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.
If I’m not being pushed from behind, then there is no pushing force.
That's nuts. You can't be pushed from above, or in front, or below - or any other direction than behind?
How is weight a pushing force?
How do you think a scale works? What pushes on the spring/detector/scale platform?
Is something pushing me down from above?
Yes, but that isn't the major source of the weight intrinsic to you. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. You are made of matter. There is also matter above you pushing down, as well as matter surrounding you on all sides - also pushing onto you.
And with this bit of bad faith
Bad faith? Are you having trouble answering the question?
Who claimed the earth was flat, and when? Please provide quotes / links to my statements so that i can better address your misunderstanding.
Several times in this conversation you have asked silly questions like you are having an entirely unrelated conversation with someone who isn't me :(
Instead of stupidly assuming you know what i think (based on conversations you have had with other people) and being consistently wrong - why not try to have a discussion with me instead?
I have not only answered all your questions in good faith (and always do), i've answered them pretty thoroughly. If you want to know what shape i think the world is, just ask! It's the foolish assumption that is causing you problems :(
I'm completely done with your novels
If you can't handle a few sentences, then you can't handle conversation or learning :( I do try to be succinct, but i also want to answer your questions thoroughly enough so you understand my perspective.
That said, i know this is a difficult conversation for you and you were never obligated to continue. I assure you it has all been in good faith, however.
Any time you (or an object) are not pushed from behind... Surely you jest
Yes, obviously. Is that a serious question?
Look as politely as i can say this... You don't understand physics
Believe me, the feeling is mutual. But it is not just knowledge of physics that you lack, but knowledge of its history. You can't hope to really understand the teachings now unless you have knowledge of where they came from, and how they were derived.
and your entire argument is built on sophistry.
No. It's built on physics, and it isn't an argument - just my perspective.
I dont plan on ever convincing you.
Good! We should never seek to convince [aka manipulate], we should seek to learn and share what we learn.
So can i just change the subject for a sec to WHY...
Sure, if you wish.
WHY is the earth flat?
Who said the earth was flat?
Why is it being covered up? Who stands to gain? And what fo they stand to gain?
What are you talking about? Who in the world are you talking to? As i said before, while discussing with me - try to ignore the other voices and focus on mine instead ;)
If you want to know/understand my perspective, simply ask - but don't foolishly assume you already know because you spoke to someone else!
In general, if the world is flat then nothing is being covered up. Humanity requires no help in order to be consistently stupid and wrong as it historically always is.
However, if there were some sort of "conspiracy" to hide the true shape of the world i'm sure you could imagine plenty of reasons (things to gain) to do so if you set your mind to it.
How was the planet created if not from gravity?
Gravitation, not gravity. Gravity doesn't create; it is just the phenomenon of falling.
Gravitation cannot explain the creation of the planets or stars, it is a major problem for the standard cosmological model.
In general, recognizing your views (that we were conditioned to believe through rote under the guise of education from childhood) are merely mythology/religion misrepresented as science doesn't automatically replace them with the correct answers (although that would be nice!). The planet was created, of that we can be assured. Did it, or life, create itself spontaneously the way our foolish ancestors believed and taught in a world demonstrably tending towards entropy? No, of course not.
And are all celestial bodies flat?
They certainly appear that way from out vantage (as discs), but they are too far away to determine that scientifically. They are almost certainly not bodies, however - they are luminaries. What shape is a light (not the lightbulb)?
Methinks the woman doth protest too much, eh?
Spot on.
And I don't want to hear anything about lenses or perspective.
How about refraction? Or the fact that the same picture taken from a slightly higher altitude shows clearly that there is no curve.
The real lesson here is that what we see often is not what is - which is why science is not the process of merely looking, but the process of rigorously measuring!
In the words of obi wan, "Your eyes can deceive you; don't trust them."
Not necessarily. Why do you think pushing always comes from behind?
And it magically knows which direction is downward and consistently falls int that direction, even though there's nothing "in the media it's displacing" to tell it to move in that direction
That's quite a ridiculous assumption. It falls downward because it was lifted (and with the same energy used to lift it). It falls downward because that is the path of least resistance to return to rest. If falls downward because it has a column of weight above it pushing it down, as well as its own weight. It falls down because the air cannot sustain the weight of the object. It falls down because it weighs more than the media it displaces. There are many reasons it falls down, and none of them involve magic or sentiently "knowing" which way down is.
How about we isolate another variable
We can observe another variable if you wish, but it's only distracting you. We aren't doing any experiments, we aren't validating any hypotheses, and we aren't isolating any variables.
Lemme guess? Fake.... Right? Completely fake,
When you assume... Ask questions in earnest, or not at all.
The footage is likely fake, but that isn't really relevant - it doesn't HAVE to be fake. When inside a container and falling together (the reason things fall is that the weight of the object is greater than the weight of the media it displaces), things fall together (until the object approaches terminal velocity, of course). The "ISS" is the object, and the media it displaces weighs much less than that so it falls. Everything within it falls too, entrained.
just like the moon, or a sunset, or an eclipse....
Who said those things were fake? Who have you been talking to? For the purposes of this conversation, try talking to me instead of listening to them!
The reason things float or skin in water is gravity. The reason a helium balloon rises and an anvil falls is gravity. It's all gravity.
Wrong! It is all weight, as archimedes principle plainly describes and can be experimentally validated! All that is required is weight, and that is all there is or has ever been. Archimedes did not need fictional imaginary fields to "imbue" matter with weight. He didn't need to wait 2 millennia until newtons folly in order to understand and explain falling (gravity), floating (neutrality), and rising (levity).
There is no force pulling the helium balloon up
True! And there is no force pulling it down when it is heavier than the media it displaces. There is only pushing!
gravity is pulling harder on them and thus they end up at the bottom.....
Gravitation. Gravity is just the phenomenon of falling. The law must never be conflated with the theory contrived to explain the law. It's another attack on science to do so.
They rise because the water above them is being pulled down with greater force than the air
You may continue to imagine that if you wish. As long as you are consistent the equations will still work. Much like defining the world as perpetually accelerating upwards. It's ridiculous, and clearly a fantasy violating many natural laws, but as long as you are consistent - the equations will work.
It's all gravity
Gravitation, and no - it can't be gravitation if gravitation is fiction and was from the the very first time newton invoked it (which is historical fact you can read in his own words, if you wish)... In science, something has to exist first, in order to be attributable as a cause of something. We can't just say - "zeus did it".
Without gravity there's no force pulling or pushing on stuff
Again, so you have been conditioned through rote under the guise of education to believe - but in reality there are many forces and one of them is weight, an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.
Without gravity there is no floating, rising, buoyancy, or weight
gravity weight!
Kudos to you for continuing to discuss this, and attempting to learn about a new perspective. I know how difficult it is.
Why don't we do another experiment
We haven't been doing any experiments, nor discussing any. It is very important that you understand that. Experiment has a rigorous and inflexible definition in science, and its colloquial/incorrect usage is an attack on science. We are only talking about observations.
and have air resistance be the only variable?
I'm following so far; we are only observing air resistance.
If the sheet of paper falls slower than the brick of paper, then you've just proven yet again, that "weight" doesn't matter and the variable that effects air resistance is shape....
Once again, the weight of the page alone is not the reason the page falls. The page falls because its weight is greater than that of the media it displaces. This is true in both shape configurations. The acceleration profile is, however, most influenced by the media and the object's interaction with that media - but this, once again, is not the cause of falling. Drag and buoyant force both play large rolls.
Again, all this shows is that the weight isn't what most largely influences the acceleration profile. That is NOT the same thing as showing that it isn't involved, or furthermore - and the point - that the cause of falling isn't as archimedes describes.
Air can't simultaneously be the thing that's creating the force that makes you fall
No one said it was! As i keep saying, and archimedes formalized more than 2 millennia ago - it is the interplay/relationship between the weight of the object and the weight of the surrounding media which causes falling.
It can't be both
I don't see why you think this, but in any case - no one is claiming it is. You seem to be misunderstanding. Hopefully the above has cleared that up.
Air resistance doesn't prove gravity,
Obviously! Who said it did? If you think it was me, please provide quotes so i can better understand what made you come to this conclusion.
but it certainly disproves your model.
We are not discussing a model. We are discussing the cause of falling (or trying to, anyway).
This is also proven by a parachute slowing your descent despite making your weight heavier, not lighter.
You are still getting distracted. We are talking about archimedes principle and the cause of falling. The fact that things don't all fall the same speed is a tangent that is only helping you to lose focus (also, weren't you arguing the opposite a second ago?!)
This is just not true
The equations say it is, and it isn't hard to understand why it's true either. Things do not fall the same rate in the presence of air / through any media (unless they are identical). The oversimplified equations you are talking about are not correct when air (or any media, including low pressure air - aka "vacuum" - is present). They are just "correct enough" for everyday use in some cases.
If all things are equal except the object's weight, they hit the ground at the same time. This is not something you can deny.
How about a glider airplane which is empty and one which is filled with lead. The media itself has a significant impact, especially when the shape causes drag / increased collision with it. A simpler analogy/demonstration would be an empty plastic bottle, and one which is filled with rocks dropped into water (air behaves as a fluid as well).
Ohh you mean if you throw them out of helicopter at 30,000 feet they might land at different times?
I'm saying that they do fall at different times, and this becomes easier to observe when the height they fall from is greater. The media is not null, the buoyant force is not null. They may be small - but they are always non zero.
See the problem with that it becomes impossible to do a controlled experiment
We aren't talking about experiments - we are merely talking about observations. It is certainly possible to observe dropping things out of a helicopter or - better yet - from a weather balloon. Dropping things off a roof is also not an experiment, nor "controlled" - not that it really matters.
you're introducing countless variables that will change the result.
The variables are always there, in reality. The variables i am specifically talking about are drag and buoyancy. They are never (and can never) be zero. This necessarily means that only identical objects can fall perfectly identically and through perfectly identical/uniform media.
In order for science to work you need to isolate the experiment as much as possible
Agreed, but we aren't in any way discussing an experiment. We are merely discussing observation/phenomena. Experiments are horses of an entirely different color.
Lemme guess, "They don't remove ALLLL the air.... They leave behind 0.0000001% of the air in a vaccum"....
Correct, and that is the reason that the buoyant and drag forces (among others) are never and can never be 0 - but i agree that the asymptote points reasonably clearly to the conclusion that if there could be no matter - things would fall at the same rate. All of this is irrelevant though, because the rate of fall isn't at issue - it is the reason for falling which is. The reason for falling remains the exact same in both the open air and in the vacuum chamber; the weight of the object is greater than the weight of the media displaced.
But the point is they are still falling
Exactly.
That's a problem for a model that relies on the premise that it's the surrounding air causing objects to fall.
We are not discussing a model. We are discussing the reason for falling, and more specifically how archemides' principle explains, describes, and can be used to experimentally validate that cause.
Or you misunderstood my answer!
Perhaps try rephrasing it or describing the way in which your question was misunderstood?
The fact that the weight is greater than the weight it displaces. Otherwise it doesn't!
Again, mutter to yourself offline.
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.
But can a discussion that never began ever be over?
Who said it was? Stop listening to the voices in your head. They are not your friends.
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!