Quote from: notbatman on June 04, 2018, 01:17:48 PM

Quote from: af_newbie on June 04, 2018, 12:12:27 AM

Quote from: notbatman on June 03, 2018, 11:50:56 PM

Quote from: af_newbie on June 03, 2018, 10:14:11 PM

Quote from: notbatman on June 03, 2018, 09:55:32 PM

@af_newbie

Push a large piece of Styrofoam into the ocean, hold it down. You can feel the water pressure pushing it up!

Now get a water pressure meter and take a reading below the piece of submerged Styrofoam and measure the pressure. Do you see how obscene this logic and argument is trying to disprove my claim? I claim displaced air is pushing objects down and you tell me go take an air pressure reading above the object to prove it. Well it's the same deal as with trying to measure the pressure pushing the submerged Styrofoam up by putting a pressure meter below it; it doesn't work that way.

You literally have no argument.

You are conveniently forgetting that buoyancy is only observable when gravity is present. The pressure difference between the top of the object and the bottom is due to gravity. That pressure difference is the cause of the buoyancy upward force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

You think the cause of the pressure is the electric field not the gravity, I have shown you that it cannot possibly be the electric field.

You are twisting scientific principles, using them incorrectly because you do not understand the fundamentals.

You have shown nothing and twisted my assertions. I on the other hand have used experiments already on the books to prove empirically that a) special relativity is not consistent with experiment [Sagnac: Dufour & Prunier] b), that experiment is consistent with an aether [Sagnac] and c), that the Earth is motionless [Michelson & Morley].

My assertions are testable, repeatable and well documented [see above] while yours uses faulty logic [i.e. pressure readings with a meter next to an object], theory that isn't supported by experimental evidence [i.e. special relativity] and claims backed by special relativity [i.e. no aether and field lines that aren't "real"].

Gravity as an unproven theory after all these years exists solely to support heliocentrism and a spinning globe. I can show that the Earth is motionless with experiments already on the books, such as M&M and these results are confirmed by Airy's failure to detect any motion. All arguments that invoke special relativity i.e. no aether and stellar aberration are put to rest by Dufour & Prunier.

The electric field of the Earth is a testable and measurable thing and, it supports the idea of a flat and motionless Earth as well as an alternative and expanded mechanism for buoyancy that, accounts for motion in two directions; it's now also in compliance with Newton's (may he rot in hell) 3rd Law when applied to the displacement by denser than air objects.

Atmospheric electric field intensity can be 5 times lower during sunrise, objects would be flying off to space every morning. During thunderstorms objects would weigh 10 to 20 times more, you would see major damage, all animals and people would die wherever there is a thunderstorm.

You really need to start measuring the E field before you open your mouth on this subject.

E field is not the only problem in your fantasy.

The charges on the dome and the ground would have to gradually decrease as you move away from the center of your disk. Otherwise the same object would weigh less in Canada than in New Zealand. What magic would keep the nonuniform, slowly descreasing charge distribution?

Again any lightning would increase the charges locally, and some other magic would have to fix the charge distribution for the dome model to predict the correct weights.

Now to the fun part, can you show me your math how did you derive how much you weigh using your model based on 100 V/m E field and your directional air pressure?

Show your math or be quiet forever.

You arguments twist my assertions; I don't claim that the electric field is pushing objects down directly. I claim that the electric field is polarizing the atmosphere and that the atmosphere is pushing things down. It becomes clear that you're fielding a dishonest argument when you describe my model in an attempt to goad me into doing a lot of useless work that would just be ignored for the most part.

All the experiments already on the books that I've listed i.e. M&M, Sagnac, D&P, Airy etc.. are all described mathematically, see for yourself.

You don't have any rational arguments here, you're just trying to win an argument truth be damned; this isn't science.

Sagnac doesn't prove relativity is wrong. All the others also don't prove anything that you are claiming.