The Conspiracy Theory

chris_bass

Are you comfortable with the idea of more than one force occurring at the same time?

Can you imagine a scenario where one of these forces is greater than the other?

What do you think happens in this case?

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

No, I already knew about centrifugal force, thanks!

At least that force exists.

Can you prove it?

Manc33

Yes you just spin a wet object.

Ever think maybe the centrifugal force is greater than the gravitational force because the gravitational force just ain't there? Remember there's no proof of it and only a mathematical theory exists, which unless demonstrable, is junk.

Its not my fault if people are willing to accept the "best sounding answers" (Newton with gravity, Darwin with evolution) as rock solid facts. That is a whole other study. Yes I agree it sounds convincing, but it has to. People lap it up without proof and "impose" it as though it is a fact lol. Then we have "religious behavior" in science, which is just awful. That isn't what science was invented for, no way, no how. I don't care how official sounding they make it if they aren't proving anything. Its a big song and dance.

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

Yes you just spin a wet object.

Ever think maybe the centrifugal force is greater than the gravitational force because the gravitational force just ain't there? Remember there's no proof of it and only a mathematical theory exists, which unless demonstrable, is junk.

How does that prove centrifugal force any more than dropping something proves gravity?

So in a tug of war the losing team doesn't exist?

Could you also answer some of the other questions posed by other members? You seem to be avoiding them for some reason. Can't imagine why?

bondurant

Tennis balls don't have their own gravitational field?

This has opened my eyes Manc, thank you.

Manc33

Chris Bass wrote:

How does that prove centrifugal force any more than dropping something proves gravity?

Because with centrifugal force, you applied force to the ball yourself and saw what happened when the water spun off, there was a demonstrable cause and effect.

If you "drop" an object, you applied no force to it, so you're not observing any cause, or even an effect. You're just watching something with a higher density fall through another object of lower density (the air).

You might as well stand upside down and say "Look, this force is making everything rise upwards". Nothing is rising or falling, it is just "settling down" according to its density in comparison to the density of the substance surrounding it.

If you could flick a switch and magically make everything on Earth the exact same density, everything would be settled down resting on the ground. The ground only stays where it is because it is resting on something of a higher density and that's just the way it all settled down.

Now we have something just above that called "air" that although is a substance with density, is not generally treated as such and that's where the confusion comes in thinking we have "gravity" etc, no need for it though, you just don't have to complicate things by introducing gravity.

The only way to measure a difference in Newton's laws anyway is by dropping something like a compact star that is millions of times more dense than say, a ball bearing. Then there might be a slight difference in it speeding up a bit more. You can't just that though, you'd need some object millions of times denser just to see a nominal bending of Newton's so-called "law". It just works out for us because of the density of all the objects we know of. Its really clever and just so happens to be a theory people believe, for whatever reason.

Its like X-Files, "people want" to believe certain things. :P

It does give peace of mind, if you can convince yourself we know what gravity is, easy, next... but it doesn't work like that. Look at how a jury works (or used to, not sure about today) where if only one guy disagrees, you can't have a prosecution. Well its high time science worked that same way. You can have a bunch of scientists claiming this and that with a theory, but if only a handful of other scientists have anything at all to refute it (Newton is making it up and he hasn't proven his theory) you have to say hang on, this isn't marketing, this is science.

Newton's laws were simply "marketed" in just the right way it seems. Science is the new god. :roll:

Chris Bass wrote:

So in a tug of war the losing team doesn't exist?

There's a cause and effect going on there though.

Chris Bass wrote:

Could you also answer some of the other questions posed by other members? You seem to be avoiding them for some reason. Can't imagine why?

If someone makes a list I will but I'm not reading through it all. I am likely to just give an answer I already gave anyway.

pinno

Well Mancy boy. Please get a set of metal balls in ever increasing sizes right up to the size of the earth and set them all spinning in an orbit around the sun (or the earth). Come back when you find the two metal balls that does the opposite - one size/speed which displays centrifugal force and one that displays gravitational pull. When you set the experiment up you'll also need to set the tennis balls spinning in increments of 1mph increasing to say 1000mph (roughly 1 rpm in earth time if you get to that size before a result).

As it is absolutely impossible to set up, so you'll get back to me suggesting gravity cannot be proved.

Then we can use the philosophical illogical logic of God being a chocolate teapot orbiting the earth to extend this bollox ad nauseum.

Manc33

That is exactly correct - it has never been demonstrated, by Newton, or anyone else claiming it.

I can't prove gravity exists by demonstrating it either.

So what do we have there?

No proof.

In other words we shouldn't be taking this theory anything like as seriously as we do. It is a general musing at best, a "what if".

You're now claiming that because something cannot be demonstrated, it doesn't matter and its theory is still somehow correct? That is a dangerous way to think in science and it certainly isn't scientific. You need to relearn some stuff, like what science actually is and the rules it uses.

I admit there isn't much science cannot prove (properly that is) but gravity is one of them.

I know Newton can create maths to estimate the acceleration of objects, all of that checks out, but there still doesn't need to be any "force" at play ergo "gravity". He probably just thought "Imagine the publicity if I could get people to think there is a force" lol. It worked. Well, almost. Some people won't accept a theory as a fact when that theory has never been demonstrated.

chris_bass

So if it is just density why does an object accelerate towards the earth?

As you get nearer earth the air gets more dense so shouldn't it slow down?

Manc33

Chris Bass wrote:

So if it is just density why does an object accelerate towards the earth?

As you get nearer earth the air gets more dense so shouldn't it slow down?

It does stop accelerating, its called terminal velocity.

city_boy

Ok Manc, against my better judgement I'll play for a bit.

In your wet tennis ball experiment, consider this -

Replace you tennis ball with a stong magnet and replace your water with a fairly lightweight ferrous object, say a paper clip which will 'stick' to the magnet by magnetic force and then spin the magnet. Providing the magnet is strong enought, the paper clips will not fly off the magnet, but instead remain "stuck".

In this instance it would be because although there are two separate forces acting on the paper clip, the magnetic force is greater than the centrifugal force.

Would you agree with this?

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

So if it is just density why does an object accelerate towards the earth?

As you get nearer earth the air gets more dense so shouldn't it slow down?

It does stop accelerating, its called terminal velocity.

Not in a vacuum,

Manc33

City Boy wrote:

In your wet tennis ball experiment, consider this -

Replace you tennis ball with a stong magnet and replace your water with a fairly lightweight ferrous object, say a paper clip which will 'stick' to the magnet by magnetic force and then spin the magnet. Providing the magnet is strong enought, the paper clips will not fly off the magnet, but instead remain "stuck".

In this instance it would be because although there are two separate forces acting on the paper clip, the magnetic force is greater than the centrifugal force.

Would you agree with this?

If humans had enough metal in their bodies to be stuck to the earth by magnetism, yes. :P

Then you could get on a skateboard and just roll to the North pole lol.

Substituting a "gravitational force" with a genuine one (magnetism) to prove the gravitational force is there isn't scientific and it doesn't support the theory of gravity. We don't have enough metal in our bodies.

This is essentially why they can't prove gravity - because nothing is "attracting" anything. When it does, its just good old magnetism - something that is proven to exist and can be demonstrated any time. Or a vacuum cleaner attracts stuff because it pulls air in and can be demonstrated any time.

In fact it is something to be observed in itself - when anyone tries to prove gravity, they have to start bringing magnetic forces into it (or whatever else) to help support it. That's the same thing as "God moves in mysterious ways" when you ask a Christian about famine, disease, floods and so on.

It seems even scientists have to keep some religion in reserve.

Chris Bass wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

So if it is just density why does an object accelerate towards the earth?

As you get nearer earth the air gets more dense so shouldn't it slow down?

It does stop accelerating, its called terminal velocity.

Not in a vacuum,

We're not in a vacuum.

NASA tells us we have a layer of non-vacuum magically sticking to a layer of vacuum, without them ever interfering with each other (one never becomes the other) for billions of years. Something just doesn't sound right about that. :roll: Then again look at who runs NASA and all becomes obvious. They have a monopoly on what goes on in space and whatever they tell you cannot be questioned... wanna bet! Science is like the ultimate brainwashing in key areas.

That is the biggest most life altering things, they lie about. Everything else, they don't care, you can have it.

Here's a simple challenge... find a clip of NASA filming in space or on the moon (or Mars) where the camera pans around 180 degrees. Good luck.

Another challenge: Find five genuine images of Earth from space (not artists impressions, not composite images, not CGI, not cartoons) not including the one they have shown going back to 1969 because we already have that one.

I wonder what money would be left over if they just told everyone they went into space as opposed to spending the billions they take in to actually do it. Would it be a ten fold difference? Twenty fold? They only have to use parabolic flights and underwater tanks lol, pretty cheap really. Especially since they can just use the same underwater tanks they already train "astronauts" in (if there even is such a thing).

We have been conditioned to laugh at what ancient people thought and that is perhaps the biggest success these liars have ever had over people, to make them think they are at the cutting edge all the time and so on, its not good folks it really isn't.

city_boy

Manc, I never said magnetic force was pinning us to the ground, I simply asked if you agreed with the principles
of the simple experiment in my post?!

I am going to assume that you do.

So, if we take the experiment a little further, we replace the simple magnet with an electro magnet where we can vary the magnetic force. We also replace the paper clip with a heavier iron based object. We the spin the magnet with object attached and with the magnetic force set to keep the object "stuck" to the magnet.

Once the magnet is spinning (we keep the rotational velocity constant) and then begin to gradually reduce the strength of the magnetic force. At some point the object will 'fly' off the magnet. This point would be before we reach zero magnetic force ie. there would still be a degree of magnetic force acting upon the object.

This would then prove

A) there is another force (centrifugal) acting upon the object
the magnetic force had become weaker than the centrifugal force at this point

Would you agree with this? (I am simply looking for a yes or no to this question, I am not suggesting centrifugal force is pinning us down either :roll: )

Manc33

Yes I agree with all of that, because you're using two known forces: centrifugal force and magnetism.

You cannot just "combine" those two forces to create a new force that doesn't exist.

What about metal? Gravity isn't claiming only metallic objects stick to things, it is claiming everything with a mass greater than the mass of the material around it does, which is just a "difference in density".

What is the harder question for me is why it is one directional, but maybe it is just the "first spatial dimension" and has to be there for 2D and 3D to exist.

To me everything is "layered" on a 2D plane, that is permanently fixed to a 1D line. We call that line "down" but it would just as easily be up if the densities of objects were reversed in comparison to each other.

It seems to be like a fixed point with no width, no depth... but infinite height. I haven't really worked that part out yet, how could I lol, I'm just a bloke.

I started thinking this 2D plane has to be "falling through" the 1D line at what we call "1G" to create what we call gravity (and we would be sticking to an upside down 2D plane at 1G) but if its just a difference in densities, even that isn't needed, we can be the "right" way up and have an effect like gravity. I mean the "acceleration" is not needed on an enormous scale like we are told, its just different densities settling down, despite the vastly differing ways this can be shown (leading to people calling it "buoyancy" and so on, but then that is probably a better word to use for it than gravity).

Dropping a heavy ball bearing through the air, the air has an extreme "buoyancy" going on, you could think of it as "the air rising really fast around the ball bearing" equally as much as it is the ball bearing "falling through" the air.

city_boy

You can't help yourself going off on ridiculous tangents can you? You are making a lot of completely wild assumptions about what I am talking about.

Anyway, back to our simple experiment.

From what we have observed so far would you agree the following?

A) more than one force can act upon on object at the same time
the strongest force will control the object
C) once the initial stronger force becomes weaker than the next strongest force, then the next strongest force will take control of the object
D) by logical extension, if only one force is acting on, and thereby controlling an object (ie. No opposing or additional forces are present) then the strength of the acting force would need to reduce to zero before it ceases to act upon/control an object (because it is not competing with an opposing force)

Again, there is no hidden meaning or questions you need to answer, just the 4 simple observations above!

chris_bass

Lead is more dense than water, do you agree?

Ice is less dense than water? Yes?

Given the correct thickness of ice it will support lead? Yes?

How is this possible in your world?

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

@Manc33

Didn't you write something earlier in the thread about how "they" were suppressing technology to suit "their" agenda and refer to an anti-gravity device which you knew was real but had been hidden from the public as an example?

If you think "anti-gravity" is real, how do believe that gravity is not?

P.S. How heavy is your bike?

Good spot. No need for an anti gravity device if gravity doesn't exist. Your thoughts on this please Manc33?

Manc, you seem to have missed this point -we're waiting for your answer...one of your statements can't be right - which one is it?

Stevo_666

Chris Bass wrote:

Fair enough, gravity is clearly a lie, so why do things fall back to earth when thrown upwards?

Manc - you haven't answered this one either. What's the answer?

MisterMuncher

Manc33 wrote:

Get a tennis ball with string attached so you can spin it really fast and put a few drops of water on it - in your theory of gravity existing, the faster you spin the ball, the more the water sticks to it, right?

Is that what happens in the real world?
Nope.

Is Newton talking out of his ars* then?
Yep.

Except I am not just presenting you with a theory on paper here, you can really get a tennis ball, really put string through it, water on it and make it spin really fast.

You film that and show it me, then I will believe spinning objects cause gravity in a way things stick to it.

Except that Newton, nor anyone else of any credibility, ever claimed Gravity had a single, solitary thing to do with rotating objects. Your experiment doesn't say anything about gravity because it isn't designed to do anything related to gravity as it is understood.

Straw man strikes again.

chris_bass

Stevo 666 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Fair enough, gravity is clearly a lie, so why do things fall back to earth when thrown upwards?

Manc - you haven't answered this one either. What's the answer?

It's clearly all about density, things just settle down in order of density. How it decides which way down is is yet to be explained. Why it gets to a certain height and falls back down is anyone's guess. I would assume it is due to the difference in density outweighing the force of the throw. This is obviously why as something falls to earth and gets nearer things of the correct density it slows down until it finds its place. Oh hang on....

It is also why no gas is found underground, oh hang on...

pblakeney

22 pages and counting.
Kudos!

florerider

Yes, but oxygen is denser than nitrogen and that explains being out of breath at the top of a hill :P

Kieran_Burns

I'd just like him to explain (based on his ridiculous tennis ball 'experiment') how we're not flung off into space?

We're sat on a ball that is spinning at 1000 mph (at the equator), orbiting a star at over 65,000mph which is itself orbiting the centre of Galaxy at 450,000mph. Yet somehow we're not having to manufacturer hoops and hooks to keep us here.

Curious that.

Mind you, so is the fact that the planets are orbiting the Sun and the Sun is orbiting the centre of mass of the Galaxy without this whole 'gravity' thing to keep things together.

Also curious that.

Manc33

How can there be an anti-gravity machine if there's no gravity?

There isn't a machine - I just thought there was when I said that, because I assumed you'd need to have something like that to fake space footage, but I have since found out they actually only need to be using parabolic flights and underwater tanks to fake the whole thing.

If they have an "anti-gravity" machine then they would be using a machine that somehow makes everything inside it float around, it isn't "reversing the effects of the outside world" lol. You might as well say a superconductor uses anti-gravity. It doesn't.

"Anti-gravity" is often used colloquially to refer to devices that look as if they reverse gravity even though they operate through other means, such as lifters, which fly in the air by using electromagnetic fields." - some Wiki article.

Yes they do have machines like that, no it doesn't prove gravity exists, it proves you can make things "float". So they are just playing with the densities of objects. I am sure they have ways to fake it on a small scale with extremely heavy gases.

The one with the ant and plastic nut in a tube. Maybe an ant was the only thing they could find that would stay alive long enough to be filmed.

Show me a video of an anti gravity machine where there's metal objects and humans floating and I might believe it.

The only time I have seen that, something is being suspended and would boing back into position if you moved it slightly, therefore it isn't truly weightless. Truly weightless objects would spin forever and only go the way they were pushed, no springing back. The one I saw with an ant was suspended at a certain height in the tube. Extremely iffy, proves nothing.

pinno

I suppose you think that mass vaccination is a control technique and there is a conspiracy to cover up the side effects of vaccination too?

[Got to get this thread up there with the LA thread in pro race. Apols to the rest]

Manc33

Stevo 666 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Fair enough, gravity is clearly a lie, so why do things fall back to earth when thrown upwards?

Manc - you haven't answered this one either. What's the answer?

I have, objects have different densities to other objects, giving the effect of a force which we call gravity.

No force can be shown to be there.

Try throwing a helium balloon up and see if it comes back down.

So its not true "things" fall back down, it depends on what that thing is. Thats because of the objects densities.

Manc33

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I'd just like him to explain (based on his ridiculous tennis ball 'experiment') how we're not flung off into space?

The stuff we are made of has more density than the stuff we are surrounded by.

Why don't we keep on sinking right into the earth?

Because the ground we are resting on has more density than we do.

Where does gravity come into it?

Kieran_Burns wrote:

We're sat on a ball that is spinning at 1000 mph (at the equator), orbiting a star at over 65,000mph which is itself orbiting the centre of Galaxy at 450,000mph. Yet somehow we're not having to manufacturer hoops and hooks to keep us here.

Curious that.

Sure is, it has to mean Earth isn't moving.

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Mind you, so is the fact that the planets are orbiting the Sun and the Sun is orbiting the centre of mass of the Galaxy without this whole 'gravity' thing to keep things together.

Also curious that.

Its curious that the Earth didn't collide with the sun and the moon collide with the Earth billions of years ago.

Also how do planes land if the ground is moving beneath them at up to 1,000 MPH?

Yes, I have heard all the claims of "The air moves with the Earth" but that is absurd, no it doesn't. Where's the 1,000 MPH winds? If gravity is supposedly "sticking" the air to the Earth, if it a powerful force, why don't I go anywhere (ground move under me) if I jump up? How come a guy can skydive and the Earth doesn't move beneath him? People land miles and miles away from where they should, right near where they jumped out above.

Nothing I just said gets proven, all you'll get is "because it just is dumbo" and that's about it, insults and nothing else.

I am sure you could have a similar conversation about Santa. Come on its obvious he exists, why would they have this guy in a red suit for no reason, he lives in Lapland, everyone knows it. What about the presents under the tree, where would they come from? I can't prove it, but he exists, you only have to observe the world to see he does.

pinno

Manc33 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Fair enough, gravity is clearly a lie, so why do things fall back to earth when thrown upwards?

Manc - you haven't answered this one either. What's the answer?

I have, objects have different densities to other objects, giving the effect of a force which we call gravity.

No force can be shown to be there.

Try throwing a helium balloon up and see if it comes back down.

So its not true "things" fall back down, it depends on what that thing is. Thats because of the objects densities.

So the more dense the object the faster it will fall?

Stevo_666

Manc33 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Fair enough, gravity is clearly a lie, so why do things fall back to earth when thrown upwards?

Manc - you haven't answered this one either. What's the answer?

I have, objects have different densities to other objects, giving the effect of a force which we call gravity.

No force can be shown to be there.

Try throwing a helium balloon up and see if it comes back down.

So its not true "things" fall back down, it depends on what that thing is. Thats because of the objects densities.

This goes back to what City Boy was trying to explain to you. In the example above there are 2 forces at work - the upward force on an object that displaces a fluid and the downward force of gravity. Whether an object rises or falls depends on which is the stronger force. Which will vary depending on the nature of the object and the fluid. The gravity will be pretty constant in any earthbound example but clearly varies with the mass of the object concerned.