[AATW]

When things fall, they are universally described to be going "downwards," (unless you ask AATW...)

Do what? Of course things fall downwards. So long as we understand that "downwards" is a relative term, like left and right.
My question is what in your model means that when you release an object it moves downwards rather than upwards or to the side.
You said "aether is a fluid and it acts differently on objects due to their density and mass in different locations, due to the nature of aether"
I mean, honestly, that sounds like word salad to me. But you mention density. A ball is more dense than the air below it, but it's more dense than the air beside it and above it too. So why does it go down? RE's claim is that it's because there's a force acting between the ball and the earth. And the direction of that force is towards the centre of gravity. Which, from any point on the earth's surface, is "downwards"

[Action80]

That just doesn't make any sense at all. I said at rest, you said bounce. Whatever.

Yeah, you said at rest and I said bounce.

What difference does it make?

Are you going to tell us all that you measured the acceleration of an object at rest to be 9.81 m/s²?

When things fall, they are universally described to be going "downwards," (unless you ask AATW...)

Irrelevant, and a distraction. Focus on the important bit. Your aetheric pool, or whatever you want to call it, can we agree that it exerts a force in proportion to the mass it is acting on?

LOL! WRITES the very word, "downwards" and when I quote him on it, he says "irrelevant" and "a distraction."

Yet complains when I paraphrase his prior post.

That is some extremely mad crapola you got going on there, Bob...do I spell that forwards or backwards, by the way?

[Action80]

When things fall, they are universally described to be going "downwards," (unless you ask AATW...)

Do what? Of course things fall downwards. So long as we understand that "downwards" is a relative term, like left and right.
My question is what in your model means that when you release an object it moves downwards rather than upwards or to the side.
You said "aether is a fluid and it acts differently on objects due to their density and mass in different locations, due to the nature of aether"
I mean, honestly, that sounds like word salad to me. But you mention density. A ball is more dense than the air below it, but it's more dense than the air beside it and above it too. So why does it go down? RE's claim is that it's because there's a force acting between the ball and the earth. And the direction of that force is towards the centre of gravity. Which, from any point on the earth's surface, is "downwards"

It would sound like word salad to you, but kindly look up issues relating to fluids and the atmoplane.

It is the pressure aspect of the aether imparting the "downwards," force.

There is no force between the earth and the ball, save the aether (if in what is commonly known as the "air" or water, the two principle fluids).

[AATW]

There is no force between the earth and the ball, save the aether (if in what is commonly known as the "air" or water, the two principle fluids).

But the Canvendish experiment and the Schiehallion experiment (https://flatearth.ws/schiehallion) both demonstrate that masses attract.

[SteelyBob]

[
Are you going to tell us all that you measured the acceleration of an object at rest to be 9.81 m/s²?

No. Because the acceleration of an object at rest in an inertial frame is zero. But there are still forces acting upon it. In the case of our 1kg mass on the end of a spring, at rest, there is a force acting down, equal to its mass x g (ie about 9.81 newtons), and there is an equal opposing force provided by the tension in the spring, meaning the acceleration of the object is zero. Cut the spring, and there is only the downwards gravity force, meaning it will accelerate at 1g towards the floor (ignoring air resistance forces, which will be negligible in this scenario). This is all measurable and yes, I’ve done experiments just like it, as have most school physics students.

Aside from hurling insults around, you, much like Duality, are studiously avoiding providing any answers yourself. Is that because you don’t have any?

[Action80]

There is no force between the earth and the ball, save the aether (if in what is commonly known as the "air" or water, the two principle fluids).

But the Canvendish experiment and the Schiehallion experiment (https://flatearth.ws/schiehallion) both demonstrate that masses attract.

Neither did anything of the sort. Not all possible variables were accounted for in either experiment.

[Action80]

[
Are you going to tell us all that you measured the acceleration of an object at rest to be 9.81 m/s²?

No. Because the acceleration of an object at rest in an inertial frame is zero. But there are still forces acting upon it. In the case of our 1kg mass on the end of a spring, at rest, there is a force acting down, equal to its mass x g (ie about 9.81 newtons), and there is an equal opposing force provided by the tension in the spring, meaning the acceleration of the object is zero. Cut the spring, and there is only the downwards gravity force, meaning it will accelerate at 1g towards the floor (ignoring air resistance forces, which will be negligible in this scenario). This is all measurable and yes, I’ve done experiments just like it, as have most school physics students.

Aside from hurling insults around, you, much like Duality, are studiously avoiding providing any answers yourself. Is that because you don’t have any?

Hurling insults?

I provided legitimate commentary directly related to the nature of your posts, which, by the way, supports the notion you have no legitimate business commenting in this thread at all.

Again, providing a measure of the acceleration of an object lends no evidence as to cause.

I provided my explanation.

You don't like my explanation.

Great.

[Dual1ty]

[
Are you going to tell us all that you measured the acceleration of an object at rest to be 9.81 m/s²?

No. Because the acceleration of an object at rest in an inertial frame is zero. But there are still forces acting upon it. In the case of our 1kg mass on the end of a spring, at rest, there is a force acting down, equal to its mass x g (ie about 9.81 newtons), and there is an equal opposing force provided by the tension in the spring, meaning the acceleration of the object is zero. Cut the spring, and there is only the downwards gravity force, meaning it will accelerate at 1g towards the floor (ignoring air resistance forces, which will be negligible in this scenario). This is all measurable and yes, I’ve done experiments just like it, as have most school physics students.

It's funny how with every comment you make you further demonstrate that you know nothing about relativity, even though you like to defend it and tell us how wonderful it is.

Hilariously, you're stuck in 17th century Newtonian physics that they now only teach in highschools where the highschool teachers pretend that it isn't incompatible with relativity because the highschooler mind isn't totally warped yet like "spacetime".

[SteelyBob]

[

It's funny how with every comment you make you further demonstrate that you know nothing about relativity, even though you like to defend it and tell us how wonderful it is.

Hilariously, you're stuck in 17th century Newtonian physics that they now only teach in highschools where the highschool teachers pretend that it isn't incompatible with relativity because the highschooler mind isn't totally warped yet like "spacetime".

Well, go on then, enlighten us. Take the scenario I described and analyse it using your superior knowledge. Or just address any of the numerous questions and points made in previous points that you continue to avoid. Just one would be a start.

[Dual1ty]

[

It's funny how with every comment you make you further demonstrate that you know nothing about relativity, even though you like to defend it and tell us how wonderful it is.

Hilariously, you're stuck in 17th century Newtonian physics that they now only teach in highschools where the highschool teachers pretend that it isn't incompatible with relativity because the highschooler mind isn't totally warped yet like "spacetime".

Well, go on then, enlighten us. Take the scenario I described and analyse it using your superior knowledge. Or just address any of the numerous questions and points made in previous points that you continue to avoid. Just one would be a start.

It's already been explained thousands of times. Here's one recent example:

[SteelyBob]

It's already been explained thousands of times. Here's one recent example:

Ok, thanks for that. Before we dive into the detail of the video, can you just clarify that you’re offering that up as something you agree with?

[Dual1ty]

It's already been explained thousands of times. Here's one recent example:

Ok, thanks for that. Before we dive into the detail of the video, can you just clarify that you’re offering that up as something you agree with?

There's really nothing to dive into because it's a fact. All you can do is understand it or refuse to understand it.

The only disagreement is he is a rocketship-earther and I'm not (anymore).

[markjo]

I haven't conjured up anything. The aether surrounds you as we write.

We can measure the force of the pressure applied by the aether and its currents.

We can even map them.

We can?  Please explain how these aether currents can be detected, identified and mapped.  As I understand it, the classical view of aether is that it is static medium (i.e., an absolute frame of reference that would totally destroy relativity), hence the MM experiments that were looking for the aether drift as the earth moved through it.

[Dual1ty]

I haven't conjured up anything. The aether surrounds you as we write.

We can measure the force of the pressure applied by the aether and its currents.

We can even map them.

We can?  Please explain how these aether currents can be detected, identified and mapped.  As I understand it, the classical view of aether is that it is static medium (i.e., an absolute frame of reference that would totally destroy relativity), hence the MM experiments that were looking for the aether drift as the earth moved through it.

Makes sense that it would be a static medium, but you can't measure that from Earth.

Michelson & Morley didn't actually get a null result. They measured some Ether motion that everyone dismissed as measurement error because they were heliocentrists and it didn't match the expected value.

[SteelyBob]

There's really nothing to dive into because it's a fact. All you can do is understand it or refuse to understand it.

The only disagreement is he is a rocketship-earther and I'm not (anymore).

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I did wonder about that aspect of it.

That video is a remarkable public display of a basic misunderstanding of entry-level physics. Again, you want to talk about relativity, but you are agreeing with people who can’t even grasp F=MA. They are wrestling with a strawman - the slinky behaves precisely as F=MA would predict that it does. Their belief that conventional science predicts something else is merely a public admission that they slept through physics lessons at school.

[Dual1ty]

There's really nothing to dive into because it's a fact. All you can do is understand it or refuse to understand it.

The only disagreement is he is a rocketship-earther and I'm not (anymore).

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I did wonder about that aspect of it.

That video is a remarkable public display of a basic misunderstanding of entry-level physics. Again, you want to talk about relativity, but you are agreeing with people who can’t even grasp F=MA. They are wrestling with a strawman - the slinky behaves precisely as F=MA would predict that it does. Their belief that conventional science predicts something else is merely a public admission that they slept through physics lessons at school.

You literally have no clue what you're talking about. It's amazing how with every reply you dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole.

All mainstream relativists agree that gravity is not a force. Don't believe me? You don't have to believe me or him - take it from the horse's mouth:

[SteelyBob]

There's really nothing to dive into because it's a fact. All you can do is understand it or refuse to understand it.

The only disagreement is he is a rocketship-earther and I'm not (anymore).

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I did wonder about that aspect of it.

That video is a remarkable public display of a basic misunderstanding of entry-level physics. Again, you want to talk about relativity, but you are agreeing with people who can’t even grasp F=MA. They are wrestling with a strawman - the slinky behaves precisely as F=MA would predict that it does. Their belief that conventional science predicts something else is merely a public admission that they slept through physics lessons at school.

You literally have no clue what you're talking about. It's amazing how with every reply you dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole.

All mainstream relativists agree that gravity is not a force. Don't believe me? You don't have to believe me or him - take it from the horse's mouth:

I’m well aware of that. I’m not arguing against that view either. I’m just saying that if you don’t understand the basics, as you, the two angry chaps in the slinky video, and Tom clearly do not, then I wouldn’t try to wrap your head around relativity. For all intents and purposes, Newtonian physics / maths works perfectly to explain and model the world around us, and to build the cars, buildings, boats, bridges, aircraft, rockets, satellites, etc that humans use every day. I’d try to grasp how that works before you move onto the next level.

[Dual1ty]

There's really nothing to dive into because it's a fact. All you can do is understand it or refuse to understand it.

The only disagreement is he is a rocketship-earther and I'm not (anymore).

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I did wonder about that aspect of it.

That video is a remarkable public display of a basic misunderstanding of entry-level physics. Again, you want to talk about relativity, but you are agreeing with people who can’t even grasp F=MA. They are wrestling with a strawman - the slinky behaves precisely as F=MA would predict that it does. Their belief that conventional science predicts something else is merely a public admission that they slept through physics lessons at school.

You literally have no clue what you're talking about. It's amazing how with every reply you dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole.

All mainstream relativists agree that gravity is not a force. Don't believe me? You don't have to believe me or him - take it from the horse's mouth:

I’m well aware of that. I’m not arguing against that view either. I’m just saying that if you don’t understand the basics, as you, the two angry chaps in the slinky video, and Tom clearly do not, then I wouldn’t try to wrap your head around relativity. For all intents and purposes, Newtonian physics / maths works perfectly to explain and model the world around us, and to build the cars, buildings, boats, bridges, aircraft, rockets, satellites, etc that humans use every day. I’d try to grasp how that works before you move onto the next level.

LMAO. Now you've made it clear that you're a Dunning-Kruger sufferer who thinks maths = reality.

Stick to your gyroscopes, eh? 

[Dual1ty]

Guys, never pretend that you understand physics when you don't, or you'll end up looking like SillyBob here.

[SteelyBob]

[

LMAO. Now you've made it clear that you're a Dunning-Kruger sufferer who thinks maths = reality.

Stick to your gyroscopes, eh? 

I’ll stick to maths (which doesn’t equal reality, of course, but rather models it, and provides us with a means to understand our world), physics, and yes, gyroscopes - I love how they demonstrate that the earth is round and rotating on its axis.

You stick to public demonstrations that you slept through your physics and maths classes, and we’ll both be happy.

Good day.