# Why do things Rise or Fall? This paper was deleted on physics forums and david icke... any math geeks about?



## otl2021 (Sep 6, 2021)

I hope this stays up here. It has been out for awhile and we have yet to find any errors in the math.

When I posted this on physics forums and asked them to check the math... the thread was locked in minutes and imo, when they realized that they could not find errors in the math, the thread disappeared. It was also up for a few days on david icke and had several views with no replies and then it disappeared as well.

Freemasons hate this topic.

Especially, if anyone has linear algebra, please chime in. And thanks for any help with this.

I love the abstract which I will post here.

To the reader;
Aerodynamic is a pseudonym in order to protect my career considering that writing this paper will surely get me banned by my regulating body and I will not be allowed to practice my profession anymore.

 I am qualified to speak on this subject; I am a Chemical Engineer from ABET accredited North American University. I recently was tested and certified for the fundamentals of my profession from the NCEES (National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying). Disclosing anymore would put my real identity at risk and despite having recently proven my competency in an international test and at a worldwide acclaimed university, questioning the current dogma would get me banned under the current regulatory body I am registered under, regardless of whether or not I am competent.

Today “Science”, claims to foster open discussion but does not tolerate questioning of its Saints such as “Saint” Isaac Newton.  This is the perfect time to release this paper as we are seeing that same blind devotion in the followers of “Saint Fauci“. The followers of him havecomplete apathy towards more qualified dissenting experts on the subject.

I will make this document as simple to understand as possible. That way the information is available to all of those smart enough to understand it and not hidden behind professional lingo (i.e. Black’s Law Dictionary, etc.).

Why Things Rise and Fall.pdf attached below.


----------



## Fexus (Sep 7, 2021)

The first bit is very good. It is indeed strange that it wasn't until 1665/1666 that gravity would be defined when the question to "why do things rise" was already answered more than 2000 years ago. 

However, there is an underlying fallacy in that article that doesn't have anything to do with the mathematical formulars. That fallacy is the so-called "fall-rate" of space. I don't get why there would be a constant fall rate in empty space. The Brian Cox experiment showed that all things accelerate evenly in a vacuum. Following the logic of the article, this would mean that all things except for earth accelerate towards only one direction in space, which makes no sense to me. Also, what would be causing this acceleration then? There are no phenomena without a cause.
In addition, everything in the article in regards to buoyancy is already known. The weight of an object (and subsequently its buoyancy) is dependent on vector, medium and location (and maybe more?). It only comes down to the understanding of the gravitational "constant". The article neither proves flat earth nor does it disprove the current mainstream model. Just because the math works, doesn't mean that the model is fundamentally correct (this goes for all models). This is why it is so important to keep in mind that math does not explain things. It only describes the superficial, observable phenomena.

Also, magnets accelerate towards other magnets in the same way that other objects accelerate towards earth. If you wait a loooong time, a magnet will eventually break down into a sphere because that's what the principle of pressure mediation dictates. You can try this by breaking a magnet apart multiple times and observing how the pieces stick together. They will form a sphere (as best as possible). I think it is reasonable to assume that mass/gravity works in the same way.


----------



## DanFromMN (Sep 7, 2021)

RELATIVE DENSITY

any other questions?


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 7, 2021)

Fexus said:


> The first bit is very good. It is indeed strange that it wasn't until 1665/1666 that gravity would be defined when the question to "why do things rise" was already answered more than 2000 years ago.


It makes sense in that they required a way to answer the obvious questions that were now coming, about their imagined planets, doing their imagined orbits.

And one might say that this is when the little, idiotic freemasons' "trust the science" was born.



Fexus said:


> However, there is an underlying fallacy in that article that doesn't have anything to do with the mathematical formulars. That fallacy is the so-called "fall-rate" of space. I don't get why there would be a constant fall rate in empty space. The Brian Cox experiment showed that all things accelerate evenly in a vacuum. Following the logic of the article, this would mean that all things except for earth accelerate towards only one direction in space, which makes no sense to me. Also, what would be causing this acceleration then? There are no phenomena without a cause.
> In addition, everything in the article in regards to buoyancy is already known. The weight of an object (and subsequently its buoyancy) is dependent on vector, medium and location (and maybe more?). It only comes down to the understanding of the gravitational "constant". The article neither proves flat earth nor does it disprove the current mainstream model. Just because the math works, doesn't mean that the model is fundamentally correct (this goes for all models). This is why it is so important to keep in mind that math does not explain things. It only describes the superficial, observable phenomena.


I don't think you understood the paper.

No fallacy at all and this has everything to do with math. The paper is not about the shape of the Earth. The paper has nothing to do with imagining space. The paper only discusses their imagined gravity to then use the math that shows us that we do not need to imagine gravity when discussing why things rise or fall.

I hope that made sense.



Fexus said:


> what would be causing this acceleration then?


It was right there in the paper...


DanFromMN said:


> RELATIVE DENSITY


^^^ We have a winner!


----------



## Fexus (Sep 8, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> I don't think you understood the paper.
> 
> No fallacy at all and this has everything to do with math. The paper is not about the shape of the Earth. The paper has nothing to do with imagining space. The paper only discusses their imagined gravity to then use the math that shows us that we do not need to imagine gravity when discussing why things rise or fall.



There is a good chance that I didn't understand the paper. I certainly don't get most of the math but I can say for certain that the gravitational constant is still being used in the final formular, which means that gravity is not an imaginary concept! If density were the only thing relevant, objects of lower density would not rise up, they would get pushed towards wherever their density matches that of the surroundings as best as possible. The Brian Cox experiment shows that this is not the case. Everything accelerates towards earth. The feather, for example would not bother falling towards earth in the vaccum without gravity. This is why he makes the claim that empty space has a constant fall rate.
In my opinion, claiming that empty space has a fall rate is even more baseless than Newton's claim about gravity. I really don't understand how he comes to this conslusion. 

My conclusion is that we DO need gravity to explain the rising and falling of things. Without gravity, objects would not just rise and fall but also escape into any other direction to match the density of their surroundings and even out the pressure. Additonally, gravity cannot be the "constant fall rate" of empty space because empty space is nothing and therefor cannot act upon anything.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 8, 2021)

Have you considered the fact that there is no pull force in this reality, only push?


----------



## Taira Earth (Sep 8, 2021)

I am using machine translation.

@otl2021 
I think this is a great post.

I thought it would be good to bring it to the attention of Japanese math geeks, so I translated some of it into DeepLearning and posted a thread on the Japanese version. 

なぜ物事は上昇または下降するのか？この論文は物理学フォーラムやdavid ickeで削除されました...数学オタクの方はいらっしゃいますか？【特選SH】

If this post is a threat to your position(lol), please let me know and I will delete it.
Thank you very much.


----------



## Fexus (Sep 8, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Have you considered the fact that there is no pull force in this reality, only push?


"A good example for such interaction becomes apparent in gravitation, which should rather be named universal compression. [...]The ether tries to return itself to its initial state by compressing our world but intrinsic electric charge within the material world obstructs this. [...] Having come out of the ether once - so it will go back in to the ether."

From Nikola Tesla.

So, in a sense, Tesla would agree with you and so do I. In short, what he is describing would be known as the principle of pressure mediation.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 8, 2021)

No such thing as coincidence.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WysPpYfNLDQ_​


----------



## Fexus (Sep 9, 2021)

Dielectric said:


> The counter spatial domain of the dielectric field is crystalline. The crystals are in the shape of a cube in their hyper-spatial energy field, which is to say that hyperspatial is counter~spatial, and is holographic like in that it is incorporeal. Whereas in our dimensional plane this hyperspatial cube drives a 3rd dimensional tetrahedronal planck scale particle producing movement.



May I ask how you came to the conclusion that counterspace is made up tetrahedon particles? What would these particles be made out of then? Counterspace is metaphysical. Does it make sense to attempt to give it physical/cartesian properties? Counterspace only gets these cartesian properties when it discharges into space, no?


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 9, 2021)

Here you go. A copy of an experiment originally done at Lockheed Skunk Works facility according to the video. 
The full video features part of an interview so I fast forwarded it to the point where the experiment is put together. 

_View: https://youtu.be/mxoaAHlC37I?t=347_
​
Have you ever done this experiment dielectric?


----------



## Apollonius (Sep 9, 2021)

Gravity does not cause objects to fall; but *aetheric pressure.*


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 10, 2021)

Oh my, I know I'm new here and I might not understand how the mods work here, but does anyone feel like discussing the OP?

Are there not many other threads were people can fantasize about things like spacetime, mass attracting mass and an explosion that created some 'zero-G' world?

Now, if anyone had proof of these concepts, that would be different.

Boyd Bushman? Seriously, people? This guy was a 'scientist' for Lockheed Martin (think MIC) who pushes the aliens from space narrative. And who doesn't see how UNscientific that experiment was? 

Grainy video with cartoon arrows placed were we are supposed to see something?

His hands were the release mechanism?

The densities were measured and verified how... and by who?

Interesting concept, but to call that science is irresponsible.



Dielectric said:


> What Is a Barycenter? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids


Nasa lies about everything! Using a link from nasa that discusses gravitation is no different than using a quote from Fauci that discusses vaccine safety.

A barycenter, like spacetime and a plethora of their other psyops is not based in science. They are what logicians refer to as reification fallacies and anyone who has studied basic logic knows that a logical fallacy renders an argument invalid.

What am I talking about?

All I see is that gravity is a pitiful theory and for today's scientists to still even use it in scientific discussions should tell everyone how much control our rulers truly possess.

*ravity:*

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

*but cannot move a weak, cardboard book cover.*



 Peace


----------



## Apollonius (Sep 10, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> Nasa lies about everything! Using a link from nasa that discusses gravitation is no different than using a quote from Fauci that discusses vaccine safety.
> 
> A barycenter, like spacetime and a plethora of their other psyops is not based in science. They are what logicians refer to as reification fallacies and anyone who has studied basic logic knows that a logical fallacy renders an argument invalid.


Why would they have to lie about everything when there is an easier way to invert everything?


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 11, 2021)

Food for thought...


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 12, 2021)

Dielectric said:


> Where are the mods? This above is way out of line. I won't waste my time here if this is allowed. I am addressing the OP specifically. If he or others can't grasp what's being communicated then they can ask like a human. I greatly resent these implied comments.


Your outrage is noted, but you have misunderstood something or there is something else going on here.

You are addressing the OP specifically? How have you addressed why things rise or fall?






Ask like a human? I feel that I have. We are looking at demonstrable reality in this thread. We are looking for actual science. We need that to be testable, replicable, repeatable, etc..

There can be no reification or any logical fallacies employed, as these render said arguments invalid.

If my response about bushman bothered you so, I apologize, but I was just stating facts that are obvious from the video. That experiment had nothing at all to do with actual science. The man is a hack at best, but more likely a disinformation agent promoting the fake space where aliens come from nonsense.





^^^For reference, Actual science - testable, replicable^^^​


Dielectric said:


> Oh gee...sorry I thought dropping rocks off a tower was something considered scientific proof...


You definitely did not understand the OP or anything relevant written on this thread.

We all agree rocks fall through air. Archimedes used actual science to explain this centuries before gravity was ever mentioned. Modern science attributes this to unproven 'gravity.'

Why do air bubbles rise through water? Why does water fall through air? Except when it is heated? Why do anvils float in mercury? And why do some helium balloons after time simply float perfectly in the middle of your room?

Newton never never wanted gravity as a force to be associated with himself.

*Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe {innate} gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I beleive no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent {acting}  <7v>  consta{ntl}y according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers....*
Original letter from Isaac Newton to Richard Bentley​Author: Isaac Newton


*Source:* 189.R.4.47, ff. 7-8, Trinity College Library, Cambridge, UK


Original letter from Isaac Newton to Richard Bentley (Diplomatic)


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 12, 2021)

Bushman again? As stated:
Grainy video with cartoon arrows placed were we are supposed to see something?

His hands were the release mechanism?

The densities were measured and verified how... and by who?

*Interesting concept, but to call that science is irresponsible.*



Dielectric said:


> accretion disk


This is a perfect example of what is meant by reification fallacy.


----------



## Dielectric (Sep 12, 2021)

I thought I would help you to understand and I regret trying and wasting my time on you. You don't know electrical theory or it's history. You know nothing of theoretical physics, quantum field theory, or the dielectric field theory, and an accretion disk FYI is part of a galactic jet described in astrophysics and is commonly used to explain the operation of a magnets accretion disk which is similar in nature. 

 So again, I repeat, I was just trying to help and to provide other theoretical notions about the true nature of gravity.  You should be able to take what you know and work from that to assimilate other information and to not reject something simply because you've never heard of it or know what it is., or even understand it. Understanding is assimilation which takes exposure and time. 
I deleted my posts.


----------



## Petra (Sep 12, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> Food for thought...


Its amazing!
Read about mercury / quicksilver in tartaria architectur for taking ether-energie via gold antennas  and curling mercury in balls attached to them,  its a system of free energie in electro-magnetik ether.....
Our ancestors builded that technologie all over earth!
Thank you for this important knowledge about density of mercury!!!


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 12, 2021)

Dielectric said:


> I thought I would help you to understand and I regret trying and wasting my time on you.


I thought I would help you to understand and I do not regret trying. I wasted no time on you. I feel, on some level, a healing nature behind these discussions.



Dielectric said:


> You don't know electrical theory or it's history. You know nothing of theoretical physics, quantum field theory, or the dielectric field theory...


I have discussed this exact topic with astrophysicists, from MIT grad students to graduates, and also with tenured professors. Your biggest problem, if I may say, is that you think you know things that you know nothing about. In basic logic, these are known as fallacies of presumption.

Stop presuming gravity and show us proof. It cannot be done.



Dielectric said:


> and an accretion disk FYI is part of a galactic jet described in astrophysics and is commonly used to explain the operation of a magnets accretion disk which is similar in nature.


An accretion disk, as stated,  is a reification fallacy. Show proof of an experiment that can be observed and replicated.



Dielectric said:


> So again, I repeat, I was just trying to help and to provide other theoretical notions about the true nature of gravity.


I understand the freemasons' theoretical notions... I want demonstrable proof.

I have shown in the OP that we do not need to pretend that gravity is a real thing that controls the movement of objects here on Earth.







Dielectric said:


> You should be able to take what you know and work from that to assimilate other information and to not reject something simply because you've never heard of it or know what it is., or even understand it. Understanding is assimilation which takes exposure and time.


Back atcha, friend.



Dielectric said:


> I deleted my posts.


Was it because of the whole bushman debacle? Do you need gravity to be a real thing? FWIW, I think that I did.

Peace


----------



## Fexus (Sep 13, 2021)

To sum things up, regardless of the theories proposed here, it is clear that the paper still uses the so-called "gravitational constant" in the final formular. It only attributes this acceleration of 9.81 m/s² to empty space. The paper shoots itself in the foot by claiming that a gravitational acceleration does not exist, yet it still uses 9.81 m/s² (g) in the final formular. The weight of an object is dependent on multiple factors, not just density and the surrounding medium. As I said before, if density and medium were the only factors, the seperation of elements would not just happen vertically, but in every possible direction. The claim about empty space having a constant fall rate is desperate at best. When I asked "where would this acceleration come from" in my first reply, I meant the "constant fall rate" of empty space. So where would that come from? It certainly cannot be empty space. As the name implies, it is empty, devoid of anything and can therefor not act upon anything else.

Gravity certainly isn't what it is made out to be by mainstream science today, but it is absolutely undeniable that there is an acceleration g of 9.81 m/s². The paper never disproves this. You cannot determine the acceleration of an object without g. Whether this acceleration is caused by etheric pressure, empty space or gravitational attraction in mass is only a secondary concern. This acceleration undeniably exists. If you want to find the cause of the acceleration, chances are that you're going to have to clean the windows through which you view the world first. I certainly don't claim to know what the cause of this acceleration is, however I think there is a lot of truth in Tesla's quote posted by Apollonius.

I really hope my posts don't sound too aggressive. I really don't mean to be offensive in any way.


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 13, 2021)

Fexus said:


> To sum things up, regardless of the theories proposed here, it is clear that the paper still uses the so-called "gravitational constant" in the final formular.


No... it doesn't. It eliminates it. The gravitatioonal constant is another reification fallacy from go. The paper shows why.



Fexus said:


> It only attributes this acceleration of 9.81 m/s² to empty space.


No, it doesn't. It shows that to be the approximate max rate.



Fexus said:


> The paper shoots itself in the foot by claiming that a gravitational acceleration does not exist, yet it still uses 9.81 m/s² (g) in the final formular.


Sorry, it's 'formula,' not 'formular' (sorry, but 2nd time) and again... this has nothing to do with shooting itself in the foot. Please stop mischaracterizing what we all can read.



Fexus said:


> As I said before, if density and medium were the only factors, the seperation of elements would not just happen vertically, but in every possible direction.


Please demonstrate this. Or post a demonstration of this that can be replicated.



Fexus said:


> The claim about empty space having a constant fall rate is desperate at best.


WOW! 

Please demonstrate this. Or post a demonstration of this that can be replicated. And no more bushman. FWIW, I agree, but on a minuscule scale and for undetermined cause(s).



Fexus said:


> I asked "where would this acceleration come from" in my first reply, I meant the "constant fall rate" of empty space. So where would that come from? It certainly cannot be empty space. As the name implies, it is empty, devoid of anything and can therefor not act upon anything else.


Answered before and now answered again... RELATIVE DENSITY. Objects, matter, particles... they simply find their natural equilibrium with their environment.

This is why rocks do not sit on clouds and why helium balloons do not sit on the ground.



Fexus said:


> Gravity certainly isn't what it is made out to be by mainstream science today, but it is absolutely undeniable that there is an acceleration g of 9.81 m/s².


I think it's close to that... please demonstrate this. Or post a demonstration of this that can be replicated.



Fexus said:


> The paper never disproves this.


It agrees, but shows us that gravity is not needed in determining why things rise and fall.



Fexus said:


> You cannot determine the acceleration of an object without g.


Again... you're wrong... see above, and throughout this entire thread.



Fexus said:


> I really hope my posts don't sound too aggressive. I really don't mean to be offensive in any way.


You're fine, dude. You just don't get it. Don't feel bad. You have been conditioned to not be able to get this since early childhood. We all have. And on top of that, it is kinda tricky.

Peace


----------



## Fexus (Sep 13, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> Answered before and now answered again... RELATIVE DENSITY. Objects, matter, particles... they simply find their natural equilibrium with their environment.
> 
> This is why rocks do not sit on clouds and why helium balloons do not sit on the ground.


Using the Brian Cox experiment as a foundation, we can see that any object falls towards earth but since the objects are contained within a vaccum box, there wouldn't be any equilibrium to be found, no? (Unless you consider ether theory)

I think I wasn't specific enough when I mentioned my problem with the constant fall rate of space. I get that this fall rate is only a result of the final equation where a medium with zero density results in an acceleration of 9.81 m/s² * 1. My problem is that an object should have an infinite amount of possible directions to accelerate towards in such a vacuum. Why does this acceleration "point" towards earth when there is no equlibrium to be found in the vacuum box in the first place? The pressure on the objects doesn't change comparing before and after the fall or am I wrong?

If we imagine a universe where nothing but a glass of oils like in that one graphic you posted existed...





Would the contents align the same way as in this graphic or would they just float around as individual drops? Remember, there is no absolute up, down, left or right in this universe (just like in our universe, right?). Just that glass with its contents.

The answer can be deduced if you have ever seen parabolic flights. When the airplane falls, everything else inside it seems to become weightless and just floats around. The same would happen with this glass and its contents, no? If you were to give it a little push, the contents would start spilling. Each oil would form its own ball and roughly float towards the direction you pushed it. Video on that matter.
If you agree then this must mean that in this theory, earth isn't falling? How is this explained? I guess that would imply that earth is flat AND has a firmament because without a firmament, the air would just roll off to the sides like water falling onto a plate...?



> Please demonstrate this. Or post a demonstration of this that can be replicated.



You can put water in a bottle during a parabolic flight and this demonstrates that an object will not care about up or down to find pressure equilibrium within a medium without said "downward" acceleration". Link. This is also shown in the video I linked where the ping pong balls choose any direction where the water is least present.


----------



## Safranek (Sep 13, 2021)

Fexus said:


> Remember, there is no absolute up, down, left or right in this universe (just like in our universe, right?).


Maybe, maybe not. The reason for such threads as Earth Shape Discussion, Flat Earth, Convex Earth, Hollow Earth and as of recent, Embryonic Earth, is because many don't consider the theories and 'proofs' to be acceptable given our realm.

As far as we (the average human beings) experience the world, the only force acting on objects is a compression density push downwards. Magnets may mimic a similar effect depending on the pole.

All the rest are theories and mathematical equations critiqued by many researchers to date. 



Fexus said:


> You can put water in a bottle during a parabolic flight and this demonstrates that an object will not care about up or down to find pressure equilibrium within a medium without said "downward" acceleration".


Can you compare what you experience in our realm to the experience in a parabolic flight?

I suppose you will answer no. And you'd be right.


----------



## Fexus (Sep 14, 2021)

Safranek said:


> Can you compare what you experience in our realm to the experience in a parabolic flight?
> 
> I suppose you will answer no. And you'd be right.


I wasn't trying to directly compare a parabolic flight with what we experience on earth. Obviously the conditions are different. I only used that example to demonstrate that matter will find its equilibrium in any direction when the downward acceleration/gravity is crossed out of the euqation. The conclusion being that things DO accelerate towards earth because of gravity/ether pressure OR everything except (flat) earth is falling towards only one direction in space as the paper would imply. Which one of these theories is more sensible would be up to each individual to decide.


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 14, 2021)

Fexus said:


> Using the Brian Cox experiment as a foundation, we can see that any object falls towards earth but since the objects are contained within a vaccum box, there wouldn't be any equilibrium to be found, no? (Unless you consider ether theory)


Right, so the objects fall until they reach something of equal or greater density and then they will stop.

And experiment after experiment has determined that we exist in the 'ether.'



Fexus said:


> My problem is that an object should have an infinite amount of possible directions to accelerate towards in such a vacuum.


Fantasy through reification, only made possible by our story-tellers.

The paper specifically discusses why things rise and fall. Please read it again. This is about vertical movement of everything in our world.



Fexus said:


> Why does this acceleration "point" towards earth when there is no equlibrium to be found in the vacuum box in the first place? The pressure on the objects doesn't change comparing before and after the fall or am I wrong?


Yes. We are discussing the vertical movement of everything in our world.



Fexus said:


> If we imagine a universe where nothing but a glass of oils like in that one graphic you posted existed...


What? C'mon, we are looking at *our *world. It's almost like you don't wish to discuss this topic.



Fexus said:


> The answer can be deduced if you have ever seen parabolic flights.


NO! It can't. You are adding all kinds of force... multiple vectors, seriously?



Fexus said:


> When the airplane falls, everything else inside it seems to become weightless and just floats around. The same would happen with this glass and its contents, no? If you were to give it a little push, the contents would start spilling. Each oil would form its own ball and roughly float towards the direction you pushed it. Video on that matter.
> If you agree then this must mean that in this theory, earth isn't falling? How is this explained? I guess that would imply that earth is flat AND has a firmament because without a firmament, the air would just roll off to the sides like water falling onto a plate...?


Ah, you don't know how these flights work. They actually decelerate on the accent This is when they start to 'float.' They have learned the perfect speed to then come over the parabola and dive at the perfect speed and angle. Nasa has perfected this and as their CGI continues to improve, soon, we will not be able to distinguish their cartoons from the 'reality' that they have created for us.

And everything does not turn into balls. Masons love balls. They see them everywhere. Your own videos showed this, those tiny 'water-bubbles' aside. And even that case had nothing to do with gravity.

Here, he pops a 'sphere' and it moves towards flat:




Just sayin... and the other video, where he claims gravity is causing the ping-pong ball to sink and not the upward acceleration, and then braking?

The ball even finishes on top and you can see it if you look closely. This is because of the density disequilibrium caused by the pilot's maneuver! Again, no gravity required.

Even though they should have hid this, it happens so quickly that it's almost unbelievable. This is why it did not get the same slow motion treatment. A longer clip would have been telling.





Do you see the credibility problem here?



Fexus said:


> I guess that would imply that earth is flat AND has a firmament because without a firmament, the air would just roll off to the sides like water falling onto a plate...?


Did I not already try to explain to you (there are threads for this) that this thread has nothing to do with the Earth's shape?




Fexus said:


> This is also shown in the video I linked where the ping pong balls choose any direction where the water is least present.


Please! You have been tricked.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 14, 2021)

You are new here and enjoy an active discussion,  just an observation not a criticism. You may not know this but there is a poster on here who can only post in his own thread , who has the answers.
Sandokhan's Link and Post Collection



> Now, we are in a very strong position to understand why things fall.
> 
> B. Riemann stated in 1853 that "*gravitational aether sinks toward massive objects where it is absorbed, at a rate proportional to their mass, and is then emitted into another spatial dimension*".
> 
> ...


----------



## Nick Weech (Sep 14, 2021)

I'm new to this topic but realise its possible importance in several associated contexts: The gravitational constant
Fundamental to what Mr Mullen calls the "bread and butter physics" from High School onwards

I couldn't ever 'get' why acceleration was so important to the procedure ...


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ZeBDQaIDA_


----------



## Fexus (Sep 14, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> And everything does not turn into balls. Masons love balls. They see them everywhere. Your own videos showed this, those tiny 'water-bubbles' aside. And even that case had nothing to do with gravity.
> 
> Here, he pops a 'sphere' and it moves towards flat:


Correct, the forming of bubbles/balls has nothing to do with gravity. It is the cause of pressure mediation within a medium. This is the reason why air bubbles in water are spherical. Spheres are the perfect shape for equalizing pressure. Even the liquid within the ballon that he pops will return to a bubble if given enough time. The only reason it took this flat-ish shape for a bit is because of the force exerted on the liquid before the pop. This phenomenon can be simulated by, for example, a disk magnet. Keep breaking the disk magnet apart and the pieces will try to form a sphere as accurately as possible. The same can be observed when two air bubbles in water come near one another. They will combine and form a new sphere.

Yes, the ether exists. If the ether is all around us then it is sensible to treat it as our medium. The ether too would compress our world the same way that water compresses air to air bubbles. The best way to tell a lie is to sprinkle some truth into it. I think NASA is doing exactly this.



> This is about vertical movement of everything in our world.


Why does this vertical movement happen though? Yes, the paper shows that it exists but what is the explanation behind it? Is there just a giant turbine at the bottom of our universe sucking us all downwards? I find the assumption of a "vertical movement universe" just as baseless as that of an inifnite universe. Each of us can only percieve so much. This notion of verticality could very well be another reification fallacy caused by subjective experience, in my opinion.

And sorry, I know this isn't an earth-shape discussion thread. I would just really like to know what the author's world view is in general. Maybe it would help me understand the subject better.


----------



## Nick Weech (Sep 14, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> No... it doesn't. It eliminates it. The gravitatioonal constant is another reification fallacy from go. The paper shows why.
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. It shows that to be the approximate max rate.
> ...


Does this explain anything? The Gravitational Constant theorised by Newton, "proved" by Henry Cavendish 100 years later .. maybe
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ZeBDQaIDA   by Brian Mullen_


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 14, 2021)

Nick Weech said:


> Does this explain anything? The Gravitational Constant theorised by Newton, "proved" by Henry Cavendish 100 years later .. maybe
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ZeBDQaIDA   by Brian Mullen_


Thanks for posting this! Brian Mullin is an amazing man. For anyone who doesn't yet know why the paper in the OP has been deleted off of freemason shill forums, just look into the Brian Mullin saga.

After his "Balls Out Physics" went viral, he was of course deleted off of youtube, he was threatened, he lost his job and is now either dead or in hiding.

Any truthers out there who have not been exposed to this information, should make it their duty to watch the entire series.



Fexus said:


> Even the liquid within the ballon that he pops will return to a bubble if given enough time.


There is no demonstrable proof of this or that anything has ever turned into a sphere because of imagined, reified gravity.



Fexus said:


> Why does this vertical movement happen though? Yes, the paper shows that it exists but what is the explanation behind it?


Third time (or 4th) - RELATIVE DENSITY!



Fexus said:


> Is there just a giant turbine at the bottom of our universe sucking us all downwards? I find the assumption of a "vertical movement universe" just as baseless as that of an inifnite universe.


Me too... now you are just using a straw man fallacy. I am beginning to think you are not here to discuss this topic.

Have a nice day. If you have any demonstrable proof of your seemingly wild assumptions and theories, I'm ready to check that out. I really don't need any more of the above, though. It's just uncomfortable at this point. Your questions are answered now, several times.

Thanks


----------



## Fexus (Sep 14, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> Third time (or 4th) - RELATIVE DENSITY!


This is not the answer I was looking for. I have known the principle of relative density from the start but that doesn't answer the question as to why materials find their equlibrium only vertically.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 14, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> Thanks for posting this! Brian Mullin is an amazing man. For anyone who doesn't yet know why the paper in the OP has been deleted off of freemason shill forums, just look into the Brian Mullin saga.
> 
> After his "Balls Out Physics" went viral, he was of course deleted off of youtube, he was threatened, he lost his job and is now either dead or in hiding.
> 
> ...


It seems to have escaped your attention but this is not Reddit though to be perfectly frank it feels as though its in danger of becoming a Reddit 'mini me'. Truthers indeed.


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 14, 2021)

Fexus said:


> This is not the answer I was looking for. I have known the principle of relative density from the start but that doesn't answer the question as to why materials find their equlibrium only vertically.


We are only looking at rising and falling which happens vertically. The paper was clear on this... several times.

"The truth is the only factor which governs the *vertical motion of matter* is *density*...

...*how matter behaves in a vertical direction* is solely dictated by the density value of the object and the density value of medium it is in, nothing else. Density is the only value constant in every element or stable chemical compound, meaning under the same conditions, a single hydrogen molecule (H2)has the same density as a balloon holding a million hydrogen molecules,but they do not have the same mass nor volume, yet *they both rise in air....*

A “density force”(my name) is the name of *the force that determines and dictates the vertical motion of any physical object* (matter) at free fall. This force governs *the vertical interaction* between different forms of matter (i.e.Immiscible fluids) and the direction of the force is solely dictated by the difference in density between the object and the surrounding fluid (medium). The Resultant vertical force of an object at free fall; is what I call The FORCE OF DENSITY and it is written as such.





K?


----------



## Fexus (Sep 14, 2021)

otl2021 said:


> We are only looking at rising and falling which happens vertically. The paper was clear on this... several times.
> 
> "The truth is the only factor which governs the *vertical motion of matter* is *density*...
> 
> ...


That's more of a description rather than an explanation.
Do you think that there is a deeper explanation as to why this density force acts only vertically or do you think that it is simply a given, fundamental law of our universe without a deeper cause?


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 16, 2021)

Fexus said:


> That's more of a description rather than an explanation.
> Do you think that there is a deeper explanation as to why this density force acts only vertically or do you think that it is simply a given, fundamental law of our universe without a deeper cause?


This might help. It's just a few minutes, but illustrates well what we're talking about here:

_View: https://youtu.be/fnVLwqud_OA_


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 19, 2021)

I knew I had read the name "aerodyname" somewhere fairly recently. Do have a watch if you are so inclined.


_View: https://twitter.com/ericdubay/status/1425849072741621768_​


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 20, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> I knew I had read the name "aerodyname" somewhere fairly recently. Do have a watch if you are so inclined.
> 
> 
> _View: https://twitter.com/ericdubay/status/1425849072741621768_​



Excellent. Thanks for posting that.

It turns out, even the most hardcore of the true believers will be 'forced' to come around.

Right now, there is a team of engineers preparing to build Brian Mullin's "force the line" structure. We will all see for our selves whether or not gravity is something real that moves everything towards the center of a sphere, or whether 'up' and 'down' are real things, just as it seems.

Modern physics tries to claim that spirit level works because of gravity and that a level level (if you will) is actually at a perfect 90 degree angle with a line from the center of our sphere.

Common sense tells us that when its level, its level. And there is no need for an imagined force to determine that.

If anyone is interested, the experiment is explained in full here:
Force the Line

There are really only two possibilities:
1) No gravity, up is up, down is down...




2) Gravity is a real thing that moves everything towards the center of a sphere including the air bubble in a spirit level...




Does anyone really think that the above scenario (2) is possible?


----------



## Dolphin (Sep 21, 2021)

Thanks for your article and all your hard work. Considering your approach raised a few questions for me:

If density difference is all that drives motion, why is there an "up" and a "down"? What fixes their directions? After all, if I place a balloon and a rock on the ground next to each other and touching, the rock does not "fall" sideways through the balloon (dense moving to less dense, as your theory proposes).

In your paper, it seems like *you assume the existence of a gravitational field* when you make this statement:

_"If the difference between the densities is negative, then the value of the resultant force will be a negative term,indicating the direction of the force is downwards."_

How did you define the direction "downwards"? You must already have in place a notion of which way the gravitation field points before you can make the assignments of "up" and "down." One cannot assume the existence of _*X *_in a proof that there is no *X*. The logic simply fails.

If you instead rely on density difference _only_ to define "up" and "down", then you have the problem that once a rock falls to the bottom of a pond, it will immediately pop back to the surface because the low-density water will immediately yield to the high-density rock. They would only reach equilibrium when the rock is suspended halfway between the surface and the bottom in the middle of the pond, and the "pull" of the water is equal in all directions. Clearly, that is not what happens.

_______________
P.S.
Why do comets bend around the Sun?
Why do satellites (like the moon, say) stay in orbit?
How does the density argument explain these observable phenomena?
_______________
P.P.S.
If I stand on a bathroom scale in an elevator, the scale readout makes me seem heavier when the elevator begins its "upward" journey and lighter when the "downward" journey begins. How does the density approach explain this?
_______________
P.P.P.S.
Yes, I think Scenario (2) is exactly what happens — and so do you, if you have ever watched a small boat travel 3 miles away from you (along the "level" line) on a lake or the ocean — you can't see (the "red" line) the hull anymore at that distance, only the superstructure.


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 21, 2021)

Dolphin said:


> Thanks for your article and all your hard work. Considering your approach raised a few questions for me:
> 
> If density difference is all that drives motion, why is there an "up" and a "down"? What fixes their directions? After all, if I place a balloon and a rock on the ground next to each other and touching, the rock does not "fall" sideways through the balloon (dense moving to less dense, as your theory proposes).
> 
> ...


Thanks... quite the reply, but we've been through this and I'm really not trying to discuss all the reification fallacies, let alone straw man fallacies.

Like here:


Dolphin said:


> In your paper, it seems like *you assume the existence of a gravitational field* when you make this statement:
> 
> _"If the difference between the densities is negative, then the value of the resultant force will be a negative term,indicating the direction of the force is downwards."_


He assumes nothing about imagines gravity. He states clearly:
_"If the difference between the densities is negative, then the value of the resultant force will be a negative term,indicating the direction of the force is downwards."_

And here again:


Dolphin said:


> How did you define the direction "downwards"? You must already have in place a notion of which way the gravitation field points before you can make the assignments of "up" and "down." One cannot assume the existence of _*X *_in a proof that there is no *X*. The logic simply fails.


The paper explains this. Maybe, have another read? There is no notion of which way the gravitation field points.... lol.



Dolphin said:


> If you instead rely on density difference _only_ to define "up" and "down", then you have the problem that once a rock falls to the bottom of a pond, it will immediately pop back to the surface because the low-density water will immediately yield to the high-density rock.


If, and only if, either the density of the rock or the density of the medium (the pond water) changes. And in this case, it would require a drastic change.



Dolphin said:


> They would only reach equilibrium when the rock is suspended halfway between the surface and the bottom in the middle of the pond, and the "pull" of the water is equal in all directions. Clearly, that is not what happens.


LOL! Yes, clearly! There is no pull of any water. Another straw man fallacy.

And the rock would remain suspended halfway between the surface and the bottom if, and only if, the density of the pond water allowed for that. In this case, the object (the rock) and the medium (the pond) would breach equilibrium.

You can actually prove this to yourself if you feel so inclined.

See if you can replicate this experiment. It's only 5 minutes:

_View: https://youtu.be/fnVLwqud_OA_




Dolphin said:


> P.S.
> Why do comets bend around the Sun?
> Why do satellites (like the moon, say) stay in orbit?
> How does the density argument explain these observable phenomena?


Please look up "reification fallacy."



Dolphin said:


> P.P.S.
> If I stand on a bathroom scale in an elevator, the scale readout makes me seem heavier when the elevator begins its "upward" journey and lighter when the "downward" journey begins. How does the density approach explain this?


LOL! I gotta a better one!

If you get two scales, one in kilos and one in pounds, and weigh yourself on both here on Earth. And then jump on Elon's rocket to the moon, with your scales and then step on both on the moons surface - ASSUMING ANY OF THAT IS EVEN POSSIBLE - what results would you expect? This one is actually on topic.



Dolphin said:


> P.P.P.S.
> Yes, I think Scenario (2) is exactly what happens — and so do you, if you have ever watched a small boat travel 3 miles away from you (the "level" line) on a lake or the ocean — you can't see (the "red" line) the hull anymore at that distance, only the superstructure.


Do you know what convergence is?

And yes! I know damn well exactly what happens:
11thousandfeet.com – 11 thousand feet

That is my idea for forcing the line. Cheaper, easier, and hopefully idiotproof since I'm doing this, lol.

Have a good one.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 21, 2021)

Just a more historically oriented question (I didn't find an answer on the web). What kind of system of measurement did Newton use, since the metric system was introduced in France after the French Revolution? Is it a coincidence that Cavendish found the G value in 1798?


----------



## Fexus (Sep 21, 2021)

Dolphin said:


> Thanks for your article and all your hard work. Considering your approach raised a few questions for me:
> 
> If density difference is all that drives motion, why is there an "up" and a "down"? What fixes their directions? After all, if I place a balloon and a rock on the ground next to each other and touching, the rock does not "fall" sideways through the balloon (dense moving to less dense, as your theory proposes).
> 
> ...



I have had this exact same discussion here already. I know exactly what frustrates you. I think there is a difference in the deepest "core" of our understanding of our universe. A primer, I think it's called?
I would describe the glober's primer as "infinity" and the flat earther's as "verticality".

The "infinity" primer assumes that the universe is infinite and without a distinct sense of direction. This results in gravity (or etheric pressure mediation) being a necessity for this subjectively "vertical" phenomenon to be able to exist.
Opposed to that is the "verticality" primer that assumes that the universe is vertical in its nature, which results in everything accelerating only vertically (though I still don't fully understand why that would be). I assume the universe is viewed like a giant glass that contains multiple substances. The densest objects fall to the bottom (e.g. rock, minerals, ores) and the less dense ones stay afloat.

The discussion is fueled by the infinity primers (to which I belong too) being unable to accept the fact that verticality is simply a fundamental law of nature. It would be a neverending discussion that would only end once we could confirm the shape of the earth with our own eyes...

Hope that helps.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 21, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Just a more historically oriented question (I didn't find an answer on the web). What kind of system of measurement did Newton use, since the metric system was introduced in France after the French Revolution? Is it a coincidence that Cavendish found the G value in 1798?


Both characters Newton and Cavendish were 'establishment' figures as in they were well connected. I live not far from the seat of the Cavendish's as it  so happens and their history is a long one. Cavendish is an easy to find name in the historical tales and it is very interesting to see what is claimed to have been going on when there was a Cavendish present. That journey is probably outside the scope of this thread.

Newton basically speculated and didn't prove or disprove his theory of gravity as far as I can tell and Cavendish did an experiment in some sort of shed then wrote a paper an experiment that has never been replicated.
Were I cynical I would say a narrative was being created to further the finite spinning ball trap thus raising the presumed power of the authority cult at that time.

No lower classes or young kids or old dairy maids ever get these sorts of 'revelations' do they. It's always 'educated people'.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 21, 2021)

Fexus said:


> I would describe the glober's primer as "infinity" and the flat earther's as "verticality".


Is there a limit to 'verticality' though? You asked why earth doesn't fall. I think it is implied the explanation being 'relative density'. This would mean there is a 'point of equilibrium', a 'center of gravity' in between the 'infinite downward' and the 'infinite upward'.
Is it possible to mathematically express that center of gravity? And where is it located in terms of altitude?


----------



## Fexus (Sep 21, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Is there a limit to 'verticality' though? You asked why earth doesn't fall. I think it is implied the explanation being 'relative density'. This would mean there is a 'point of equilibrium', a 'center of gravity' in between the 'infinite downward' and the 'infinite upward'.
> Is it possible to mathematically express that center of gravity? And where is it located in terms of altitude?


This is generally what I want to know as well. I don't have the answers.

otl2021, what do you think?


kd-755 said:


> Both characters Newton and Cavendish were 'establishment' figures as in they were well connected. I live not far from the seat of the Cavendish's as it  so happens and their history is a long one. Cavendish is an easy to find name in the historical tales and it is very interesting to see what is claimed to have been going on when there was a Cavendish present. That journey is probably outside the scope of this thread.
> 
> Newton basically speculated and didn't prove or disprove his theory of gravity as far as I can tell and Cavendish did an experiment in some sort of shed then wrote a paper an experiment that has never been replicated.
> Were I cynical I would say a narrative was being created to further the finite spinning ball trap thus raising the presumed power of the authority cult at that time.
> ...


I saw the video in which it was mentioned that Cavendish's experiment was never replicated but a quick search seems to reveal the opposite:







I don't fully know the history of this experiment but it seems to have a good amount of validity to it or could there be some misinterpretation involved? Of course, this doesn't prove gravity, just the phenomenon of mutual mass acceleration.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 21, 2021)

Check out how many universities have made their own attempt at replication the cavendish experiment at DuckDuckGo

Not a one of them copy precisely Cavendish's experiment. For once the wiki explanation will suffice Cavendish experiment - Wikipedia

Cavendish was the only man to observe said experiment. I would have thought it would be repeated more than once in Cavendish's day to prove or disprove his claim if not by Cavendish himself then by his peers or the people holding opposing view to him but no. It all hinges on this sole effort. 

Nothing to see  here, move along, move along.



> The *Cavendish experiment*, performed in 1797–1798 by English scientist Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory[1] and the first to yield accurate values for the gravitational constant.[2][3] Because of the unit conventions then in use, the gravitational constant does not appear explicitly in Cavendish's work. Instead, the result was originally expressed as the specific gravity of the Earth,[4] or equivalently the mass of the Earth. His experiment gave the first accurate values for these geophysical constants.
> 
> The experiment was devised sometime before 1783 by geologist John Michell,[5][6] who constructed a torsion balance apparatus for it. However, Michell died in 1793 without completing the work. After his death the apparatus passed to Francis John Hyde Wollaston and then to Cavendish, *who rebuilt the apparatus but kept close to Michell's original plan*. Cavendish then carried out a series of measurements with the equipment and reported his results in the _Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society_ in 1798


----------



## Fexus (Sep 21, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> The experiment was devised sometime before 1783 by geologist John Michell,[5][6] who constructed a torsion balance apparatus for it. However, Michell died in 1793 without completing the work.


10+ years without results and then a freemason comes along, rebuilds it and suddenly succeeds. Nothing to see here. Indeed fishy but the videos seem to be accurate, no?


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 21, 2021)

> *Because of the unit conventions then in use, the gravitational constant does not appear explicitly* in Cavendish's work. Instead, *the result was originally expressed as the specific gravity of the Earth*,[4] or equivalently the mass of the Earth. His experiment gave the first accurate values for these geophysical constants.


specific gravity:


> *Relative density*, or *specific gravity*,[1][2] *is the ratio of the **density* (mass of a unit volume) *of a substance to the density of a given reference material.*


In his paper otl2021 says:


> *At one point the book refers to the term “Specific gravity”* and it can be solved expressed as SG. *What I found curios was that this term even though called specific “gravity” it was mathematically expressed as ratio of densities*


If 'the unit conventions then in use' refers to the absence of the metric system, then the gravitational constant does not appear explicitly in Cavendish's work *because the metric system was not yet fully developed* and widespread, and so his result was expressed as ratio of densities (specific gravity) as a provisional measure (is this a pun?) which lasts to this day in textbooks. Quite strange that the motivation is the absence of the metric system: very suspect.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 21, 2021)

Fexus said:


> 10+ years without results and then a freemason comes along, rebuilds it and suddenly succeeds. Nothing to see here. Indeed fishy but the videos seem to be accurate, no?


Just have a read of his wiki bio. Does it seem odd to you in regards everything said to be attributed to this character and the theories he is said to have developed and his discoveries ?

Every experiment I have ever undertaken or seen being undertaken has been designed from the get go to prove something as in turn a theory into fact if you will. With that in mind whether it is acceptable to you personally or not have another look at what is said to be going on in those filmed experiments and then look again specifically at  the drawing of the apparatus Cavendish is said to have rebuilt closely to the original plan.
It has more holes in it than a colander. A machine devised and rebuilt to set what singular fact in stone?
A machine so unique in its design and the discovery attributed to it yet it disappeared maybe melted down for scrap.
The universities and the videos are attempting to prove the validity of the original experiment yet they do not use the original set up to do so nor do they set it up in an outhouse as Cavendish is said to have done, ergo they have a entirely different experiment, method, aim etc.

It's as barking as setting up a machine to measure the ball be it a laser or a line of god knows what devices long enough to measure something or other, utterly bonkers. We have it within us to determine level. We operate on the level, our body is aligned to the level. It's only our forced education that dulls this innate ability.


----------



## Dolphin (Sep 21, 2021)

Fexus said:


> I would describe the glober's primer as "infinity" and the flat earther's as "verticality".



I naively thought the OP was looking for critiques of the math and logic used in AERODYNAME'S paper. My mistake. I did not know I had entered a culture war. Thanks for the heads-up.



Fexus said:


> The "infinity" primer assumes that the universe is infinite and without a distinct sense of direction. This results in gravity (or etheric pressure mediation) being a necessity for this subjectively "vertical" phenomenon to be able to exist.
> Opposed to that is the "verticality" primer that assumes that the universe is vertical in its nature, which results in everything accelerating only vertically (though I still don't fully understand why that would be).



Yes, this is exactly what I picked up on. AERO, from the beginning, assumes that he knows what vertical is, and which directions are "up" and "down", and which directions to assign "positive" and "negative" on his axes. He does this 'a priori' with no discussion of how these directionalities were assigned.

AERO's system only works when his "verticality" aligns with an already present gravitational field. Otherwise, there are contradictions like: "What keeps an unattached rock on the ground? The air nearby is less dense; so, why does the rock not automatically lift off and travel towards random, less dense regions?"



Fexus said:


> The discussion is fueled by the infinity primers (to which I belong too) being unable to accept the fact that verticality is simply a fundamental law of nature.



The direction of the local gravitational field defines the direction "vertical". If one claims that verticality is fundamental, then one is claiming that gravity is fundamental. The problem is AERO's unstated assumption. *AERO assumes gravity exists* in order to define the positive and negative directions of verticality (there is no other way to do it), ... *and then ignores/denies that he made that choice. *That is just dishonest.

If not the above, then *WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF VERTICAL used in AERO's presentation?* AERO doesn't give one. Either way, not listing your assumptions is bad science.



Fexus said:


> The discussion is fueled by the in It would be a neverending discussion that would only end once we could confirm the shape of the earth with our own eyes...



There are plenty of confirmations of the spherical shape of the Earth. The problem is those who scream "reification fallacy" when presented with one.



Fexus said:


> Hope that helps.



Yes, very helpful. Thank you. I see now that faith is the underlying principle of AERO's argument. One cannot argue with faith with logic. I should have stayed clear.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 21, 2021)

Dolphin said:


> AERO, from the beginning, assumes that he knows what vertical is, and which directions are "up" and "down", and which directions to assign "positive" and "negative" on his axes. He does this 'a priori' with no discussion of how these directionalities were assigned.


I'm not a 'flat-earther', but I'm interested in this discussion. Can you give me the definitions of 'up' and 'down', and therefore the definition of 'vertical'? Are you saying that he should not assume it because it is not based in reality or because he doesn't comprehend the true underlying reality? And if so, can you give a definition of what the true reality is, direction-wise?
Thanks


----------



## Dolphin (Sep 21, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Can you give me the definitions of 'up' and 'down', and therefore the definition of 'vertical'?



In Classical Mechanics, two masses attract each other. There are lines of force between them. That is the Gravitational Field. The direction of the field in a local area defines "verticality." This direction is different in different places. The strength of the field varies according to the distance from the masses. If you move along a vertical line and you are going towards an area of _weaker_ force, then you are moving "up".If you move along a vertical line and you are going towards an area of _stronger_ force, then you are moving "down". If you do not follow the field line, but move perpendicular to it, then the field strength remains constant and you are moving "level".

(Quantum Mechanics, of course, shows that the classical view is an oversimplication; it is space-time that warps which gives us the impression locally that the classical view is true.)

The notion of "vertical" and "down" is a local phenomenon. Vertical in Paris will show a different direction than vertical in Singapore. Vertical in the Sea of Tranquility on the moon will show a different direction than vertical at the North Pole of Jupiter. When travelling from the Earth to Mars, for example, one will pass through a "null point" of zero gravitational strength. For the first portion of the journey "down" will point towards Earth. Near the end of the journey, "down" will point towards the Mars. The local directionality flips at the null point. The direction of "down" in Singapore is not parallel to the direction of "down" in Paris, or Mars, or anywhere else (except by coincidence).




Silveryou said:


> Are you saying that he should not assume it because it is not based in reality or because he doesn't comprehend the true underlying reality?



He is welcome to make assumptions. I am saying that he should STATE his assumptions. In his argument, AERO (without explicitly saying so) actually assumed as true that which he claimed does not exist. That is dishonest. Trying to make sense of an argument like that is a waste of time.

His definition of verticality is missing from his presentation. Since understanding verticality is crucial to understanding his argument, his entire presentation is meaningless.



Silveryou said:


> And if so, can you give a definition of what the true reality is, direction-wise?



Directions of "up" and "down" are relative to the local field at the location being discussed.

Flat-earthers seem to assume that verticality is independent of location and the direction "up" is the same everywhere. That is, my "up" will be parallel to everyone else's "up" regardless of where they are located. (I don't want to misrepresent their views; maybe I have misunderstood them, they don't make a lot of sense to me; feel free to correct my characterization.)




Silveryou said:


> Thanks



You're welcome.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 21, 2021)

Dolphin said:


> In Classical Mechanics, two masses attract each other. There are lines of force between them. That is the Gravitational Field. The direction of the field in a local area defines "verticality." *This direction is different in different places.* The strength of the field varies according to the distance from the masses. If you move along a vertical line and you are going towards an area of weaker force, then you are moving "up". If you instead are going towards an area of stronger force, then you are moving "down". If you do not follow the field line, but move perpendicular to it, then the field strength remains constant and you are moving "level".





Dolphin said:


> The notion of "vertical" and "down" is a local phenomenon. Vertical in Paris will show a different direction than vertical in Singapore.


I assume that the direction *must be *different in various regions of the earth because in a spherical model the various lines of force *must *converge to the center of the sphere itself. Am I right?
So I would like to understand if there is a scientific measurable proof that, for example, the two directions of different fields 'calculated' in Paris and Singapore have different angles. Only different angles can ultimately give the geometrical proof of the convergence of those directions towards a common source at the centre or near the center of the sphere. Is there anything like that?


----------



## Dolphin (Sep 21, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I assume that the direction *must be *different in various regions of the earth because in a spherical model the various lines of force *must *converge to the center of the sphere itself. Am I right?



Yes. Well, to the "center of mass" of the object, actually. That is close enough to the same thing for the Earth. 

(Don't try it with your kid's Weeble Wobble — center of mass and center of object are way off from each other.)



Silveryou said:


> So I would like to understand if there is a scientific measurable proof that, for example, the two directions of different fields 'calculated' in Paris and Singapore have different angles. Only different angles can ultimately give the geometrical proof of the convergence of those directions towards a common source at the centre or near the center of the sphere. Is there anything like that?



Get a star map. Sometime tonight, figure out what star (or constellation) is closest to directly overhead for you. Call a friend who lives a few thousand miles away from you and have them do the same thing at the same time. Compare answers. That should do it.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 21, 2021)

Dolphin said:


> Get a star map. Sometime tonight, figure out what star (or constellation) is closest to directly overhead for you. Call a friend who lives a few thousand miles away from you and have them do the same thing at the same time. Compare answers. That should do it.


I am asking a proper mathematical (geometrical) demonstration, since your initial point was about asking a definition of 'vertical' and then giving Classical Mechanics as a correct definition for that. I expect some professional answer based in geometry, otherwise it's difficult for me to accept your critique about the lack of proper definitions moved to otl2021.
Remember that I am not a flat-earther. You will not find a single post from me in that direction (pun intended lol). In fact you will find comments going in the opposite way.
Thanks


----------



## Dolphin (Sep 21, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I am asking a proper mathematical (geometrical) demonstration,



The star "directly above you" is on your "vertical" line. The star directly above your friend is on your friend's "vertical" line. If you both get the same star, then the flat-earthers are right, everyone's vertical line is the same. If you get different stars, then the flat-earthers are wrong: your respective vertical lines are NOT parallel.

That* is* a "proper" geometrical proof, and one where _*you*_ are the scientist. You don't have to take anyone's word for it. What could be better than that? It has a bonus that no-one can legitimately scream "reification fallacy" at you if you observed it yourself.

If you are an armchair explorer only, you already know the answer. Why can't you see the Southern Cross from northern latitudes? Why can't you see the North Star from southern latitudes?

I can't do your 'required' research for you. If you prefer to review experiments already performed, Eratosthenes did a similar experiment 2200 years ago, though. Check out "*The Eratosthenes Method*" if you are into it. He used water wells that went straight down (that is, they indicated the direction towards the center of the earth) to determine his vertical lines. He found the Sun appeared at different altitudes when simultaneously observed from different latitudes. 

Conclusion: differently located observers each have vertical lines that point to the center of the Earth, but that also point in different directions from each other (because the Sun was at different angles to each one).

Best Regards.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 21, 2021)

Dolphin said:


> And you got one.
> 
> The star "directly above you" is on your "vertical" line. And, the star directly above your friend is on your friend's "vertical" line. If you both get the same star, then the flat-earthers are right, everyone's vertical line is the same. If you get different stars, then the flat-earthers are wrong: your respective vertical lines are NOT parallel.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but this is not a scientific way to prove anything. I want the hard math used to measure the angle in Paris and Singapore. It is you who brought up those examples, so it is up to you to show the maths involved to demonstrate the different angle assumed by the gravitational field in different locations. It is absurd to let something this important to the research of a single individual. What teachers will teach to children when asked the same question? Will the teacher say "it's up to you?". remarking *"you", *or even better *"YOU!!!"*, implying it's the children's fault? If you want to teach something this is *your *moment to shine. Show me please the hard maths used to say that the gravitational field in Paris and Singapore have a different direction, otherwise *your *initial statement will reveal itself as just the ranting of a believer.

P.S. no flat-earther here. You have responsibility for what *you *are saying

P.P.S. if anyone else wants to show the maths for Dolphin's claim, he is welcome

EDIT:
P.P.P.S. According to your own statements, you cannot assume the star "directly above you" is really above you. How this logic fallacy is called?


Dolphin said:


> The star "directly above you" is on your "vertical" line. The star directly above your friend is on your friend's "vertical" line.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 21, 2021)

Dolphin said:


> Somebody is just trolling at this point.


Here we go again. 
Make a claim, check.
Someone asks for the maths behind the claim, check.
Claimant responds thusly presumably because they have no maths to back up the claim made.
Pathetic.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 21, 2021)

Dolphin said:


> In Classical Mechanics, two masses attract each other. There are lines of force between them. That is *the Gravitational Field*. The direction *of the field* in a local area defines "verticality." This direction is different in different places.





Dolphin said:


> Eratosthenes did a *similar *experiment 2200 years ago, though. Check out "*The Eratosthenes Method*"


I'm not trolling for sure. You talked about direction *of the field*, the Gravitational Field, so I am asking you to show how you determine the angle *of the field*. I don't think Eratosthenes knew something about Gravitational Field*s*, but maybe I am wrong and you can prove otherwise.

Are you claiming that the direction of the Gravitational Field is dependent on a *similar *experiment supposedly done 2200 years ago and which no one really knows how it really went? I am quoting from the wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Cleomedes'_simplified_version):


> Eratosthenes' method to calculate the Earth's circumference has been lost



So please, before saying other people is trolling you, just try to remember what you write, instead of changing subject. I am no flat-earther but it seems that you are pushing for me to become one. If you don't have the skills to properly answer my question and properly justify your claims then simply shut up. And if I am getting it wrong then you are really bad at explaining things, so even in that case just shut up.

I am truly willing to have a pro-round earth answer without circular reasonings (pun not intended lol).


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Sep 22, 2021)

I would like to see that answer too. 

Construction of buildings . All built using plumbob and set square - 90 degrees to the tangent of the circle of the sphere . So ,if this is so on our perfect spherical globe then tall buildings will splay base outwards to a measurable degree , and across cities the curvature of earth can be observed and measured in the buildings. 

 Where is the centre of gravity on an oblate sphere or on a pear shaped earth ? We would need an adjustable offsquare thingy to put our buildings up . 

The Cavendosh experiment was a pile ( in scientific sweary land) and those three videos do it justice . Either the earth ain't a blob or gravity as an attraction between masses is plain wrong - or it's all mainstream bullshit.

Very strange ,very rich strange parasite that Cavendosh chap - you were bang on there kd755 . Might dig a bit there .


----------



## otl2021 (Sep 23, 2021)

Dolphin said:


> There are plenty of confirmations of the spherical shape of the Earth. The problem is those who scream "reification fallacy" when presented with one.


You are something. You have presented zero proof of gravity. Everyone that looks into that Cavendish nonsense, calls it out for what it is. We have seen that on this thread.

Your precious gravity is a reification fallacy, like relativity and like your sphere "confirmations."

Until you stop treating these abstractions as part of reality, you will continue to have this pointed out to you, should you continue repeating these same fallacies, OVER AND OVER, like you have been.

You begin every argument in logical fallacy and it does not stop. Straw man fallacies, appeals to authority, reification... what else have you brought?

Your inability to distinguish between 'up' and 'down' is not my problem... it's yours.






The same force that creates universes, holds solar systems together, attaches water to spining, wobbling, orbiting rocks (moving in multiple directions and at several multiples of the speed thst sound travels at), keeps our atmosphere from equalizing with 'the infinite vacuum of space,' as the 2nd law of thermodynamics demands... CANNOT APPLY ENOUGH FORCE TO MOVE A FLIMSY CARDBOARD BOOK COVER.

That's the story, right?

Try to explain how that works without falling back on logical fallacy.

Fair?


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 1, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> The same force that creates universes, holds solar systems together, attaches water to spining, wobbling, orbiting rocks (moving in multiple directions and at several multiples of the speed thst sound travels at), keeps our atmosphere from equalizing with 'the infinite vacuum of space,' as the 2nd law of thermodynamics demands... CANNOT APPLY ENOUGH FORCE TO MOVE A FLIMSY CARDBOARD BOOK COVER.


I have a noob question/observation. Wouldn't be much more correct to say that on our planet (hope not to trigger anybody with this word) there is no force acting on objects and therefore they fall? On the contrary objects outside our planet can float due to the presence of some forces acting on bodies (this may trigger even more).
So the page of the book can rise up due to a force applied to it?!?


----------



## Sasyexa (Jan 1, 2022)

A question as well, is it possible to achieve a similar acceleration to *g*, but upwards?


----------



## Seeker (Jan 2, 2022)

I just discovered this topic today, and it is fascinating. In fact, I have always been interested in this, unsatisfied with the mainstream answers.

I have to say, I've read all through this thread, and it is pretty spicy! Some very interesting views, and contributors on all sides.

I detected the disconnect in your differing arguments early on in the topic, which was quite painful to watch. I cant speak to any comments that may have been removed, but I do believe that the majority of what remains are valid yet contentious.

I hope that you are still around Otl - I do not know if you are the actual author of the attached pdf, but even if you are not, you do have valid and valuable contributions. I feel that the density argument, and the supporting math make a whole lot of sense. I also agree that the accepted gravity explanations leave much to be desired. However, the incoming questions are also valid and pertinent. Although we can observe what is up and down, there is still no explanation as to _why_ this happens in this manner - and like it or not, it is important.

Even if I go out on a limb and say I whole-heartedly agree with your math and workings out and demonstrations (and they may well be correct), it still does not explain the why of it. A description is not an explanation, and I feel that this is where the disconnect (and discontent) arises.

Now things are going to get weird. I'm going to put out an absolutely bat-shit crazy attempt to explain all this - in a way, it brings elements of both arguments together.

I was something of a math genius at school, and also very interested in the sciences (and quite saddened to recently 'awaken' and discover that my education was not all that it may have seemed. As a naive child, I had no reason to suspect that school was anything but genuine). However, I did become disillusioned before reaching university, which in retrospect may not have been such a terrible thing. Basically, I am trying to say that I have some raw talent and intuition, but certainly no recent technical use to any great degree or experience of putting together proofs and demonstrations. Indeed, since much of my idea revolves around the ether, I'm not even sure how to go about 'testing' - but perhaps somebody here who is closer to 'the science' may have the means, and maybe this random theory I am about to throw down may trigger some inspiration.

Okay - so first of all, when trying to consider gravity I found it to be nonsensical and explanations to be unsatisfying. I tried to make it work for myself in my head. Pretty much the first thing to come to mind was the near universal circular/spherical shape and cyclical spinning motion that seems to apparent in just about everything. Whether we are looking at things on the micro or macro level, everything seems to revolve around 2d or 3d shapes and/or motion. Planets orbit and spin, the stars above rotate around an axis, atoms and molecules are shown to be round, and I believe these are said to be spinning too. I should add that the word 'allegedly' should probably apply to all of these things.

Bear with me now, and dont necessarily jump to conclusions. First of all I considered gravity and circular shape and motion on the scale of the solar system (which at the time I believed to be true - nowadays, I am no longer sure, one way or the other. Interestingly, this theory I have works best in my mind on a flat earth model - I am struggling to visualize it working in three dimensions, although this does not necessarily negate its possibility).

I will try to explain.... my initial thoughts were that some sort of displacement was occurring, and this in turn was creating a kind of 'drag' or suction effect. Naturally, this makes little sense in the vacuum of space, but I decided to myself at the time, that there must be some underlying intangible 'fabric' on which our reality 'exists' - obviously I now understand this to be thought of as the ether.

At this point, I am not sure on the best use of terminology, but I hope you will grasp my meaning nonetheless. I began to wonder if a displacement of the ether/non-corporeal/intangible can then somehow produce a resultant force or some energy in the tangible/corporeal world.

I will try to explain a little further. First lets imagine the ether as the fabric of existence. Next to me the ether is occupied by a table, underneath me the ether is occupied by the ground, around me the ether is occupied by air. Way up above me, the ether is (allegedly) occupied by the vacuum of space. Let us consider the ether to be a TV screen upon which our reality exists. Tangible objects can move around and occupy different parts of the ether/screen, and interact with each other, but generally speaking the tv screen, or the ether itself is basically fixed in place. Perhaps a matrix, if you prefer?

Now consider it two dimensionally - and quite simply, imagine a ship sailing across water, but on a very simple level and scale. The ship sails in a straight line through the water displacing it as it goes, and the water fills in behind as the ship moves beyond that point. The ether is 'disturbed' by the passing of the ship, yet it is not exactly parting and returning to place as the ship passes through it. It is simply disturbed or excited. I actually like to visualize this as a kind of iris effect. If you are familiar with the Stargate series, it may help to imagine the stargate iris opening and closing. As the ship/matter/object passes through each new point of the ether, it is disturbed provoking an effect or force that opens up like an iris, and then closes back shut as the object passes on by. I find myself further wondering if this effect/motion is in fact similar to that of the golden ratio spiral. It occurs pretty much everywhere else in nature, so why not here? When considering such a fundamental force, I would actually be amazed if it did NOT in some way relate to circular/spiral/round manifestation of some kind.

I also find myself wondering about the similarity between this possible force, and the way in which electromagnetism is generated. It's been a while since I looked at the topic, but I'm reasonably sure it has to do with ferrous metals spinning in, or passing through a magnetic field (or lines of flux, or however they describe it). This in turn produces some electrical current or 'pushing' effect in a conductor. Is it possible that this force created by tangible objects in the corporeal world produce a pushing effect, whilst the intangible/non-corporeal ether displacement provides a pulling effect. Some sort of yin-yang thing going on here, or another of those 'equal and opposite forces' laws, but as a comparison between corporeal and non-corporeal when comparing magnetism with gravity. Maybe magnetism is corporeal attraction, whilst gravity is non-corporeal attraction. I have watched some Ken Wheeler, so I am very much aware of how clumsy and imprecise this description/comparison probably is. Again, consider this to be a bat-shit crazy theory, and in general mainstream layman terms.

Another way of looking at it, is the afore-mentioned iris/spiral effect caused by displacement of the ether has inward pointing barbs that snag on matter. The more dense a nearby object is, the greater the snagging/pulling effect. If that object is already moving toward you then it is caused to accelerate.

I expect this force would therefore quite naturally have a magnitude relevant to the mass/density/volume of the moving object, as well as the amount of ether being displaced (IE speed and dimensions of the object would also factor in). Since the Earth itself is comparatively massive next to everything else that exists 'here', it's effect is greatest, whether you consider it to be spinning, orbiting, chasing the sun or whatever model of the universe makes sense to you, whilst all other effects are mostly negligible in comparison.

I hope this kind of made sense???  Sadly, I can't offer you any actual experiments or demonstrations or raw data - it really is just a bonkers theory, but it makes a lot more sense to me than anything else I've ever heard - and it seems to me that it fits quite snugly with electromagnetism which is more easily observable, albeit on a much smaller scale.

One final note - I know many people who enjoy the flat earth theory like to think of it as being a stationary plane. I am open to the flat earth model, but I do not consider it to be stationary. We can see all kinds of circular motion, as I have described above, and if there really is a dome or firmament, then we are in a enclosed environment meaning you may not necessarily register the motion as you have no external frame of reference. Also consider that the sun possibly orbits above us daily, and the Earth rotates around its axis once a year. That is how I would imagine it anyway, if it were true. And naturally there may well be other moving parts aside from these two.

Sorry if this all reads like incoherent rambling... I can almost hear the laughter already..... mouse hovering over the post reply button..... and..... click!


Edit - I forgot to expand on one thing.... I'm not sure if it would have been obvious, or required explaining... The boat on a 2 dimensional plane description was intended to illustrate the displacement of a small/singular 'piece' of ether, resulting in a singular 'iris' snagging effect.

Consider now the whole earth rotating slowly on its axis, with every single part of it constantly triggering this iris/snagging effect.

Another edit - About that image of the book with the cover page sticking up. The paper back cover is likely not very dense, relatively speaking. You would need to factor in its density, and then its density relative to the air beneath it, also the surface area of the page (since flat, light objects do not fall easily through air), and finally, it looks like the stiff spine of the book is providing it some support. It is equally possible that somebody has left a pencil inside the front cover which is obscured from view 

Yet another edit - wow, this one was quite important, I can't believe I missed it out on the first run -* I would perceive the resultant iris/snagging effect to manifest perpendicular to the directional disturbance of matter passing through ether*. Yup.  That bit feels pretty important.

Hopefully the last edit - Having seen that gif of the anvil floating in what presumably is mercury, and having seen other videos of mercury forming a vortex when electricty is passed through it, I now wonder if this is relevant to the topic on 'The Lost Key' - perhaps by creating some sort of a super-dense amalgam and then producing the vortex effect, you can then somehow harness gravitational energy. Hmm. Maybe that weird artifact shown in the Lost Key is a kind of ferrous metal container. The mercury creates a vortex inside it, produces a localized gravitational field which stimulates/excites the ferrous metal container to provide a magnified (or even exponential) electromagnetic charge.

If I get suicided for that last paragraph, I wont be happy. Probably I'm just bat-shit crazy.

Wow - again, yet another edit. If you just came here from the Lost Key, then you want the paragraph above. Otherwise, please continue. I said before that the iris/snagging effect pulls on other objects, with magnitude relative to the density of the other object. A few minutes thought, and actually it feels more likely that the other objects are also provoking these iris's/snagging effects. They are interacting with each other. The bigger denser object snags on the smaller object, pulling it inwards. So the snagging effect is not catching on to the molecular density of other objects, it is hooking their...... snaggers.....

Now I really am losing it. Time for bed


----------



## Fexus (Jan 10, 2022)

Seeker said:


> I just discovered this topic today, and it is fascinating. In fact, I have always been interested in this, unsatisfied with the mainstream answers.
> 
> I have to say, I've read all through this thread, and it is pretty spicy! Some very interesting views, and contributors on all sides.
> 
> ...


I loved every second of reading your comment! I'm very happy to see someone who has the same concerns about this topic AND who is also an ether enthusiast and theorist. Of course, this thread isn't totally optimal for discussing this further but I would love to talk more about this if You're up for it. I created this little subreddit a while ago (although I know reddit surely isn't optimal for that) specifically designed for ether theory. My thoughts on the ether are listed there (I'm EtherPerturbation).


----------



## trismegistus (Jan 10, 2022)

Fexus said:


> Of course, this thread isn't totally optimal for discussing this further but I would love to talk more about this if You're up for it



Starting a new thread on this site for discussions on Aether theory would be completely welcome here, as well. It’s been discussed throughout the site and in various threads to a certain degree, but a new thread could bring better insight and a more cohesive conversation.


----------



## chessquaker (Jan 10, 2022)

It is a matter of density and viscosity.  Why and when do some objects float?  What changes must occur in a submarine before it falls or rises?  Why is there a lake under the sea in some areas made of denser fluid?  Density and viscosity explain all these things.  Why does a helium balloon or hot air balloon rise up into the air  while the same balloon with denser or more viscous gas falls down to the ground?  How is a bufferfly able to defy "gravity" AND a heavy plane is able to so too?   Relative density and viscosity explain all these things.  You don't need the magic of gravity.  The very same motions that leave you helpless on the floor in a medium of AIR, if you perform them in the medium of a salt water pool, you are suddenly rising and defying "gravity".


----------



## otl2021 (Jan 20, 2022)




----------



## luddite (Jan 20, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> I hope this stays up here


Why would it be removed?

I attached the pdf to your post just incase something happens to the dropbox account or link. I also messaged you to say the same thing.

Thanks for the pdf. I really enjoyed it as it confirmed my bias


----------



## Fexus (Mar 16, 2022)

Dear otl2021,

this is an open apology letter dedicated to You.
I regret having been so rude and snarky in my responses to this thread and I wish to apologize for it.
I was frustrated that I couldn't pin down the heart of the problem and that I kept missing the point of what I really wanted to say.
I may have been drunk on the globe model at the time but most of the points I made are still valid in my opinion although I don't wish to discuss them anymore. I realize that that statement kinda breaks the apologetic mood but I simply couldn't continue without saying it. I'm sorry about that.

I just hope that You can excuse my behaviour and constant derailing.

Sincerely,
Fexus


----------

