The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: alex on May 12, 2015, 02:06:04 PM
-
I have another great idea.
I would like to know, from people believing the earth is not round, what laws of physics you assume are correct, and which you assume are wrong, incorrect or made up from conspiracies.
The list of physic laws I have in mind are:
- classical mechanics
- quantum mechanics
- general relativity
- special relativity
- gravitation
- electricity
- model of the atom
- model of the atomic nuclei
- elementery physics
- model of the forces (gravitational force, weak force, strong force, electromagnetic force)
- optics
- ...
(With 'laws of physics' I mean the plethora of generally-accepted rules describing how the world works (according to Wikipedia). Thus my list includes terms like 'model', 'theory', 'law' etc. on the same level, meaning 'mathematical rule to describe something').
-
Is plentora a word?
-
I meant 'plenthora', I corrected it in the original post...
-
Plenthora's not a word.
You're looking for "plethora".
... Google. It exist.
-
I corrected it (again).
So can you begin to actually answer my question? Or do you want to continue nitpicking on my question?
-
Not keen on gravity. It is the 'theory of gravity' after all. It isn't scientific fact. No gravity particle has been found, you'd think by now they'd have found it. They know how it should behave, the energy range it should live, have given it a name (graviton), have built a multi-billion euro collider to find it and despite it being everywhere at all times on earth, its not there. Something smells a bit fishy to me.
-
Not keen on gravity. It is the 'theory of gravity' after all. It isn't scientific fact. No gravity particle has been found, you'd think by now they'd have found it. They know how it should behave, the energy range it should live, have given it a name (graviton), have built a multi-billion euro collider to find it and despite it being everywhere at all times on earth, its not there. Something smells a bit fishy to me.
The LHC is not capable of reaching the energies necessary to generate gravitons; it was originally designed to discover the Higgs Boson and to narrow in on lower limits for sparticles. I am not sure why you are ignoring the facts that make up the theory of gravity but I could probably guess.
-
There is no evidence gravitons exist at all, but thanks for the assumption just more energy is needed to find them.
-
There is no evidence gravitons exist at all, but thanks for the assumption just more energy is needed to find them.
It is predicted by QM (http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0507255.pdf) but thanks for the assumption that I was assuming.
Anyway, I have really only seen gravity be rejected by FEers
-
It is not predicted. May I draw your attention to the right of the page in the link below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
Status: Theoretical
Discovery: Hypothetical
Theoretically I could win the lottery this Saturday. Then I could hypothetically share some of my winnings with you. What chance do you think you have of getting some money from me very soon? Going to leave your job?
-
It is not predicted. May I draw your attention to the right of the page in the link below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
Status: Theoretical
Discovery: Hypothetical
Theoretically I could win the lottery this Saturday. Then I could hypothetically share some of my winnings with you. What chance do you think you have of getting some money from me very soon? Going to leave your job?
Ummm... Ok. I don't understand. You don't think an incorrect prediction can't be made?
-
Not keen on gravity. It is the 'theory of gravity' after all. It isn't scientific fact. No gravity particle has been found, you'd think by now they'd have found it. They know how it should behave, the energy range it should live, have given it a name (graviton), have built a multi-billion euro collider to find it and despite it being everywhere at all times on earth, its not there.
If you had actually read your own link, then you would have known that physicists already admit that, for all practical purposes, building a graviton detector on earth with modern technology is impossible.
For example, a detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions.
Something smells a bit fishy to me.
Maybe it's just time to wash your swim shorts.
-
So gravity is in every object, all mass, every atom but I'm supposed to believe some cockamamie story about needing a detector the size of Jupiter? I can observe anything falling, but CERN needs something the size of a gas giant? Come on Markjo. "They are there, but we can't detect them, and we are right, but we can't prove it and you have to believe us that it is, just we need a machine the size of a mega planet to detect these incredibly common subatomic particles, which we know we will never have so that's that and take our word for it."
Like I say, I have my doubts over gravity. I don't think it is unreasonable. I need a machine the size of the Sun to prove God exists, but he does and he loves you Markjo, despite you being a pain in the backside. :-*
-
So gravity is in every object, all mass, every atom but I'm supposed to believe some cockamamie story about needing a detector the size of Jupiter? I can observe anything falling, but CERN needs something the size of a gas giant? Come on Markjo. "They are there, but we can't detect them, and we are right, but we can't prove it and you have to believe us that it is, just we need a machine the size of a mega planet to detect these incredibly common subatomic particles, which we know we will never have so that's that and take our word for it."
Like I say, I have my doubts over gravity. I don't think it is unreasonable. I need a machine the size of the Sun to prove God exists, but he does and he loves you Markjo, despite you being a pain in the backside. :-*
No one has ever said they are certain they will some day detect the graviton. If you want to reject something you should at least take the time to understand it.
-
If you want to reject something you should at least take the time to understand it.
How much do you know about flat earth theory?
-
If you want to reject something you should at least take the time to understand it.
How much do you know about flat earth theory?
Nice deflection.
Which FE theory?
-
So, people believing in a flat earth accept every physical fact except gravity? Is this a correct conclusion on my side?
-
So, people believing in a flat earth accept every physical fact except gravity? Is this a correct conclusion on my side?
Gravity is not a fact. Hence 'the theory of gravity'.
-
Well, fact is you do not understand what the word 'theory' means in a scientific meaning.
Can you then provide a law or anything that describes gravity?
-
Not keen on gravity. It is the 'theory of gravity' after all. It isn't scientific fact. No gravity particle has been found, you'd think by now they'd have found it. They know how it should behave, the energy range it should live, have given it a name (graviton), have built a multi-billion euro collider to find it and despite it being everywhere at all times on earth, its not there. Something smells a bit fishy to me.
Since when does a force need a particle?
Magnetic fields don't need magnetrons....
Gravity is not a fact. Hence 'the theory of gravity'.
True. Nothing is fact. We can never say we know something for sure 100%, but we can say that we're reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally sure about something. Gravity is one of those things. Its effects have been tested and verified for centuries.
The beauty of the scientific method is that since we're never 100% certain about anything, there is always the possibility to disprove something. So why don't you disprove gravity as we know it?
I'm sure there's a lot of money up for grabs if you can back up your talk with some walk...
-
Gravity is one of those things. Its effects have been tested and verified for centuries.
Is that why scientist need to make things up when their tests do not match their calculation, like for dark matter and dark energy?
-
I like to back up dog's statements. Nothing is 100% certain, even my belief that the earth is round (although it is veeeeeery close to 100%).
I also would like to point out the simplicity of the 'theory of gravity' Just take the following equation:
(http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/smith/Astro150/Tutorials/Gravity/images/GravityEq1.jpg)
It states the attractive, gravitational force between two masses 'M' and 'm' given a distance 'd' between them. With this simple equation, you can calculate:
- the motion of the planets in our solar system around the sun
- the motion of the planet's moos around the planets
- the motion of asteroids
- the motion of comets
- the motion of satellites around the earth
- the motion of probes travelling through our solar system
- solar eclipses
- lunar eclipses
I even did these calculations myself on a computer. They worked! So try it yourself!
However, this equation does not hold when including other forces (as this equation only describes the gravitational force). Low-earth satellites are decelerated by the earth's atmosphere and smaller objects in the solar system experience a small force from the particle wind coming from the sun. And for much greater distances, one has to consider cosmological effects.
But for all the 'basic' things we observe, like the moon, the sun, sunset, sunrise, eclipses, position of planets etc., the only equation you need is the one posted on top of this thread. No need for strange, complicated and unexplainable movements of the stars and planets over the 'flat' earth. Just this simple and elegant equation to explain almost everything you see on the sky!
-
alex, you're not addressing jroa's question.
Why should we trust any of this when your own "top" scientists have to resort to making things up to explain gravity? Where is the evidence for dark matter? What even is that?
Perhaps when your theory is COMPLETELY verifiably, then we might be able to agree with it. I just can't take a theory seriously when it has made up god particles with no evidence present.
-
No theory is completly verifiable. But you can make experiments to be sure on a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% level or something! That is called 'science'.
-
No theory is completly verifiable. But you can make experiments to be sure on a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% level or something! That is called 'science'.
You mean, they see effects of something, then make up a theory, and when the theory does not match reality, they just make stuff up to fill in the gaps, right?
-
You are mistaken.
Scientists see the effects of something. Then they make up a theory, and develope experiments to verify this theory.
Then it might happen that scientists see some effect (with an experiment) which deviates from the theory (e.g. very precise measurements, experiments in a special environment etc). These scientists conclude, that the original theory does not explain everything they observe with this experiment.
But instead of making stuff up, scientists try to develop a better theory, that explained everything observed so far (all observations with 'old' experiments must hold, of course), but which also explains the new observed effects.
Based on that, they develop new experiments to verify the new theory. And so on.
To my knowledge there is currently no theory available that explains everything. But all observations in everyday's life (including astronomical observations) can be explained by a set of consistent theories to very high precision.
As a matter of fact, you would not be able to use a computer if there is no suitable theory to explain electricity, semi-conductors, nano technology, etc
-
Not keen on gravity. It is the 'theory of gravity' after all. It isn't scientific fact. No gravity particle has been found, you'd think by now they'd have found it. They know how it should behave, the energy range it should live, have given it a name (graviton), have built a multi-billion euro collider to find it and despite it being everywhere at all times on earth, its not there. Something smells a bit fishy to me.
Since when does a force need a particle?
Magnetic fields don't need magnetrons....
Please give me an example of an invisible force that doesn't use a particle. Magnetic fields don't need magnetrons but they are pretty darn dependant on electrons.
Gravity is not a fact. Hence 'the theory of gravity'.
True. Nothing is fact. We can never say we know something for sure 100%, but we can say that we're reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally sure about something. Gravity is one of those things. Its effects have been tested and verified for centuries.
The beauty of the scientific method is that since we're never 100% certain about anything, there is always the possibility to disprove something. So why don't you disprove gravity as we know it?
I'm sure there's a lot of money up for grabs if you can back up your talk with some walk...
Einstein already provided an alternative ... he called it the equivalence principle.
Even mainstream scientists are questioning gravity and how it works. http://phys.org/news/2006-12-alternative-theory-gravity-large-formation.html
I am at a loss as to why you may be shocked that I might also have doubts. It's just not a theory I am happy with. I think there are better explanations.
-
ahhh... the age old misunderstanding of the definition of a scientific theory.
Understandable why so many get confused with the word. In the vernacular, theory refers to a guess. In mathematics (and invariable, theoretical physics since it almost exclusively uses mathematics, a theory is a mathematical possibility based on calculation. In science however, a theory is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
In simple terms, a scientific theory is an explanation of a scientific fact. The theory is telling you what the scientific fact is and giving the best explanation based on the evidence we have so far.
Atomic theory tells us the fact that atoms make up everything around us that we see and the explanation of how atoms are made up, held together and interact with each other. The theory evolves as more information is acquired, like the discovery of sub-atomic particles and quantum particles. In spite of finding particles smaller than atoms that make up the atoms themselves, the atomic theory wasn't discarded, it was enhanced and evolved to include the new data.
Molecular theory tells us the fact that atoms bind together in specific ways to create molecules and the explanation of how molecules are bound together through different bonds and how they interact with each other. The theory will continue to be modified as new information is discovered, but the likelihood that any discovery will change the fact of the existence of molecules is next to nothing.
Similarly, the theory of gravity tells us the fact that there is gravity (it has been demonstrated for centuries - we even have laws of gravity which are mathematical relationships of how celestial bodies interact with each other which accurately explain the relationships between planets and their moons, the planets revolving around the sun, etc) and gives us the best explanation of how it works based on our current information. There is a lot we do not understand about how gravity works right now, which is why some scientists are trying to come up with new ideas on how gravity interacts, but the likelihood that any new discovery will change the scientific fact of gravity is next to nothing.
-
Similarly, the theory of gravity tells us the fact that there is gravity (it has been demonstrated for centuries - we even have laws of gravity which are mathematical relationships of how celestial bodies interact with each other which accurately explain the relationships between planets and their moons, the planets revolving around the sun, etc) and gives us the best explanation of how it works based on our current information. There is a lot we do not understand about how gravity works right now, which is why some scientists are trying to come up with new ideas on how gravity interacts, but the likelihood that any new discovery will change the scientific fact of gravity is next to nothing.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the theory of gravity falls apart at any level outside of a star system. It seems awfully convenient for you to leave that part out of your lecture.
-
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the theory of gravity falls apart at any level outside of a star system. It seems awfully convenient for you to leave that part out of your lecture.
[/quote]
You are incorrect in your statement. While I did not mention anything outside of a star system, that does not mean that the laws of gravitation fail when you look at the bigger picture. On the contrary, the laws of gravitation work well enough that we are able to calculate the relative size of the Milky Way's central black hole based on the stars orbiting it. Even when calculating the effects of gravity between galaxies, the mathematics works pretty well.
-
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the theory of gravity falls apart at any level outside of a star system.
Actually, it doesn't. The fact that galaxies don't move as expected simply proves that there is more to galaxies than is readily observable. That sounds more like a successful theory rather than a flawed one.
-
Is that why scientist need to make things up when their tests do not match their calculation, like for dark matter and dark energy?
Do you want to shift the topic to dark matter? We can do that. I'm also very skeptical about dark matter. It's not really something we're sure about, but it fits the bill for now. I think it's temporary until we gain better understanding of some advanced physics in our universe. It's probably close though, and it makes sense, kind of the "anti"-gravity.
But if you want to continue talking about gravity though, we can do that too. Gravity is about 100x more concrete than dark matter theory, its effects are easily observable throughout our universe, and calculations done with it are always spot on.
Why should we trust any of this when your own "top" scientists have to resort to making things up to explain gravity?
Nobody is making things up to explain gravity.
Scientists did have to 'create' dark matter/energy to explain missing mass in our universe though, if that's what you're referring to. And skepticism on it is natural, considering it's still a heavily researched area.
Where is the evidence for dark matter? What even is that?
Read up. Over 100 references at the bottom too if you want to get into some dense scientific papers too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter)
Perhaps when your theory is COMPLETELY verifiably, then we might be able to agree with it. I just can't take a theory seriously when it has made up god particles with no evidence present.
No god particles here, you're thinking of the Higgs Boson.
Gravitational theory? Gravity doesn't need particles.
Dark matter theory? Dark matter evidence is observational from our universe. Definitely less established theory than gravity though if that's what you're getting at.
In any case, if you think it's possible for a theory to be 'COMPLETELY verifiably' then you've been misled. Anything can be disproved. Even the most fundamental building blocks of physics. As long as you have the evidence to back it up.
Welcome to science.
-
Please give me an example of an invisible force that doesn't use a particle. Magnetic fields don't need magnetrons but they are pretty darn dependant on electrons.
Magnetic force? No particle needed.
Particle needed to generate electric field = electron.
Gravitational force? No particle needed.
Particle needed to generate gravitational field = any atom.
Einstein already provided an alternative ... he called it the equivalence principle.
That's an alternative way to simulate the same force. That is not an alternative to the Theory of Gravity, which is a very solid theory that has proven to be correct in many many calculations/experiments throughout the centuries.
Even mainstream scientists are questioning gravity and how it works. http://phys.org/news/2006-12-alternative-theory-gravity-large-formation.html
I am at a loss as to why you may be shocked that I might also have doubts. It's just not a theory I am happy with. I think there are better explanations.
The alternative theories for gravity are not ground breaking. They do not support FEF in any way.
If one of the alternatives (MOND or TeVeS) get accepted by the scientific community, they would tweak our understanding of the universe at a large scale or at high accelerations, not the Earth as we know it. The Earth will continue to be a sphere and there will always be a force that attracts you to it, no matter what you call it or how you tweak the theory.
-
One of the best threads on the subject.
alex wrote:
It states the attractive, gravitational force between two masses 'M' and 'm' given a distance 'd' between them.
But it is not attractive, not now, not in the past, not ever in the future.
Gases do not obey an attractive gravitational law:
SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.
“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”
One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.
GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE DO NOT OBEY AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATIONAL LAW
The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.” This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.
When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:
“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”
Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?
Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.
Liquids do not obey an attractive gravitational law:
Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.”
As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.
Solids do not obey an attractive gravitational law:
Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".
It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.
According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".
In Dr. Bruce DePalma's Spinning Ball Experiment, a ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.
DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also not-rotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:
Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.
It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,50942.msg1248776.html#msg1248776
(Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation)
-
alex wrote:
It states the attractive, gravitational force between two masses 'M' and 'm' given a distance 'd' between them.
But it is not attractive, not now, not in the past, not ever in the future.
Stopped reading right there.
Jump............ what happens?
-
But it is not attractive, not now, not in the past, not ever in the future.
Gases do not obey an attractive gravitational law:
SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.
“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”
One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.
GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE DO NOT OBEY AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATIONAL LAW
The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.” This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.
When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:
“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”
Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?
Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.
Liquids do not obey an attractive gravitational law:
Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.”
As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.
Solids do not obey an attractive gravitational law:
Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".
It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.
According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".
In Dr. Bruce DePalma's Spinning Ball Experiment, a ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.
DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also not-rotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:
Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.
It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,50942.msg1248776.html#msg1248776
(Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation)
Wow - nice rambling by someone who doesn't have a clue...
First of all, gases do follow the laws of gravitation. There is simply more at work than gravity as you would have learned from a high school chemistry class if you paid attention to the chapter on gas pressures. The atmosphere on Earth is gravitationally attracted to the Earth - that's why we have an atmosphere to begin with. Heavier gases have a greater force of attraction, which is why you find the heavier gases (Oxygen for example) closer to the Earth. The upper atmosphere contains only helium and hydrogen, which are much lighter gases. So, your statement "The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights." is an outright lie.
Funny that you should mention changes in barometric pressure and indicate that it "occurs in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours"... did you know that tides also occur twice a day with 2 high tides and 2 low tides? Can you guess what causes tides? It's the gravitational pull of the Sun and the Moon on the Earth. Did you know that the Earth's atmosphere is also affected by the gravitational pull of our celestial neighbors? Now you do.
I am going to stop there... you wrote a lot more lies but it is clear to see just from this simple explanation of the atmosphere that you have no clue about what you are talking about. Please stop embarassing yourself.
-
You mean, they see effects of something, then make up a theory, and when the theory does not match reality, they just make stuff up to fill in the gaps, right?
They create a hypothesis to explain their observation and test it. Yeah, you know, they do science.
What would you propose doing?
-
Magnetic force? No particle needed.
Particle needed to generate electric field = electron.
This is wrong. The electromagnetic force has a gauge boson which exchanges the force. It is called the photon. An electromagnetic field can be generated by any charged particle; electrons are the easiest to harness.
Gravitational force? No particle needed.
Incorrect. This is an unanswered question in physics.
Particle needed to generate gravitational field = any atom.
Or energy, or momentum.
Even mainstream scientists are questioning gravity and how it works. http://phys.org/news/2006-12-alternative-theory-gravity-large-formation.html
I am at a loss as to why you may be shocked that I might also have doubts. It's just not a theory I am happy with. I think there are better explanations.
Thork thinks that somehow showing other theories of gravity will prove gravity does not exist. Cute.
-
The atmosphere on Earth is gravitationally attracted to the Earth - that's why we have an atmosphere to begin with.
So why does Mars not have an atmosphere?
-
The atmosphere on Earth is gravitationally attracted to the Earth - that's why we have an atmosphere to begin with.
So why does Mars not have an atmosphere?
Mars does have an atmosphere.
(http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Mars_Earth_atmosphere_comparison.jpg)
-
Magnetic force? No particle needed.
Particle needed to generate electric field = electron.
This is wrong. The electromagnetic force has a gauge boson which exchanges the force. It is called the photon. An electromagnetic field can be generated by any charged particle; electrons are the easiest to harness.
Gravitational force? No particle needed.
Incorrect. This is an unanswered question in physics.
Particle needed to generate gravitational field = any atom.
Or energy, or momentum.
It was pretty late when I wrote that, thank you for clarifying.
-
The atmosphere on Earth is gravitationally attracted to the Earth - that's why we have an atmosphere to begin with.
So why does Mars not have an atmosphere?
Mars does have an atmosphere.
(http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Mars_Earth_atmosphere_comparison.jpg)
What happened to the atmosphere Mars has been hypothesized to have? Did gravity stop working? Or is gravity theory an incredibly minute aspect of an atmosphere being maintained?
-
What happened to the atmosphere Mars has been hypothesized to have? Did gravity stop working? Or is gravity theory an incredibly minute aspect of an atmosphere being maintained?
I don't understand what you're asking. Gravity on Mars is about 1/2 of earth's gravity so it has an atmosphere, just a fairly thin one. One thing that Mars does not have is a magnetic field, so the solar wind blew away a fair bit of the atmosphere that it used to have.
-
One thing that Mars does not have is a magnetic field, so the solar wind blew away a fair bit of the atmosphere that it used to have.
But it did at one point, supposedly. That is when it had oceans according to mainstream theory. Gravity didn't come into play...
-
One thing that Mars does not have is a magnetic field, so the solar wind blew away a fair bit of the atmosphere that it used to have.
But it did at one point, supposedly. That is when it had oceans according to mainstream theory. Gravity didn't come into play...
??? Of course gravity comes into play. Why wouldn't it? It's just that gravity isn't the only thing that comes into play.
-
One thing that Mars does not have is a magnetic field, so the solar wind blew away a fair bit of the atmosphere that it used to have.
But it did at one point, supposedly. That is when it had oceans according to mainstream theory. Gravity didn't come into play...
??? Of course gravity comes into play. Why wouldn't it? It's just that gravity isn't the only thing that comes into play.
So gravity is strong enough to keep everything planted on the ground, but can't hold an atmosphere in place without the help of electromagnetism?
Gravity is what causes the motion of planets, no? So gravity was slinging Mars around the sun, causing it to rotate along with its core, generating a magnetic field. What happened? Did gravity stop working so the core stopped rotating, thereby eliminating its magnetic field? Or does gravity only work sometimes?
-
One thing that Mars does not have is a magnetic field, so the solar wind blew away a fair bit of the atmosphere that it used to have.
But it did at one point, supposedly. That is when it had oceans according to mainstream theory. Gravity didn't come into play...
??? Of course gravity comes into play. Why wouldn't it? It's just that gravity isn't the only thing that comes into play.
So gravity is strong enough to keep everything planted on the ground, but can't hold an atmosphere in place without the help of electromagnetism?
Gravity is what causes the motion of planets, no? So gravity was slinging Mars around the sun, causing it to rotate along with its core, generating a magnetic field. What happened? Did gravity stop working so the core stopped rotating, thereby eliminating its magnetic field? Or does gravity only work sometimes?
Gravity does not cause planets to rotate on their axis.
-
One thing that Mars does not have is a magnetic field, so the solar wind blew away a fair bit of the atmosphere that it used to have.
But it did at one point, supposedly. That is when it had oceans according to mainstream theory. Gravity didn't come into play...
??? Of course gravity comes into play. Why wouldn't it? It's just that gravity isn't the only thing that comes into play.
So gravity is strong enough to keep everything planted on the ground, but can't hold an atmosphere in place without the help of electromagnetism?
Gravity is what causes the motion of planets, no? So gravity was slinging Mars around the sun, causing it to rotate along with its core, generating a magnetic field. What happened? Did gravity stop working so the core stopped rotating, thereby eliminating its magnetic field? Or does gravity only work sometimes?
Gravity does not cause planets to rotate on their axis.
So if gravity didn't exist, planets would not have orbital rotation, but would rotate on their axis at constant velocity?
-
So gravity is strong enough to keep everything planted on the ground, but can't hold an atmosphere in place without the help of electromagnetism?
The electromagnetic field of a planet helps keep the solar wind from blowing its atmosphere away.
Gravity is what causes the motion of planets, no? So gravity was slinging Mars around the sun, causing it to rotate along with its core, generating a magnetic field. What happened? Did gravity stop working so the core stopped rotating, thereby eliminating its magnetic field? Or does gravity only work sometimes?
No, the once liquid, rotating core of Mars cooled and solidified.
-
all of the above physics laws are correct....its just that the earth is flat because it got slammed and busted in half.
-
The electromagnetic field of a planet helps keep the solar wind from blowing its atmosphere away.
Can you quantify "helps?" It seems electromagnetism is stronger than gravity in this case.
No, the once liquid, rotating core of Mars cooled and solidified.
How did that happen? Why hasn't it happened to Earth?
-
One thing that Mars does not have is a magnetic field, so the solar wind blew away a fair bit of the atmosphere that it used to have.
But it did at one point, supposedly. That is when it had oceans according to mainstream theory. Gravity didn't come into play...
??? Of course gravity comes into play. Why wouldn't it? It's just that gravity isn't the only thing that comes into play.
So gravity is strong enough to keep everything planted on the ground, but can't hold an atmosphere in place without the help of electromagnetism?
Gravity is what causes the motion of planets, no? So gravity was slinging Mars around the sun, causing it to rotate along with its core, generating a magnetic field. What happened? Did gravity stop working so the core stopped rotating, thereby eliminating its magnetic field? Or does gravity only work sometimes?
Gravity does not cause planets to rotate on their axis.
So if gravity didn't exist, planets would not have orbital rotation, but would rotate on their axis at constant velocity?
Vice versa
-
One thing that Mars does not have is a magnetic field, so the solar wind blew away a fair bit of the atmosphere that it used to have.
But it did at one point, supposedly. That is when it had oceans according to mainstream theory. Gravity didn't come into play...
??? Of course gravity comes into play. Why wouldn't it? It's just that gravity isn't the only thing that comes into play.
So gravity is strong enough to keep everything planted on the ground, but can't hold an atmosphere in place without the help of electromagnetism?
Gravity is what causes the motion of planets, no? So gravity was slinging Mars around the sun, causing it to rotate along with its core, generating a magnetic field. What happened? Did gravity stop working so the core stopped rotating, thereby eliminating its magnetic field? Or does gravity only work sometimes?
Gravity does not cause planets to rotate on their axis.
So if gravity didn't exist, planets would not have orbital rotation, but would rotate on their axis at constant velocity?
Vice versa
How is it vice versa? You stated gravity doesn't cause planets to rotate on their axis. Therefore, if there was no gravity, Earth would not be in orbit around the sun, but would still be rotating on its axis.
Having pointed that out, what causes rotation about the axis of Earth? Does it have an effect on the atmosphere of Earth?
-
So, your statement "The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights." is an outright lie.
Let us go to the textbook on atmospheric physics.
The earth's atmosphere is a complex mixture of several "gases", either atomic or molecular in nature. Air consists primarily of N2 (78%) and O2 (21%), with small amounts of several other substances, including Ar (0.9%).
Let us take, as an example, the troposphere.
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/nats104/00lect25atmcompo.html
NITROGEN 78%
OXYGEN 21%
ARGON 0.9%
Now, the thermosphere.
http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-gases-that-separate-by-weight-upper-layers-469654
Thermosphere: 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen
Heavier gases have a greater force of attraction, which is why you find the heavier gases (Oxygen for example) closer to the Earth.
Even in the troposphere, nitrogen is thoroughly mixed with oxygen.
If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.
Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?
Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.
Exosphere: Hydrogen, helium, carbon dioxide, and atomic oxygen.
http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-gases-that-separate-by-weight-upper-layers-469654
You have a poor knowledge of atmospheric physics since you wrote:
The upper atmosphere contains only helium and hydrogen, which are much lighter gases.
You have dodged the very argument proposed there, the very fact that the barometer pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY SCIENCE.
One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.
Did you know that tides also occur twice a day with 2 high tides and 2 low tides? Can you guess what causes tides? It's the gravitational pull of the Sun and the Moon on the Earth. Did you know that the Earth's atmosphere is also affected by the gravitational pull of our celestial neighbors? Now you do.
Please do your homework.
http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/geol/tides.htm
This atmospheric tide is completely solar, the lunar component being too small to observe.
Do not mix different aspects of the tidal science: atmospheric tides and oceanic tides are two different phenomena.
Did you know that the Earth's atmosphere is also affected by the gravitational pull of our celestial neighbors? Now you do.
Your scientific reach is much greater than your scientific grasp.
The Earth is not rotating in space.
The Earth’s surface is composed of similar materials.
Solar heating and loss of infrared radiation cause a temperature gradient of hot air at the equator and cold air at the poles, forcing warm air away from the equator toward the poles.
The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph. Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:
If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.
The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.
Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach’s principle is still in effect, as always. But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns? It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes – that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth – it defies either logic or observation.
If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.
Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.
Also read the RESTORING FORCES PARADOX:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120726102954/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm
-
The electromagnetic field of a planet helps keep the solar wind from blowing its atmosphere away.
Can you quantify "helps?" It seems electromagnetism is stronger than gravity in this case.
Yes, electromagnetism is stronger than gravity. However, it this case, the electromagnetic field of a planet acts more like a windscreen to keep the solar wind off of a planet.
No, the once liquid, rotating core of Mars cooled and solidified.
How did that happen? Why hasn't it happened to Earth?
Why did it happen to Mars? I doubt that anyone knows for sure, but probably has something to do with the fact that Mars is relatively small and therefore had a smaller liquid core, and smaller things tend to cool faster than bigger things.
Why hasn't it happened to Earth? Again, I doubt that anyone is 100% sure, but some believe that there is a fair bit of uranium, or some other dense radioactive material) in the outer core and the heat from its radioactive decay is helping to keep the outer core from cooling off.
-
Electromagnetism is preventing the atmosphere from being stripped away by radiation, not keeping it glued to the planet.
-
So if gravity didn't exist, planets would not have orbital rotation, but would rotate on their axis at constant velocity?
Vice versa
How is it vice versa? You stated gravity doesn't cause planets to rotate on their axis. Therefore, if there was no gravity, Earth would not be in orbit around the sun, but would still be rotating on its axis.
I had a dyslexic moment.
Having pointed that out, what causes rotation about the axis of Earth? Does it have an effect on the atmosphere of Earth?
It is hypothesized to be due to rotation in the gases that made up the photo-solar system being conserved. That might be partially due to gravity and partially due to mechanical effects and probably some other things I am not aware of. But Gravity is not the "engine" of the Earth's rotation.
The Earth's atmosphere rotates in equilibrium with the Earth.
-
No, the once liquid, rotating core of Mars cooled and solidified.
How did that happen? Why hasn't it happened to Earth?
Why did it happen to Mars? I doubt that anyone knows for sure, but probably has something to do with the fact that Mars is relatively small and therefore had a smaller liquid core, and smaller things tend to cool faster than bigger things.
But Mercury still has a magnetic field and is smaller than Mars.
-
No, the once liquid, rotating core of Mars cooled and solidified.
How did that happen? Why hasn't it happened to Earth?
Why did it happen to Mars? I doubt that anyone knows for sure, but probably has something to do with the fact that Mars is relatively small and therefore had a smaller liquid core, and smaller things tend to cool faster than bigger things.
But Mercury still has a magnetic field and is smaller than Mars.
Mercury's magnetic field is about 1.1% as strong as the Earth's. What's your point?
-
No, the once liquid, rotating core of Mars cooled and solidified.
How did that happen? Why hasn't it happened to Earth?
Why did it happen to Mars? I doubt that anyone knows for sure, but probably has something to do with the fact that Mars is relatively small and therefore had a smaller liquid core, and smaller things tend to cool faster than bigger things.
But Mercury still has a magnetic field and is smaller than Mars.
Mercury's magnetic field is about 1.1% as strong as the Earth's. What's your point?
It's also strong enough to deflect solar winds, so 1.1% must count for something.
My point is that everyone here is talking as if there's a a definitive answer, and it's clear the best everyone can do is guess. The same thing FErs get criticized constantly for.
-
No, the once liquid, rotating core of Mars cooled and solidified.
How did that happen? Why hasn't it happened to Earth?
Why did it happen to Mars? I doubt that anyone knows for sure, but probably has something to do with the fact that Mars is relatively small and therefore had a smaller liquid core, and smaller things tend to cool faster than bigger things.
But Mercury still has a magnetic field and is smaller than Mars.
Mercury's magnetic field is about 1.1% as strong as the Earth's. What's your point?
It's also strong enough to deflect solar winds, so 1.1% must count for something.
My point is that everyone here is talking as if there's a a definitive answer, and it's clear the best everyone can do is guess. The same thing FErs get criticized constantly for.
The difference being that there are scientists who speak much more substantially, in terms of both evidence and theory, than we lay people do. There is no equivalent that I have seen for FEers, yet FEers often claim to be on equal footing.
-
No, the once liquid, rotating core of Mars cooled and solidified.
How did that happen? Why hasn't it happened to Earth?
Why did it happen to Mars? I doubt that anyone knows for sure, but probably has something to do with the fact that Mars is relatively small and therefore had a smaller liquid core, and smaller things tend to cool faster than bigger things.
But Mercury still has a magnetic field and is smaller than Mars.
Mercury's magnetic field is about 1.1% as strong as the Earth's. What's your point?
It's also strong enough to deflect solar winds, so 1.1% must count for something.
No, not really.
Mercury has almost no atmosphere. The planet's small size means that its gravity is too weak to hold down a normal atmosphere. There is a very thin atmosphere around the planet. Mercury's thin atmosphere is constantly being "blown away" into space by the pressure of sunlight and by the solar wind. Gases are constantly being added to Mercury's atmosphere, too. That's why it still has any atmosphere at all - even though that atmosphere is really, really thin.
My point is that everyone here is talking as if there's a a definitive answer, and it's clear the best everyone can do is guess. The same thing FErs get criticized constantly for.
There's a difference between making an educated guess based on careful observations and just pulling stuff out of your ass.
-
There's a difference between making an educated guess based on careful observations and just pulling stuff out of your ass.
So the educated guess you are making currently is based on your careful observation? Or do you mean the observation performed by someone else? I am not sure what the last part of your comment is for since it doesn't pertain to anything that is currently being discussed.