Moontanman Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 I predict that this question will go unanswered: That is an easy way to falsify Gardons "theory" why does gravity still work in a vacuum chamber? "Tide goes in tides goes out, you can't explain that!" Maybe Gardon is Bill O'Riely 1
Klaynos Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 ! Moderator Note Requesting evidence and answering questions is a requirement of these forums. Please do so, Gardon, else this thread will be closed.Everyone, be civil. I know it can be hard. Do not reply to this modnote. 1
mississippichem Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 Air and Water, however are both truly water, biblically differentiated Sea and Sky, and react in almost the same way: Always seeking the lowest point, and always determined to stay as a whole, like a water droplet. No. Air is a mixture of gases. Water is a highly polar liquid. The two could hardly be more different with respect to physical properties. Separately, though both water, they cling to themselves and to the nearest solid object... You're referring to water's properties, those of a polar liquid with a lot of surface tension, and incorrectly projecting them onto air which for the most part behaves as a collection of particles bouncing around in random thermal motion and adhering to the virial equation of state. Because the air is so thin, when you go up, the density of the air bellow you, being so thin, cannot hold you there, and you must fall, because the sky is now competing to take your place elevated above the ground also. As a Competition we are speaking in relative volumes, regardless of the whole, so the mass of the sky is not a relate-able measurement when inquiring as to why you do not remain suspended. There was once a smart German engineer who invented something called a rocket. But, if you compact air, then lift may be achieved, and this is how flight works. Unless you can be propelled [even in a vacuum] by the brute force of a chemical combustion reaction under you...like in a rocket. The observable facts are the behaviors of water and of air, as well as the lack of space travel evidence, as well as the biblical incentives. The conclusion generally comes after a viable argument has been presented.
Gardon Thomas Posted January 19, 2012 Author Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Moontanman If your so concerned about spelling maybe you'd pay attention to grammar, and just say NO. when the tide goes out in the north that does not mean it is coming in in the south. And also, NO, it does not mean it is bouncing back to opposite coastlands. But Because you insist this thread is more about Gravity than Tidal motions, Please, in your own words, using your own proofs (as in personally and manually demonstrable facts) PROVE GRAVITY. Or it is a THEORY! ahahah. I loved this, you were so witty. Just for everyone elses pleasure. What Moontanman did here was take my statement and apply it to his answer, once again disregarding the original statement and making Gravity the impending topic. lovely. aha Klynos I cannot ignore the Mod post comment. I must thank you. Until this point I have addressed all the questions, and having tried, believe I have remained polite. Thus, My thanks is for taking notice and an interest in this thread, as well as performing your duties as mod. Tres Juicy I cannot provide evidence that there is a lack of evidence we've been to space. If your so convinced, provide some photographs clearly taken beyond the outer most reaches of our atmosphere. Read a book you moron. If all the air was trying to get beneath me it would have a lifting effect on me rather than holding me down, like water does. Stop wasting your time on fairy tales and rubbish. you quoted a very clear explanation for that! (read your post!^^) Can I have this man banned from my thread? A:Volume density: It displaces itself first. Tres Juicy, a vaccuum is not 100% lacking air. you understand that right? Are you making a point or looking for an answer? In an air tight containment where air is not 100% absent, it reacts similar to that the atmosphere does at it's outreaches, performimg a double-flip [here by named Outer flip.]. The containment will now suck tot he center as a newly formed atmosphere, which as water, will always strive to be a droplet. Like our Atmosphere is. Circular. And it will contain the solid object at it's core. Duhh That is The theory of Aerodynamics. (edit: also look further down the post to the rule Mississippechem quoted form me earlier.) It will cling out in reverse, like to the fabric of space, and in with as much might as can be mustered. Thus you cannot enter space, it will grab you with great outer-flip strength, and return you to earth, or somewhere, you might land near water. The tides do not require gravity/ They require a physical attraction to a land mass. Water does that naturally. You can observe this by looking at the rim of a beaker or perhaps an indulgent finger. Thus it meets the requirements of The Theory of Aerodynamics: an oposition to the theory of Gravity. What book are you suggesting? Klynos, I don't care now. It's okay guys, I have the answer to disproving Continental Shift as well: God did it; The Third day of Creation, left a geological footprint. AS did the continental shift of the Generations of Pe'leg. unrelenting Factual patterns. God pulled the earth from wihtin itself and it grew to surface from the oceans. Moontanman "Solar heat has nothing to do with tides, it cannot be used to predict the tides or shown to be responsible in any way and yet you still assert the suns heats causes tides... open your mind to reality Gardon, reality is beautiful, not scary. " That not scientific, that's a personal statement you can't back up. You haven't provided any evidence that isn't true. By supporting yourselves you've only supported me. By not considering what my Theory was, you were unable to provide valid information that I was wrong, or that it was not possible. Everything observable that supports gravity supports the theory of Aerodynamics even more. H D That Should Be My wall post. (creationism) love it. I read there was no evidence I was wrong or youw ere wrigth. The written observations can be wrote down using the term gravity all anybody wants - the reality is Aerodynamics takes place. Obverse what you like, they observations are not the cause, H2O is. Mississippechem The two could hardly be more different with respect to physical properties. ahahahahh. I could hardly stop laughing. H2O, that is what water is. lol Separately, though both water, they cling to themselves and to the nearest solid object... yes thank you for posting that up there. That si a very important rule in explaining the vacuum. Edited January 19, 2012 by Gardon Thomas
Ophiolite Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 When one is unable to distinguish between the possibilty of skillfull troll or the mentally ill it is arguably time to close a forum thread.
Daedalus Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 When one is unable to distinguish between the possibilty of skillfull troll or the mentally ill it is arguably time to close a forum thread. I second that notion.
Gardon Thomas Posted January 19, 2012 Author Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Did you all read my explanation to a Vacuum after reading the Theory Explanation on the 2rd page? This is breakthrough stuff. God Bless. I told Klynos I was gone anyway. Edited January 19, 2012 by Gardon Thomas
Essay Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 Did you all read my explanation to a Vacuum after reading the Theory Explanation on the 2rd page? This is breakthrough stuff. God Bless. While there are some perspectives where it is helpful to think of the atmosphere's many layers as a fluid (or oil/water mixture with boundary layers and thermoclines, etc.), and it has "currents" and many other analogs to fluid dynamics, and it might be thought of as a fairly thin (rarified or low-density) fluid mixture, and it has a fairly dynamic interface connecting it to the oceans; buoyancy and surface tension do not get stonger in "thinner fluids" --which is what you seem to base your ideas (alternative to gravity) upon-- as you extrapolate from Sea to Sky. ...hope that helps: ~ p.s. Just because we don't "understand" gravity, doesn't mean we need an alternative explanation this instant. It would only be a breakthrough if we needed such knowledge this instant, but the various models of gravity are working well enough for now. Soon though, we may need more; so keep learning and thinking, and looking and listening. ~
Tres Juicy Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) I suggested you read a book, try this one to start with: http://uav.ust.hk/re...20Chapter_1.pdf Then this: http://adsabs.harvar...opp..book.....M Then this: http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9S-hzg6-moYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=general+relativity&ots=FGMPsHfA1a&sig=GO0Dj_di1hWvaWTO0_oJjzw4oNw#v=onepage&q=general%20relativity&f=false Also if what you are saying were true then we would not observe gravity in a helium filled tank. The effects of gravity would vary depending on the atmospheric medium, which they don't. Also by your explanation you could not observe gravity through liquid. You are confusing atmospheric pressure with gravity - If you were to increase atmospheric pressure you would not increase gravity. Get yourself an education outside of church, you have the internet - read a little Edited January 19, 2012 by Tres Juicy
Klaynos Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 ! Moderator Note We're done here.Restating your position is not answering questions.Ignoring presented evidence (vacuum chambers do not effect gravity) is not acceptable on this board.Do not reintroduce this topic. 2
Recommended Posts