Postboxer wrote:The earth rotates, so it depends what time you are talking about 6 months from the same point. You'd have to be at the equator, at about the 21st March and 21st September looking straight up, even then, sweeping around the sky, or waiting through the night, you'd be able to see lots of the same stars.
But what you're claiming then is that we can see around bends, or light can bend 180 degrees, or we can see through the Earth (without looking back). I am not sure whats the worst being able to see something in front of you thats behind you or seeing through the Earth while
Postboxer wrote:You could then map all the stars in the sky, move to another part of the earth, map the next lot, until you have a whole map, which would kind of look like the inside of a globe, with us therefore stood on a globe that is spinning, looking out at them.
Yes I can imagine it like a massive planetarium but space isn't curved around us like that so you can't look back and see stars light curving around making that same star appear in your field of view, from 180 degrees away 6 months back. You could never see one single star (or constellation, or the Milky Way) like that, there in the sky after 6 months.
Postboxer wrote:Drag is a variable
Drag is the result of one density sinking into another. It is particles against particles. It cannot vary if it exists at all. Its very existence is incorporated into the density of the objects, so how can drag be a variable? It actually isn't "there" unless an object moves, then it isn't a "force" because it is just the resistance of two objects colliding, all of that resistance (and drag) is down to the density levels of the objects. It isn't some separated off force. You can't bottle and store it.
Postboxer wrote:...as for the same body, it isn't a constant, as it varies with speed. It is a force. It's what makes a bike slow down when you stop pedalling. Note how you wouldn't slow down at a constant rate, as the drag would reduce as your speed reduced.
Yes but this is the density of the air clashing with the density of my body and bike. I agree there's drag there, but it isn't a force in and of itself, how can it be?
This is almost as bad as gravity.
Drag is definitely there though I will say that, although not defining it the same way you are.
Postboxer wrote:So, how is density making something feel heavy, where is the force coming from?
There doesn't need to be any force, just more particles in the same (or less) volume.
Postboxer wrote:Is it some kind of invisible force I can't see, a bit like gravity? Or is it coming from a fluid pushing on a denser object or fluid?
I don't know why things "line up that way" or why up and down is up and down but that alone, the fact that things also rise up (and for the same reason things fall down) shows that nothing is necessarily even "being pulled towards Earth". Things rising up throws a huge spanner in the works and gives us concrete evidence of the environment being a scale of density.
Gravity seems to be wishful thinking or, having to include it because we already think we are on a spinning ball... that alone seals it for people, they don't even need to know about any proof or care because in that case (and I agree with this) you need
Here's a question, can you name one single scientific equation that, if the gravitational formulae were removed, the equation wouldn't and couldn't work?
If so, what about if you replaced that gravitational 9.81m/s/s with just a rate of acceleration and did not tie any "pulling" with it, its the same right? You can just call it a D constant (although it is a variable but let's skip that for now) can't you? The rate of acceleration absolutely matters and is absolutely real... but that's it, that's where it ends. It is 9.81m/s/s but there's doesn't have to be "gravity" added to it.
If you removed the G constant from an equation and it breaks the equation... you're removing the rate of acceleration which is stupid. How can you remove "G" without removing 9.81m/s/s? One exists and one doesn't. All the calculations using gravity are using something like "6.67" or something... the actual figure Cavendish came up with so folks, its getting silly again, what is 6.67? If we have the figure of 9.81m/s/s already, where does this other Cavendish figure come in?
EDIT: Sorry its "6.67 x 10^-11 Nm²/Kg²"
So 9.81m/s/s has nothing to do with this?
So they are not tied together?
That is at least something because it means "6.67 x 10^-11 Nm²/Kg²" can be scrapped.
When two cyclists get married, they should throw anodized cable crimps instead of confetti.