the moment I knew that gravity was not what they tell us it is

[amy G 58]

11 hours ago, peter said:

Now show me one of your stupid pictures showing your density theory using a medium other than a liquid

How many times do you need examples of this? Here's a quick 10 seconder:

 

11 hours ago, peter said:

So what you are actually saying is the Styrofoam cup is denser than a  house brick and the  and sand is denser than  a large rock, but it's not something we can test ( maybe you can't because you wouldn't like the results)

No, not at all. I just asked you to ask this of the priests of heliocentrism, the freemason cult leaders who have taken gravity (G) as their God. I mean G can hold water perfectly still on a rock that is traveling multi-directionally at several times the speed of sound while it is also rotating and wobbling.

 

While at the same time - according to you - G cannot even move a house brick through a styrofoam cup!

 

10 hours ago, peter said:

What hasn't been explained though is how apparently every thing you say is demonstrable science

I have only offered demonstrations that you can do yourself. Build your own density tower. Take a ride in a hot air balloon. Fill a ballon with helium, tie it off and let go. Take another balloon and fill it with just enough helium to be at equilibrium with its environment as was DEMONSTRATED in the above clip.

 

And consider that if the apple that supposedly landed on the freemsaon's head and then bounced off and landed in a lake, we would not be discussing this.

 

Why? Because apples float!

 

10 hours ago, peter said:

I'm done now

No way, you'll get sucked back in.

 

 

Here is another experiment you can do yourself:

 

 

Another thing you can do yourself is research how submarines move up and down (yes, up and down exists).

 

 

[peter 791]

7 hours ago, Morph said:

It's always a waste of time to argue with such people - too dumb or too dishonest. You can't win.

Yes ,never argue with a fucking idiot ,they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience every single time

[amy G 58]

ravity:

An unproven theory that claims the ability to form universes and to attach water to the outside of spinning, wobbling, orbiting rocks...

 

but cannot pull a brick through a styrofoam cup as @peter so eloquently pointed out, let alone be shown to hold anything down to our surface at all.

 

 

[oz93666 1,413]

Just now, amy G said:

An unproven theory...

 

AmyG ...your an embarrassment to the whole forum ...

 

What were you doing at school during science class ...looking out the window ?? ...or larking around distracting the other students ?? ...

 

It's not too late , they do accept adults in basic science class ( assuming you are an adult) .. Enroll in one of these and they will explain things to you 

 

This is not a kinder garden science forum! 

[amy G 58]

15 hours ago, oz93666 said:

 

AmyG ...your an embarrassment to the whole forum ...

 

What were you doing at school during science class ...looking out the window ?? ...or larking around distracting the other students ?? ...

 

It's not too late , they do accept adults in basic science class ( assuming you are an adult) .. Enroll in one of these and they will explain things to you 

 

This is not a kinder garden science forum! 

Schools are the problem.

 

How can you watch this video and clim gravity is what they tell us?

For anyone who bought the freemason explanation that is found with google for the video in the OP, this is a must watch. Not only is the slinky gigantic, but the bottom does not get pulled to the ground (towards the center of a sphere) or even move for that matter until the top passes it!

 

Anyone claiming perfect tension can show me their numbers and we can do the equations.

 

[Basket Case 3,602]

41 minutes ago, amy G said:

Anyone claiming perfect tension can show me their numbers and we can do the equations.

FFS
You are so fucking tedious.
This has already been discussed and explained.
CENTER OF MASS !!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

[amy G 58]

12 hours ago, Basket Case said:

FFS
You are so fucking tedious.
This has already been discussed and explained.
CENTER OF MASS !!!!!!!!!!

FFS, you honestly still can't figure out the difference between explanations and demonstrable proof?

 

And consider your explanation. "CENTER OF MASS !!!!!!!!!!" If you added a few more exclamation marks, your explanation might have been clearer, however, the top of the slinky can be observed passing the bottom. Why does this matter? Because clearly, everything is not being pulled, nor accelerating at 9.8m/s/s to the center of a sphere.

 

If you like and can show me your numbers, we can do the equations.

 

[Doctor What 26]

13 hours ago, amy G said:

Schools are the problem.

 

How can you watch this video and clim gravity is what they tell us?

For anyone who bought the freemason explanation that is found with google for the video in the OP, this is a must watch. Not only is the slinky gigantic, but the bottom does not get pulled to the ground (towards the center of a sphere) or even move for that matter until the top passes it!

 

Anyone claiming perfect tension can show me their numbers and we can do the equations.

 

 

The only person confused in this matter is you. All through video, same principle as shown on page 1 of thread. Centre of mass falls at 9.8 metres per second squared. Because slinky is very long, it does not fall perfect vertical through itself.

 

You are ignorant troll.

 

13 hours ago, amy G said:

Anyone claiming perfect tension can show me their numbers and we can do the equations.

 

 

'We' can do the equations? 

Professor Robert B. Laughlin, Department of Physics, Stanford University

 

 

Wikipedia:

In the state of equilibrium of a slinky, all net force is cancelled throughout the entire slinky. This results in a stationary slinky with zero velocity. As the positions of each part of the slinky is governed by the slinky's mass, the force of gravity and the spring constant, various other properties of the slinky may be induced. The length of an idealized slinky extended under its own weight, assuming the fully compressed length is negligible, is

 L={\frac {W}{2k}},}

where L is the length of the slinky, W is the weight of the slinky, and k is the spring constant of the slinky.

Due to the effect of gravity, the slinky appears bunched up towards the bottom end, as governed by the equation

 p(n)=L(n-1)^{2}.}

Where n is a dimensionless variable, 0 ≤ n ≤ 1, with n = 0 corresponding to the top of the slinky and n = 1 being the bottom. Each intermediate value of n corresponds to the proportion of the slinky's mass above that point n, and p(n) gives the position that n is above the bottom of the slinky.

This quadratic equation means that rather than the center of mass being at the middle of the slinky, it lies one quarter of the length above the bottom end,

p({\frac {1}{2}})=L({\frac {1}{2}}-1)^{2}={\frac {L}{4}}.}

[amy G 58]

ravity:

An unproven theory that claims the ability to form universes and to attach water to the outside of spinning, wobbling, orbiting rocks...

 

but cannot pull a brick through a styrofoam cup as @peter so eloquently pointed out, let alone be shown to hold anything down to our surface at all.

 

 

This can be tested, observed, and replicated by everyine here. This is what is meant by demonstrable.

https://coolscienceexperimentshq.com/floating-egg/

 

On the other hand, as shown, density and buoyancy are not theories!

Edited December 9, 2020 by amy G

[Doctor What 26]

6 minutes ago, amy G said:

An unproven theory that claims the ability to form universes and to attach water to the outside of spinning, wobbling, orbiting rocks...

 

Gravity is not unproven - you are ignorant.

 

6 minutes ago, amy G said:

but cannot pull a brick through a styrofoam cup as @peter so eloquently pointed out, let alone be shown to hold anything down to our surface at all.

 

 

This is very basic physics, the cup has strength that is sufficient for supporting brick! 

 

6 minutes ago, amy G said:

 

This can be tested, observed, and replicated by everyine here. This is what is meant by demonstrable.

https://coolscienceexperimentshq.com/floating-egg/

 

Once more you spam this subforum with your density BS and always you ignoring the responses. You are afraid to answer my questions and all who view this thread know the reasons.

 

6 minutes ago, amy G said:

On the other hand, as shown, density and buoyancy are not theories!

 

Explain to the forum all about the forces that make this work. You begin by stating the force that makes things fall at fixed accelerating 9.8 m s^2.

 

For multiple time, you are cornered and all who read this know:-

 

Up is up and down is down ---------------- because?  Gravity!

• I ask you about heavy and weight because the concept is a vector quantity. I suspect you have no education on this. A scalar quantity is the static mass of any objects. When you apply force to scalar mass, it now has weight and a vector. Gravity gives the force. Density gives no force!
• I ask you about why objects accelerate and you are afraid to respond - density deems that as object reaches equilibrium with surrounds it slows. Therefore you are cornered.
• I ask you you why air is different pressure for altitude and you are afraid to respond. Air has same density so no explanation for variances in altitude pressure!
• I ask you why oxygen is not falling lower than nitrogen and you are afraid to respond. Oxygen has more mass and weight to nitrogen. You are cornered.
• I ask you how people float in aeroplane flying. You give stupid answer that makes no explanation. Air also is in parabolic. Density is debunked on this matter alone.
• I ask you why fall direction is down - you give stupid answer that makes no explanation. Gravity offers solution, density offers no solution as it is product of gravity!
• I ask you why Sun and Moon float in the skies. You are afraid to answer - there is no answer.
• I ask how Sun and Moon move in the skies. You are afraid to answer - there is no answer. Why do they not 'fall down'!

 

 

 

 

 

[Eldnah 152]

On 12/8/2020 at 3:44 AM, amy G said:

 

 

 

Yes They are 

 

What you mean is they arent Hypothoses 

 

You see a Theory is an established and confirmed Hypothosis* So Gravity, Flight, Bouyancy Pythagerous are all theories

 

What you and others who produce these memes are doing is taking the scentific term theory and then applying the common daily (miss) usage of theory being equivelant of guess or idea.

 

Its another of those embarrasing clutching at straws moments that makes you look foolish and leads people to think - you dont have any idea what you are talking about - you just repeat what ever you tube says.

 

 

*However its spelt 

[amy G 58]

8 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

 

Yes They are 

 

What you mean is they arent Hypothoses 

 

You see a Theory is an established and confirmed Hypothosis* So Gravity, Flight, Bouyancy Pythagerous are all theories

 

What you and others who produce these memes are doing is taking the scentific term theory and then applying the common daily (miss) usage of theory being equivelant of guess or idea.

 

Its another of those embarrasing clutching at straws moments that makes you look foolish and leads people to think - you dont have any idea what you are talking about - you just repeat what ever you tube says.

 

 

*However its spelt 

Demonstrate gravity please. That we can all observe and replicate.

[Steph 177]

13 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

 

Yes They are 

 

What you mean is they arent Hypothoses 

 

You see a Theory is an established and confirmed Hypothosis* So Gravity, Flight, Bouyancy Pythagerous are all theories

 

What you and others who produce these memes are doing is taking the scentific term theory and then applying the common daily (miss) usage of theory being equivelant of guess or idea.

 

Its another of those embarrasing clutching at straws moments that makes you look foolish and leads people to think - you dont have any idea what you are talking about - you just repeat what ever you tube says.

 

 

*However its spelt 

Pythagorah's Theorem is not a theory because it is proven that nothing other than that theorem can explain the phenomenon. Gravity is infact an unproven theory but explains things in a way in which the phenomenon can be understood. I'm not sure what Amy is getting at that gravity doesn't exist. There is clearly some phenomenon we all experience that the theory of gravity explains but I can think of a few alternative explanations which would also be consistent in explaining it.

[Steph 177]

That whole big enormous spherical rock up there just floating across the sky is a bit surreal when you think about it.

[amy G 58]

22 minutes ago, Steph said:

I'm not sure what Amy is getting at that gravity doesn't exist.

The first glass (left) is what happens when you place an egg in a glass of water. The egg is denser, therefore it sinks until something of equal or greater density is there to stop it. In this case the glass on the table.

 

The 2nd glass (center) is what happens when you place an egg in a glass of water and then adding a little salt to the water. The egg is denser, but because the medium that it is in became denser from the additional salt, the egg rises. The egg will rise every time until either A) something of equal or greater density is there to stop it, or B) it reaches a medium less dense than itself, as in this case when it reaches the air.

 

The 3rd glass (right) is what happens when you place an egg in a glass of water and fill it with less salt. In this case we see that the egg will find its equilibrium somewhere in the middle

 

ravity:

An unproven theory that claims the ability to form universes and to attach water to the outside of spinning, wobbling, orbiting rocks...

 

but the beautiful butterfly cannot even tell the difference.

 

[Eldnah 152]

33 minutes ago, Steph said:

Pythagorah's Theorem is not a theory because it is proven that nothing other than that theorem can explain the phenomenon. Gravity is infact an unproven theory but explains things in a way in which the phenomenon can be understood. I'm not sure what Amy is getting at that gravity doesn't exist. There is clearly some phenomenon we all experience that the theory of gravity explains but I can think of a few alternative explanations which would also be consistent in explaining it.

 

Pythagerous theory is not a theory  --

 

Brilliant - if you weae being funny  But sad if all youve done is continied with the confusion between scientific meaning of Theory versus common usage.

 

I to can think of a few  alternates that would explain "gravity" - but I can also consider things that discount them as applied to earth..

[Steph 177]

7 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

45 minutes ago, Steph said:

Pythagorah's Theorem is not a theory because it is proven that nothing other than that theorem can explain the phenomenon. Gravity is infact an unproven theory but explains things in a way in which the phenomenon can be understood. I'm not sure what Amy is getting at that gravity doesn't exist. There is clearly some phenomenon we all experience that the theory of gravity explains but I can think of a few alternative explanations which would also be consistent in explaining it.

 

Pythagerous theory is not a theory  --

 

Brilliant - if you weae being funny  But sad if all youve done is continied with the confusion between scientific meaning of Theory versus common usage.

 

I to can think of a few  alternates that would explain "gravity" - but I can also consider things that discount them as applied to earth..

I find your lack of literacy disturbing. Theory and Theorem are not the same word abd their distinction is that of being proven or not. There is no theorem of gravity nor does Darwin's theorem exist. Don't worry there are post-graduate scientists who fail to take account of this. This is why empirical science should not be trusted. There's a lot of academic fraud from people who expect an equal share in a collaboration, 90% of which is done by a genius made to look second rate in the cacophony of idiots who crucify Galileo for making them look bad.

 

There's an ironic 'theory' called 'Fermat's Last Theorem' where half a thesis has been lost and the remaining part continues with the notion that the missing part contained the proof that what is next posited is a theorem from what was described in the missing part. Without the proof it must be treated as theory until someone can provide the proof that ...

 

There is no whole number 'n' above 2, for which A^n+B^n=C^n can be resolved where A, B, and C are whole numbers. If you can prove this and mail the proof to yourself by registered post then present the proof to any university with a maths department, you'll make a fortune.

[killing raven sun 65]

32 minutes ago, amy G said:

 

ravity:

An unproven theory that claims the ability to form universes and to attach water to the outside of spinning, wobbling, orbiting rocks...

it is true that gravity does not form universes, but the force that did create the universe is well known, it is just not applied by many

 

have you even searched for meaning in your perception? do you even care how the universe works or are you just pushing the flat earth for religious reasons?

[gregory-peccary 57]

14 minutes ago, Steph said:

I find your lack of literacy disturbing. Theory and Theorem are not the same word abd their distinction is that of being proven or not. There is no theorem of gravity nor does Darwin's theorem exist. Don't worry there are post-graduate scientists who fail to take account of this. This is why empirical science should not be trusted. There's a lot of academic fraud from people who expect an equal share in a collaboration, 90% of which is done by a genius made to look second rate in the cacophony of idiots who crucify Galileo for making them look bad.

 

There's an ironic 'theory' called 'Fermat's Last Theorem' where half a thesis has been lost and the remaining part continues with the notion that the missing part contained the proof that what is next posited is a theorem from what was described in the missing part. Without the proof it must be treated as theory until someone can provide the proof that ...

 

There is no whole number 'n' above 2, for which A^n+B^n=C^n can be resolved where A, B, and C are whole numbers. If you can prove this and mail the proof to yourself by registered post then present the proof to any university with a maths department, you'll make a fortune.

That last bit: A^n + B^n = C^n

 

Please do NOT post things like that. It literally puts the fear of God into amy G.

[Steph 177]

A universe with a parallel universe cant truly be called universes. By definition, a universe must be singular as it contains all thing inclusive of the containment. Two things called universes are actually within a universe containing both. What about a parallel subuniverse? Just thought I'd point it out.

[killing raven sun 65]

38 minutes ago, Steph said:

A universe with a parallel universe...

doesnt exist, there is one universe, speculating on multiple universes is delusion and exposes ones lack of knowledge about existence

 

most, if not all, of modern cosmology is wrong to the point of being ignorable, its nothing more than mental masturbation

[Doctor What 26]

21 hours ago, amy G said:

The first glass (left) is what happens when you place an egg in a glass of water. The egg is denser, therefore it sinks until something of equal or greater density is there to stop it. In this case the glass on the table.

 

1. Why do denser things sink? 
2. Define 'heavy' for the viewers.
3. Explain why bowling ball and lead ball fall to the ground in same time.
4. Explain why falling things accelerate uniformly.

 

Why are you such a coward to reply to my posts?

 

 

21 hours ago, amy G said:

An unproven theory that claims the ability to form universes and to attach water to the outside of spinning, wobbling, orbiting rocks...

 

You need to return to school and learn things. You are embarrassment to the planet.

[amy G 58]

It is time everyone on this thread goes and does this simple experiment for themselves:

 

 

This is what is meant by demonstrable.

Edited December 10, 2020 by amy G

[Basket Case 3,602]

51 minutes ago, amy G said:

It is time everyone on this thread goes and does this simple experiment for themselves:

 

 

This is what is meant by demonstrable.

 

Why do denser things sink? 

In your own words.. 

[amy G 58]

2 minutes ago, Basket Case said:

 

Why do denser things sink? 

In your own words.. 

Obviously because they are more dense than their surroundings.