[SteelyBob]

What equation would you come up with that predicts that result? (this question is for everyone and anyone)

I wouldn't. It's a tiny change that is entirely consistent with typical local gravity anomalies. There's all sorts of factors - what was the elevation (above msl) at ground level? What is the composition of the rock above the measuring point? The predicted changes in g with depth are generalised across the whole earth; I would reasonably expect substantial local variations depending on where you measure it, particularly at depths that are trivial compared to the 1000s of Km that are being discussed.

Take a look at my previous post - there's a paper there with a very credible measurement of g at different heights in a building, showing conformity with expectations in a less complex (ie above ground) environment.

[RonJ]

Say the Gnome you are measuring is made from plastic and you check the density of plastic you will find that it's about 1.2 gm/cm^3. Then you make a Gnome with a weight of 1.2 gm.  Suppose you measure that in air at sea level and then in another location at an altitude of about 5000 ft and you see a difference in weight.  If you take the density of air at sea level it will be about 0.001225 gm/cm^3 and at 5000 ft it will be about 0.001007 gm/cm^3.  You don't really care too much about the air density at a specific location but the difference between the two locations you are doing the measurements since you are interested in the difference in weights, not the absolute values.  When you subtract the two typical air densities you find that it's about 0.000218 gm/cm^3.  Your Gnome has a density of 1.2 gm/cm^3 so the typical difference due to any air buoyancy would be about 0.018%.  That's a difference that probably wouldn't be measurable with the scale used in the experiments.  So any difference measured would mostly be due to gravitation or some other unknown factors.  That means that measuring the Gnome in a vacuum chamber would make for more accuracy in absolute weights but the difference in weights (what you are looking for) would be so small (due to air buoyancy) because the differences would be more than 3 digits to the right of the decimal point.     

I agree with that. I think our agreement means that we can go back to talking about how g varies with altitude and depth.

To answer your question, yes there have been countless experiments done that show that the acceleration of gravity varies with altitude.  The physicists call it gravitational potential.  When you change this, you change time dilation that can be measured with atomic clocks.  There was an experiment recently that showed a measurable time dilation due to a change in altitude of about 1 millimeter.  If you want to spend some time in this realm of study you can convince yourself that this is a well known fact that was postulated by Einstein and is being verified (in the Zetetic manner) each and every day. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
Project GREAT 2016a -- Hawking, Einstein, and Time Dilation on Mt Lemmon (leapsecond.com)

[Dual1ty]

Say the Gnome you are measuring is made from plastic and you check the density of plastic you will find that it's about 1.2 gm/cm^3. Then you make a Gnome with a weight of 1.2 gm.  Suppose you measure that in air at sea level and then in another location at an altitude of about 5000 ft and you see a difference in weight.  If you take the density of air at sea level it will be about 0.001225 gm/cm^3 and at 5000 ft it will be about 0.001007 gm/cm^3.  You don't really care too much about the air density at a specific location but the difference between the two locations you are doing the measurements since you are interested in the difference in weights, not the absolute values.  When you subtract the two typical air densities you find that it's about 0.000218 gm/cm^3.  Your Gnome has a density of 1.2 gm/cm^3 so the typical difference due to any air buoyancy would be about 0.018%.  That's a difference that probably wouldn't be measurable with the scale used in the experiments.  So any difference measured would mostly be due to gravitation or some other unknown factors.  That means that measuring the Gnome in a vacuum chamber would make for more accuracy in absolute weights but the difference in weights (what you are looking for) would be so small (due to air buoyancy) because the differences would be more than 3 digits to the right of the decimal point.     

I agree with that. I think our agreement means that we can go back to talking about how g varies with altitude and depth.

To answer your question, yes there have been countless experiments done that show that the acceleration of gravity varies with altitude.  The physicists call it gravitational potential.  When you change this, you change time dilation that can be measured with atomic clocks.  There was an experiment recently that showed a measurable time dilation due to a change in altitude of about 1 millimeter.  If you want to spend some time in this realm of study you can convince yourself that this is a well known fact that was postulated by Einstein and is being verified (in the Zetetic manner) each and every day. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
Project GREAT 2016a -- Hawking, Einstein, and Time Dilation on Mt Lemmon (leapsecond.com)

You could make an atomic clock inaccurate with EMF. That doesn't mean that you "dilated time" because the clock subjected to the EMF is no longer in sync with the other clocks. You can't dilate time because time doesn't exist physically - it's a concept. So it's really Ether dilation. You can shield against EMF but you can't shield against the Ether.

[RonJ]

You could make an atomic clock inaccurate with EMF. That doesn't mean that you "dilated time" because the clock subjected to the EMF is no longer in sync with the other clocks. You can't dilate time because time doesn't exist physically - it's a concept. So it's really Ether dilation. You can shield against EMF but you can't shield against the Ether.

The US National Bureau of Standards has many atomic clocks in their network, and they are all compensated for different altitudes to account for the different gravitational potentials that dilate time.
This is effectively another demonstration of how gravitation varies with altitude.
 
Einstein knew that time is a dimension just like space is.  Michelson and Morley worked long and hard to detect the Ether but were unsuccessful.  Perhaps you know of an experiment where that effort was realized.

[Dual1ty]

You could make an atomic clock inaccurate with EMF. That doesn't mean that you "dilated time" because the clock subjected to the EMF is no longer in sync with the other clocks. You can't dilate time because time doesn't exist physically - it's a concept. So it's really Ether dilation. You can shield against EMF but you can't shield against the Ether.

The US National Bureau of Standards has many atomic clocks in their network, and they are all compensated for different altitudes to account for the different gravitational potentials that dilate time.
This is effectively another demonstration of how gravitation varies with altitude.
 
Einstein knew that time is a dimension just like space is.  Michelson and Morley worked long and hard to detect the Ether but were unsuccessful.  Perhaps you know of an experiment where that effort was realized.

I don't think I'm ever going to convince you, but you could watch this video:

[RonJ]

You could make an atomic clock inaccurate with EMF. That doesn't mean that you "dilated time" because the clock subjected to the EMF is no longer in sync with the other clocks. You can't dilate time because time doesn't exist physically - it's a concept. So it's really Ether dilation. You can shield against EMF but you can't shield against the Ether.

The US National Bureau of Standards has many atomic clocks in their network, and they are all compensated for different altitudes to account for the different gravitational potentials that dilate time.
This is effectively another demonstration of how gravitation varies with altitude.
 
Einstein knew that time is a dimension just like space is.  Michelson and Morley worked long and hard to detect the Ether but were unsuccessful.  Perhaps you know of an experiment where that effort was realized.

I don't think I'm ever going to convince you, but you could watch this video:

I watched the video. 
I'll stick with Einstein and Maxwell.  Their theories are backed up with plenty of descriptive equations that have been peer reviewed and tested in the real world for at least a century. 
If you don't believe that please specify an instance where their theories don't work.

[Dual1ty]

You could make an atomic clock inaccurate with EMF. That doesn't mean that you "dilated time" because the clock subjected to the EMF is no longer in sync with the other clocks. You can't dilate time because time doesn't exist physically - it's a concept. So it's really Ether dilation. You can shield against EMF but you can't shield against the Ether.

The US National Bureau of Standards has many atomic clocks in their network, and they are all compensated for different altitudes to account for the different gravitational potentials that dilate time.
This is effectively another demonstration of how gravitation varies with altitude.
 
Einstein knew that time is a dimension just like space is.  Michelson and Morley worked long and hard to detect the Ether but were unsuccessful.  Perhaps you know of an experiment where that effort was realized.

I don't think I'm ever going to convince you, but you could watch this video:

I watched the video. 
I'll stick with Einstein and Maxwell.  Their theories are backed up with plenty of descriptive equations that have been peer reviewed and tested in the real world for at least a century. 
If you don't believe that please specify an instance where their theories don't work.

[RonJ]

The guy doesn't speak mathematics.  Without that you can't ever be sure of what he's really talking about.  Can you supply some relevant equations?
     

[SteelyBob]

We seem to be quite a long way from gravity varying with height.

There’s tons of stuff out there on this, eg:

https://www.npl.co.uk/insights/measuring-gravitation-with-optical-atomic-clocks

I’m curious to understand a bit more about what you think is going on here - what you agree with, and what you don’t. We have two different measurements of g variations going on. One using atomic clocks, one using gravimeters. I’ve shown you links to one example of a gravimeter at different heights in a building - what do you think is going on there, if not g decreasing in the exact manner expected?
Likewise, what do you think is going on with atomic clocks? Why does the g variation implied by changing the height of an atomic clock align so well with the measure g variation taken from a gravimeter - a completely different measuring technique?

What would it take to persuade you that, actually, gravity does work the way we think it does?

[Dual1ty]

The guy doesn't speak mathematics.  Without that you can't ever be sure of what he's really talking about.  Can you supply some relevant equations?
   

If you still don't understand, I can't help you. I can lead you to the truth but I can't make you think.

We seem to be quite a long way from gravity varying with height.

There’s tons of stuff out there on this, eg:

https://www.npl.co.uk/insights/measuring-gravitation-with-optical-atomic-clocks

I’m curious to understand a bit more about what you think is going on here - what you agree with, and what you don’t. We have two different measurements of g variations going on. One using atomic clocks, one using gravimeters. I’ve shown you links to one example of a gravimeter at different heights in a building - what do you think is going on there, if not g decreasing in the exact manner expected?
Likewise, what do you think is going on with atomic clocks? Why does the g variation implied by changing the height of an atomic clock align so well with the measure g variation taken from a gravimeter - a completely different measuring technique?

What would it take to persuade you that, actually, gravity does work the way we think it does?

It sounds like you think that I'm denying that g varies relating to latitude/altitude in the predicted way but I'm not. I was looking for experiments because I couldn't find any. So thank you for providing some academic examples, but a more compelling experiment would be one that almost anyone can do and that is well documented in a visual way, which should be the goal. So for instance someone could take a scale to some mountain and, after controlling for temperature and humidity, measure the weight of some thing and see if it matches the prediction. People can understand that experiment instead of expecting them to understand based on their limited understanding of atomic clocks and advanced gravimetry devices or whatever. Not to mention that an experiment that can be performed by only a few with extraordinary means ought to be distrusted on principle.

[RonJ]

A true leader will know the path towards the desired destination.  Mathematics is the best descriptor of that path.  So how can you lead me towards the truth without having a specific path?  I can think and that makes me believe that I don’t want to run off in all directions at once.

[Dual1ty]

A true leader will know the path towards the desired destination.  Mathematics is the best descriptor of that path.  So how can you lead me towards the truth without having a specific path?  I can think and that makes me believe that I don’t want to run off in all directions at once.

That's a strange way of saying that what I'm showing you doesn't agree with your religion's commandment that mathematical models = reality if that's the consensus.

Celestial navigation using trigonometry used to be simple and worked perfectly fine when assuming a flat Earth, but with the introduction of the mathematical model of a globe Earth all of a sudden celestial navigation became complicated. Even though you can make those complications work mathematically, if you care about physics and natural science that means that you care about what things actually are, and you don't sacrifice that for a mathematical model no matter how much you believe or want to believe that mathematical model = reality.

[RonJ]

A true leader will know the path towards the desired destination.  Mathematics is the best descriptor of that path.  So how can you lead me towards the truth without having a specific path?  I can think and that makes me believe that I don’t want to run off in all directions at once.

That's a strange way of saying that what I'm showing you doesn't agree with your religion's commandment that mathematical models = reality if that's the consensus.

Celestial navigation using trigonometry used to be simple and worked perfectly fine when assuming a flat Earth, but with the introduction of the mathematical model of a globe Earth all of a sudden celestial navigation became complicated. Even though you can make those complications work mathematically, if you care about physics and natural science that means that you care about what things actually are, and you don't sacrifice that for a mathematical model no matter how much you believe or want to believe that mathematical model = reality.

Take a look at the works of Nathaniel Bowditch on Wikipedia.  This person has distilled the notion of celestial navigation down to spherical mathematical equations that are still taught to ship's navigators today.  Yes, I do care about physics and natural science and especially care about how things actually are.  I believe that mathematical models can = reality so have personally applied the works of Bowditch and his American Practical Navigator publications that are still required to be carried aboard ships today.  We were always taught navigation is a series of steps.  Here is the concept.  These mathematical equations describe the concept.  This is the way to apply this knowledge to match your postion on a navigational chart.  Now experiment on your own to see if you can find any faults.  Once you have convinced yourself take the tests to prove your abilities.  Now go out there and bet your life on your knowledge and abilities. 


I am still alive today and have owned my own sextant and made observations and then used spherical trig to determine a position at sea well outside the view of any land.  In light of my success why should I believe that mathematical descriptions and the applications of the same won't work? 


You could apply the same concepts to the altitude related G force questions or for about anything else for that matter, but you need a mathematical equation first.  Use the equations to form an experiment.  Perform the experiment and analyze the results.  Do the results confirm the equations?  It's a loop that has been confirmed to work. 

[Dual1ty]

A true leader will know the path towards the desired destination.  Mathematics is the best descriptor of that path.  So how can you lead me towards the truth without having a specific path?  I can think and that makes me believe that I don’t want to run off in all directions at once.

That's a strange way of saying that what I'm showing you doesn't agree with your religion's commandment that mathematical models = reality if that's the consensus.

Celestial navigation using trigonometry used to be simple and worked perfectly fine when assuming a flat Earth, but with the introduction of the mathematical model of a globe Earth all of a sudden celestial navigation became complicated. Even though you can make those complications work mathematically, if you care about physics and natural science that means that you care about what things actually are, and you don't sacrifice that for a mathematical model no matter how much you believe or want to believe that mathematical model = reality.

Take a look at the works of Nathaniel Bowditch on Wikipedia.  This person has distilled the notion of celestial navigation down to spherical mathematical equations that are still taught to ship's navigators today.  Yes, I do care about physics and natural science and especially care about how things actually are.  I believe that mathematical models can = reality so have personally applied the works of Bowditch and his American Practical Navigator publications that are still required to be carried aboard ships today.  We were always taught navigation is a series of steps.  Here is the concept.  These mathematical equations describe the concept.  This is the way to apply this knowledge to match your postion on a navigational chart.  Now experiment on your own to see if you can find any faults.  Once you have convinced yourself take the tests to prove your abilities.  Now go out there and bet your life on your knowledge and abilities. 


I am still alive today and have owned my own sextant and made observations and then used spherical trig to determine a position at sea well outside the view of any land.  In light of my success why should I believe that mathematical descriptions and the applications of the same won't work? 


You could apply the same concepts to the altitude related G force questions or for about anything else for that matter, but you need a mathematical equation first.  Use the equations to form an experiment.  Perform the experiment and analyze the results.  Do the results confirm the equations?  It's a loop that has been confirmed to work.

I was going to type a longer reply, but let's just keep it simple: How can you prove that a plane flying at the same altitude for many miles is actually flying along a curved path and that after whatever many thousands of miles it is flying antipodally relative to where it started from? All you have is your belief in the globe model. According to the globe model there must be people who exist antipodally relative to each other. You can believe in "antipodal people" all you want but there is no proof of that other than when you go to a circus and they perform a certain act that looks like this:

[RonJ]

You are certainly getting off the original subject but since you are the OP of this thread, I will supply you with an answer.   
An airplane or a ship can show that they are transitioning along a curved path by using a gyroscope.  I am personally familiar with this technology and had the manufacturers manuals and service equipment that provided me with finer and more detailed measurements than my eye could discern.  Since the earth is also spinning on an axis you would have to take all the x, y and z measurements at a fixed time, like at noon (UTC) each day.  When you did this after a trip halfway around the earth, as I have done countless times, you could see that you are now standing on your head relative to the way you were when you started your long journey. 


Like Johannes Kepler said:
 The chief aim of all investigations of the external world
 should be to discover the rational order and harmony
 which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed
 to us in the language of mathematics.

[RonJ]

You are certainly getting off the original subject but since you are the OP of this thread, I will supply you with an answer.   
An airplane or a ship can show that they are transitioning along a curved path by using a gyroscope.  I am personally familiar with this technology and had the manufacturers manuals and service equipment that provided me with finer and more detailed measurements than my eye could discern.  Since the earth is also spinning on an axis you would have to take all the x, y and z measurements at a fixed time, like at noon (UTC) each day.  When you did this after a trip halfway around the earth, as I have done countless times, you could see that you are now standing on your head relative to the way you were when you started your long journey. 


Like Johannes Kepler said:
 The chief aim of all investigations of the external world
 should be to discover the rational order and harmony
 which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed
 to us in the language of mathematics.

Nope. Gravity is making the gyroscope do that, not them going along an imaginary curved path. It's your problem if you refuse to understand what gravity is and the reality of our Earth.


You claim that you care about physics and natural science but really what you care about is formal science and mathematical physics. Have a good whatever it is wherever you are on our level Earth.

Nope.
Gyroscopes work on the principles of gyroscopic inertia.  They will work fine whether there's gravity present or not.  Mathematics shows this to be true.
 
Immanuel Kant said:  In any particular theory there is only as much real science as there is mathematics.

[SteelyBob]

It sounds like you think that I'm denying that g varies relating to latitude/altitude in the predicted way but I'm not. I was looking for experiments because I couldn't find any. So thank you for providing some academic examples, but a more compelling experiment would be one that almost anyone can do and that is well documented in a visual way, which should be the goal. So for instance someone could take a scale to some mountain and, after controlling for temperature and humidity, measure the weight of some thing and see if it matches the prediction. People can understand that experiment instead of expecting them to understand based on their limited understanding of atomic clocks and advanced gravimetry devices or whatever. Not to mention that an experiment that can be performed by only a few with extraordinary means ought to be distrusted on principle.

The issue you are always going to have is that the changes in g that we experience, either by changing our position on the earth’s surface, or by changing our height, are generally very small indeed. You therefore need very accurate devices to be able to show the changes. This either means very precise scales / balances, or more advanced stuff like gravimeters. Your best bet would be to measure a solid object near where you live using very accurate scales and then travel closer to the equator , at the same elevation above sea level, somewhere and measure the same object again using the same scales. If your scales are accurate to the order of <0.1% then you should see some discernible change.

This is a bit easier, I would suggest, than changing your elevation, where the changes are smaller and the confounding factors, such as pressure, are more apparent. It’s also quite difficult for most people to ascend to an altitude high enough to make a measurable difference, and using an aircraft brings with it all sorts of other errors.

I’m still curious to understand, if you generally accept the idea that g does vary with height, but remain convinced that the earth is flat, what do you suppose is going on? What do you think gravity is?

[Dual1ty]

You are certainly getting off the original subject but since you are the OP of this thread, I will supply you with an answer.   
An airplane or a ship can show that they are transitioning along a curved path by using a gyroscope.  I am personally familiar with this technology and had the manufacturers manuals and service equipment that provided me with finer and more detailed measurements than my eye could discern.  Since the earth is also spinning on an axis you would have to take all the x, y and z measurements at a fixed time, like at noon (UTC) each day.  When you did this after a trip halfway around the earth, as I have done countless times, you could see that you are now standing on your head relative to the way you were when you started your long journey. 


Like Johannes Kepler said:
 The chief aim of all investigations of the external world
 should be to discover the rational order and harmony
 which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed
 to us in the language of mathematics.

Nope. Gravity is making the gyroscope do that, not them going along an imaginary curved path. It's your problem if you refuse to understand what gravity is and the reality of our Earth.


You claim that you care about physics and natural science but really what you care about is formal science and mathematical physics. Have a good whatever it is wherever you are on our level Earth.

Nope.
Gyroscopes work on the principles of gyroscopic inertia.  They will work fine whether there's gravity present or not.  Mathematics shows this to be true.
 
Immanuel Kant said:  In any particular theory there is only as much real science as there is mathematics.

Sorry, but were you saying that if the gyroscope tells you you're flying level, that means that you're flying along a curved path because you're assuming the Earth to be a globe and level means curved? If so, I have nothing else to say to you to put it mildly.

It sounds like you think that I'm denying that g varies relating to latitude/altitude in the predicted way but I'm not. I was looking for experiments because I couldn't find any. So thank you for providing some academic examples, but a more compelling experiment would be one that almost anyone can do and that is well documented in a visual way, which should be the goal. So for instance someone could take a scale to some mountain and, after controlling for temperature and humidity, measure the weight of some thing and see if it matches the prediction. People can understand that experiment instead of expecting them to understand based on their limited understanding of atomic clocks and advanced gravimetry devices or whatever. Not to mention that an experiment that can be performed by only a few with extraordinary means ought to be distrusted on principle.

The issue you are always going to have is that the changes in g that we experience, either by changing our position on the earth’s surface, or by changing our height, are generally very small indeed. You therefore need very accurate devices to be able to show the changes. This either means very precise scales / balances, or more advanced stuff like gravimeters. Your best bet would be to measure a solid object near where you live using very accurate scales and then travel closer to the equator , at the same elevation above sea level, somewhere and measure the same object again using the same scales. If your scales are accurate to the order of <0.1% then you should see some discernible change.

This is a bit easier, I would suggest, than changing your elevation, where the changes are smaller and the confounding factors, such as pressure, are more apparent. It’s also quite difficult for most people to ascend to an altitude high enough to make a measurable difference, and using an aircraft brings with it all sorts of other errors.

I’m still curious to understand, if you generally accept the idea that g does vary with height, but remain convinced that the earth is flat, what do you suppose is going on? What do you think gravity is?

You can buy very accurate scales. A more portable one is going to compromise the precision but it is going to be able to resolve up to 0.001 g +/- whatever. I don't know how much of a difference temperature & humidity can make but you can create a microclimate if that's a big concern. As far as air buoyancy, you can calculate that and take that into account or you can build a small vacuum chamber.

Gravity:

[RonJ]

You are certainly getting off the original subject but since you are the OP of this thread, I will supply you with an answer.   
An airplane or a ship can show that they are transitioning along a curved path by using a gyroscope.  I am personally familiar with this technology and had the manufacturers manuals and service equipment that provided me with finer and more detailed measurements than my eye could discern.  Since the earth is also spinning on an axis you would have to take all the x, y and z measurements at a fixed time, like at noon (UTC) each day.  When you did this after a trip halfway around the earth, as I have done countless times, you could see that you are now standing on your head relative to the way you were when you started your long journey. 


Like Johannes Kepler said:
 The chief aim of all investigations of the external world
 should be to discover the rational order and harmony
 which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed
 to us in the language of mathematics.

Nope. Gravity is making the gyroscope do that, not them going along an imaginary curved path. It's your problem if you refuse to understand what gravity is and the reality of our Earth.


You claim that you care about physics and natural science but really what you care about is formal science and mathematical physics. Have a good whatever it is wherever you are on our level Earth.

Nope.
Gyroscopes work on the principles of gyroscopic inertia.  They will work fine whether there's gravity present or not.  Mathematics shows this to be true.
 
Immanuel Kant said:  In any particular theory there is only as much real science as there is mathematics.

Sorry, but were you saying that if the gyroscope tells you you're flying level, that means that you're flying along a curved path because you're assuming the Earth to be a globe and level means curved? If so, I have nothing else to say to you to put it mildly.

In an airplane the altimeter’s function is to measure the distance above the surface of the earth along the route.  On a spherical earth when you maintain a constant altitude between two points you do fly a curved flight path.  You never notice that because the changes are so small relative to the forward distance you are traveling.  It’s not unusual for your altimeter to bounce up and down by a couple hundred feet all along the way while the autopilot compensates to maintain a set altitude.  A gyroscope, on the other hand, will always point at a fixed reference point in space.  When it’s mounted in an aircraft you would see a constant change in the Z axis as you progress along your route.  If you could set your autopilot to maintain a particular constant Z axis value, then you would see a continuous increase in altitude as you progressed along your route.  If the earth was flat, then flying along a constant Z axis would also mean flying at a constant altitude over the earth’s surface.  My measurements indicated a curved surface because of the consistent changes in the Z axis measurements in the direction of travel that were consistently reversed when the reverse journey was made back to the original point of departure.  All I know is that this is what I witnessed over countless trips using many different gyros. 

[stack]

Gravity:

It's a good thing that we have this master chef tossing a word salad like no other to clear everything up...

"Gravity describes the motion of charge. Gravity is the field of counter space. So what's the field of counter space? Well the field of counter space is hyperboloidal observed phenomena that we conventionally call gravity. Explained by the field of counter space - Magnetism is of course reciprocally the field of generating space so we have charge and discharge capacitance. 

And what's the inverse of capacitance? What's the release of capacitance? Well magnetism is the three-dimensional force-vector which is of course the force-vector of the taurus or a doughnut, if you will, and of course the volume of that donut is the generation of creation of space. Space is the negative image of pure potential or of charge. What's the opposite of charge? Everybody should know this but nobody was taught this stuff in high school or college. I wasn't either, but i knew fundamentally that none of these people knew anything and were supposedly my teachers.

I started off with the great advantage and knowing these people didn't know what they were talking about and then I worked back from there. So we have energy or increasing energy and then discharge of energy or decreasing energy. And you say acceleration and of course any time any book is said, and there are many countless books of science that refer to gravity as a force. Gravity is not only not a force it's the complete opposite of a force."