Public Education And Independent Self-Taught Research

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Fine, so now we BOTH can conclude in general that weight density of air and atmosphere have a gravitational affect.

You appear to be confused and are now dodging your burden of proof. I never agreed. Perhaps you could quote my post and explain how you think that I agreed. If you do so I am very sure that I could explain your error to you.

If you weren´t confused, you would know that the cited reply above was initially meant for Polymath and not for you, so blame yourself for intervening and making wrong conclusions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Native said: ↑
Fine, so now we BOTH can conclude in general that weight density of air and atmosphere have a gravitational affect.

If you weren´t confused, you would know that the cited reply above was initially meant for Polymath and not for you, so blame yourself for intervening and making wrong conclusions.

I see that you are still terribly confused. Your post was not really for Polymath. You posted on a public forum. That means that your post was for everyone. If you really wanted it to be just for Polymath you should have used the private message tool.

Now that that is straightened out, can you answer my reasonable question?

 

[Polymath257]

Fine, so now we BOTH can conclude in general that weight density of air and atmosphere have a gravitational affect.

No.

Resume:
By removing almost all gaseous elements in the vacuum chamber, you neutralizes the air resistance for both the feather and the bowling ball.

Yes.

But in the same time, you neutralizes the natural falling acceleration velocity as both objects are falling with the same velocity in the vacuum chamber. They react differently compared to falling velocities in free nature under its spacial pressures.

There is no significant pressure in the vacuum of space. The fact that they both fall at the same acceleration (so the same velocities if they start from rest) shows that 'spacial pressure' is NOT what makes them fall.

[/QUOTE]
The logical conclusion: By removing gaseous elements, you have in fact disproved Newtons assumed constant "g" gravity pull by removing the weight of air and its atmospheric and its orbital spacial pressure on Earth.

[/QUOTE]

Not even close to the logical conclusion. They both still fall in a vacuum. And, in fact, they fall faster* than they would in air. That they fall at the same rate shows that 'G' is the same for both. That they fall faster than in ait shows that air is the *resistance* not the cause of falling.

You got *exactly* the wrong conclusion from the data.

Ergo: The overall spacial pressure on the Earth constitutes a downwards effect on the Earth.

Nope. The fact that they fall *slower* in the air than in the vacuum shows that the air gives an *upward* force countering the downward gravitational force.

This is to be expected because it is what happens for ALL buoyant situations (like, say, in water)

- I sort of don´t agree on Einsteins take on gravitational matters, but he sure was correct in stating Newtons assumed "g" gravity force to be a scientific scam.

He never said that.

 

[Native]

I see that you are still terribly confused. Your post was not really for Polymath. You posted on a public forum. That means that your post was for everyone. If you really wanted it to be just for Polymath you should have used the private message tool.

I don´t care of your pedantic nitpicings and I CLEARLY told you to awaite an answer from Polymath when i posted the sentence in question,

Now that that is straightened out, can you answer my reasonable question?

You can go back in the postings and catch up what you obviously have missed.

 

[Native]

There is no significant pressure in the vacuum of space.

This is a disconnected argument. This pressure become more significant according to the size and velocities. Where there are motions in space, there are resistance forces as well causing pressures, all according to the plain size of an object and its velocity.

Not even close to the logical conclusion. They both still fall in a vacuum. And, in fact, they fall faster* than they would in air. That they fall at the same rate shows that 'G' is the same for both. That they fall faster than in ait shows that air is the *resistance* not the cause of falling.

This is evidently NOT what you observe from a bowling ball and a feather in the free nature. The unexplained Newtonian gravity dogmas are getting the better of your logical comparison skills, thus inconsistenly concluding reversed causes and effects.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don´t care of your pedantic nitpicings and I CLEARLY told you to awaite an answer from Polymath when i posted the sentence in question,

You can go back in the postings and catch up what you obviously have missed.

It does not matter what you said. You cannot tell people that they cannot post responses. You cannot tell people that they cannot ask you questions. You responded to me and you failed. Now you are just running away from that failure. Besides, you already did get your answer. I understood it. Apparently you did not. Why not ask me for some help? I understand this high school level physics rather well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a disconnected argument. This pressure become more significant according to the size and velocities. Where there are motions in space, there are resistance forces as well causing pressures, all according to the plain size of an object and its velocity.

This still does not answer the question of how does pressure force an object down? Why not sideways? Why not up? As I said earlier it appears that you do not know what pressure is. How would you test your ideas physically? What observations could possibly refute your ideas?

This is evidently NOT what you observe from a bowling ball and a feather in the free nature. The unexplained Newtonian gravity dogmas are getting the better of your logical comparison skills, thus inconsistenly concluding reversed causes and effects.

That is not true. It is what we observe. A vacuum is part of "free nature". Are you trying to say that the shape of an object makes a difference? What if the race were between a feather and a hammer in 'free nature". Would one drop faster than the other?

Oh, by the way, in the sciences another rule is that the person using terminology needs to be able to define it properly or else it is worthless.

What is "free nature"?

 

[Polymath257]

This is a disconnected argument. This pressure become more significant according to the size and velocities. Where there are motions in space, there are resistance forces as well causing pressures, all according to the plain size of an object and its velocity.

Yes, the *resistance* produced by the air becomes more significant for larger objects or those that interact with the air in a significant way (like feathers).

But, in ALL cases, the effect of air (or water, or any other matter) is to *slow* things compared to what would happen without the air.

So, when things are falling, they will fall at the same rate *unless* they have unequal air resistance, in which case they will fall *slower* than they would otherwise.

So, in a vacuum, things respond to gravity in the same way (the same acceleration 'g'). But they respond differently to air resistance.

This is evidently NOT what you observe from a bowling ball and a feather in the free nature. The unexplained Newtonian gravity dogmas are getting the better of your logical comparison skills, thus inconsistenly concluding reversed causes and effects.

Oh, it is exactly what you observe in the 'free natural' context of, say, the vacuum on the moon. Or in space (away from the atmosphere of the Earth).

The only time you do NOT observe this is when there is an *additional* effect of *resistance* of some sort, which *slows things down*. In other words, the source of the motion is gravity and the resistance slows things from that natural motion.

Otherwise, why would anything fall in a vacuum at all?

 

[Native]

It does not matter what you said. You cannot tell people that they cannot post responses. You cannot tell people that they cannot ask you questions. You responded to me and you failed. Now you are just running away from that failure. Besides, you already did get your answer. I understood it. Apparently you did not. Why not ask me for some help? I understand this high school level physics rather well.

I no time to entertain you forth and back in this matter and if you can´t discern the already posted content or catch up on it, there is nothing more I can do for you.

What is "free nature"?

Again, if you´ve followed the discussion more concentrated, you would know we´re discussing artificial conditions in vacuum chambers and in the natural nature.

 

[Native]

Yes, the *resistance* produced by the air becomes more significant for larger objects or those that interact with the air in a significant way (like feathers).

Yes and?

Native Said
This is evidently NOT what you observe from a bowling ball and a feather in the free nature. The unexplained Newtonian gravity dogmas are getting the better of your logical comparison skills, thus inconsistenly concluding reversed causes and effects.

Oh, it is exactly what you observe in the 'free natural' context of, say, the vacuum on the moon. Or in space (away from the atmosphere of the Earth).

Empty space is not empty - try for gods sake to be updated on your old mathematical dogmatics! In this sence there is atmospheres everywhere in cosmos.

There is no vacuum on the Moon and you´re completely ignoring the already given orbital velocities and sizes of the Earth and the Moon.

The only time you do NOT observe this is when there is an *additional* effect of *resistance* of some sort, which *slows things down*. In other words, the source of the motion is gravity and the resistance slows things from that natural motion.

This is only in the wet dreams of gravitationalists! A defined planetary object cannot do work on itself. This is against Newtons own laws.

An EXTERNAL FORCE is needed and by now, you should be fairly qualified to make the correct conclusion.

 

[Polymath257]

Empty space is not empty - try for gods sake to be updated on your old mathematical dogmatics! In this sence there is atmospheres everywhere in cosmos.

YES, IT IS. In fact, there is more air in that vacuum chamber of the video than there is in space.

There is no vacuum on the Moon and you´re completely ignoring the already given orbital velocities and sizes of the Earth and the Moon.

Um, yes, the surface of the moon is in vacuum. If you are thinking that the solar wind is more than a very high grade vacuum, you are simply not familiar with it. In fact, the amount of matter in the solar wind is far, far less than any vacuum we can make on Earth.

This is only in the wet dreams of gravitationalists! A defined planetary object cannot do work on itself. This is against Newtons own laws.

Simply false.

An EXTERNAL FORCE is needed and by now, you should be fairly qualified to make the correct conclusion.

Simply false. In fact, internal forces are important in a number of situations, including the transmission of sound.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I no time to entertain you forth and back in this matter and if you can´t discern the already posted content or catch up on it, there is nothing more I can do for you.

Again, if you´ve followed the discussion more concentrated, you would know we´re discussing artificial conditions in vacuum chambers and in the natural nature.

I am all caught up, now I am just watching you run away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simply false. In fact, internal forces are important in a number of situations, including the transmission of sound.

Hah! Explain this then:

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Empty space is not empty - try for gods sake to be updated on your old mathematical dogmatics! In this sence there is atmospheres everywhere in cosmos.

# 1 YES, IT IS. # 2 In fact, there is more air in that vacuum chamber of the video than there is in space.

1) Apparently you´re allergic to all new ideas, discoveries and facts.
When discussing "Public Education and independent self taught research" as in this OP, this is what orthodoxy do to already cemented assumed dogmas.
2) Why don´t you then use this your own statement to explain the reasons why things regardless are falling? Is it only when it suits your opposition, an agument is of any value?

Native said:
There is no vacuum on the Moon and you´re completely ignoring the already given orbital velocities and sizes of the Earth and the Moon.

Um, yes, the surface of the moon is in vacuum. If you are thinking that the solar wind is more than a very high grade vacuum, you are simply not familiar with it. In fact, the amount of matter in the solar wind is far, far less than any vacuum we can make on Earth.

Come on and apply some logical thinking and pattern recognition here! I don´t care as long as you ignore the orbital velocity facts which affects mowing objects in space according to their physical sizes.

If following your lack of logics, it even shouldn´t be possible for comets to form tails orbiting the Sun. And it also shouldn’t be possible to pressurize the Earth´s magnetosphere at all.

Native said
An EXTERNAL FORCE is needed and by now, you should be fairly qualified to make the correct conclusion.

Simply false. In fact, internal forces are important in a number of situations, including the transmission of sound.

This is completely irrelevant when speaking of an object supposed to make work in itself and on its surroundings - but this is the kind of sidestepping magics needed when being unable to explain a force and it´s embedded dynamics.

 

[Native]

I am all caught up, now I am just watching you run away.

You think so?

Hah! Explain this then:

Have you heard of supernovas exploding several times in a row?

Run away yourself.

This explosive idea contains a bunch of biased assumptions in where gravity initially is thought to do the attractive formation of a star - which later is thought to go against its initial gravitational force and explode - or even going completely away in a black hole.

This illogical and contradictive nonsense is what is taught in universities as "Public Education".

 

[Subduction Zone]

You think so?

Have you heard of supernovas exploding several times in a row?

Run away yourself.

Whoooshhhh!!!

 

[Native]

Whoooshhhh!!!

Nice qualified comment - You should post it on your ordinary Facebook site.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice qualified comment - You should post it on your ordinary Facebook site.

When you refuse to learn the simplest of concepts and then try to launch an attack because you couldn't get a joke what else do you expect?

If you approached this topic humbly and genuinely asked for help people would be going out of their way to give you a hand.

 

[Polymath257]

If following your lack of logics, it even shouldn´t be possible for comets to form tails orbiting the Sun. And it also shouldn’t be possible to pressurize the Earth´s magnetosphere at all.

The actual amount of matter in the solar wind is very small. It would be considered a very good vacuum for any lab on Earth.

the comet tails also have very little matter in them. That is why comets can last as long as they do: very little matter is lost on each pass around the sun.

The Earth's magnetosphere is formed from current inside the Earth. The solar wind interacts with that to form auroras and such, but the entire structure is still a very good vacuum by most standards. It is certainly NOT enough to do more than make very small effects on the motion of anything in orbit.

I just looked it up. The average solar wind at the Earth consists of 3 to 10 particles per cubic centimeter. Now, that is high compared to the average density in outer space, which is about 1 atom per cubic meter. But at sea level, the Earth's atmosphere has about 26 quintillion molecules per cubic centimeter.

So, yes, the solar wind is a *very* good vacuum. I would be surprised if the vacuum chamber in the video of the bowling ball and the feather is anywhere close to that good.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Empty space is not empty - try for gods sake to be updated on your old mathematical dogmatics! In this sence there is atmospheres everywhere in cosmos.

It is empty compared to any vacuum we can make on Earth.

1) Apparently you´re allergic to all new ideas, discoveries and facts.

Not at all. Please present some facts. Please present some actual discoveries. And the newness of an idea doesn't make it correct. Any new idea still needs to be tested against the facts.

When discussing "Public Education and independent self taught research" as in this OP, this is what orthodoxy do to already cemented assumed dogmas.

There is a difference between dogma (which ignores facts) and discoveries (which are based on facts). Science education is based on the facts we have discovered.

2) Why don´t you then use this your own statement to explain the reasons why things regardless are falling? Is it only when it suits your opposition, an agument is of any value?

Why do things fall? Because there is gravity. That is a curvature of spacetime that affects the motion of matter in it. In the Newtonian approximation, that manifests as a force.

This force exists between any two bits of matter, is larger for larger pieces of matter and is smaller when they are more distant. There is a precise mathematical description in both the Newtonian approximation and the more accurate description in general relativity. But I doubt you would appreciate either.

Native said:
There is no vacuum on the Moon and you´re completely ignoring the already given orbital velocities and sizes of the Earth and the Moon.

I am not ignoring either the size of the Earth or Moon, nor their orbital velocities. But yes, there is a very good vacuum on the Moon.

Come on and apply some logical thinking and pattern recognition here! I don´t care as long as you ignore the orbital velocity facts which affects mowing objects in space according to their physical sizes.

Size and velocity have little to do with each other. The size *does* affect the acceleration (change in motion) produced from a given force. So, the force of gravity between the Earth and Moon keeps the moon in orbit around the Earth and the force of gravity between them and the sun keeps the Earth-Moon system in orbit around the sun. The velocities in all cases are perpendicular to the direction of the force, which is what produces the circular motion.

Please go and learn some basic physics. Even learning the difference between velocity and acceleration and that F=ma would go a long way. Getting F=GMm/r^2 would be very helpful as well.