How can you dismiss all the space footage?

I have quoted actual articles explaining buoyancy state that there is positive, neutral, and negative buoyancy.

Which is not saying buoyancy is actually pushing up or down.
Yet again, you are misrepresenting reality.

You may as well link to an article talking about the sunset to claim they are saying the sun is actually moving.

Yet as I explain over and over why gravity isn't right, why it can't be right, you conveniently lose track of the posts and threads of what I say.

You have NEVER explained why it isn't right nor why it can't be.
Instead, you just spout pure BS.

Conversely, I have explained why your buoyancy fantasy can't be right, and you just ignore it.

You can make definitions of gravity that need special pleading

We have no need to, and your lies about it don't change it.

not only must the nature of gravity change from causing falling to causing spinning

No, the nature of gravity remains an attraction resulting in an acceleration.
An orbit is continually falling towards the primary, while moving sideways so the curvature means you stay at the same height.
This is not special pleading.
Just like it isn't special pleading to point out that the logical consequence of this downwards acceleration is an approximately parabolic path if you throw an object upwards, yet is basically straight down if you just release the object.

Your blatant lies/misrepresentations of gravity does not mean gravity itself needs special pleading.

But I've told you how pressure gradients work.

No, you haven't.
You made a simple claim about them, and then had it explained why it is wrong.
You appealed to density, yet that density is a result of the pressure.
If it was simply density, then we would get CO2, then oxygen, then nitrogen.
Instead, we have a fairly uniform mix as the pressure changes, with higher pressure below.
And more importantly, you have nothing to make it that particular pressure gradient.

I will continue to tell you that you're wrong again and again until I die from the illnesses that all writers with sedentary habits fall subject to. You will still be wrong.

You telling me that I am wrong doesn't make me wrong.
And that is pretty much all you do. You tell me I am wrong, lie about why I am wrong, and then flee from the explanations of why you are wrong.
So no, I'm not wrong about this, and no matter how many times you falsely tell me I am wrong, that wont change it.

The gravity model is implosive. If a force presses things only down, all atmosphere would cave in.

i.e. if you pretend that gravity is the only force acting and ignore everything else, then the atmosphere caves in. In fact the entire Earth would, collapsing to a single point because the entire rest of physics has been removed meaning things can just fall through each other.
In a similar manner, a steel ball placed on an aluminium table would just fall through it in your delusion.

All this kind of BS does is show your dishonesty.

Again, doing it honestly, we understand that things can't just pass straight through each other. This includes gasses which exert pressure outwards when compressed.
The air above is pushing down on the air below, in turn pressurising it. This pressure in turn pushes back on the air above, holding it up.
This means we have a pressure gradient. This pressure gradient also acts to push everything up.

We don't need a separate force, kabool.

You need a force you can't explain.
We use gravity, and the logical consequences of it.

And we know it isn't a separate force

We know it is a separate force, resulting from gravity, because of the observable and measurable pressure gradient and how we know pressure works.
We know this pressure gradient is providing an upwards force on the object.
That means there are 2 forces involved, that pressure gradient a direct consequence of gravity, pushing up as well as gravity itself acting directly on the object trying to move it down.

If this were a force/counterforce thing, we would instead see resistance. That is, if you do tug of war and people actually try (in high school, they just let go and I was dragged into the mud because I had kinda the same person I do today, the kid who nobody liked because they were too earnest), you see a tension effect, where there's doubt as to what will win. If drop a feather to the ground, it ought to appear to press against buoyancy.

And more vague BS.
The reason tug of war works like that is because these children are changing the amount of force they are applying.

If you want a more honest comparison, try two springs.

You have an object held at the midpoint.
You attach 2 springs of different strength.
You then release the object.
It doesn't act like a tug of war.
Instead the springs pull and it goes to a position of equilibrium were both springs are pulling equally.

because it is just slightly more dense than air.

This is not a reason.
Why should being denser than air make it go down?

Perhaps more importantly, why does being slightly more dense than air make it go down slowly, while being significantly more dense than air make it go down at basically 9.8 m/s^2?
How come being much much more dense than air doesn't make it go down at say 20 m/s^2, or 100 m/s^2?

Again, it certainly is acting like there is a force trying to accelerate it down at a particular rate, and the buoyant force from the pressure gradient in the air is providing an upwards force against that, such that if that upwards force is insignificant, it basically just goes down at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2, while only if the buoyant force is significant does that change.

move on from outright denial of a proven law

You mean the proven law of buoyancy that an object is buoyed UPWARDS by a force equal to the WEIGHT of the fluid displaced?
i.e. the proven law you continue to reject because it demonstrates is only an upwards force and is based upon weight, i.e. gravity?

This is not complicated.

Yet you keep playing dumb, acting like it is.
While you insist on fantasy, you will reject explanations no matter how many times they are presented because it contradicts your safety blanket that you use to try to escape reality.

Again, if you want your deslusional BS to actually work and be accepted there are several key questions to answer:

1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 15, 2024, 09:35:11 AM

Why would I need to explain that?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 15, 2024, 09:35:11 AM

I've already explained buoyancy

Because buoyancy doesn’t explain weight, why things weigh more as atmosphere is removed from a chamber, center of gravity, why center of gravity must be ahead of center of pressure for stable flight, why things accelerate down from less resistance onto more resistance.

Like fucking duh. 

Gravity does.  It works in calculations and Engineering in everything from ballistics to design of aircraft.

Yeah, it does.

As I already explain in previous posts, the fact of the matter is, in a vacuum, a bowling ball and a feather hit the ground at the same rate. No fluttering about, no air resistance, they have different mass yet it makes no difference.

Weight? No such thing. There is only mass as compared to the medium's mass. Since everything with mass is heavier than a vacuum, everything falls like a stone.

Now, if you're delusional enough to pretend my posts that said exactly this have somehow never been said, you're surely delusional to act like it's gravitational weight and not the actions of buoyancy. But if you think that way, you might as well believe that the reason things float in water is because anti-gravity. Or something like that. FFS

If you're done playing pretend about imaginary planets which you haven't seen, and haven't been to, and how putting an apple on Venus (which you haven't seen, and haven't been to) or the moon (which you haven't seen, and haven't been to) or Mars (which you haven't seen, and haven't been to) will affect its so-called weight, we have actual tests in water and air, high altitudes, and vacuums that show actual behavior of objects.

정직하신 하나님, I write fantasy novels.
How is it that I'm more grounded than you?

Fucking dreaming of worlds you haven't seen.

 "Never his mind on where he was *pokes* what he was doing. *pokes*"

You are on Earth. Everything on Earth has buoy where there is air and water. Vacuum tests show propulsion but no buoyancy. You cannot go to space. It's a sham. You might be able to visit Mars of Venus if they are outer sections, beyond the "South Pole", otherwise no, travel through vacuums is not possible without adding artificial propulsion.



Flying upward into space is the equivalent of bouncing on a trampoline off a cliff. Sure, you manage to boost yourself up thus far, but there is now nothing beneath you.

Or doing pushups on water. Give me 50 water pushups, maggot! Since it's so easy to press against nothing, you should be able to do this by this arfternoon.

Weight vs Mass?



Well no.
There IS a difference.
Because as a function of accelleration this is eeeasily provable in an elevator when it starts and stops.

Weight is a name for the generic downward force due to gravity.

Weight specific name and is a Force.


Buoyabcy is up.
Not down.
Look at how pressure gradient pushing things up.
There is no mechanism for down unless you beleive fluids are sentient.


Fantastic
Scienece tuesday

Weight vs Mass?

Well no.
There IS a difference.

Yes. One is based on a law that isn't real to explain different "weights" on different "planets" that only NASA tells us they've visited. The other is the objective number of tons, lb, and oz that something has.

One is your delusion, the other is a fact witnessed by everyone.

Buoyabcy is up.
Not down.

Again.
https://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-ships-work.html

Positive, negative, and neutral buoyancy

Buoyancy is easiest to understand thinking about a submarine. It has diving planes (fins mounted on the side) and ballast tanks that it can fill with water or air to make it rise or fall as it needs to. If its tanks are completely filled with air, it's said to be positively buoyant: the tanks weigh less than an equal volume of water and make the sub float on the surface. If the tanks are partly filled with air, it's possible to make the submarine float at some middle depth of the water without either rising up or sinking down. That's called neutral buoyancy. The other option is to fill the tanks completely with water. In that case, the submarine is negatively buoyant, which means it sinks to the seabed.

Read the paragraph. I'm tired of your denial mode. Repeat back what that paragraph says.

Negative buoyancy is when objects sink. Positive buoyancy is when objects float. Neutral buoyancy is when objects remain at level. A board floating on water has positive buoyancy vs the water below it, neutral buoyancy vs its current level, and negative buoyancy vs the air below it. This determines its place.

The more you have on a boat, the less it floats. Mass causes negative buoyancy. Not some magical force pulling things toward the ground, the mere fact that it's a substance. Substances don't hang in midair like in Zelda TOTK. That would be a neutral buoyancy object. Because most objects are more dense than air (water/lava/etc), they sink, when they have the same density, they stay put, and when they have less density, they rise. When something is less dense than its current surface but more than the surface above it (wood being less dense than water but more dense than air), they float on top.

teh mechanism for bouyancy is the presure gradient.

mass of object is not involved.

and it's always up.




if the object has a force down, aka weight, that is greater than the force up, aka bouyancy, then the ojbect sinks.




but you insist - so now you need to explain how squeezing more from the bottom (pressure) and less from the top (gradient) results in a downward push.

if an empty bucket floats.
the water doesn't change but when filled with rocks starts to sink via water reversing course and pushing it down.
how does it do that?
how does pushing up result in something getting pushed down?

your challenge is to show the mechanism.

"dig up, stupid"

 Everything on Earth has buoy where there is air and water.

On earth you can effectively remove any meaningful amount of fluid atmosphere from a chamber.  Fluid which is required for buoyancy.  Yet objects still fall down and still have weight.

Vacuum tests show propulsion but no buoyancy.

Which is a lie.  From electrons flowing in a vacuum tube.  Guns still fire bullets.  Springs still make things move.  Rockets still work in a vacuum.  Think of rockets as a chemical spring. 

Why would the laws of motion magically stop in a vacuum.

And you most definitely have not answered nor addressed…

Why the center of gravity must be ahead of the center of pressure on an aircraft or rocket for stable flight.


Nor have you addressed these issues…

What unbalanced force causes a dropped apple to not only accelerate down.  But accelerate down from an atmosphere with less pressure and less density down into an atmosphere with more resistance, more pressure, more density trying to push the apple up.


What’s the downward force thats works against a person blowing with their breath trying to push a ping pong ball up where the exhaled breath and the downward force can reach an equilibrium where the ping pong ball floats.

So no bulmabriefs144, you have not addressed the below.

Because buoyancy doesn’t explain weight, why things weigh more as atmosphere is removed from a chamber, center of gravity, why center of gravity must be ahead of center of pressure for stable flight, why things accelerate down from less resistance onto more resistance.

Like fucking duh.

Gravity does.  It works in calculations and Engineering in everything from ballistics to design of aircraft.

By all means show with only buoyancy how long it would take a ball from rest to drop 10 feet.  Do it for a 5 pound ball and a 10 pound ball.  Each about the size of a soft ball.

As I already explain in previous posts

No, you haven't.
You are yet to explain anything.
Instead you just continue to assert buoyancy makes things fall with no explanation at all.

Weight? No such thing.

Then a scale would not be able to measure that force.

Now, if you're delusional enough to pretend my posts that said exactly this have somehow never been said

It isn't that your BS hasn't been said, it is that your BS explains NOTHING!

But if you think that way, you might as well believe that the reason things float in water is because anti-gravity. Or something like that. FFS

No, it is because of the pressure gradient, the thing which destroys your delusional BS.
The thing you are yet to explain.

we have actual tests in water and air, high altitudes, and vacuums that show actual behavior of objects.

Yes, including that a pressure gradient exists in them due to gravity which pushes objects up.
Something you can't explain at all.

Vacuum tests show propulsion but no buoyancy. You cannot go to space.

You already admitted you can.
Once more, going to space does not rely upon buoyancy.

travel through vacuums is not possible without adding artificial propulsion.

Like a rocket engine?

Again, rocket engines work by expelling exhaust at high speed. The rocket pushes the exhaust back and in turn that exhaust pushes the rocket forwards.
And then it cruises.
You are yet to show any fault with how rockets work.

You just make pathetic dishonest comparisons to pretend they can't.

Yes. One is based on a law that isn't real

Your irrational hatred of gravity doesn't mean it is not real.
We also don't need to go to different planets.
The weights of objects varies on Earth.
That is one of the key things you can't explain.

Mass is effectively the resistance to change in motion.
Weight is a downwards force.

These are 2 separate things.

Even if you want to spout pure BS and pretend that buoyancy causes things to fall, weight is still different to mass.

One is your delusion, the other is a fact witnessed by everyone.

Gravity is a fact witnessed by everyone. Your delusional perversion of buoyancy is your delusion.

Read the paragraph.

Why don't you?
Instead of looking at "it's said to be positively buoyant", point out where it says buoyancy is a downwards force making things sink.

Again, look at the Archimedes principle:
"Any object, totally or partially immersed in a fluid or liquid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object."
The object is buoyed UPWARDS, and this is based upon WEIGHT.

Again, buoyancy is an upwards force which is based upon gravity.
This produces a coherent explanation. Your delusional BS does not.

Or if you prefer we can use your reference, taking a link from that page we get here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140712071107/http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/blowballast/sub/work3.htm
And what does it say:
"Submerged, the submarine can obtain neutral buoyancy. That means the weight of the submarine equals the amount of water it displaces."
Notice how it again appeals to weight.

But we can also look at what your source says directly:
"Now most boats don't operate in quite the same way as submarines. They don't sink, but they don't exactly float either. A boat partly floats and partly sinks according to its own weight and how much weight it carries; the greater the total of these two weights, the lower it sits in the water. There's only so much weight a boat can carry without sinking into the water so much that it... does actually sink completely! For ships to sail safely, we need to know how much weight we can put in or on them without getting anywhere near this point. So how can we figure that out?"
Notice how many times it says weight?

And it states the Archimedes principle:
"Later, he came up with the famous law of physics now known as Archimedes' Principle: when something is resting in or on water, it feels an upward (buoyant) force equal to the weight of the water that it pushes aside (or displaces). If an object is completely submerged, this buoyant force, pushing upwards, effectively reduces its weight: it seems to weigh less when it's underwater than it does if it were on dry land. That's why something like a rubber diving brick (one of those bricks you train with in a swimming pool) feels lighter when you pick it up from underwater than when you bring it to the surface and lift it through the air: underwater, you're getting a helping hand from the buoyant force."

Notice how it also clearly describes the buoyant force as upwards?

I'm tired of your denial mode.

The one in denial here is you.
Buoyancy is an upwards force.
This is verified by countless sources, and basic physics.
You wish to reject that and pretend it is your delusional BS so you can pretend it works to replace gravity.

But in reality, far from being able to replace gravity, buoyancy relies upon gravity.

Substances don't hang in midair

Because gravity acts on them.
Without gravity, there is no force to accelerate them so no reason for them to fall.

Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?

Again, gravity addresses them fine.

this is facsinating



we can, because you previously did, agree that water and air and fluids all have a pressure gradient.
the deeper you go - the more pressure.

and that fluid only "sees" the surface of any object.
a bucket can be full of rocks or full of air - but the fluid doesn't know which!

so what mechanism of the fluid acting on the object will cause it to go down or up?



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331186737/figure/fig1/AS:743945394991104@1554381812342/Relationship-of-underwater-depth-gas-volume-and-gas-pressure-Adapted-from-Lynch-and.ppm

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331186737/figure/fig1/AS:743945394991104@1554381812342/Relationship-of-underwater-depth-gas-volume-and-gas-pressure-Adapted-from-Lynch-and.ppm

As I already explain

You haven’t explained nor proven crap. 

Show how to more efficiently make heavier than air aircraft flight more stable by discarding center of gravity.

Show how to calculate the time it takes a ball from rest to drop ten 10 feet with buoyancy.

See.  You can’t even accurately model things achieved in physics 101 with gravity in your ignorance. 

teh mechanism for bouyancy is the presure gradient.

mass of object is not involved.

and it's always up.

Ahhh, now I understand the problem. So because you had stupid dogmatic teachers, you think because "My teacher is the greatest ever" what you are taught must be right regardless.

If you had been taught that pretty people are also kind and smart, would you go on believing this universally despite being shown otherwise time and again? Despite people being all types, "My teacher is the greatest ever."

 No new information ever penetrates. As for me, I learn new things every day. I just refuse to learn stupid things.

if the object has a force down, aka weight, that is greater than the force up, aka bouyancy, then the ojbect sinks.

Here's an actual problem with this. Unless gravity or buoyancy were self-balancing, they would continue much like the IRS, a subject to their own excesses. You've seen movies where "zero gravity" is featured. Here's the problem. They behave as objects with neutral buoyancy. That is, they don't rise like that scene in the original Willy Wonka,

they kinda vaguely float around in the air.

But if buoyancy is an upward force, and gravity is a downward  force, then we have a problem. In the absence of gravity, things go only up and up. Likewise, until they hit water level, if nothing else is buoyant, all air with gravity pressing down collapses to sea level, below even the level where humans can breathe air. These forces should counter each other, but what make a lot more damn sense is that they counter themselves. In fact, that's what the article says happens with buoyancy.

Again, until you see it.

Positive, negative, and neutral buoyancy

Buoyancy is easiest to understand thinking about a submarine. It has diving planes (fins mounted on the side) and ballast tanks that it can fill with water or air to make it rise or fall as it needs to. If its tanks are completely filled with air, it's said to be positively buoyant: the tanks weigh less than an equal volume of water and make the sub float on the surface. If the tanks are partly filled with air, it's possible to make the submarine float at some middle depth of the water without either rising up or sinking down. That's called neutral buoyancy. The other option is to fill the tanks completely with water. In that case, the submarine is negatively buoyant, which means it sinks to the seabed.

A force, any force, needs to have a restraint system. Magnets don't just pull metal towards them (that would be dangerous), they also repel other magnets. Momentum eventual develops resistance (what some people call "inertia" but I call the decay of momentum through entropy). Buoyancy doesn't just go up, it goes down, and even stays put. With one force having it covered, we don't need a second "force" to counter it.

and that fluid only "sees" the surface of any object.
a bucket can be full of rocks or full of air - but the fluid doesn't know which!

so what mechanism of the fluid acting on the object will cause it to go down or up?

Buoyancy is the mechanism. Buoyancy is the force. Rocks, being a solid are more tightly packed than air.



If you filled a bucket full of steam, it should be lighter than a bucket of ice cubes (since the former won't steam in the bucket!) Interestingly, water is the one substance where the liquid form is more dense than the solid form, as water tends to form hollow solids.

Because objects are more dense, they sink!

Now if you care to open your mind even a little bit, here's a quick film that asks "what if gravity isn't a fundamental force?" I haven't watched it, so I have no idea where it's going with it.

Oh it's the guy who says gravity is entropy.


This is alot cooler.

In the absence of gravity
Things go in the direction of the pressure gradient.

Dancing around words does you no good.
You still have no mechanism.
Sure.
Lets call gravity:  negative boyuancy.


Under positive bouyancy, the fluid prsssure pushes on the surfsce of the object.
The fluid doesnt change.

Swap that object or fill that object with lead.
Suddenly the object negativelyboyuancies.

How?
"Because ots heavier".

So now how does the fluid know its heavier when all it sees is the surface?

Once again - how does digging up stupid, get you out of this hole?

There's no such thing as 'negative buoyancy'.
You just making crap up.

In orbit, everything is weightless, so no buoyancy there.
This actually a technical engineering challenge for liquid filled things like batteries, cause the gas bubbles move toward higher temperature, lower surface tension, without buoyancy.

There's no such thing as 'negative buoyancy'.
You just making crap up.

In orbit, everything is weightless, so no buoyancy there.
This actually a technical engineering challenge for liquid filled things like batteries, cause the gas bubbles move toward higher temperature, lower surface tension, without buoyancy.

Scroll up
He got the phrase from some article about submarines.

Ahhh, now I understand the problem. So because you had stupid dogmatic teachers

No, the problem is you are spouting pure BS.
You are ignoring the massive problems with your BS and just respouting the same refuted BS.
You are not even attempting the massive problems with your BS, and instead are just throwing out these insults.

This is not about what teachers have taught.
It is about what is observed in reality and actually provides a coherent explanation.

Here's an actual problem with this. Unless gravity or buoyancy were self-balancing, they would continue much like the IRS, a subject to their own excesses.

Just what is this meant to mean?
[/quote]

They behave as objects with neutral buoyancy.

Regardless of their density.
Low density objects and high density objects behave the same, as if buoyancy stopped existing.

But if buoyancy is an upward force, and gravity is a downward  force, then we have a problem. In the absence of gravity

As explained, buoyancy is not some magical separate force that always exists.
Gravity causes a pressure gradients in fluids which in turn causes an upwards force.
Buoyancy is a direct result of gravity.
In the absence of gravity you don't have buoyancy.

And more explicitly, in the absence of a normal force (technical meaning, not common meaning) in response to gravity, you don't have the pressure gradient or buoyancy.

So no, YOU have a problem, a problem that you continually lie about things you don't like to pretend they don't work.

if nothing else is buoyant, all air with gravity pressing down collapses to sea level

Again, gravity means the upper layers of the air are pushing down on the lower layers, compressing them. This results in the lower layers pushing up.
Again, you are spouting delusional crap with no justification at all.

Again, until you see it.

Again, colloquial terms.
Your own source makes it clear that buoyancy is an upwards force based upon weight displaced.
You ignoring that and repeating this same dishonest BS just shows everyone you don't care about the truth.

A force, any force, needs to have a restraint system.

No, it doesn't.
Yet again you are just spouting delusional BS.

With one force having it covered, we don't need a second "force" to counter it.

The problem is that your "1 force" doesn't have it covered.
Your "1 force" leaves so many problems it isn't funny.

But again, look at gravity.
It causes fluids to generate a pressure gradient which in turn cause an upwards force on objects in that fluid.
1 force, and the results of it, have it covered.

Interestingly, water is the one substance where the liquid form is more dense than the solid form, as water tends to form hollow solids.

No, it is one of many.

Because objects are more dense, they sink!

Again, the question is why?

Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?

Again, gravity addresses them fine.

If  you want buoyancy
Google
BOKA Vanguard ship.
buoyancy taken to the extreme

Buoyancy, again, is a balance. Misusing the word.

But yeah, I googled it. It's able to carry vessels of 110,000 tons.

He got the phrase from some article about submarines.

The original article was about how heavy ships like the HMS Hood are able to float just fine. It's about buoyancy, period.

Though Cameron's skepticism is understandable. For years, people have been told buoyancy only goes up, gravity only goes down. The idea that a single force is its own counterforce is difficult for ppl to accept.

It's about buoyancy, period.

Not for many everyday items.

If you want a ship to stay upright as designed, not merely float, it’s about center of gravity. 

For stable flight of aircraft heavier than air, the center of gravity must be ahead of center of pressure.

How do you calculate how long it takes a ball to drop with just buoyancy? 

Buoyancy, again, is a balance.

i thought so as well.
but no
jackB already correct us a few weeks back.

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 28, 2023, 11:03:54 AM

bouancy:
no it's the upward force minus the gravity

No, it is the upwards force.
Things float when the buoyant force (i.e. buoyancy) balances gravity (and the centripetal force).

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 28, 2023, 11:03:54 AM

centripedal: was my example of a math convention
the net inward forces holding the thing in from shooting out.
if there's a nascar car going around the turn there's wheel friction + angled ramp normal force = centrepdal to hold the car around the curve

Yes, notice how it is the force to hold the car around the curve?
i.e. the inwards force required to maintain that curve.

However, I may have misread your previous statement. Yes, it does not include any force for tangential acceleration. So any force from things like the engine going to accelerate the car tangentially is not part of it.

Buoyancy, again, is a balance. Misusing the word.

YOU are misusing the word.
Buoyancy is an upwards force.
Again, your own article made that clear.

Again, this ties directly back to something you cannot explain, the pressure gradient.

Gravity results in a pressure gradient which results in an upwards force known as buoyancy.
This is an upwards force based upon the weight of the displaced fluid, and a direct result of gravity.

Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?

Again, gravity addresses them fine.

Again, this ties directly back to something you cannot explain, the pressure gradient.

Why is it you think that I can't explain this?

You don't understand buoyancy as it really is, instead understanding the fairy tale version taught to you by Newton and his heirs.

1. Atoms and molecules of similar density ranges inhabit different layers of the pressure gradient.
2. These usually stay in place due to neutral buoyancy causing them to neither sink nor rise.
3. Changes in air density are due to changes in air pressure due to temperature. That is, "hot air rises, cool air falls." Since air conducts heat, this creates the near constant fluctuations known as weather.
4. However, overall, the gradients stay relatively fixed (more and more so at higher elevations, where there is little air to absorb heat beyond that to stay level).
5. This in turn means that a mountain climber climbing from a lower elevation to a higer one not only struggles to breathe, but distinctly feels a "force of gravity". Having climbed mountains before, I didn't feel the "reduced gravity" that supposedly exists in thinner air. I felt "increased gravity", actually. This is natural. Objects of higher mass struggle to stay afloat in area of lower pressure. The brainwashed think that sounds contradictory, yet don't blink at the actual reality that when you climb uphill, it is harder to climb. Everyone knows this but they are then told at high elevations, you ought to be able to moon jump. Tell me why.
6. It also means that their are height limits to flying transportation. They are struggling against layers of atmosphere where they push off of less air than they need to float or fly. The gravity theory doesn't explain why planes cannot simply fly higher by pushing harder, but the idea of thinner layers of air explains that there is no ignition, no propulsion, and negative buoyancy.

Quote

Again, this ties directly back to something you cannot explain, the pressure gradient.

Why is it you think that I can't explain this?

You don't understand buoyancy as it really is, instead understanding the fairy tale version taught to you by Newton and his heirs.

1. Atoms and molecules of similar density ranges inhabit different layers of the pressure gradient.
2. These usually stay in place due to neutral buoyancy causing them to neither sink nor rise.
3. Changes in air density are due to changes in air pressure due to temperature. That is, "hot air rises, cool air falls." Since air conducts heat, this creates the near constant fluctuations known as weather.
4. However, overall, the gradients stay relatively fixed (more and more so at higher elevations, where there is little air to absorb heat beyond that to stay level).
5. This in turn means that a mountain climber climbing from a lower elevation to a higer one not only struggles to breathe, but distinctly feels a "force of gravity". Having climbed mountains before, I didn't feel the "reduced gravity" that supposedly exists in thinner air. I felt "increased gravity", actually. This is natural. Objects of higher mass struggle to stay afloat in area of lower pressure. The brainwashed think that sounds contradictory, yet don't blink at the actual reality that when you climb uphill, it is harder to climb. Everyone knows this but they are then told at high elevations, you ought to be able to moon jump. Tell me why.
6. It also means that their are height limits to flying transportation. They are struggling against layers of atmosphere where they push off of less air than they need to float or fly. The gravity theory doesn't explain why planes cannot simply fly higher by pushing harder, but the idea of thinner layers of air explains that there is no ignition, no propulsion, and negative buoyancy.

Bulma, would you like me to list the number of industries that rely on your explanation of buoyancy being totally wrong? What about how Navy submarines work.

I'll bet your left nut you have never ever picked up a physics book to see what is written inside about buoyancy, have you? Yet you seem to deem yourself a buoyancy expert. Can you even adequately explain how a cork floats on water? What you have is called "arrogance" my flat brained little debating adversary. Arrogance on top of everything else you have going on.

You are in no position to be explaining how weather works. Try explaining why such a thing as "maximum velocity" exists, regarding an object falling to earth, if gravity is not a thing?

1. Atoms and molecules of similar density ranges inhabit different layers of the pressure gradient.

Wrong for earth’s atmosphere.  The majority of gasses that make up the atmosphere are very throughly mixed.

There is even very low levels of oxygen in the upper atmosphere with lighter gasses. 

Exosphere

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

This layer is mainly composed of extremely low densities of hydrogen, helium and several heavier molecules including nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide closer to the exobase.

So.  You’re wrong from the get go.  Each layer is a mix of different gases.

2. These usually stay in place due to neutral buoyancy causing them to neither sink nor rise.

Gas molecules are not like bobbers that float.  They are like little bullets move around in three dimension as long as the temperature is above absolute zero.

1 Illustration of the mixing of two gases. Gases spontaneously migrate to opposite chambers once the valve is opened.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Illustration-of-the-mixing-of-two-gases-Gases-spontaneously-migrate-to-opposite-chambers_fig25_337745105

The gasses that make up the majority of the atmosphere are relatively light, and self mixing from their kinetic energy.

In a contained bottle, these gasses seek to equal distance from other molecules.


bulmabriefs144.

Your model doesn’t explain the mixing and motion of the molecules of our atmosphere.


Doesn’t explain what force overcomes the tendency of the gas molecules to equal distance themselves to literally force them to bunch up at the earths surface in equilibrium with gravity.


You still haven’t explained center of gravity in ship design.  It’s one thing for a ship to float, it’s another thing to use center of gravity to keep it up right as designed.


You still haven’t explained why there is center of gravity. And why it needs to be ahead of the center of pressure for stability in heavier than air aircraft.

And you haven’t shown your model can even achieve the accuracy acquired by physics 101 for falling bodies. 

Why is it you think that I can't explain this?

Because you are yet to come close.
For example you appeal to the density of the air, which is a result of the pressure, as if that should magically hold back the pressure.
But if we increase the pressure or decrease the pressure, it doesn't just stay put.
There is a particular pressure gradient which is observed.
We see a different gradient in fluids with different density.

We also see that fluids, especially air, are well mixed.
If it was going to separate based upon density then we would have a layer of CO2, followed by a layer of O2, followed by a layer of N2.
Instead, what we observe is a mixture of all three, at different pressures.

You don't understand buoyancy as it really is, instead understanding the fairy tale version taught to you by Newton and his heirs.

Quite the opposite it. I understand it, so I recognise you are spouting pure BS.
I recognise your delusional BS doesn't work.

1. Atoms and molecules of similar density ranges inhabit different layers of the pressure gradient.

That's right, similar density ranges atoms throughout this pressure gradient, and a variation of that density throughout (i.e. density does not correspond to layer).
We have atoms like CO2, right next to atoms like O2 and N2.
As a reminder, CO2 has a "density" of 44. O2 is 32. Nitrogen is 28. That is almost double.
Yet this range happily coexists throughout the atmosphere.

2. These usually stay in place due to neutral buoyancy causing them to neither sink nor rise.

Again, this is entirely ignoring the pressure gradient.
So we have neutral density. That means the pressure gradient pushes it to remove that pressure gradient.

Changes in air density are due to changes in air pressure due to temperature. That is, "hot air rises, cool air falls." Since air conducts heat, this creates the near constant fluctuations known as weather.

Temperature is not the only factor. Altitude is.
We can also see this pressure gradient in other fluids like water, and confirm they are the same temperature, yet a different pressure.
We also don't see the crazy motion of the air you would expect from this pressure gradient.

Having climbed mountains before, I didn't feel the "reduced gravity" that supposedly exists in thinner air.

What do you mean supposedly exists?
You appear to be spouting pure BS.
The change in gravity from climbing is negligible. Unless you are using accurate devices you will not detect it.
As a simplification, gravity follows a law of F=GMm/r^2, where you treat a roughly spherically symmetric mass (like Earth) as a point at the centre.
The radius of Earth is roughly 6371 km.
The height of Mt Everest is roughly 9 km.
That means you go from 6371 to 6380.
That means gravity at the top will have decreased to (6371/6380)^2 or 99.7% of that at sea level.
So if you weigh 100 kg at the sea level, you will weigh 99.7 kg at the peak, or 0.3 kg or 300 g lighter.
You will lose exhale roughly 1 kg of CO2, which is roughly the same.
If you include sweat and so on, your weight fluctuates by far more than that over the course of a day. Are you really telling me you can feel that?

when you climb uphill, it is harder to climb.

Yes, because you have climbed, so you are tired.
Then if you rest, it is fine. Until you get to very high altitudes and you start running out of oxygen.

but they are then told at high elevations, you ought to be able to moon jump. Tell me why.

Because lying scum like you spout pure BS to ridicule gravity because you can't actually refute it.

Why don't you tell me who, other than you, is saying such crap?

6. It also means that their are height limits to flying transportation.

That depends on how you define "flying". If you mean it uses the air to generate lift, then yes.
If you mean anything that goes through the air including things like rockets, then no.

But as you have no explanation for the pressure gradient, there should be no limit.

The gravity theory doesn't explain why planes cannot simply fly higher by pushing harder

Again, it does.
Gravity directly explains the pressure gradient. This pressure gradient means the air is thinner higher, so things like planes which use the air to generate lift, have a limited altitude.
Things like rockets, which use them propelling exhaust gasses generated or stored inside at high pressure and velocity to push forwards do not have such a limit.

I notice in all that crap of yours you still entirely failed to address the issues raised, including the pressure gradient. You basically said it exists with no justification of why.
Why should buoyancy cause this pressure gradient?
Say you have water of uniform density in a tube.
What causes the water at the bottom to get more bunched up from this?
I can even slowly pour the water in, or condense it from a gas.
Regardless of how it goes in there, it creates a pressure gradient.
WHY?
What causes this pressure gradient to form?
If I consider any part of the water, it is as the same density as the rest, so there is no reason for a pressure gradient at all. It should just sit there neutrally buoyant.
And then why doesn't this pressure gradient push all the water up and out of the tube?

Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?

Again, gravity addresses them fine.

1. Atoms and molecules of similar density ranges inhabit different layers of the pressure gradient.

Then it’s been showed again and again what happens to liquids if you place them in free fall.  They go from being separated by density to being mixed….

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2023, 08:42:17 AM

 I ignore the stuff that's fictional in the telling of how certain things work.
As I said before, if gravity has to be involved then the science is pseudo-science.

Hmm..

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2023, 03:13:51 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 12, 2023, 02:36:36 AM

As shown by experiments, it takes gravity to do this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 10, 2023, 05:40:22 AM

You're getting weaker by the second.

Then why do these liquids mix?

Liquids in near-Zero G



Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'



What’s your expectation why the liquids mix?


Why do a feather and bowling ball drop at the same rate when air resistance is made negligible.

Why can gravity accurately model a dropped ball when den pressure can’t?

Why can gravity accurately model tides and make accurate predictions? 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 18, 2024, 06:52:23 PM

Quote

Again, this ties directly back to something you cannot explain, the pressure gradient.

Why is it you think that I can't explain this?

You don't understand buoyancy as it really is, instead understanding the fairy tale version taught to you by Newton and his heirs.

1. Atoms and molecules of similar density ranges inhabit different layers of the pressure gradient.
2. These usually stay in place due to neutral buoyancy causing them to neither sink nor rise.
3. Changes in air density are due to changes in air pressure due to temperature. That is, "hot air rises, cool air falls." Since air conducts heat, this creates the near constant fluctuations known as weather.
4. However, overall, the gradients stay relatively fixed (more and more so at higher elevations, where there is little air to absorb heat beyond that to stay level).
5. This in turn means that a mountain climber climbing from a lower elevation to a higer one not only struggles to breathe, but distinctly feels a "force of gravity". Having climbed mountains before, I didn't feel the "reduced gravity" that supposedly exists in thinner air. I felt "increased gravity", actually. This is natural. Objects of higher mass struggle to stay afloat in area of lower pressure. The brainwashed think that sounds contradictory, yet don't blink at the actual reality that when you climb uphill, it is harder to climb. Everyone knows this but they are then told at high elevations, you ought to be able to moon jump. Tell me why.
6. It also means that their are height limits to flying transportation. They are struggling against layers of atmosphere where they push off of less air than they need to float or fly. The gravity theory doesn't explain why planes cannot simply fly higher by pushing harder, but the idea of thinner layers of air explains that there is no ignition, no propulsion, and negative buoyancy.

Bulma, would you like me to list the number of industries that rely on your explanation of buoyancy being totally wrong? What about how Navy submarines work.

I'll bet your left nut you have never ever picked up a physics book to see what is written inside about buoyancy, have you? Yet you seem to deem yourself a buoyancy expert. Can you even adequately explain how a cork floats on water? What you have is called "arrogance" my flat brained little debating adversary. Arrogance on top of everything else you have going on.

You are in no position to be explaining how weather works. Try explaining why such a thing as "maximum velocity" exists, regarding an object falling to earth, if gravity is not a thing?

You owe me your left nut. I picked up a physics book when I went to school, like everyone else. I shall pound it flat, and grind into sausage. Hope you're not too attached to it.
 Further, the aforementioned businesses would not be affected (at all) if I am right. As the article I cited explains, the submarine descends by taking on water in a chamber (we actually saw how this works in an episode of Monk as someone was deliberately trying to drown Monk by descending the submarine), ascends by releasing the ballast and removing water, then opening an air pocket thingy, and stays put by neither taking on more ballast nor adding air and releasing water. This is exactly what it does.   
By contrast, if you were right, a great number of jobs would be affected by your flawed idea. Let's see, oceanographer, marine biologist, every job at sea world (except maybe the janitor who cleans crap off the floors... oh wait, even he uses displacement for his mop), in fact every job not just dealing with water but physical matter requires matter to sink/stay the same/float. Typing would be extremely difficult if your fingers had to push against gravity.

Do you mean terminal velocity? Because that's what the word is called. This is commonly defined as:

Terminal velocity is the maximum velocity attainable by an object as it falls through a fluid. It occurs when the sum of the drag force and the buoyancy is equal to the downward force of gravity acting on the object.

These numbers are impossible to calculate because "downward force of gravity" is a made-up constant, drag force (or fluid resistance) is not something anyone can calculate (you would have to literally be falling or watch someone else do so, and in the former case, you have more important matter like dying than calculating the amount of drag).

Let's try an idea that doesn't make no sense.

As I looked up "terminal velocity of a human", they estimate it at roughly 150-180 mph. Why the variance? Well, probably because this is a typical range of mass for a human (subtracting fat). You see, fat is buoyant, so it doesn't really add to our calculations here (it might even help them). A 400 lb sumo wrestler has (despite his protesting) mostly fat in his body, so what we're really talking about is muscle, blood, bones, stuff like that.
Then what we're talking about is is the difference between the mass of the person, animal, potted plant, or object and the air. Or to put it bluntly, an object's density (not its weight) is what determines terminal velocity. A short and cute (let's put her at 4'10", taller than a dwarf but well below standard female height) 98 lb woman is actually more likely to fall faster than her weight than a 6'10" sumo wrestler mentioned above.

So what is happening here? Well, basically, as an object falls, it displaces air around it. Eventually, the distance is equal to the total mass of displaced air. Or more specifically, the density of an object with regard to the air it pushes around itself.

A penny weighs 2.5 grams, reaches terminal velocity of 50 mph at 50 ft. That's a 1/3 of the speed of a human. Clearly mass itself is not really the factor. It's the amount of air around the object being displaced and the density of the object.

By the way someone asked the internet about those potted plants you see fall in shows and movies. Surely, if this were real science, they ought to be able to give us a good estimate, right? Well...
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/650900/when-does-a-falling-flowerpot-reach-maximum-speed

It is only possible to calculate it for the specific pot.

Then they directed the person to an online calculator. That's because the formula is such gibberish that no sane person can calculate it for the simple question of a pot thrown out of a building window. Not a guideline, not anything.

https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/terminal-velocity-calculator.php

If you're interested, the only thing you have to answer is the area and mass. The other stuff is filled in. Ignoring the drag coefficient and gravity (which either do not exist or cannot be measured without, you know, falling), only adjusting the air pressure, I was able to reduce the speed that a penny falls by 20 mph by increasing air pressure by 2 lb. This tracks. The thicker the air, the more resistance it would create, in line with what I already accept about buoyancy.

6. It also means that their are height limits to flying transportation.

For aircraft that use atmosphere to oxidize fuel, or use propellers.  Not for rockets.  Why do things fall in a vacuum.  Why do electrons travel over a distance in a vacuum tube. Guns still fire in a vacuum, and the bullet travels through a vacuum.  Comets orbit the sun and the moon orbits the earth.

A spring still launches things in a vacuum.

Why do you think the laws of motion magically stop in a vacuum?

Anyway..

bulmabriefs144.

Your model doesn’t explain the mixing and motion of the molecules of our atmosphere.


Doesn’t explain what force overcomes the tendency of the gas molecules to equal distance themselves to literally force them to bunch up at the earths surface in equilibrium with gravity.


You still haven’t explained center of gravity in ship design.  It’s one thing for a ship to float, it’s another thing to use center of gravity to keep it up right as designed.


You still haven’t explained why there is center of gravity. And why it needs to be ahead of the center of pressure for stability in heavier than air aircraft.

And you haven’t shown your model can even achieve the accuracy acquired by physics 101 for falling bodies.

1. Atoms and molecules of similar density ranges inhabit different layers of the pressure gradient.

Then it’s been showed again and again what happens to liquids if you place them in free fall.  They go from being separated by density to being mixed….

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2023, 08:42:17 AM

 I ignore the stuff that's fictional in the telling of how certain things work.
As I said before, if gravity has to be involved then the science is pseudo-science.

Hmm..

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2023, 03:13:51 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 12, 2023, 02:36:36 AM

As shown by experiments, it takes gravity to do this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 10, 2023, 05:40:22 AM

You're getting weaker by the second.

Then why do these liquids mix?

Liquids in near-Zero G



Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'



What’s your expectation why the liquids mix?


Why do a feather and bowling ball drop at the same rate when air resistance is made negligible.

Why can gravity accurately model a dropped ball when den pressure can’t?

Why can gravity accurately model tides and make accurate predictions? 

And you still refuse to explain the pressure gradient.

You owe me your left nut. I picked up a physics book when I went to school

And did you open it, read it and try to understand it, or just toss it aside?

As the article I cited explains

Buoyancy is an upwards force, based upon the weight of fluid displaced.
i.e. exactly what you are arguing against.

By contrast, if you were right, a great number of jobs would be affected by your flawed idea.

Yet you cannot show a single fault with the idea.
Instead you just continually lie.

Typing would be extremely difficult if your fingers had to push against gravity.

Why?
Yet again you just spout pure BS, with no justification at all.

You see, fat is buoyant

Are you trying to suggest fat floats in air?

Then what we're talking about is is the difference between the mass of the person, animal, potted plant, or object and the air.

No, we aren't. The mass of the air is insignificant for this, so we can just ignore it.

Or to put it bluntly, an object's density (not its weight) is what determines terminal velocity.

Wrong again.
It's shape, its mass and its volume all factor in.

A penny weighs 2.5 grams, reaches terminal velocity of 50 mph at 50 ft. That's a 1/3 of the speed of a human.

And a penny is denser than a human.
So great job refuting yourself.

That's because the formula is such gibberish that no sane person can calculate it

You mean it is complicated and beyond the comprehension of a moron like you?

Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?

Again, gravity addresses them fine.

And you still refuse to explain the pressure gradient.

I would hardly call drawing a picture for you and then explaining it a refusal.

Your refusal to actually accept what I gave is a refusal.

1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?

Again, gravity addresses them fine.

Are you serious? Lemme ask again. Are you serious?

No, I won't answer your questions, probably because had you actually listened and understood my explanation above of pressure gradients, you would know my answers to all of them, whether or not you agreed.

Then what about this?

1. Why does water not cling to any spherical surface (but the supposed sphere of the Earth)? Why isn't there any evidence at all that water can be contained on a sphere? And you are hereby banned from using "The greater gravitational force of Earth overrides..." as an excuse. All science must be testable.
 2. Why does water have absolutely no trouble being contained in a still hemispheric basin (with a flat base, we don't want it tipping over)? Why is this model able to be demonstrated without excuses, but the other cannot?

3. Why is gravity completely unable to counteract motion? The same bowl above, I were to put it on a microwave turntable, would begin to slosh around. That's at the barely moving speed. At 1000 mph, all water despite it being a basin, would simply empty out.
4. Why is gravity unable to stop people in an amusement park from becoming completely airborne for a few seconds during a certain ride infamous for inducing nausea? And why can planes produce the same effect by parabolic motion? If the Earth spins like we are told creates gravity, wouldn't it instead launch us out of Earth's atmosphere?
5. Why is gravity completely worthless at preventing birds from flying, or even massive jets from flying?
6. If you answered with some complicated aerodynamics formula to the last one, why do flying creatures or objects simply cease to fly higher above certain altitudes?
7. Why is a cloud of evaporated water and air able to hang for hours or even days without gravity telling it to fall, until it's good and ready to shower rain down on a city, town, or cursed person?
8. Why does gravity do one thing inside Earth (make things fall), yet make not planet or star or moon fall towards another but instead orbit? Why isn't Earth, Venus, and Mercury falling toward the sun? Why isn't the moon falling like Majora's Mask into Earth? Why is gravity not at all consistent?

And no, gravity doesn't address any of these you asked me "just fine." But gimme a minute, I'll answer those too.

Bulma, i know you pride yourself in reading comprehension and spelling. Re-read my last post to you. You get to keep your left nut.

Those businesses like aeroplane travel with planes designed from aerospace engineering , you think would operate no differently if your version of buoyancy were correct?

And now you think buoyancy is responsible for terminal velocity?.Buoyancy is the explanation for meteor craters as well, is it?

You have been asked to explain a trillion times why all objects sink and fall to the ground if gravity is non existent, and you
can't. That's why half normal flat earthers came up with universal acceleration. But you don't even do that. You don't even imply air molecules crush everything down to the ground. You just have nothing, Bulma. It just IS to you, isn't it?

All planes fly because gravity doesn't work and all scientific formulas are hogwash. Just luck isn't it, Bulma?