Ok you are now back to trolling camp mode. It is very transparent here. You live to argue and not to learn. You do not begin to understand any of the physics you are talking about. Where can one start after this "response"? More like i dont care anymore is what you earn here at the greatest loss of knowledge you could have experienced if you weren't here to only argue merit or not.


Particles dont feel gravity because they are electrons or molecules? And exactly what they do if your freeze them and let them drop to earth like ice? What are neutron stars doing than yielding to gravity until its all one giant collection of neutrons one last Pauli exclusion principle step before black hole? How do we even have stars if the hydrogen is not trapped by gravity and become super dense at the core?

Do you even begin to understand how wrong you are? You realize we have solar wind that is modeled just fine in its speed if you use gravity to describe it. What is this but charged particles?

No bending? Really? What are particles doing in cloud chambers bending in magnetic fields than experiencing the behavior classical physics predicts up to a point? You have to know how the quantum regime enters the game and where it is simply not altering the basics. The quantum amplitude calculation derives most contribution from the classical orbit by the way. Guess what it will look if the conditions are right then?


If you continue to insist you are not trolling then seek professional help immediately. You can still be saved by whatever has taken over your life.

A scientific test is a test? And what kind of things might you do to carry out this test? Those things have to be carried out in any particular order? Ms O'Callaghan PhD seems to think so, she was very specific about that.

Really? This is why I learned it is theoretically possible for a spacesuit to work in a vacuum despite insisting that it would be impossible, only yesterday you explained this.

If you freeze them they change phase to solids and no longer behave as gases. It is a false equivalence, it is the same as me saying tennis balls don't behave as gases do.

I don't know, let's start by not begging the question of balls of gas in vacuums or unproven theories of gravity and start with what we actually know, can test, can prove?

This I do not know, except that when you model real things you make assumptions. Sounds like a circular reasoning: if gravity then particles move with x trajectory, we observe x trajectory therefore gravity.

If you are arguing it is a magnetic and not a gravitational field that keeps the atmosphere held to earth then this is a relevant demonstration.
Re QM I am simply asserting what is commonly accepted - that gravity/gravitation/gravitational fields is/are not compatible with quantum mechanics for which I believe the standard model is the most tested, most proven scientific theory in history. Does not equate necessarily that gravity must be wrong but there remains zero verification for it.

I'll just call this an ad hom fallacy (if you are genuinely concerned then thanks)

Yes damn it i am concerned now. Because i thought it was possible to be reasoned with. We have endless lab experiments that prove gravity and its properties and all the laws we use for it and relativity simply recovers them and extends them to more extreme places but it doesnt invalidate the effective description only corrects the framework and that way introduces corrections to the original picture that are relevant only in extreme situations not experienced on the phenomena we are dealing with here. Yet you continue to introduce this to doubt gravity and basic laws of physics.

You do not need a container if the particle will come down eventually up there somewhere where it has finally reached zero speed before escaping earth's gravity.


The energy it has is 1/2*m*v^2-GMm/R<0 (kinetic plus potential) on the surface and higher it is -GMm/Rmax if thrown up vertically. It has no way to escape the fact its total energy is negative. That makes it trapped below Rmax.

When particle change phase in standard earth conditions they do not change their response to gravity.

Cite one please

You need a container to model kinetic theory and for gas pressure, as I understand it from the text.

Is this a model of a 'particle' as a modelling assumption ie moving freely under gravity? But the model of gas behaviour is in straight lines in all random directions, we don't seem to have moved past this. The high temperatures at high altitudes would give rise to high kinetic energy and therefore high velocity. Difficult to imagine them slowing down to a halt and then falling down. Pressurised gas is never observed to behave in this way.

Water sits still in a kettle, wanting to move down. When it boils it wants to do the opposite. When it condenses it reverses again.

Yes.

There are lots of things. At the ground level, you set up some scenario and watch what happens.

It's amusing that you keep quoting people who say things different than what you're saying, but try to shoehorn those statements to hold your erroneous beliefs.

The beginning point is observing some phenomenon. I agree with that. The difficulty arises is that you have bad definitions of "phenomenon" that you seem to be absolutely unwilling to address. I've literally quoted you giving one definition, but then shifting to a different definition, and then adding an arbitrary additional "context" to make it mean something else.

So until you address that, you're quite literally misrepresenting your own position either intentionally or unintentionally. If it's intentional, then you lack intellectual integrity and are a liar. If it's unintentional, then you're just dumb.

You continue to not address the core issue and get yourself hung up with quoting people on the internet. There are multiple challenges to this, and among them is that you keep quoting them, but then distort their meaning. This is clear because you keep quoting people, but then implying that they don't know what they're talking about as they try to explain what they've said.

* "Richard Feynman says this... but he must mean something else because he also believes things about science that I disagree with."
* "Angie O'Callaghan says this... but she must mean something else because her example of 'the earth is round' is clearly erroneous"

And when you quote website after website that describes a general version of scientific methodology, you continue to do this. I don't think you've even yet acknowledged the problems with your definitions of independent and dependent variables, which I've also brought up several times.

Now, let's return to the basic issue of human shadows. Are they natural phenomenon or not? Because if you can't even explain "science" in a way that discusses something as simple as human shadows, then it's no wonder that you're struggling to talk about science.

I'll quote myself from a few posts ago

yes, shadows, including human shadows, are naturally occurring phenomena.

Great. Let's do either earth rotation or gravity or both. What is the observed phenomenon/a?

Well I'm not a liar, therefore I am dumb.
You are the scientist, the PhD. Please tell dumbo here, the layman, crazy ol' flat earth billy your scientific evidence for gravity and/or earth rotation.

You are not dumb. You are a person of at the very least good intelligence. But you have either a trolling campaign going or if you insist otherwise you have a wrong way of arguing with people that ought in principle to know more on the topics that comes out as combative and not one of genuine curiosity and honest argumentation with better and better questions instead of arguments that have been shown to be wrong earlier. It is as if we are trying every time to find things to disagree with instead of building something together.

If that is your natural style then consider it a property a bad student has not one that doesnt study but one that is unwilling to learn and listen and build an agreement of an ever expanding set of positions.

How can you deny gravity now? What are you denying? That things fall and are attracted to earth? That objects orbit each other with behavior that can be shown to obey force laws of 1/r^2?

Lets focus on one thing at a time. Lets remain on gravity for a while. What are you denying about gravity or questioning? Do you want me to use observations and experiments to prove for you the 1/r^2 law?

Are you denying that particles of small size also feel gravity and that superposition principle holds meaning a lot of them together added feel an additive force that when you accumulate all their masses is the same as if it was a single object in that location with the same total mass experiencing the same force?

Do you have a problem with the concept of force? What do you call what you feel when you hold something heavy or when you lift something? What about what the chair you are using now exerts on you? Force is a concept that doesnt exist that way in quantum mechanics because it has macroscopic properties that are emergent/statistical not fundamental. But what we have instead is interactions and probabilities of various observations materializing but those cumulatively when you do the proper quantum mechanical treatment recover the behavior experienced in classical physics that is described there by variational principles of least action or the laws of Newton. Force is the cause of the change of motion of an object. It can be measured using Hooke's law after one can demonstrate the law with examples. Once you have a way to quantify forces you can start doing experiments with them to recover F=m*a for example.

But according to your definition:

And then you also said:

How do you have human shadows without humans causing it?

Notice once again that you've shifted gears. I'm just trying to establish what is and is not natural phenomena.

We can talk about observations, but then you'll once again trail off into la-la land. I'm trying to keep you on track here.

Thank you for admitting that. Given that you're dumb, what reason should I have to believe that you are competent enough in science to adequately challenge it?

There's another PhD here that has been telling you. But it's clear that you don't intend to listen. So I'm not going to waste my time with that. I'm going to stay focused on trying to get you to actually challenge your assumptions, as that's really where the action is.

Also, I'll point you to a trailer for a documentary that investigates your belief system.

For a physicist everything in a natural phenomenon including this discussion. How can it not be since it got there by what others might call natural phenomena step by step over billions of years. Some see natural as those that happen without the participation of higher complexity entities. But its probably better to just see everything the same. Higher complexity appears to be more unpredictable and subject to more chaos but its all natural really. If one wants to see the phenomena as those devoid of higher complexity participation and those that involve it then it will be true that those that do not involve higher complexity tend to be simpler to describe, something however realized by a higher complexity system.

Billy ought to at least come out and say look i have been investing a lot of time reading what the flat earth people are saying and their "arguments" and i find science to be cutting corners and not proving things properly. If its not trolling then something very remarkable has happened to his life to have him so convinced about things but in at times simplistic ways as if avoiding harder work and study because easier to handle proposals have neutralized logic and math. What happened?

Proper science is not cutting corners although can be improved and to be fair harder math and education is needed to be able to see things in all their glory and finally connect them together and recognize it is not a lie or a conspiracy but a great miracle really, an awakening.

Agreed.

You claimed there are endless lab experiments to prove gravity. I would like you to cite one please.

No you are derailing the discussion and you have been since first engaging with me.

If you deliberately cause a shadow then you know the cause of the effect therefore no need for science to determine that particular cause and effect relationship.

In your words, 'how do you have human shadows without humans causing it'

There you go, you know the cause.

Now, if you happen upon a shadow but don't know the cause then you got yourself a natural phenomenon, so get down to the University of Nevada and ask your pals there for some research funding. Might turn out that it was you standing in the way of the sun of course.

I am not challenging science, I am asking for the scientific method to be applied to the heliocentric religion.

You mean masque, so you don't got yourself a PhD? That makes you a layman just like these here flat earthers.

So you're running away from the substantive argument in order to troll me. OK.

I don't have a belief system.
PS stereotype fallacy right there and an epic straw man.

What experiment you want? One that measures g and confirms F=ma , one that proves the law is 1/r^2 and masses attract each other according to F= Gm1*m2//r^2?

What causes the pendulum to oscillate if not an attractive force towards the center of earth?

We can go to a higher altitude and measure the g and it follows the 1/r^2 law.

You can do that experiment on your own which is the best most convincing thing.

Take a pendulum and measure its period at 0 altitude. Go to the highest mountain you can go say 3-4km high and measure g again. You should find a deviation in g of about

(r+h)^2/r^2~1+2h/r (T=2*Pi*(l/g)^(1/2) g=GM/r^2 vs g'=GM/(r+h)^2)

or the period must be longer by 1+h/r factor. That means if you measure 100 periods and they are say 2 sec each you will start seeing a deviation in total time of order 3.5/6378.5*100*2=0.11 sec. If you can make the pendulum bigger like for a 4 meter pendulum in a closed observatory or something you will be having a period of 4 sec and observe consistently 0.22 sec difference in total time. This is hard to detect but if you do 100 measurements you will start seeing it. If the pendulum is big then you may be able to get away with 300 oscillations and then really see it for sure. You will then need only 5-10 runs to statistically establish it.

Alternatively get a very high precision weight measuring equipment (but harder than the above to do on your own) like in some video i linked earlier and take measurements of the weight of the same object to accuracy 1 part in 10000 you will see it.


Endless variants of Cavendish and the one at Stanford probing 1/r^2 at small distances recently in past decades.

Do you accept the laws of Kepler as observational facts?

Are you familiar with centripetal acceleration?

The solution to the Kepler problem for bound orbits is an ellipse only for specific laws and one choice is 1/r^2 the other is kr but obviously the force doesnt get bigger with distance in the solar system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler...anetary_motion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_problem

Kepler laws hint of the 1/r^2.


That helps build the theory. Once you build it you can test it with Cavendish type experiments on low masses but i can also enhance its credibility by the consequences of the theory like Tides or by predicting orbital periods of satellites based on how high they are, by observing the period of the moon etc.

What kind of thing you want to test?

Proof of mass attracting mass.
The acceleration due to gravity is an effect, we are looking for the cause.

Any pendulum? We give a pendulum potential energy when it is raised, this becomes kinetic energy when released. It moves the way it does relative to the medium it is in. A steel ball in air will not behave the same as a beach ball in water for instance. Why do denser objects tend to find a position 'lower' than less dense objects? I don't know but it seems to be more like a natural law than something that can be explained by cause and effect. When we pick a pendulum up we are doing work, we have inputted energy into the system, this accounts for the energy required for it to then move. Eventually energy dissipates and it remains at rest - things tend to seek a state of equilibrium.

If an attractive force is claimed to be causing such effects then this needs to be proven, not simply restating what the effects are.

If the g value is consistent with the formula at a higher altitude ie lower, has the lower air pressure been accounted for?
There is a problem with the independent variable - it cannot be 'height'.
Secondly how can the height be interpreted as the position within a gravitational field without first proving the existence of this field? (trigger warning, circular reasoning)

So g decreases with height, correct? What is causing this deviation? Can you vary and manipulate this presumed cause?

We are demonstrating mathematical descriptions of what we are observing, using this to reify an already established model. Where is the causal link? Small g is the rate of change of velocity for a body free falling in a vacuum at sea level, right? Why does it do this? You say the mass attracts the mass. Via what mechanism, instantaneously?

Citaiton for this please.

Yes to both

OK but observations are not experiments, it's a correlation.

I don't think we can call this a theory at this point

Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that doesn't fit into a currently accepted scientific theory. In other words, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
https://www.livescience.com/21491-wh...of-theory.html

We have the experiment coming after the theory, according to my citation this is backwards.
We are observing things in the sky then performing experiments on earth using unrelated objects. The assumptions aren't valid.

Correlation is not causation, correct?

I just want one citation to an experiment proving gravity.

What is proof of gravity define it????????????????

That 2 masses attract each other?

Will you be f*cking happy if we put 2 masses 1kgr apart in orbit around earth at 40000km and let them come close to each other in 24 hours as expected? You are really trolling the hell out the universe here with all these d1ckhead rejections of all examples.

Do you want to facking take every piece of mass in the universe and test it against each other and establish they all attract each other??? WTF will end this bs???

Find your own citations. Google them. People are not doing stupid experiments that happen daily in all labs of the planet and posting papers about them lately.

They are doing more serious ones like these

http://grattalab3.stanford.edu/neutr...go_Nov2018.pdf

What more citation you need than the very experiment that measured the G constant and earth's mass. Cavendish.



In this site i am the citation and external citations prove nothing to you if you do not understand the math and physics involved while talking to me. At this point in time i am the best chance you have to learn something and fack the citations. You can always tell me they are lies but the facking experiment i proposed to you is the truth you can do on your own.

The very fact your GPS works is proof of gravity. Google how it works.

There's so much irony that you try to accuse others of doing the thing you're doing. This happened when you accused others of circular reasoning and then committed circular reasoning yourself a post or two later. And now you're doing it again.

You're derailing this conversation because *NOBODY* is talking about using "science" to determine the cause. We know by logical necessity that human shadows are caused by humans. How can you get a human shadow without humans?

But then what is the status of human shadows? Are they natural or not? According to your definition, since they require human intervention (ie, the existence of humans standing in certain positions relative to light sources) they must not be natural. But then you said they were. So which is it?

Unless your position is now that "knowing" the cause changes the inherent nature of the phenomenon. It's "natural" until we determine that it's caused by humans, and then it's no longer natural. But that opens up all sorts of challenges. (For example, there can be no science that can be applied to buildings, because we know that buildings are unnatural and therefore cannot be studied by science.)

Also, trying to say whether something is "deliberate" or not is also kind of silly. I cause shadows when I'm standing in the sun, regardless of whether I'm deliberately trying to cause shadows or not. They just happen. They also happen in rooms with lights in them. You also cannot determine whether it's deliberate or not. If I'm standing in the sun, I'm necessarily causing a shadow. But how do you know whether I'm intentionally standing in the sun to cause shadows or if it just happens that I'm standing in the sun for other reasons and my shadow just happens to be there?

Again, nobody is talking about using science to determine the cause. We know the cause. The question is whether the phenomenon is natural. You have created a system in which you are literally unable to answer the question.

So to be clear: You are challenging every single Nobel-prize winning scientist and hundreds of PhDs, and also the existence of astronauts that have gone into space, but you don't think you're challenging science?

I understand that you think you're asking for the scientific method to be applied to a certain question. The problem is that since you don't understand the scientific method, it's impossible for you to actually determine whether or not it has happened. This is where your lack of knowledge (the fact that you're dumb) is getting in the way.

By analogy, there are people who try to trisect an arbitrary angle using a compass and straightedge regardless of the existence of a formal mathematical proof that it's impossible. And they sometimes present these proofs to mathematicians. You're one of those special people.

Notice how you're trying to appeal to authority in selective ways. Just like when you quoted Richard-freaking-Feynman and tried to use his authority, but then you reject pretty much everything else he says and stands by as a physicist.

I'll let you wonder what my credentials are. It's more amusing because it's just another example of how you're trying to distract from your own lack of knowledge. Again, you keep pointing at bananas but are calling them oranges. The thing you're pointing at is yellow and oblong, but you keep saying they're a different color and different shape. Until you fix that, there's literally nothing useful that you can learn.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but I've been trolling you from the beginning. But I've also been pointing to substantive errors in your understanding. You're assuming your conclusions, and I'm challenging those assumptions.

Except that you do. You have beliefs about what the scientific method are. You also hold beliefs about what other people believe. Those are belief systems.

Or I can continue to just call you a liar. Because no honest human being can truthfully claim that they don't have a belief system.

Stereotyping? Perhaps. But in order for that to be the case, you need to tell me why you don't fit the stereotype. Up to this point, your argumentation has been basically identical to other people who reject the heliocentric model of the solar system. Show me how you're different.

As far as this being a straw man, I don't know what specific argument you think I've attempted to knock over. I've merely presented a trailer to a documentary. It was not meant to represent any specific argument you've made, but rather address you as a person who holds particular beliefs, independent of whatever argumentation you use to support those beliefs.

You should really study logic more, because that's about the fourth or fifth time you've accused someone of committing a logical fallacy, but failing to recognize that it doesn't actually fit the fallacy.

You see this Masque? Ban the trolls, ban em all.

Once again, a non-substantive reply to substantive objections because it's clear your arguments do not stand to scrutiny.

This would be newtonian gravitation which is superseded by general relativity. It is me asking you to define gravity and show proof. But yes let's just go with mass attracting mass.

No because we have begging the question fallacies here: spherical earth ie orbital trajectory, vacuum next to gas pressure - vacuum is the medium masses are in. The thing we are trying to prove, ultimately, is an assumption of the demonstration. I guess if you could actually do this however then you have buried all my arguments.

No, just any mass attracting mass. But we also cannot assume spherical celestial bodies with assumed properties, including earth, without proof.

You said there are endless lab experiments, I asked for just one. Can't say I understand most of this document tbh, mostly not relevant to gravity in any case.

OK Cavendish
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

We don't have a phenomenon observed ie step 1 of the scientific method, so we have to just stop right here, can't proceed any further. As Ms O'Callaghan PhD tells us, a personal acquaintance of Aaron W (self confessed troll and no PhD as far as can tell), we have to start with the observed phenomenon.

Where do we see mass attracting mass in nature?

There are also no identified control variables that I could find.

The "observed phenomenon" language you are using is redundant. You've already defined a "phenomenon" as

So by your definition, you cannot have an unobserved phenomenon. But setting that aside, are you claiming that the Canvendish experiment is not observed to occur or exist?

You're still stuck on your own stupidity here. You've now mixed up your concepts so badly that you're uttering nonsense.

I do not see where you're getting your concept that the Cavendish experiment is not an observation (or an "observed phenomenon" to use your useless language).