The Conspiracy Theory

Manc33

None of that means anything.

Stop the ball spinning, the centrifugal force ends, the densities of the objects (water and fibers) come into play again and the more dense water sinks into the less dense fibers (what you call gravity).

pinarello001 wrote:

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

Yes but that isn't gravity, it is a difference in density.

I've already covered this when I said you'd need a ball bearing that has millions of times more density than a standard one, to even measure much difference in acceleration. Where are ya gonna get a ball bearing like that from and what aircraft would even be able to take it up?

If you assume one metal ball bearing weighs 10g and you have one of equal size that is a million times heavier, it would weigh over 10 tons. How would they handle such an object? You can get it in a plane but I don't know how they could drop it at the same time as a normal ball bearing.

In this case the heavier ball bearing would fall ever so slightly faster but it would be nominal. That was what I said in my last post, Newton's law would only get slightly bent even making the weight a million times more.

So this means the "safe density" we all exist at, is pretty much fixed in place. I mean science uses this "Hahaha heavier objects don't fall any faster than lighter objects" because on this scale you're talking no real world measurable difference.

If you made the ball bearing not just a million times heavier but a trillion, then yes, my claim is that you'd then start to see some acceleration difference between say, a normal metal ball bearing.

What we call "solid" applies to something as light as polystyrene, but what about the other end of the scale? We don't know because we can't lift it. We just don't have those elements here in this "safe part of density" we live in. So we can't get hold of the materials to properly test the Newtonian theory.

florerider

Gravity has the same accelerative effect on each unit of mass, which is why lighter and heavier objects accellerate at the same rate, assuming no difference in surface friction and air resistance. The classroom example always works because the limited fall means no object reaches its terminal velocity before hitting the floor.

Denser objects of the same size and shape, ie same drag coefficient, accelerate at the same rate as lower density objects, but achieve a higher terminal velocity as the velocity at which accelerative and drag forces are equalised is higher. That is why tank and bunker buster bombs use depleted uranium dropped from a very high height, very dense from a high height means high terminal velocities with lots of energy. The low density version, say the same shape made from an empty shape with a thin film of uranium, the outer surface being just as slippery through the air, would not achieve the high terminal velocity due to its low mass.

Similarly a parachute doesn't slow down a man because it reduces his density,it increases his drag coefficient. It also creates a high density pocket of air below the canopy , but trapping this high density air and adding it to his weight doesn't make him fall faster.

Manc33

florerider wrote:

Gravity has the same accelerative effect on each unit of mass, which is why lighter and heavier objects accellerate at the same rate, assuming no difference in surface friction and air resistance. The classroom example always works because the limited fall means no object reaches its terminal velocity before hitting the floor.

Right, but the classroom isn't able to use a material with enough density to see any real world difference.

florerider wrote:

Denser objects of the same size and shape, ie same drag coefficient, accelerate at the same rate as lower density objects, but achieve a higher terminal velocity as the velocity at which accelerative and drag forces are equalised is higher.

I have no problem with this.

florerider wrote:

That is why tank and bunker buster bombs use depleted uranium dropped from a very high height, very dense from a high height means high terminal velocities with lots of energy. The low density version, say the same shape made from an empty shape with a thin film of uranium, the outer surface being just as slippery through the air, would not achieve the high terminal velocity due to its low mass.

So then really, it is only the terminal velocity that makes the top speed faster of denser objects, while the acceleration "up to that point" is identical, or nearly identical.

This still just means differing densities and you don't need to introduce gravity to explain this.

florerider wrote:

Similarly a parachute doesn't slow down a man because it reduces his density,it increases his drag coefficient. It also creates a high density pocket of air below the canopy , but trapping this high density air and adding it to his weight doesn't make him fall faster.

It doesn't, because of what you said earlier in the same paragraph - drag.





Here's another one: I just went out somewhere and saw the sun shining through the clouds at angles (like a triangle shape). If the sun is 93 Million miles away, how are there angles? The light coming from the sun should be straight or thereabouts, over a 93,000,000 mile distance. They are angled as though the sun is only just above the clouds.

You could argue its the shape of the clouds... but not everywhere lol. The clouds would all have to have angled edges to cause that and we know they are just random formations.









Does the sun look 93,000,000 miles away?

No, it looks like it is just there above the clouds. You can talk a lot of science but as long as the clouds do this, you can see where the sun is approximately. Its not even half a million miles away going off the above pic, or any pic where the sun shines through the clouds.

I don't care what jiggery pokery is used to "explain it", its made up theories. I have eyes. :roll:

People not questioning this stuff deserve to get fooled, maybe. That seems to be the rules of the game. Please try to be careful about what you choose to laugh at. That is, are the facts in? Is there a rock solid theory? Think about that and how we all just trust these "geniuses" of science like Newton, Einstein, Copernicus etc.

What a perfect way to set it up so 99% of a subject checks out while the other 1% is unproven "facts" and lumped in with the 99% that is all provable. Its a great way to have everyone defending unproven theories for a start. No wonder people laugh at these things, it is made to be that way and is ingenious.

I just typed in Google "sun shine angle clouds" with no quotes and it is asking me do I mean angel? :shock:

No because angels don't exist whereas angles do. Why would it suggest such a thing if angles can always be seen in the sky but angels never can?

Let's divert people and ask them if they meant angel lol, just pathetic. Sorry but I am still going to search it. Do they think you'd just go off on one looking for angels in the sky?! Last ditch attempt because they know you are checking out the sun, pfffffffff, its not just their sun, its everyone's and it is there for everyone to understand it, if they choose to.

When they say "You can't handle the truth" I am starting to see why lol. I mean come on, the Earth not even a ball? Not even moving? That isn't just some NWO or 9/11 or whatever, that is a calculated deception over centuries, but I don't rule it out. Jesus was probably just some expert bullshitter, who knows how far back slightly more intelligent people have been locking down the Earth and hiding stuff from people just about unable to figure it out.

shockedsoshocked

I'm invoking Poe's law.

Manc33

I don't believe much of it myself I just keep it on the back burner.

People that say Earth is flat, don't say it from thinking the Earth is flat, they think it from it not being proven that Earth is a ball. If that is true then don't they have a point? I mean if we assume all the proof comes from one space agency?

Its already true that staging going into space and telling everyone they are going into space would be far more cost effective than actually doing it. All it takes is underwater tanks and parabolic flights and the non-release of any images of Earth from space.

That one fact alone proves it - a space agency has billions of dollars and since 1969 puts out one "real" image of Earth from space - there should be tens of thousands of images. Where are they all?

Where's the video of Earth doing a full turn?

The only video showing that shows the Earth turning about 40% and no clouds move or change shape. So NASA took that video at a magical time where not one cloud changed shape on the entire daylight side of the Earth for several hours. Any other time, oh, the clouds change form. NASA shows us this stuff (or doesn't show us much) and everyone buys it.

Too much stuff stacks up in the end, as always. You find yourself having to explain away so much crap, you realize it isn't possible to and thus, it has to be a lie. Like the sun shining through the clouds at an angle. There it is. I just went outside today and saw it with my own eyes. I don't need to read some brainwashing "science" with nothing to back it up. Using long words doesn't make anyone right or any proof materialize.

They are having a ball.
They are on the ball.
The ball is in their court.
Its a "global" thing.
Around the globe.
They are globalists.

It brings a whole new meaning to the term "against the globalists" :shock:

orraloon

Manc33, who (or what) ARE you?

Manc33

orraloon wrote:

Manc33, who (or what) ARE you?

A Manc chav.

When I am not on this forum I say stuff like "Nyah nyah mate, brrrrrap" and so on.

I also steal cars at the weekend and go joyriding.

What is a human... a "hue" man. A man of many colours?

Etymology is a big part of how we are all being conned.

Stuff like "ego" coming from the word "egg" and so on. A transparent outer with an inner core.

Check this guy out but bear in mind he is a comedian (contains swearing).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QciLVJZNq4c

Stevo_666

Manc33 wrote:

None of that means anything.

That's not my fault becuase it means something to everyone else on this thread.

Let me give you a link to something with pictures that explains buoyancy and the relationship with gravity that only the blinkered or intellectually challenged will have problems understanding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

Now let me put it another way regarding gravity. When I hold an object in my hand, I feel a downwards force due to this object: this force is known as gravity. I can feel it, so therefore it exists. So because I have tangible evidence of the existence of this force known as gravity, you need to prove to me that this does not exist. How will you do that?

Manc33

Stevo 666 wrote:

Now let me put it another way regarding gravity. When I hold an object in my hand, I feel a downwards force due to this object: this force is known as gravity. I can feel it, so therefore it exists. So because I have tangible evidence of the existence of this force known as gravity, you need to prove to me that this does not exist. How will you do that?

By saying "whatever you have in your hand is comprised of a material with a higher density than your hand".

Also by saying you can't feel a force, you are just interpreting it as a force. You're feeling a difference in densities, not a force.

If it was a force we would be harnessing it by now I am sure. You'd just rest a machine on the floor and away it would go perpetually, or as long as the Earth is here with its "gravitational pull".

So yeah... how come we are getting absolutely no benefit whatsoever from this magic force?

Because it ain't even there, would be a good guess.

florerider

Manc33 wrote:

You're "feeling" a difference in densities, not a force.

If it was a force we would be harnessing it by now I am sure.
.

Like hydroelectric power, where the head of water of constant density applies a force to the turbine?

Manc33

But then there's no other force in addition to the falling and the falling isn't being caused by gravity, just a difference in densities.

I can drop a ball onto another ball someone is holding really lightly and the top ball makes the bottom ball come unstuck, what moved the bottom ball, gravity alone or the top ball hitting it?

You're implying hydro power is a result of the force called gravity, but it doesn't need to be introduced to explain how falling water makes a wheel turn, you can still explain that with them being different densities.

If it were all the other way around and we had rivers of sawdust falling onto a wheel made of floating water (you'll have to pretend), is that wheel going to budge one inch? Nope. Thats because the density of the sawdust isn't enough to make the more dense water wheel move. Again you don't need a force called gravity for this to happen, a difference in densities only is enough to explain it.

None of this proves gravity, it just proves objects have different densities and they rise and sink in/around each other. Gravity is like a "what if" there was this extra force in play. Even Newton says "If" this and "If" that all the way through his book. Postulating, that's all. People want to jump on a reasonable sounding answer, I get that part, that's just like a religious thing and wanting to be right, that's human nature... its the part where the scientists don't prove it and everyone accepts it I am more worried about, if this is supposed to be strictly scientific.

Every other thing needs proving in science but not gravity (and a few other things). If we can wing it we can just about say "Yeah this is unquestionable, only a dummy would question this... good work chaps".

Knowledge = strength. Hiding knowledge from others = weakness.

I have said for years science is like a religious cult and its not getting any less that way. 99% of it isn't like that but 1% is.

Stevo_666

Manc33 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Now let me put it another way regarding gravity. When I hold an object in my hand, I feel a downwards force due to this object: this force is known as gravity. I can feel it, so therefore it exists. So because I have tangible evidence of the existence of this force known as gravity, you need to prove to me that this does not exist. How will you do that?

By saying "whatever you have in your hand is comprised of a material with a higher density than your hand".

Also by saying you can't feel a force, you are just interpreting it as a force. You're feeling a difference in densities, not a force.

If it was a force we would be harnessing it by now I am sure. You'd just rest a machine on the floor and away it would go perpetually, or as long as the Earth is here with its "gravitational pull".

So yeah... how come we are getting absolutely no benefit whatsoever from this magic force?

Because it ain't even there, would be a good guess.

So your proof is that I am imagining this force? You have proved nothing to me so you have failed.

Fyi, I held a block of polystyrene packaging in my hand earlier today and I felt the a downward force exerted by that just as I felt a force when I hold a small lump of stone in my hand. Polystyrene is less dense than my hand so according to your theory the polystyrene would exert an upward force. Therefore your explanation above is invalid.

Let me remind you, no one has to 'prove' a well established theory - rather you have to disprove it. Try again.

florerider

Is this a conspiracy to use up all the electrons before the collider gets a chance?

Manc33

Stevo 666 wrote:

So your proof is that I am imagining this force? You have proved nothing to me so you have failed.

Well since objects are made from different densities and you can feel that difference, then any force does have to be imagined, yes. Then again if you have never thought before today gravity might not be there, aren't you going to have a bias towards thinking that way anyway?

Like when you get off a trampoline and can't get used to the ground, but you've been there before.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Fyi, I held a block of polystyrene packaging in my hand earlier today and I felt the a downward force exerted by that just as I felt a force when I hold a small lump of stone in my hand. Polystyrene is less dense than my hand so according to your theory the polystyrene would exert an upward force. Therefore your explanation above is invalid.

No because your hand is hovering in the air as though it was as light as the air, which takes muscles and your own force.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Let me remind you, no one has to 'prove' a well established theory - rather you have to disprove it. Try again.

If that theory was not established with actual proof, of course it can be questioned. In fact science itself dictates that you must carry on researching it, not just give up and say its answered just because no proper answer was found. That's more like religion than science.

The theory is "established" in the minds of people that would love it to be that way, but that doesn't count.

It was just marketed to people in the right way... then it doesn't need proving for them to believe it.

No one can answer why we aren't using this force to power anything yet either.

Nothing should need to "fall" like water, thats not what I am talking about. Earth supposedly has a "pulling force" right? So you could in theory put a still box on the floor, then have it work as a machine using only the force of gravity to make something move? That is impossible. Nothing will move, unless another force acts upon it (dropping something of greater density right near the box, the wind, kicking the box down the street lol).

Stevo_666

Your explanations above don't make sense. What I can feel is a force - I am not imagining that and have checked it several times. That force is known as gravity.

BTW I'm still waiting for you to disprove gravity - your effort above does nothing of the sort. Fail again.

city_boy

City Boy wrote:

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!

I'm still waiting to hear whether you agree with the above conclusions from our experiment so far.

chris_bass

Just my luck, I leave this alone for one day and 2 more pages to trawl through!

How does the moon keep popping up every night? If there is no gravity how is it up there in the less dense part of your bizarre world?

Manc33

Chris Bass wrote:

Just my luck, I leave this alone for one day and 2 more pages to trawl through!

How does the moon keep popping up every night? If there is no gravity how is it up there in the less dense part of your bizarre world?

It could be made of something with hardly any density in our perception. The sun could be, with extreme heat, but no discernible weight. Maybe its like, at the limits of power to weight, on a universal scale. Its just hard for us to imagine that because we are nowhere near inventing something like that (in public at least).

I know making the density of an object equal to the surrounding density has already been invented because I saw that black triangle thing that time around 1998, it wasn't falling out of the sky and should have, it was only going at about 30 MPH.

We're already inventing things like that (albeit in secrecy) and we are wondering how a sun or moon could weigh nothing and have so much power? We know nothing! Thats a good start - realizing we know literally nothing about obtaining power from something.

They say stuff like "There's enough power in a cup of tea to blow the world in half" yes there is, so they do at least go that far.

So there it is, its possible the sun and moon could be made of very little density... its just that what they are made of packs an incomprehensible wallop! Like I dunno, one atom's worth can power the world for a year. Come on, you know thats all happening out there, you know it. :P

Then the cosmos swirls around our North pole, the pole "holds" the sun and moon (and anything else we can see revolving around like planets) in their "orbit"... but I am still working that part out. :oops:

florerider

Swap you my colander for your tin foil hat, the rays keep getting through the holes.

Manc33

What will you do when its summer and I am out on my bike instead of posting all the time?

I won't have enough energy to debate like this, it takes a lot of wattage to think (seriously). Not just me but anyone.

chris_bass

Have you not noticed it's quite nice out this weekend?

But before you go, how do you explain tides in your flat earth no gravity craziness?

pinno

Some of Newton's suppositions lead to phenomenal advances. Ultimately, people like him formed the foundation of physics and many advances in technology. I suppose when you think about it, none of them are real.
I shouldn't worry about being hit by a car because it is only figment of my (controlled) imagination and it's mass and density only relative.
I guess that's why fake FSA handle bars don't ever snap either. I have no idea why bicycle companies bother with expensive carbon fibre when a kitchen roll holder and a lick of paint will do.

chris_bass

That's why I ride this....

shockedsoshocked

Do you know Bhima?

orraloon

Vote is in from the Oxford jury - Manc33 is a wind up merchant. Good game fella. Now how about your theory that electricity doesn't exist. Nor does ice cream.

pblakeney

orraloon wrote:

Vote is in from the Oxford jury - Manc33 is a wind up merchant. Good game fella. Now how about your theory that electricity doesn't exist. Nor does ice cream.

Don't be silly, of course ice cream exists.
Electricity is just magic though. Power moving through a cable when nothing moves? Yeah, right.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Vote is in from the Oxford jury - Manc33 is a wind up merchant. Good game fella. Now how about your theory that electricity doesn't exist. Nor does ice cream.

Don't be silly, of course ice cream exists.
Electricity is just magic though. Power moving through a cable when nothing moves? Yeah, right.

Ice cream could be a figment of our imagination, like the allegedly imaginary force I feel when I hold an object in my hand. How long before the theory that we are all in 'The Matrix' gets floated (or have I missed that one?)

Manc33

Matrix theory is along the lines of "everything is a hologram" theory. This comes from the matter inside an atom being minuscule, like a coin in a cathedral. Thats the density we're dealing with, things can be way less dense and way more dense than that and we're in the middle somewhere, in a layer like Fungus the Bogeyman.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Vote is in from the Oxford jury - Manc33 is a wind up merchant. Good game fella. Now how about your theory that electricity doesn't exist. Nor does ice cream.

Don't be silly, of course ice cream exists.
Electricity is just magic though. Power moving through a cable when nothing moves? Yeah, right.

Ice cream could be a figment of our imagination, like the allegedly imaginary force I feel when I hold an object in my hand. How long before the theory that we are all in 'The Matrix' gets floated (or have I missed that one?)

That came up weeks ago. Get reading lazy slacker.
More plausible than electricity.
I like ice cream, imaginary or not. I like my life, imaginary or not.

chris_bass

Here it is

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/09 ... the-matrix

Nothing to do with holograms or atoms I'm afraid.

It'll be a curious one for manc33 as it takes a lot of 'science' to both prove and disprove it.