voices in your head. Again, if you are at all capable.
DESTROYED ALL MY CLAIMS
Shouting that you "said the truth" while simultaneously unable to list even one claim actually made by the person you are "speaking" with isn't exactly "destroying" as much as it is completely ignoring. I sincerely hope it is because you are a bot and so literally incapable of doing any better. The alternative is too horrible.
Thanks for admitting
Again, mutter to yourself offline.
Presented without evidence = dismissed without evidence
You are misunderstanding that hitchens quote, as well as its context. It was not an imperative.
You can dismiss anything you wish, evidence or not.
If you can't find evidence for a claim, perhaps you should try asking for help? I'm happy to help you if i can.
Discussion over
But can a discussion that never began ever be over?
Earth is not flat.
Who said it was? Stop listening to the voices in your head. They are not your friends.
Gravity exists.
Who said it didn't? Did/can you even read my comments? I explicitly said that gravity did exist. When you don't understand, it's best to start by asking questions!
gravity doesn't exist in any situation
I understand what you mean, and why you say this - but i disagree on semantic and scientific grounds.
Gravity is a scientific/natural law thousands of years old. It isn't going anywhere, and we shouldn't want it to. It is simply the phenomenon of falling; "What goes up, must come down."
The major modern problem with the word gravity is that is has been erroneously conflated with the cause for the phenomenon in the minds of many misled students. In science (and basic logic), the phenomenon cannot be the cause of itself. Teaching things like this is an attack on science.
that is determined by the electrostatic medium, the sky above is negative charge, the ground below is positive/neutral, and its a small force (1000x stronger than masses attraction, gravity) but it creates the flow from air to ground.
This is possible, but such speculation is usually not helpful - or necessary. Gravity is caused, as you said, when an object weighs more than the media it displaces. Weight is just an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.
and if you mention the LIGO Scientific Collaboration
They also (supposedly) measured gravitational waves, not gravity [gravitation] or the gravity waves it is believed to be comprised of/caused by.
Thanks for admitting Earth isn’t flat and gravity is an immutable measured constant.
Stop listening to the voices in your head. Having schizo conversations with yourself like this is always so embarrassing :(
You can go talk to yourself in a room, offline.
Also, no - even in the worldview you are supposedly playing apologist for - gravity is not an immutable measured constant.
So stop attacking me
Lol. When did i "attack" you (please provide quotes and/or links, or admit this is another one of your frequent lies)? Again, stop listening to the voices in your head - they're not your friends.
start proving your claims.
Proof is subjective (outside of mathematics). Only you can prove a claim for yourself, but i am happy to help if i can. What claim are you having trouble with?
Basically, they have commons
Yes, they have common roots. Yes, they all have different and distinct meanings. I guess, thanks for recognizing your error?
Figure it out....
I guess i have. So the answer is, no. No you cannot describe any contradiction in my previous statements. Fair enough.
Thank you for directly contradicting yourself....
In what way? Could you describe this contradiction? You seem to be under the mistaken, and common, impression that gravity and gravitation are the same thing.
I'd like to say the conversation was stimulating
You might if you tried having a conversation on the topic. I guess we'll never know will we?
But watching you jump through Mental Hoops
Why on earth did you capitalize "Mental Hoops"? Are you a bot?
Unironically, the "paid shills" are the ones who respond like you do. Also, as you know - this is a violation of rule #1 here.
Those that can't attack the thought, attack the thinker instead out of desperation. Do better if you can.
And everyone who has this off the wall theory that gravity doesn't exist, has yet to prove it doesn't exist....
Actually, you have it backwards. In science we have to prove it does exist first, but that isn't what happened with gravitation. Trying to disprove something that was never proven to begin with is a fools errand.
And all I need to do is throw a rock into the air, and when it comes back down, Proof Gravity does exist....
True. Gravity does exist, and has been a natural/scientific law for at least 2 millennia. It is merely the phenomenon of falling; "What goes up, must come down".
Gravitation on the other hand, the imaginary pseudo force believed and taught as the cause of gravity, is not proven and cannot be proven - because it is, and always was from its initial creation (a few hundred years ago), fiction.
Can you walk us through how this is supposed to work, and where the surplus energy is coming from?
If the two moving plates are identical and moving in the same direction how/why should one end up with an excess and one a efficiency of electrons? Is one grounded? A LOT of necessary details seem missing from this diagram.
There are a few ideas i've come across.
One is that there is an energy source beneath the world which effectively penetrates it and "draws" the "xray" in ionized air high above.
Some couple this with the "crater earth" idea, where the earth we know is only (within) one small crater depicted on the moons surface.
Interestingly enough, this is somewhat consistent with the biblical conception of the world, where it is described as if a seal pressed into wax (aka, a crater).
Some who promote this idea suggest such craters may be below the oceans, and or on a world much greater in size than we currently teach.
In any case, the earth has no shortage of craters.
Right, because there are no craters on earth.
Wanting that to be the case is fine - if not natural. Declaring it so is religious zealotry. I'm sure several things you said are untrue (and vice versa).
For example, there is no reason to assume that aether would have greater density above us than at the surface (opposite to all other forms of matter) and there is measurement (vertical interferometers) showing that it doesn't. There is also no reason to assume that electrostatic/electrical charge differential between the sky and the ground has anything to do with falling (the measured charge differential fluctuates, but the phenomenon of falling is unaffected).
I agree. Fake laws should be discarded. Gravity, however, is not a fake law. What goes up, must come down - and it is as true today as when the law was first observed and then formalized (and for the same reasons).
Laws are just consistently repeatable/demonstrable phenomena, nothing more. You don't disagree that things fall. We call that tendency to fall gravity, and have for thousands of years. Don't fix what isn't broken, and don't throw the baby (gravity) out with the bathwater (gravitation)!
If gravity were not real, that would be plenty and i'd agree with you. Gravity (the phenomenon of falling) is real and repeatably demonstrable (as all laws must be, as that is what makes them laws in the first place). It is gravitation (the supposed force that causes gravity) that is not real. Do you understand what i am saying / the distinction i am making? Gravity (thousands of years old) is NOT gravitation (a few hundred years old).
Gravitation, i generally agree with you (though "evolution" is a more unscientific term). Gravity is as scientific as any other validated and validatable law.