Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Has anybody else been following Dels ( beyond the imaginary curve) experiments on the directional vector? Very interesting results which seem to align with the flat earth society's very much mocked, earth rising constantly at 9.8m seconds theory.
I'm sure it will ruffle feathers with people who have a bias one way or another, but a very valid reasoning considering what the experiments indacate. They are very simple experiments that everyone can do.

The natural physics of density and buoyancy already perfectly explain all phenomena without adding anything else. Del is convinced that motion is needed to cause things to fall, but what about helium balloons? So, when we let a helium balloon go, Earth is still speeding upwards, but the balloon goes up even faster? And I thought "infinite space" was a completely unevidenced part of the heliocentric deception? But now he is prepared to fully accept "infinite space" because infinite space is a necessary requirement to have a constantly rising Earth?

Relative density on a motionless Earth already explains it without having to assume all these extras. Anyone who doubts this please read the following: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xxom60j5qyby538/Why%20Things%20Rise%20and%20Fall.pdf?dl=0

My take on his position, is density and buoyancy are very much at play, but in conjunction with upward motion. I myself have no fixed thoughts on this and I think Del just goes where any demonstrable knowledge takes him, as do I.
I think the biggest question with density layers are what determines which way is "up" what gives rise to its directional vector, why not 90deg to where it is now etc..  I think these are all just honest questions we need to ask. That's why we are all here, because we kept asking questions even when they challenged our beliefs. We really know stuff all about our earth plane, we are animals in an enclosure with no access to see what's beyond our little cage. We can theorize, guess and make assumptions but at the end of the day we don't know.. We can only go by what we can physically touch and measure right here now.
I love what Del does because he is so brutally honest and raw, even if it makes us uncomfortable sometimes..

Skeptics often ask, if gravity doesn't exist and objects simply fall down because they are denser than the medium surrounding them, why do objects of varying masses all fall at the same rate? If there is no gravity, why does a helium balloon fall down in a vacuum chamber? And without gravity, why exactly do things fall downwards when dropped rather than upwards or sideways?

To begin with, a feather and an anvil will both fall at different rates because one is radically denser than the surrounding medium (air), while the other is not. Imagine a dandelion seed and a brick, or a piece of paper and a boulder - these examples and many others fall at drastically different rates debunking the supposed uniform speed of acceleration due to "gravity" of 9.81 m/s/s. This phenomenon would be more accurately titled the "maximum acceleration towards density equilibrium." As long as something has enough mass and is aerodynamic enough to negate the air resistance, things will fall through air at approximately the same rate, but if we change the medium from air to water, for example, objects will no longer fall at the same rate, again debunking this supposed gravitational constant.

In a vacuum chamber the medium of air is removed completely so all objects including a feather and a bowling ball will fall at this same maximum rate. By removing the medium from the equation altogether, all objects including a helium balloon will fall to the ground simultaneously. Without any medium to move through, the fall rate of all objects is indeed equal, but this has nothing to do with some mythical attractive pulling force, and everything to do with the fact that the density of the surrounding medium has been reduced to zero. Therefore, in reality, since a feather, bowling ball, or anything else inside a vacuum chamber is infinitely denser than empty space which has a density of zero, it all falls at the same rate of 9.81 m/s/s which is actually "the constant fall rate of matter in empty space," or "maximum acceleration towards density equilibrium," but not a "uniform speed of acceleration due to gravity."

As for why objects fall downwards when dropped rather than upwards or sideways, firstly, there is a pressure gradient formed by the amount of stacked air/water/land over you in a column which increases the pressure/weight/density the farther down you go and that definies direction. Secondly, helium balloons fall up, not down, proving there is no downward directional bias. You can also prove this point by throwing various kinds of rocks including pumice into a pond. All rocks excluding the pumice stone will sink to the bottom, but then when you throw in the pumice it will rise right back to the surface. This is because pumice has a density less than water, just like helium balloons have a density less than air. Their relative density being lower than the medium surrounding causes them to rise, just as things with a relative density higher than the medium surrounding causes them to fall. This is all perfectly explained by the natural physics of density and buoyancy which was well-known and understood long before Sir Newton renamed and remodeled it to fit with his heliocentric theory of the cosmos.

"As for why objects fall downwards when dropped rather than upwards or sideways, firstly, there is a pressure gradient formed by the amount of stacked air/water/land over you in a column which increases the pressure/weight/density the farther down you go and that definies direction."
I appreciate your well explained response Eric, and have read, watched and understand all your videos on this matter, which again are well presented and are much appreciated by myself and others for the time spent on this and countless other subjects.
But the question of why does everything specifically orientate to what we call "upwards" is I think maybe misinterpreted by you and others. I will try and expand on what is meant.
We take up, down, left, right, as a position relative to ourselves, we are on a level plane, but for example sake if we were in a snow globe and it was rolled 180deg everything within that pressure gradient would appear to be opposite, but in reality nothing changed within the pressure gradient but our globe turned upside down. The question is what gives rise to that external pressure gradient we talked about. Why is it in that direction? and that particular direction? why did whoever created it or whatever process there is causing it, make it go in that particular direction? We are thinking past the pressure gradient as why things are oriented as they are. Why is the pressure gradient oriented in the direction it is? Think of the feather and bowling ball in the sealed vacuum, why do they "fall" in the direction we call "down"? What orientates that particular vector/direction? I hope I have made it clearer for everyone?
Obviously it could become an infinite question of what gives rise to what, but It is not to far removed from the source to not be of practical importance for understanding of our predicament.
I think we need to keep probing and asking questions there is only so many spot fires that can be put out at once..

I would say that is tantamount to asking why is water wet, why is ice cold, or why is fire hot?  You can assume a constantly rising Earth through assumed infinite space to assume an answer to such a question, or you can just leave assumption out of it and let it be what it is.

" Liquid is liquid " thats a bangin tune from '92 released on XL recordings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGmaY8prx6c&ab_channel=UnoDat

Torque , Lbs per square foot/inch or Newton Meters, also I do not think there is any way to measure a tyres GRIP in F1 ? is this true ? HOW would you measure the stickyness of honey or Spunk lol

Viscosity.. how oils are classed, your spunk might 60w...

Schmak_1 , can you provide a link to the Del experiments please- am unable to find them. Do these experiments take the earths magnetic field and any electromagnetic force into account?
We know the electromagnetic force is magnitudes greater than the weakest force of gravity , which is unproven as an actual force . The fact that things fall to the earths surface has nothing to do with accelerating through space . Density theory allied to the fact that we live in an enclosed system complete with an electromagnetic field (dome) tells me that we don't need Newtonian gravity . As far as I'm aware no one has ever provided any experimental proof of any motion of earth.

https://youtu.be/YNKFMBE66g0

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:Schmak_1 , can you provide a link to the Del experiments please- am unable to find them. Do these experiments take the earths magnetic field and any electromagnetic force into account?
We know the electromagnetic force is magnitudes greater than the weakest force of gravity , which is unproven as an actual force . The fact that things fall to the earths surface has nothing to do with accelerating through space . Density theory allied to the fact that we live in an enclosed system complete with an electromagnetic field (dome) tells me that we don't need Newtonian gravity . As far as I'm aware no one has ever provided any experimental proof of any motion of earth.

To make this clear, I have no position on what is creating the downward vector, but I don't accept any "fact" unless It is demonstrable. Can you show me demonstrable proof of "the fact that we live in an enclosed system complete with an electromagnetic field (dome)" cheers..

Thanks for that link Schmak_1 . Nice demonstration by Del showing the silliness of mainstream gravity  theory. This doesn't mean that earth is accelerating or moving through space - is that what Del puts forward as an explanation?  I'm not sure . That would require a leap of faith.

       The celestial dome , starry vault , celestial sphere , any of these terms will suffice to describe what we can go out side and see with our own eyes , photograph with a camera or view through a telescope . It is what we see , as science freely admits .

I would link this but am unable at the moment but go here
skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/what-are-celestial-coordinates/

Tycho Brahe mapped and measured what he could see of this dome in the 16th century , if memory serves the distance he gave to the dome was about 20x the distance from earth to the sun.

A couple of years ago a research student , miss Cleo Loi mapped plasma tubes arcing above and over Australia. She stated that these findings meant that all astronomical observations would have to be revised . Electromagnetic fields can be measured .

Also I do like Dels' attitude and videos so I won't criticize his work .

My views are also based on observation but we can't make all our own observations of everything. I'm always open to new discovery .

Admin wrote:I would say that is tantamount to asking why is water wet, why is ice cold, or why is fire hot?  You can assume a constantly rising Earth through assumed infinite space to assume an answer to such a question, or you can just leave assumption out of it and let it be what it is.

Up and down are self evident to individuals on the plane, unless you have a presumption that the world is spherical. Before heliocentrism was proposed and accepted as reality, did people ask why things fall down instead of up? I feel like the acceptance of the model introduced the question, but before that it was fairly intuitive to observe that heavy things go down and light things go up because of relative densities. Up and down are simply objective parts of reality in my mind that do not require explanations unless you deny how reality appears to us.

Nym wrote:

Admin wrote:I would say that is tantamount to asking why is water wet, why is ice cold, or why is fire hot?  You can assume a constantly rising Earth through assumed infinite space to assume an answer to such a question, or you can just leave assumption out of it and let it be what it is.

Up and down are self evident to individuals on the plane, unless you have a presumption that the world is spherical. Before heliocentrism was proposed and accepted as reality, did people ask why things fall down instead of up? I feel like the acceptance of the model introduced the question, but before that it was fairly intuitive to observe that heavy things go down and light things go up because of relative densities. Up and down are simply objective parts of reality in my mind that do not require explanations unless you deny how reality appears to us.

How far one accepts things "be what they are" is a subjective matter. Some people might think the sun rises in the east and sets in the west just because that's what it is, and leave it at that. It's those that continue to ask questions of why things are the way they are that start to expand their understanding of what ever this reality we find ourselves in is, and find truths no matter how ugly or discomforting they might be, and sometimes they are liberating and useful. It probably was these probing questions that lead Eric down many of the paths he has taken so far, some I see great merit in, some I find not. My philosophy is NEVER stop asking questions, no matter how silly they might seem, or how many people might get upset about it. Usually whenever there is a backlash on a question being asked its signals me to look further! I remember watching Eric's 200 proofs and asking myself these questions which eventually turned my reality upside down. And just because we ask a question, and consider ideas or possibilities, doesn't mean we have to hang on to them or accept them..

Asking questions and never being fully satisfied with the answers is good, but anyone who has spent significant time with a 4-year old knows that after every single answer given you can continue to ask "Why?" At no time is there an answer which can put an end to the perpetual question of why, and eventually the kid won't shut up until you give an answer like "because that is just the way it is." And that is NOT a cop-out. At some point, continually asking why will lead you to an infinite regress of explanations based on other explanations that never lead to any satisfactory conclusion, because at the ultimate level the ultimate answer to all these questions is: It is that way because that is how it was created to be.

Admin wrote:Asking questions and never being fully satisfied with the answers is good, but anyone who has spent significant time with a 4-year old knows that after every single answer given you can continue to ask "Why?"  At no time is there an answer which can put an end to the perpetual question of why, and eventually the kid won't shut up until you give an answer like "because that is just the way it is."  And that is NOT a cop-out.  At some point, continually asking why will lead you to an infinite regress of explanations based on other explanations that never lead to any satisfactory conclusion, because at the ultimate level the ultimate answer to all these questions is:  It is that way because that is how it was created to be.

Why?

nowhereelsetogo wrote:

Admin wrote:Asking questions and never being fully satisfied with the answers is good, but anyone who has spent significant time with a 4-year old knows that after every single answer given you can continue to ask "Why?"  At no time is there an answer which can put an end to the perpetual question of why, and eventually the kid won't shut up until you give an answer like "because that is just the way it is."  And that is NOT a cop-out.  At some point, continually asking why will lead you to an infinite regress of explanations based on other explanations that never lead to any satisfactory conclusion, because at the ultimate level the ultimate answer to all these questions is:  It is that way because that is how it was created to be.

Why?

Only kidding.

Admin wrote:Asking questions and never being fully satisfied with the answers is good, but anyone who has spent significant time with a 4-year old knows that after every single answer given you can continue to ask "Why?"  At no time is there an answer which can put an end to the perpetual question of why, and eventually the kid won't shut up until you give an answer like "because that is just the way it is."  And that is NOT a cop-out.  At some point, continually asking why will lead you to an infinite regress of explanations based on other explanations that never lead to any satisfactory conclusion, because at the ultimate level the ultimate answer to all these questions is:  It is that way because that is how it was created to be.

I totally agree with you Eric, but at what point that people are satisfied with "I'll just leave it at that" is subjective. I give all props to Del for probing this, and if we are honest cant fault his objectivity. He doesn't seem to have anything vested in any outcome. its probably a multi faceted experiment on his behalf to see how rigid and dogmatic the "flat earth" community can be! Like I've continually said I don't have a position either way on this. But don't understand why people get their hackles up about it? Like the saying goes " Truth needs no defending"

I will explain about the possibility of earth travelling upwards and this being the explanation of objects falling directly to the ground with an acceleration of 9.8ms^2 (known as the gravitational constant g) - and why this is a ridiculous assumption.

First of all a bit of friendly constructive criticism for Del. Mixing a velocity with an acceleration confuses the matter ,i.e. 9.8ms is not equivalent to 9.8ms^2.

When we drop an object it accelerates towards the ground at around 9.8ms^2 . Always as far as we can tell and ignoring atmospheric effects. Mainstream effect of the farce of gravity we are told.

Now if we attribute that acceleration 9.8ms^2 to earth travelling "up " and hitting the object then we would have to assume that earth is subjected to a constant vector force of acceleration in an upward direction of magnitude 9.8ms^2 .

This would have to be since all objects are subject to this force at all times and all objects  accelerate to the ground at this rate .

So when that force of acceleration is first applied to earth in the first 24 hours earth would travel 9.8 x 86400^2 m  - 86400 being the number of seconds in 24 hrs .Around 7x10^10m.

After  48 hours earth would have travelled 9.8 x 172800^2m = 3x10^11m

These are enormous distances. Terminal velocity doesn't exist in a vacuum according  to mainstream science . Irrelevant really . It would be nonsense to ascribe this rate of acceleration to earth.

What force would cause such acceleration?

Science provides no evidence for it's assumption of gravity as a function of mass.

If the earth was travelling up at a constant velocity of 9.8m per second- which is mentioned in the OP - then things would fall at the same constant velocity .There would be no acceleration - but objects do accelerate as they fall

What force would cause such acceleration. Science provides no explanation for it's assumption of gravity as a function of mass .

Density theory , buoyancy , magnetic effects are possibly all that is required to explain what we observe.

This post has made me ponder quite a bit about my university experiences and how things like terminal velocity were explained. During my final exam in Introduction to Fluid Mechanics we had a question on calculating terminal velocity of a bird based on certain criteria, but were to treat it as a sphere for simplicity. How they taught us how to solve for terminal velocity doesn't make sense in hindsight and thought some of you may find how this is taught interesting. To begin when solving for terminal velocity we used the equation F = ma = 0. Force = mass * acceleration for those who are not familiar. The equation will then be simplified into solving for V(velocity). Let me know what you guys think.

Hi Lightning_Peasant , my thoughts on this.

This appears to me to be the same math technique that NASA uses to show that rocket engines are more efficient in a vacuum despite experiment showing otherwise .F=ma being magically removed and replaced by the term dV/dt in NASAs equation.

By solving for velocity the F=ma term is removed from the equation, i.e. force is no longer required to produce acceleration. We are now in an imaginary scenario (and can send men to the moon).

Calculus = abracadabra in my humble opinion so I'm not gonna put much effort into ploughing through that lot - wish I'd of kept all my old text books . Old physics text books are very hard to come by for a reason.

DJ BROWNIE UK wrote:" Liquid is liquid " thats a bangin tune from '92 released on XL recordings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGmaY8prx6c&ab_channel=UnoDat

Oi oi!   What a surprise someone from the UK referencing an old school riddim on here. That really is a bangin' tuuuuune! Shout out to you brother!

Sorry if this is a little off topic people, but if you're above a certain age and from the UK then you can understand

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/iogVVja1MYY
I havent tried this myself, but if it is legit then it is quite interesting..

It all boils down to a decision. Which pill are you going to take and believe. The red one? Or the blue one? It’s your choice.